Advertisement

Design Thinking: Project Portfolio Management and Simulation – A Creative Mix for Research

  • Saeed ShalbafanEmail author
  • Elyssebeth Leigh
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10825)

Abstract

This paper takes de Bono’s explanation of ‘design thinking’ as the starting point for a report on a doctoral research project that began with a conventional ‘why?’ question, and then, instead of looking for an ‘explanation’, chose to look forward in time to establish an understanding of ‘how to’ think differently about a recurring problem. The catalyst for this work was observation of otherwise competent managers making desperately wrong decisions when good decision making was crucial to their company’s future. The initial choice to ‘look forward’ when designing the research strategy was made well before there was a clear understanding of what was being observed. Given that trajectory, this paper explores the process by which a simulation was created and then used in conjunction with a comparatively new approach to data collection (Explanation looks backwards and design looks forward [1].).

Keywords

Design thinking Project portfolio management Cynefin knowledge domains Sense making in complex contexts 

References

  1. 1.
    De Bono, E.: I Am Right and You Are Wrong. Penguin Books, London (1991)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Archer, N.P., Ghasemzadeh, F.: An integrated framework for project portfolio selection. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 17(4), 207–216 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Engwall, M., Jerbrant, A.: The resource allocation syndrome: the prime challenge of multi-project management. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 21, 403–409 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hussein, B.A.: On using simulation games as a research tool in project management. In: Organizing and Learning Through Gaming and Simulation, Trondheim (2007)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Janis, I.L.: Victims of Groupthink. Houghton Mifflin, Boston (1972)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Janis, I.L.: Groupthink-Psychological-Studies-of-Policy-Decisions-and-Fiascoes (2016)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kearney, J.W., Heffernan, M., McLuckie, J.: Fleet Doctor To Airpower 2100 - from Tailored Solution to Learning Environment (2013)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Killen, C.P.: Evaluation of project interdependency visualizations through decision scenario experimentation. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 31, 804–816 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kurtz, C.F., Snowden, D.J.: The new dynamics of strategy: Sense-making in a complex and complicated world. IBM Syst. J. 42(3), 462 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Leigh, E.: Short Description of WipWap1 and Airpower2100. S. Shalbafan. Sydney: 1 (2012)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Naber, T., van Oort, M.: Master thesis, University of Tilburg (2005)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Perković, G.: Global crisis effects on financial position and business efficiency of B&H’s industrial companies. Sarajevo Bus. Econ. Rev. 33, 11 (2014)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Petit, Y., Hobbs, B.: Project portfolios in dynamic environments: sources of uncertainty and sensing mechanisms. Proj. Manag. J. 41(4), 46–58 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Project Management Institute: The Standard for Project Portfolio Management. 3rd Edition, Project Management Institute (2012)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sá Silva, P., Pedrosa, D., Trigo, A., Varajão, J.: Simulation, games and challenges: from schools to enterprises. In: Barjis, J., Eldabi, T., Gupta, A. (eds.) EOMAS 2011. LNBIP, vol. 88, pp. 63–73. Springer, Heidelberg (2011).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-24175-8_5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sardon, G., Wong, S.W.: Making sense of safety: a complexity-based approach to safety interventions. In: Association of Canadian Ergonomists 41st Annual Conference, Kelowna, BC (2010)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Shalbafan, S., Leigh, E., Pollack, J., Sankaran, S.: Using simulation to create a time-bound, space-constrained context for studying decision-making in project portfolio management using the Cynefin framework. APROS - EGOS 2015, Sydney (2015)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Taleb, N.N.: The Black Swan (2007)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Yetive, S.A.: Groupthink and the gulf crisis. Br. J. Polit. Sci. 33, 419–442 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Technology SydneyUltimoAustralia

Personalised recommendations