Timothy J. Kloppenborg
We only ship to addresses in the USA. Live somewhere else? Please order from our international distributor. Click Here
Product added to carts.
Publication date: 01/01/2003
Timothy J. Kloppenborg
Timothy J. Kloppenborg is an associate professor of Management at Williams College of Business, Xavier University, and President of Kloppenborg and Associates, a consulting and training company based in Cincinnati, Ohio, that specializes in project and quality management. He holds an MBA from Western Illinois University and a PhD in Operations Management from the University of Cincinnati. He is a Certified Project Management Professional (PMP®) and has been active in the Project Management Institute for more than 15 years. Dr. Kloppenborg has published in journals including Project Management Journal, PM Network, and Quality Progress. He also published another book in this series entitled Managing Project Quality. Dr. Kloppenborg is a retired United States Air Force Reserve officer. He has served in many practitioner, research, and consulting capacities on construction, information systems, and research and development projects.
Arthur Shriberg is a professor of Leadership at Xavier University. Dr. Shriberg has been vice president or dean at four universities. He has served as a consultant or training facilitator for 100 industrial, governmental, educational, and health care organizations. He is currently the chair of the Board of Commissioners for the Cincinnati Human Relations Commission and a senior consultant for Pope & Associates, an international diversity and management consulting firm. He is senior author of the textbook Practicing Leadership: Principles and Application as well as the author of numerous articles about leadership, management skills, and diversity. He holds degrees from the Wharton School of Business (BS), Xavier University (Executive Business), Boston University (MEd), and Teachers College, Columbia University (EdD).
Jayashree Venkatraman is an independent consultant providing business-to-business solutions and other software solutions to companies. She holds a BS in physics and an MS in computer applications from the University of Madras, India, and an MBA from Xavier University. She also earned a certificate in Project Management from the University of Cincinnati. She has more than 12 years of experience in leading, designing, developing, implementing, and integrating software applications in a project environment for varied industries. She is a member of PMI®.
In this chapter we first discuss the basics of management and then review the two “children” of management that evolved in the latter part of the last century: leadership and project management. As we help the reader understand the basics of these three key disciplines, we will pave the way for discussion of a new approach that is evolving in the twenty-first century: project leadership. Figure 1-1 illustrates this evolution from management to project leadership.
The practice of management, defined for many centuries as planning, organizing, directing, and controlling, has existed since early times. Building the Great Wall of China, running the Roman Empire, and preparing armies for battle all required management skills; until the late nineteenth century, however, management was usually viewed as an art that was passed on from generation to generation by oral tradition. In the last hundred years, the science of management has developed. While management was once defined as “the ability work through others,” today most definitions are similar to the one offered by Courtland Bouee, in his book Management: “Management is the process of attaining organizational goals by effectively and efficiently planning, organizing, leading and controlling the organization’s human, physical, financial and informational resources.”1 This definition is presented graphically in Figure 1-2.
These four management activities can be described as:
• Planning. The process of creating goals and developing ways to achieve them has undergone dramatic changes in recent years as organizations have begun to think of goals and plans at three levels. Strategic planning is set at organizational levels and is usually of long duration. Tactical planning is set by middle managers to support corporate goals, is related to individual departments, and is usually of middle duration, often less than year. Operational planning is set by first-line management, to be achieved in the short run by individuals or departments.
• Organizing. The traditional method of organizing is by function or division. In recent years the trend has been to organize work by teams and networks with the aim of minimizing levels of decision-making. Organizations are flatter, and line and staff rules are being integrated in new ways.
• Leading. Today, the whole question of the leader’s role in ethical decision-making and responding to a wide variety of stakeholders—not just more senior leaders—is a central question.
• Controlling. We have moved from a very centralized controlling system to a model whereby every associate is in the quality control business. Continuous improvement is key in all organizations.
All these functions are now being viewed in the context of the organizational mission and values. The development of a statement of purpose or “mission statement,” once just assumed to be profit maximization, is now a central and continuous function of management.
Throughout the twentieth century, several schools of management thought developed. These approaches, all of which still play a role, include the classical approach, the human relations movement, management science, systems theory, total quality management, and learning organizations.
The classic approach to management, also called “scientific management,” focuses on the processes that workers use and attempts to find the best way to perform a task. We entered the industrial era seeking better (defined as more efficient) ways of doing things. Time and motion studies were the norm. Another aspect of this classical period in management was the evolution of classical organization theory—a school of thought that argued that work should be divided into logical functional areas, with each person having one boss. This led to the concept of bureaucracy, which was viewed as a means of ensuring productivity. The key aspects of bureaucracy (which over the years has taken on a negative connotation) are specialization of labor, formal procedures and rules, impersonal systems, clear hierarchy, and career advancement based on the quantity of productivity.
Many of these principles do not regard employees as human beings making specific contributions and having individual needs and concerns. As the century progressed, the human relations movement began. This movement stated that the path to success was through satisfying workers’ basic needs, which would make the workers more productive. Behavioral scientists from a variety of disciplines helped companies understand that workers did indeed have different needs and, as these needs were satisfied, the workers became more productive. Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, shown in Figure 1-3, still guides many decision-makers.
As we made progress in the mathematical sciences, the impact of the management science perspective grew. We learned that mathematical models and other statistical techniques could assist managers in making key decisions
During World War II, several new approaches to management developed that are still called “contemporary management.” The development of systems theory taught us that organizations are a set of interrelated parts that should function in a coordinated way to achieve a common goal. This led to a response that not all variables can be controlled and the development of a “contingency view,” which states that managers often have to say “it depends” and make different decisions depending upon the particular situation.
The total quality movement began in the 1950s in Japan and did not truly come into vogue in the United States until the 1980s. The best known spokesperson for this movement, W. Edward Deming, developed a list of 14 points that must all be followed to ensure that total quality exists in an organization. Operationally, many managers have distilled the intent of Deming’s list to: thoroughly understand all your customers, empower your employees, make decisions based on facts, and continually improve all your work processes.
Today, the concept of learning organizations has taken center stage. This concept implies that organizations are living entities that can learn, grow, and adapt to the environment. The more quickly organizations can change, the more likely it is that they will gain an advantage over their competitors.
Management has changed in many ways in the last hundred years, but all these theories are still practiced in many settings. It was in the last half of the twentieth century that leadership and project management began to evolve from management into separate disciplines.
While there is substantial agreement on the elements and definition of management, there is little agreement on the definition of leadership, its functions, or even whether or not it is a discipline (although increasingly scholars agree that it is). Our favorite definition of leadership is: “an influence relationship among leaders and their collaborators, who intend real change that reflects their shared purpose.”2
In his book On Leadership, John Gardner states that the functions of leadership are:
1. Envisioning goals
2. Affirming and regenerating important group values
3. Motivating others toward collective goals
4. Managing the process through which these collective goals can be achieved
5. Achieving unity of effort through pluralism and diversity
6. Creating an atmosphere of mutual trust
7. Explaining and teaching
8. Serving as a symbol of the group’s identity
9. Representing the group’s interest to outside parties
10. Renewing and adapting the organization to a changing world.3
We have identified ten different approaches to the study of leadership, as shown in Figure 1-4. Each is part of most leadership theories and each needs to be practiced in new ways in this century.
It has long been accepted that, by studying the traits of others, we can learn how they function. After World War II, when the field of leadership began to emerge as a separate discipline, people often believed that the way to be an effective leader was to study others they perceived as effective. Biographies of leaders are plentiful. Studies of their various traits abound. Again, we turn to Gardner, who teaches us that leaders most often have the following attributes:
1. Physical vitality and stamina
2. Intelligence and action-oriented judgment
3. Eagerness to accept responsibility
4. Task competence
5. Understanding of followers and their needs
6. Skills in dealing with people
7. Need for achievement
8. Capacity to motivate people
9. Courage and resolution
While others may choose different traits, these types of traits have always been valued. Daniel Goldman, in his highly acclaimed work, The Handbook of Emotional Intelligence, teaches us that self-awareness, self-regulation, motivation, empathy, and social skills are the keys to being a great leader.5
Groups need information givers, gatekeepers, consensus builders, and many other roles to be filled. Courses in group dynamics are taught in an effort to develop these skills.
Today the emphasis is on how to turn a group into a team and on ensuring that the team empowers all its members to be effective and productive in implementing shared goals. Organizational workers (often called associates or partners) are increasingly being encouraged to build effective teams and to provide input into all aspects of the teams’ goals. While at one time most people were evaluated solely on their individual productivity, the concept of mutual dependence is growing; each year more of us are evaluated at last in part based on the productivity of our “team.”
The modern leader understands that effective teams have interdependent members. The productivity and efficiency of an entire unit is determined by the coordinated, interactive efforts of all its members.
Advantages of effective teams include:
• Members are more efficient working together than alone.
• Teams create their own magnetism.
• Leadership rotation allows those with expertise to lead.
• Team members care for and nurture one another.
• Each member gives and receives mutual encouragement.
• Members share a high level of trust.
If a team is to be successful, its leader needs to understand how teams develop and what is expected at each stage of team development.
The situational leadership theory tells us that the directing, coaching, supporting, and delegating styles of leadership are all needed at different times. The original view stated that the needs of the followers dictate the necessary leadership style, as shown in Figure 1-5.
Traditionally leaders have been expected to know how to organize things in an efficient manner. They make sure that people have one boss, clear directions, etc. They develop organizational charts that are clean and easy to understand, choosing either a functional or a divisional structure with clearly defined lines of authority. Strategic, functional, and operational plans and goals are carefully developed. Leaders know the “rules” of creating an organization that works and they do it well. They understand how to function within their role in the organization, and they slowly and appropriately move up in the organizational hierarchy.
All these guidelines may still apply, but in this century leaders live in “permanent white water.” Organizations are matrixed, team-based, networked, or organized in some unique way. Traditional pyramids are being inverted. Change may be the only constant. While it is useful to understand traditional organizational skills, it is also necessary to realize that flexibility and speed are often the new rules. The ways to lead an organization effectively are as varied as the number of people with positional power in that organization.
Traditionally leadership was taught as a subset of the field of politics. The key concept was power and the challenge to leaders was to use power wisely. Understanding how to use legitimate power (the power that comes with a position or title), the power to reward, and the power to punish was the basis of leadership.
Today we talk about referent power—how people view or respect other people. This power cannot be delegated or assigned, but must be earned. We also value expert power, which is found throughout any organization and is the ability to understand or do something well. Instead of “power over,” we discuss empowerment or “power with.” Sam Walton built Wal-Mart by empowering his associates to run a “store within a store.”
Power is also often examined in terms of minority groups who lack the power of the majority. Throughout the second part of the twentieth century we discussed “black power,” “women power,” “gay power,” and other groups who are “disempowered” and seeking a change. Successful leaders understand that power needs to be shared and that empowered people are productive people.
In the mid-twentieth century we had many charismatic leaders, such as John F. Kennedy, Franklin Roosevelt, Winston Churchill, Lee Iacocca, Billy Graham, and Jackie Robinson. Jay Conger defines a charismatic leader as “someone who possesses an ability to introduce quantum changes in an organization.”6 He indicates that these people take the organization through four steps:
1. Sensing opportunities and finding vision
2. Articulating the vision
3. Building trust in the vision
4. Achieving the vision.
So far in this century there appears to be a dearth of charismatic leaders. In the last five years we have asked more than one thousand students to name charismatic leaders; rarely is a current leader mentioned. However, in a recent national study, one third of the people who indicated that they “enjoy” their work stated that their boss or company leaders were charismatic. Clearly, leaders can be successful without charisma, but it is also true that charisma is a helpful trait if used properly. There is a dark side of charisma, however, as Hitler, bin Laden, and others have demonstrated. In the twentieth century perhaps a fifth element should be added to Conger’s definition: choosing a vision that advances humankind in a positive direction.
In the 1980s a trend developed that considered the only true leaders to be those who were ethical and humane. The prevailing view was that a leader needs to be ethically grounded and a person of integrity.
The current crisis in confidence in our institutions also requires leaders to hold ethical standards that create win/win situations for everyone. The challenge is to solve problems in the long run. Respecting the individual becomes a key measure of a leader.
Today we respect work/life balance and we expect leaders to respect the individual needs of all associates. Leaders are expected to promote healthy behavior of all sorts in the organization. The ethical leader treats all people fairly but not the same. Leaders at all levels are expected to be ethical and humane and are often held to higher standards than they were in the past.
Humane leaders are also humane followers; they understand that to lead well, one must also follow well.
Bookstores have been filled with “how to lead” books for close to a century. While these books once were formulaic and rule-driven, they now reflect the complexity of leading in a modern world. Many famous athletes, corporate leaders, and government officials have written books about leadership, from Maxwell’s 21 irrefutable laws of leadership7 to Larry Holman’s 11 lessons in self-leadership.8
In recent years, however, the books have taken a different twist. Perhaps Covey’s 7 Habits of Highly Successful People began this change. Covey’s bestseller and his many books since stress internal change: “the person becomes the leader of the future by an inside out transformation.” Covey’s seventh habit—sharpening the saw—is an example of current leadership advice that asks readers to find balance in all aspects of life.9
One of the newer approaches to leadership formulas is a shift to using metaphors to “teach” leadership. Blanchard and several colleagues have written about “raving fans,” “gung-ho,” and “whale done,” using these metaphoric experiences to inform readers about some aspects of leadership.10
Most of the leadership literature in the last century discusses leadership primarily within the context of U.S. culture and Christian values. For the vast majority of leaders, however, this is no longer the reality. Less than 5 percent of the world lives in the United States. More people speak three languages than speak English. Christianity is practiced by less than 30 percent of the world. Most companies have customers, suppliers, or workers from other countries and other cultures. Leadership is a cultural phenomenon and is practiced in very different ways in different cultures. Wise leaders understand that they must listen to, respond to, and learn from stakeholders with very different concepts of leadership based upon their cultural heritage and experience.
The concept of the “melting pot” dominated much of the twentieth century: Leaders were taught to find commonalities and “blend” differences. If people were different because they spoke a different language or had a different outlook or experiences in life, these “handicaps” were to be overcome.
We now understand that we live in a “salad” or “fruit bowl,” where the texture, depth, and beauty of our society come from the differences people bring to an organization. We leverage these differences to make better and more creative decisions.
There are many subcultures in our society and the buying power of many groups is skyrocketing. We need “soccer moms” to help us understand and meet the needs of other “soccer moms” just as we need Hispanic or Islamic people to help us understand how the fastest growing ethnic and religious groups in the United States think and experience life. This understanding requires flexibility, a constant willingness to grow and change, and openness to continually evolving definitions of leadership.
Just as events throughout history have required management and leadership, many have required what has become known as project management. A project is a temporary undertaking to produce a unique output subject to limitations such as time, people, and other resources. Projects have occurred all through recorded history. Construction projects have included the pyramids of Egypt, the great cathedrals of Europe, and the temple at Machupicchu. Research and development projects included the creation of metals during the Bronze Age and the development of war implements during many ages. Projects were conducted to wage war and to build civilizations. These examples all qualify as projects since they were temporary endeavors that created unique outputs subject to limitations. It is highly unlikely that the people performing these projects shared lessons about what worked since they were generally separated by distance, time, and war. Because there was no open sharing, however, project management did not exist as a formal discipline.
The resulting lack of professionalism in early project management can be highlighted by asking questions about the success of these projects: Was the output produced efficiently and effectively? Were any of the limitations exceeded? Were the “customers” satisfied? What did the stakeholders think of the project? While we may never know the answers to these questions, we can guess on some of them. Some of these projects required the efforts of thousands of people (often slaves). Some required large amounts of time—more than a century in some cases. Many of the project participants (especially slaves) were probably far from satisfied with the work demands placed on them. The outputs of some of the projects were probably successful, but the outputs of others certainly were not.
Management principles that had developed previously applied generally to ongoing operations. Projects are different in that, once their objective is achieved, they are (or should be) disbanded. The temporary nature of projects created different kinds of management challenges that were increasingly not being met using traditional management principles alone.
By the middle of the twentieth century, many began to believe that there must be a better way to achieve the desired results of projects. With the advent of World War II, the demands of war required that projects be completed very rapidly. Shortages of people and materials required the careful use of resources. In 1957, the Soviet Union successfully launched a satellite, Sputnik. This event signaled the need for a wide range of new developments that are collectively known as the Space Race. The desire for a successful moon landing translated into a very large project with specific goal and time limitations. The need for project management became crystal clear.
In 1969 the Project Management Institute (PMI®) was organized to allow project managers to share experiences. The premise behind PMI® is that projects share certain similarities regardless of size, complexity, or industry, and that the skills needed to manage projects are fundamentally different from those needed to manage ongoing work processes.
In the 1970s, much effort was spent developing cost and schedule controls and automated project management software. In 1987 PMI® published the first edition of A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK® ). The PMBOK® continued to develop and broaden with increased emphasis on topics such as risk, quality, human resources, and communications. The most recent addition to the PMBOK® is project integration—tying together all the project areas into a unified, workable plan.
In the 1990s, project management increased its focus on communications, team building, leadership development, and motivation. The specific areas in which the project management discipline increased its focus during the 1990s include:
• Stakeholder identification and management
• Project team member competency and commitment
• Interpersonal/behavioral aspects
• Communications and communications planning
• Performance measurement to specifications/objectives
• Integration of core and ad hoc team personnel
• Project management as a career path.
So what is this thing called project management? Understanding it requires the definition of a project. According to PMI®, “A project is a temporary endeavor undertaken to create a unique product or service.”11 This brief definition suggests several notions. First, because the output is a unique product or service, project personnel must develop a thorough understanding of what that output is, along with the limitations and risks that will be encountered in trying to achieve it. Second, because a project is temporary it must be handled differently from an ongoing operation. In particular, the project lifecycle must be understood. Finally, both the temporary nature and the unique output of a project create the need for alternative forms of organization and for unique project skills and tools.
“Project management is the application of skills, tools, and techniques to project activities to meet project requirements.”12 This requires project managers to understand the project objectives, limitations, lifecycle, and roles of the participants. It also suggests that project managers should possess a variety of essential skills.
Every project has an objective, that is, a reason for performing the project. This objective can be implementing a new computer system, constructing a building, merging two companies, or developing a new product. Each objective has two considerations: scope (the features that are included) and quality (how the output performs).
Every project also has one or more limitations on how well and how quickly the objectives can be achieved. These limitations frequently include budget, resources, time, and technology. The limitations create risks that the objectives may not be met; these risks need to be identified.
Unlike ongoing operations that continue indefinitely, projects are temporary and have lifecycles. A project lifecycle can be used to guide a project team through all the necessary work. Some industries have their own, highly detailed project lifecycle models. However, a simple four-stage model (shown in Figure 1-6) can be used to explain the concept.
The first stage, initiating, starts with identifying a potential project. Initiating activities include establishing the need for the project, understanding the project scope, approximating the time and cost required, and securing approval to plan the project in detail.
Once approval is granted, the project enters the planning stage. Many additional details are planned, some team members are added, and approval to perform the project work is granted.
The third stage, executing, is when most of the project work is accomplished. The project team is at its maximum size. Activities are directed, monitored, and controlled. This stage ends when the project customer accepts the project output.
The final stage—closing—occurs when workers and other resources are reassigned; the project is evaluated and administratively closed.
Several distinct roles are required for projects. A project manager is responsible for ensuring that the objectives are accomplished. This requires facilitating the project team, dealing with problems, making decisions (often concerning tradeoffs between the project objectives and limitations), and communicating with all other parties. A sponsor (usually an executive) guides the project manager and helps behind the scenes with overcoming obstacles. The project team determines the details of how the work must proceed, performs the work, and reports progress. Stakeholders are those who have an interest in the project. The primary stakeholder is the customer of the output, but many other parties also have interests in a project. For example, neighbors at a construction site may have concerns about noise, dust, and traffic.
A project manager must possess a variety of skills to achieve the project objectives. According to Kloppenborg and Mantel (2001), these skills can be grouped generally into six categories: planning, budgeting, scheduling, resourcing, monitoring, and controlling.13 While managers of ongoing operations also need to perform tasks related to each of these six categories, the methods by which these must be performed on projects are different because of the temporary nature and the unique output that define projects. Many project-specific, specialized skills in these areas have been developed over time.
Pulling together the science of project management with effective leadership judgment is the essence of project leadership. The dizzying array of suggestions for leadership combined with the time-sensitive project completion challenges create a need for a new model. The model we have developed offers guidance on how and when to apply leadership principles to the various stages of a project. We define project leadership as the systematic application of leadership understanding and skills at each stage of a project lifecycle.
All projects have a lifecycle. That is, there are certain predictable events that will take place in the life of every project. The wise project leader will understand this lifecycle and plan for it. The alternative is to be surprised (often unpleasantly and quite frequently) when leading a project. Understanding the project lifecycle is part of the science of project leadership in that it can be studied, there is a definite process that can be followed, and project leaders can learn what they need to do at each stage.
We use a very simple, generic project lifecycle model. We understand that many industries have unique demands that may suggest the use of more involved lifecycle models. However, the basic stages we identify and the project leadership tasks that must be accomplished during each stage will apply to most projects in most industries. Projects in certain industries may have additional unique project leadership responsibilities. Even on very small, simple projects, however, the intent of the responsibilities identified needs to be understood and accomplished. By understanding the most typical project leadership responsibilities, a skilled project leader can scale up or down the complexity depending on the project he or she is leading.
The simple lifecycle model we are using has four stages: initiating, planning, executing, and closing. Each stage contains one or more stage-ending deliverables that must be approved or accepted before proceeding to the next stage (as shown in Figure 1-6).
Figure 1-7 shows the level of effort that is needed by each type of leader at each stage of the project lifecycle. The horizontal axis shows how the stages follow each other over time. The length of the stages may vary widely depending on the project. The vertical axis shows the amount of effort (measured either in person hours of work or in dollars expended per time period). Note that the effort expended by senior project leaders is highest during project initiation, diminishes during planning and execution, and finally rises a bit during project closing. Junior leaders may be selected during the initiation stage or even the planning stage and may start their involvement with heavy effort right away. Junior leaders’ effort, while highest during planning and execution, remains high throughout the project. Front-line workers’ effort starts quite low, builds during planning, is by far highest during implementation, and decreases sharply during closure.
When considering the enthusiasm and team building necessary for a project team, one needs to remember that project participants can have very different patterns of participation. Senior leaders often go through the various team-building emotions a stage before junior leaders, who in turn go through the team-building emotions a stage before the front-line workers. A wise project leader will understand situational leadership and team development and then apply those lessons with great care depending on what individuals need.
The stage-specific project leadership tasks are shown in Table 1-1. Note that the three types of issues project leaders face relate to a variety of task, personnel, and commitment situations. All leaders must face many of these same issues. The issues are more complex in projects than in ongoing operations because projects have exceptional demands, particularly as a result of their temporary nature and unique outputs. Understanding the decisions that project leaders must make is also part of the science of project leadership because it is prescriptive—that is, these decisions must be made. The decisions identified in Table 1-1 will form the basis of the following chapters.
Project leaders have three types of task responsibilities. First, leaders must determine priorities and continue to insist that those priorities are adhered to. Second, project leaders continually need to be aware of project details and make decisions related to changing conditions. Finally, project leaders need to see and communicate how this project integrates into the grander scheme of things—both within the parent organization and in the customer’s organization.
Personnel responsibilities are both procedural and behavioral. Procedural (human resource) issues include selecting and hiring project participants, supervising their work, and ensuring that they have future employment after the project is complete. Behavioral (human relations) responsibilities include helping the project core team develop operating and communication methods, leading teams, and ensuring that worthy participants are recognized for their efforts.
Successful projects require many different stakeholders to make and keep commitments. A project leader has the responsibility of advocating the project in such a way that each concerned individual will want to make and keep the necessary project commitments. If this “unofficial advocacy” is done well, the official signing of documents should be easy.
Since the art of project leadership requires that project leaders develop judgment in making decisions, we use a fictitious case study to serve as an example of how these decisions are made. Experience on one project will not give a new project leader all the judgment that is needed, but it is a start. We use the case study to demonstrate the thought process a project leader must use.
California Semiconductor Manufacturers (CSM), based in the suburbs of Sacramento, California, is the largest dedicated independent semiconductor company in the United States. Companies around the world have trusted CSM as an integrated circuit (IC) manufacturing services company since it was formed in 1992. CSM provides a range of manufacturing services, including design services, wafer probing, assembly, and testing. Market pressures for shorter concept-to-product lifecycle, higher product quality, and ever-increasing technology needs are causing more and more customers to turn to CSM as their partner.
CSM’s vision is to be the most reputable, service-oriented, and profitable “fab” (i.e., fabricator of silicon wafers). CSM strives to be the virtual fab to its customers by providing the services and technologies the customers would demand if they owned and operated their own manufacturing facilities. CSM’s intent is to make the foundry service as transparent as possible by providing a seamless relationship with its customers and thus giving them the advantages of having their own fabrication facilities without the associated costs.
CSM provides manufacturing services to semiconductor companies, integrated device manufacturers, and systems equipment manufacturing companies that need fabrication services. By providing access to those companies, it allows small and emerging firms to bring new IC designs to the market. Integrated device manufacturers turn to foundries like CSM to manufacture some of their device portfolios. Systems equipment manufacturing companies outsource IC manufacturing to fabricators like CSM so that they can concentrate on their core systems and software competency.
CSM is the industry’s largest manufacturer of wafers, producing about 8 percent of all wafers. CSM strives to be the capacity leader and has adopted aggressive capacity expansion plans and consistent volume production levels. As capacity and market leader, CSM is well positioned in the marketplace.
CSM offers a wide range of next-generation IC process technologies. These technologies include the advanced CMOS logic process, advanced SRAM/embedded SRAM process, advanced flash/embedded flash memory process, mixed signal process, and advanced embedded DRAM process.
CSM practices a customer-first business model that combines CSM’s customer-oriented business strategy with its pioneering dedicated IC experience, management’s commitment to customer satisfaction, and a systematic approach to responding immediately to customers’ needs. CSM works to help make its customers competitive in the marketplace, achieving success through its customers’ success.
CSM’s business philosophy is based on:
• Building quality into all aspects of business
• Maintaining consistent focus on its core business
• Treating customers as partners
• Fostering innovation
• Fostering a dynamic and fun work environment
• Caring for employees and shareholders and being a good corporate citizen.
CSM’s executive team consists of Mark Taylor, CEO and founder; Gary Short, CIO; Peter Lee, Vice President of Engineering; Carl Mathew, CFO; Susan Park, Vice President of marketing; and Bob McCally, Vice President of sales and operations. Mark Taylor formed the company in 1992 and under his leadership the company has grown from 10 employees in 1992 to 8,000 employees currently. He believes in quality management and emphasizes quality throughout the organization.
Gary Short joined the company in 1997 and is responsible for all technological decisions. He believes that technology applied well can improve supply chain time and can provide better return on investment for the company. He is very actively involved as a volunteer in the community.
Peter Lee joined the company in 1996 and has led the engineering team to success, helping the company increase its product lines and its design services. Originally from Taiwan, he earned his PhD in Engineering at Caltech.
Susan Park joined the company in 1996. She leads the marketing organization.
Bob McCally joined the company in 1995 and has increased sales revenue by 70 percent since then. Achievement-oriented, Bob emphasizes setting challenging goals and high expectations to improve performance. He believes that project leaders have many important decisions to make and need help in developing their judgment.
CSM has a single-minded focus on the silicon wafer industry. The company provides high quality IC manufacturing services to the semiconductor industry. Building on its core competencies of manufacturing and excellent customer support, CSM offers wafer manufacturing, wafer probing, IC assembly and testing, and mask production. CSM has responded to customer needs for increased efficiency in the supply chain by providing an online system for customers who want greater control over their design cycle and manufacturing process.
With 8,000 employees, CSM places priority on developing employees and gaining their commitment. CSM focuses on employee satisfaction and fostering a dynamic and fun work environment. The company subscribes to a philosophy of lifelong learning and partnering with local universities for employee development. Through the company’s performance management and development process, CSM has a defined method for maximizing every employee’s potential.
Now that we have introduced the key project leadership practices, the project lifecycle, and the fictitious B2B project case, we will spend the next four chapters demonstrating the kinds of decisions project leaders need to make. Our method will be to have the CSM project leaders make decisions at each project stage. Then we will comment on these decisions. We will summarize our comments regarding each decision with a project leadership lesson. Our goal is to offer readers useful suggestions in tackling their own projects.
1. Courtland Bouee, Management (New York: McGraw Hill, 1993), p. 95.
2. Arthur Shriberg, David Shriberg, and Carol Lloyd, Practicing Leadership: Principles and Applications, 2nd ed. (New York: Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2002).
3. John William Gardner, On Leadership (New York: Free Press, 1990).
5. Daniel Goldman, The Handbook of Emotional Intelligence: Theory, Development, Assessment, and Application at Home, School and in Work Place (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2000).
6. Jay Alden Conger, Charismatic Leadership in Organizations (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1998).
7. John Maxwell, The 21 Irrefutable Laws of Leadership (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1998).
8. Larry Holman, Eleven Lessons in Self-Leadership: Insights for Personal and Professional Success (Lexington, KY: A Lessons in Leadership Book, 1995).
9. Stephen Covey, The 7 Habits of Highly Successful People (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1990).
10. Ken Blanchard, Whale Done! (New York: Free Press, 2002); Ken Blanchard and Sheldon Bowles, Gung Ho: Turn on the People in Any Organization (New York: William Morrow and Company, Inc., 1988); Ken Blanchard and Sheldon Bowles, Raving Fans: A Revolutionary Approach to Customer Service (New York: Free Press, 1993).
11. Project Management Institute, A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK® Guide), 2000 edition (Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute, 2000), p. 4.
12. Ibid., p. 6.
13. Timothy J. Kloppenborg and Samuel J. Mantel, Jr. “Project Management,” The Concise International Encyclopedia of Business and Management, 2nd ed. (London: Thompson Press, 2001), p. 5438.
Explore how to assess a wide range of factors to determine which contract type will provide the government the best value...
Transform your workplace into a well of learning and employee potential fulfilled with the help of this book!
Use past performance to win contracts at the lowest risk and cost
Learn project management processes, tools, and techniques that are scalable and adaptable to small projects.