Introduction
Schwalbe (2009) indicates that project integration is simply the integration or incorporation of all the activities and process involved not only in identifying, defining, uniting but also unifying and coordinating the different processes in the context of project management. Change management involves making some changes to the available systems to attain what is best for achievement of project goals. In the context of project management, change management refers to process wherein management changes particularly to the scope of projects are not just introduced formally, but are also approved (Kneer, 2009). This paper discusses project integration and change management. More spefically, it discusses how integration can be used to bring about change.
There are several ways that integration can bring about change: people dimension, process dimension, tool dimension, and methodology dimension (Galloway, Nielsen, & Dignum, 2013). On the side of people, integrating entails shaping associations or connections between people and resources needed to manage the desired change. On the dimension of the process, integrating entails aligning all activities on the side of people with the technical aspects. Integrating is essential it helps in the aligning people or manpower with available resources and also determines the point at which change commences.
On the tool dimension, integrating entails identifying some tools that can particularly be extended or be used to encompass both people side and technical side components (Pugh, 2007). Integrating is essential as it effectively brings about ways of assessing project risks. In the context of methodology, integrating helps in setting up the some steps needed to initiate of different dimensions but particular on the side of people.
Integration an ultimate change management challenge
According to Greiman (2013) change management practitioners understand that managing to get or bring the project team and particularly taking part in change management can easily make or break a project or an undertaking. Furthermore, one of the responsibilities of practitioners in the change management field is to integrate change management and project management (Schwalbe, 2009). During this process, these practitioners are confronted with some challenges. In fact, the most challenging thing regarding integrating change management and project management is managing to gain some awareness, as well as support from the entire project team (Greiman, 2013). In most cases, project leaders do not value the idea of change management as it eats into the organizational budget (Pugh, 2007). In General, project teams usually are not aware of the significance as well as the value provided to bring about change.
In a good number of organizations, top management usually considers project management as a necessary tool for achieving their desired results. However, it is usually different when it comes to change management (Galloway, Nielsen, & Dignum, 2013). The top management does not consider its importance in any measure even though managing the change, particularly on the people side, is critical to meeting the anticipated objectives. What is more, those people who fund projects and even some organizational leaders are usually unaware of or do not know that change management is required. This generally prevents integration of project management activities with change.
Another challenge results from the confusion associated with project management and change management (Greiman, 2013). That is, most people or organizational managers usually consider project management to be change management. Therefore, there is usually some confusion when defining, spelling out, as well as enforcing the roles that are linked to project management and change management (Galloway, Nielsen, & Dignum, 2013). Amongst these is the struggle to differentiate between the responsibilities of leaders tasked with bringing about change and those of project leaders.
Public private partnerships and Partnering
Public private partnerships and partnering are approaches or methods of collaboration between government and private agencies (Pugh, 2007). Whenever this takes place, it connotes an expression of a trend towards privatization of public or state organizations. On the other hand, partnering is the process of creating a long term relationship on a win-win basis (Greiman, 2013). A good example is the British prisons where contractors usually pay for the costs of construction and then rent the facilities to the government.
Partnering unlike public private partnerships is based on teamwork and mutual trust as well as equally sharing both rewards and risks (Greiman, 2013). Arrangements of partnering may be between subordinates, labor, management, and the suppliers, executive and customers. It may also be between suppliers and suppliers. During partnering, the main objective is usually concentrating on what each party can do better, by sharing resources, and setting up specific responsibilities for each member (Pugh, 2007). A good example of partnering is that of Ford Motor Company with advertising agencies. Recently, Ford Motor Company reduced the amount of money used for marketing through their traditional ads and started partnering with ad agencies in order to penetrate into other areas such as sports.
Public private partnerships differ from partnering on a number of things: In public private partnerships the project ownership is shared (Galloway, Nielsen, & Dignum, 2013). In other words, the premise of public private partnerships is to share the returns and risks. Moreover, in relation to offering the service directly, public private partnerships usually concentrate on its major competences. During this process, the government does not need to have its own professionals in order to implement projects. Experts may be provided by the partner who in case is the private entity.
Oversight coordination commissions
An oversight coordination commission has some benefits as it core responsibility entails oversight. The commission also helps in compiling information relating to outcomes, publishing rules or making sure that institutions are not taking part in practices that are questionable. Specifically, an oversight coordination commission helps in identifying available sources in order to foster projects (Greiman, 2013). It also promotes the observance of best practices, throughout the different phases of the project. In short, an oversight coordination commission serves in the public interest by identifying project problems and trying to find best ways of solving them.
Restructuring the an oversight coordination commission
I would suggest the establishment or introduction of the office of information commissioner. There are very many reasons for taking this decision (Schwalbe, 2009). Since an oversight commission is tasked with oversight particularly in state funded projects, establishing the office of information commissioner would help in promoting access to information as well as solving minor issues such as failure to abide by the rules in the course of implementing the project. In organizational projects, it is imperative to introduce an up-to-date access to information (Kneer, 2009). In most cases, these calls for some cultural and procedural changes in management, support in transferring information into electronic configuration, adoption of latest systems particularly for managing and storing project information, as well as transforming the procedures adopted for making decisions.
These responsibilities are enormous. Therefore, it calls for technical assistance and provision guidance to all concerned parties such as the state which is usually the major player. The establishment of the office of information commissioner therefore will serve to significantly guard the right of accessing the much needed information by eliminating some the bureaucracies associated with accessing such information (Galloway, Nielsen, & Dignum, 2013). Within the context of administration, the office of information commissioner will also ensure that transparency is adhered to all the time. Specifically, this could be achieved using varied approaches, such as training of state officials who are connected to the so as to ensure there is consistency in understanding all issues and the way they handle requests.
Conclusion
Project integration entails incorporation of all the activities and process connected to managing projects. Change management, as it has been seen, is an approach that helps changing resources that are connected to projects to state that is needed to achieve certain level of results. Project integration as an ultimate change management, is as a result of the failure by different leaders to understand the significance of change management. Partnering differs from public private partnerships in the context of participants and the ultimate objectives. Where as partnering involve private or public entities only, public private partnerships involve both public and private entities. However, their relationship is pegged their major objective, which is mutual benefits. An oversight coordination commission on the other hand is an independent state agency that ensures that projects are successfully done.
References
Galloway, P., Nielsen, K., & Dignum, J. (2013). Managing gigaprojects. Reston, VA: ASCE Press.
Greiman, V. (2013). Megaproject management: lessons on risk and project management from the Big Dig. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Kneer, C. (2009). Change Management Enhance the ability to survive. München, Germany: GRIN Verlag GmbH.
Pugh, L. (2007). Change management in information services. Aldershot, England: Ashgate.
Schwalbe, K. (2009). Introduction to project management. Boston, Mass: Course Technology.