What to Read Next
Already a member?Sign in
In turbulent business landscapes with rapidly changing technological platforms, many organizations are trying to accelerate product introduction cycles by prioritizing project delivery. However, many projects have two characteristics that make optimal delivery times elusive: First, the projects themselves tend to involve uncertainty (for example, they develop a new product function whose feasibility has not yet been established); and second, the workers have information about the status of their project tasks that is not observable to anyone but themselves, which many don’t share. Therefore, behavioral issues are as important in project timeliness as diligent planning. These behavioral issues include the following:
- Willingness to communicate and collaborate under uncertainty and interdependence.1 Why should employees seek help for a problem or help resolve a colleague’s problem when they can leave the problem to later stages or hide behind their own task responsibilities?
- Individual buffers. If project workers face penalties for missed deadlines, why should they share private knowledge about task duration rather than “padding” their estimates of the amount of time they need to complete a task?
- On-time incentives. Why should employees exert themselves to finish their assigned tasks rather than fill time with fringe work or free ride on extra time buffers built into the project?2
This article examines the difficulties of project planning and execution and describes a management innovation at Roto Frank, a German company that produces hardware for industrial and residential windows and doors. Roto, headquartered in Leinfelden-Echterdingen, Germany, has augmented its project control system with a formal help process that encourages workers to seek and provide mutual assistance. We found that Roto’s help process achieved a measurable improvement in project cycle time without changing formal incentives or other management systems. The initiative’s success is based largely on two factors: establishing psychological safety, and encouraging cooperative behavior by emphasizing interdependence among workers. Because of its flexibility, we argue that this help process has the potential to accelerate projects in many environments.
Research Updates From MIT SMR
Get weekly updates on how global companies are managing in a changing world.
Please enter a valid email address
Thank you for signing up
Roto’s Management Innovation
Of course, project management professionals have long thought about how to plan and execute projects in robust ways.
Read the Full ArticleAlready a subscriber? Sign in
1. C.H. Loch and Y. Wu, “Social Preferences and Supply Chain Performance: An Experimental Study,” Management Science 54, no. 11 (November 2008): 1835-1849.
2. C.N. Parkinson, “Parkinson’s Law: The Pursuit of Progress” (London: John Murray, 1958); and Y. Wu, K. Ramachandran and V. Krishnan, “Managing Cost Salience and Procrastination in Projects: Compensation and Team Composition,” Production and Operations Management 23, no. 8 (August 2014): 1299-1311.
3. O. Lambrechts, E. Demeulemeester and W. Herroelen, “Proactive and Reactive Strategies for Resource- Constrained Project Scheduling With Uncertain Resource Availabilities,” Journal of Scheduling 11, no. 2 (April 2008): 121-136.
4. E.M. Goldratt, “Critical Chain” (Great Barrington, Massachusetts: North River Press, 1997); G.J. Gutierrez and P. Kouvelis, “Parkinson’s Law and Its Implications for Project Management,” Management Science 37, no. 8 (August 1991): 990-1001; and E. Siemsen, “The Hidden Perils of Career Concerns in R&D Organizations,” Management Science 54, no. 5 (May 2008): 863-877.
5. E.A. Locke and G.P. Latham, “A Theory of Goal Setting and Task Performance” (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1990).
6. D. Kahneman and A. Tversky, “Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk,” Econometrica 47, no. 2 (March 1979): 263-292; and R. Buehler, D. Griffin and M. Ross, “Exploring the ‘Planning Fallacy’: Why People Underestimate Their Task Completion Times,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 67, no. 3 (September 1994): 366-381.
7. T. Raz, R. Barnes and D. Dvir, “A Critical Look at Critical Chain Project Management,” Project Management Journal 34, no. 4 (December 2003): 24-32.
8. J.P. Womack and D.T. Jones, “Lean Thinking” (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1996); and J.K. Liker, “The Toyota Way: 14 Management Principles from the World’s Greatest Manufacturers” (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2004).
9. S.H. Thomke, “Experimentation Matters” (Boston: Harvard Business Review Press, 2003); and C.H. Loch, A. De Meyer and M.T. Pich, “Managing the Unknown: A New Approach to Managing High Uncertainty and Risk in Projects” (New York: John Wiley, 2006).
10. A. MacCormack and R. Verganti, “Managing the Sources of Uncertainty: Matching Process and Context in Software Development,” Journal of Product Innovation Management 20, no. 3 (May 2003): 217-232; H. Takeuchi and I. Nonaka, “The New New Product Development Game,” Harvard Business Review 64, no. 1 (January 1986): 137-146; and R.E. Levitt, “Towards Project Management 2.0,” Engineering Project Organization Journal 1, no. 3 (2011): 197-210.
11. For multitasking, see B. Holmstrom and P. Milgrom, “Multitask Principal-Agent Analyses: Incentive Contracts, Asset Ownership and Job Design,” Journal of Law, Economics & Organization 7, special issue (1991): 24-52. For multiple agents, see H. Itoh, “Incentives to Help in Multi-Agent Situations,” Econometrica 59, no. 3 (May 1991): 611-636; and J. Mihm, “Incentives in New Product Development Projects and the Role of Target Costing,” Management Science 56, no. 8 (August 2010): 1324-1344.
12. Wu, Ramachandran and Krishnan, “Managing Cost Salience and Procrastination in Projects”; and Loch and Wu, “Social Preferences and Supply Chain Performance.”
13. A. Edmondson, “Psychological Safety and Learning Behavior in Work Teams,” Administrative Science Quarterly 44, no. 2 (June 1999): 350-383.
14. A.C. Edmondson and I.M. Nembhard, “Product Development and Learning in Project Teams: The Challenges Are the Benefits,” Journal of Product Innovation Management 26, no. 2 (March 2009): 123-138; and A.C. Edmondson, “Psychological Safety, Trust and Learning in Organizations: A Group-Level Lens,” in “Trust and Distrust in Organizations: Dilemmas and Approaches,” eds. R.M. Kramer and K.S. Cook (New York: Sage, 2004): 239-272.
15. C. Camerer, “Behavioral Economics: Reunifying Psychology and Economics,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 961, no. 19 (1999): 10575-10577; G.E. Bolton and A. Ockenfels, “ERC: A Theory of Equity, Reciprocity and Competition,” American Economic Review 90, no. 1 (March 2000): 166-193; and C.H. Loch and Y. Wu, “Behavioral Operations Management” (Hanover, Massachusetts: Now Publishers, 2007).
16. J.W. Martin, “Operational Excellence: Using Lean Six Sigma to Translate Customer Value Through Global Supply Chains” (New York: Auerbach, 2007), 171.
17. Edmondson and Nembhard, “Product Development and Learning in Project Teams.”
18. J.D. Sterman, “Business Dynamics: Systems Thinking and Modeling for a Complex World” (Boston: Irwin/McGraw-Hill, 2002).
19. S. Thomke and T. Fujimoto, “The Effect of ‘Front-Loading’ Problem Solving on Product Development Performance,” Journal of Product Innovation Management 17, no. 2 (March 2000): 128-142; and C. Terwiesch and C.H. Loch, “Managing the Process of Engineering Change Orders,” Journal of Product Innovation Management 16, no. 2 (March 1999): 160-172.
20. J.G. Adair, “The Hawthorne Effect: A Reconsideration of the Methodological Artifact,” Journal of Applied Psychology 69, no. 2 (May 1984): 334-345.
21. I. Vessey, “Cognitive Fit: A Theory-Based Analysis of the Graphs Versus Tables Literature,” Decision Sciences 22, no. 2 (March 1991): 219-240.
22. J.H. Larkin and H.A. Simon, “Why a Diagram Is (Sometimes) Worth Ten Thousand Words,” Cognitive Science 11, no. 1 (January-March 1987): 65-100; and B. Tversky, “Visuospatial Reasoning,” in “The Cambridge Handbook of Thinking and Reasoning,” eds. J.K. Holyoak and R.G. Morrison (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 209-240.
23. J. Kruger and M. Evans, “If You Don’t Want to Be Late, Enumerate: Unpacking Reduces the Planning Fallacy,” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 40, no. 5 (September 2004): 586-598.
24. The red-card process was adopted and implemented by Roto Fittings (another division of Roto located at a different site in southern Germany) in 2011 as well as by optical and optoelectronic manufacturer Carl Zeiss in 2012. Furthermore, this process triggered learning and benchmarking visits from diverse companies including Siemens Healthcare, French building materials manufacturer Saint-Gobain, industrial food steamer and oven manufacturer Rational AG and Volkswagen.