Systemic project management: Interview with Peter Siwon (Part 1)

Peter Siwon has been dealing with the topics of brain and psyche in connection with project work in technical professions for over 20 years now.
25 years of professional experience in research, development, marketing, sales, training, coaching, consulting and management have provided many impulses. Mr. Siwon is co-founder and chairman of the advisory board of the Embedded Software Engineering Congressa specialist event that is sure to be of interest to my readers.

He is also the author of several books. These include the book The human side of project successwhich addresses topics that are also highly relevant for system engineers. This also includes the topic of "systemic project management", which I discussed with Mr. Siwon.

In your own words: What is systemic project management and why should a systems engineer deal with it?

Systemic project management is not an alternative form to classic or agile project management, but rather a supplement. It is a way of adding valuable methods and principles to a project manager's toolbox of methods. What I think is almost more important: You get an attitude towards complex systems via this systemic way of working, which definitely makes your job easier. Regardless of whether you work in an agile way, according to waterfall or with any hybrid forms of project processes or procedures, you can always expand them with systemic approaches.

So it's a kind of toolbox for project managers to work more effectively?

Yes, especially when it comes to dealing with the complexity that is often present in projects. On the one hand, in many projects the complexity is in the project itself, i.e. the technical level. On the other hand, we are also dealing with a very high, perhaps even extremely high level of complexity in the network of relationships in the project. Many of these methods serve to better manage the network of stakeholder relationships in the project.

Do you have an example?

Suppose you are building a train station in a big city. On the one hand, there is the project team that is responsible for it. And then, of course, there are all kinds of other stakeholders. There are the line managers of the individual project team members. A station consists of tracks, electrics and buildings, and there are different specialists and departments for these. Then there are the local residents, the nature conservation associations, the politicians - it can get very, very complex. Each of the people involved has their own personality, their own experiences. Expectations of the project, the people, and so on. With so many different interests, there are also very different forms of conflict. Systemic work helps to better understand where useful starting points could be in order to resolve or even avoid conflicts.

If it's reasonable but people don't play along, then that's an indication that systemic principles have been violated ([tweetthis]Violation of systemic principles: It's reasonable but others aren't playing along[/tweetthis])

A classic example is the introduction of something new, such as a process, a method or a programming language. This is all sensible, but the people in the project still don't play along. This is an indication of a violation of systemic principles. One principle would be that I allow people who have to share responsibility to help shape the project. If I don't do this, people are restricted in their self-determination and they defend themselves by not taking up the offer of change. Or the principle of balance is violated: With change, there are always people who lose or feel they are losing something. For example, their status because older employees are not yet familiar with the new approaches, but younger colleagues are. They feel that their status as experienced employees is threatened. The question is: what do I offer them in return? Where do I create the balance? It is often forgotten that you have to do something at this point, or at least think about what will happen if nothing is done. These are concrete examples of systemic principles and their application in projects.

My background is in requirements engineering, where stakeholder analysis plays an important role, for example. Do I understand correctly that this is where you would pick up from? Namely, using the results of the stakeholder analysis in the human domain?

Exactly. There are many tools and visualizations that show the influence, power and interests associated with the project. What do I do with someone who has a lot of power but who is against the grain of the project? What can I do and change in the relationship so that the person is at least not hostile to me or crosses me? This brings us to the level where we know that something needs to be done, but the usual tools that you learn in project management are not enough. And this is where systemic approaches can be helpful.

This is a good transition to the next question. Systems engineering is strongly characterized by processes and dominated by standards and regulations. Is the human side neglected? And if so, what can be done about it?

There is no doubt that we need processes, standards and rules. Because these help us to synchronize ourselves in the project. They give us orientation, structure and clarity. They also give many people a certain sense of security and stability. Especially when we have dynamic projects, sensible rules and processes provide a guideline that helps us not to lose our footing. The problem is that often the introduction and implementation is not really people-oriented. Too little thought is given to how the rules affect typical human characteristics, such as the need for self-determination. A very experienced employee often has a strong need for self-determination. If you simply slap a rule down on them, they will feel like they're being controlled and will put up resistance, whether hidden or open. A working student will probably be grateful if you tell them where to go from time to time and will gladly accept such rules. It can be very different. You often have to decide individually how to deal with this.

In my seminars, I always say that people don't think logically, but biologically: they have human needs, existential needs for status, security, etc. We often don't even know where these needs are "buried". We often don't even know where these needs are "buried", but they often have a much stronger influence on our actions and behavior than the economic aspects.

Many things can make economic sense and still go completely against the grain. Even business economists have realized that by now! ([tweetthis]Even business economists now know: economically sensible things can go completely against the grain.[/tweetthis])

However, depending on the environment in which you operate, this may well be accepted. For example, a burger chain is less likely to worry about its employees as long as the burger is of the right quality.

I'm with you on that. You can also use power and influence to compensate for such things - but you also pay a price for that. For example, there was the Action by Günther Walraffwho crept into McDonalds and recognized the gap between management and executives and took advantage of it. That did a lot of damage to McDonalds' image.

Basically, I can do anything if I'm willing to pay the price. ([tweetthis]Basically, I can do anything if I'm willing to pay the price.[/tweetthis])

In areas where I can get new resources relatively easily and it doesn't cost me much money to train them, I can perhaps deal with resistance a little more easily than in the area of highly qualified people. If I annoy a good architect in systems engineering, then I lose them to a company where they are more likely to see the opportunity to be recognized accordingly. That's a price we can definitely no longer afford in many companies.

I once took part in a major change project. The employees were asked where they saw the biggest deficit. The most common answer was: The company doesn't give me the recognition I deserve for what I do for the company. Whether this is right or wrong remains to be seen, but the need for recognition is obviously not being met enough. The second was the need to have a say and help shape things. If it comes out like this in a company with a few thousand employees, then it has a certain statistical relevance.

This makes me think of the following statement about people management: many bosses find it difficult to say thank you. Even though it's really easy and highly motivating.

I can confirm that. That's the principle of compensation, and thanks is a form of compensation that really doesn't hurt. And people often prefer honest thanks to being given a few more euros, because that is a form of compensation that promotes relationships. After all, we humans are herd animals and need the confirmation of a positive relationship or a positive connection to the person we depend on. Incidentally, a request is also a form of compensation, as it is an anticipated expression of gratitude. The urge for territorial integrity, which is often ignored, is similar. Bosses walk into rooms and sit on desks. This is the employee's territory, even if the desk was paid for by the boss - or the company. Or shouts like "Come with me!" - simply do not respect the employee's temporal territory. This annoys the people we need the most - people who want to take responsibility - the most. It often happens out of thoughtlessness.

However, this also goes both ways: employees must also have the self-confidence to demand their wishes. In consulting, I have experienced several times that employees have taken sick leave due to traveling without saying anything - even though this was explicitly encouraged by management.

I find this observation very interesting and can confirm it. This is often because we don't have this culture in many companies. That people are also very afraid to give clear feedback on how things are received and how we see them. And if such people then happen to come into a company where such a culture prevails, it simply takes a while for these people to let their guard down. Not forgetting the formative influences of school and family. I can only keep encouraging managers not to give up. They have to exemplify these attitudes and must not expect people to adopt them overnight. It takes time to realize that this is neither fake nor short-lived.

We are conditioned over many years. These are all influences that we can't wipe away. ([tweetthis]We are conditioned over many years. These are all influences we can't wipe away.[/tweetthis])

I agree with you, it always takes two. One who does things and the other who puts up with it. But I believe that managers have a special responsibility because they have more power to change things. They have to set an example to a certain extent.

The second part of the interview will be published in two weeks. There, Mr. Siwon describes the connection between systemic project management and agile methods, and introduces us to three helpers: Ignorance, confusion and helplessness.