Document created: 2 September 03
Air University Review, May-June 1975

Systems and Project Management

an expanded view

The Air Force environment is replete with the terms "systems management" and "project management." Systems management is not a theory or practice that belongs solely to "managers" in the Air Force Systems command or to "systems managers" in Air Force Logistics Command. Common usage seems to imply that the term "systems management" refers to the management of all activities associated with acquiring or supporting an Air Force weapon systems; however, the term has much broader meaning. Likewise, the term however, the term "project management" should not be restricted to the Air Force research and development community. The purpose of this article is to present an expanded interpretation of these two concepts that make them applicable to virtually every manager in the Air Force.

All officers and many enlisted men in the United States Air Force are managers. A manager may be defined as an individual having responsibility for the use of resources to accomplish goals. The missile crew commander, for example, can be viewed as a manager. The resources he uses are the other crew members, all the regulations and procedures, and the weapon system hardware; his goal is to maintain the weapon system in a combat-ready state. The first sergeant of a communications squadron has various resources of personnel, equipment, funds, tools, training aids, etc., to perform his communications mission. The commander of Air Force Systems Command has numerous highly specialized resources for the purpose of both maintaining a broad research and development capability and utilizing that capability to acquire new Air Force weapon systems.

The concepts of systems management and project management can provide valuable insights to improve managerial capability. As professionals, Air Force managers should constantly review and evaluate their management approaches. This article provides an opportunity to review management approaches from a slightly different point of view.

The word "system" is pervasive and is used in many different situations and contexts. This wide use stems from the of the term--a meaning rich with many implications and potentially high in informational content. But the wide applicability of the word also produces misuse and confusion. A system is any collection of elements formed into any collection of elements formed into a whole to accomplish some goal: a clock is a system; the human body is a system; a family is a system. The term at once implies boundaries of the system, parts of the system (subsystems), interactions of the subsystems, a purpose or goal, an effect (or output) of the system greater (at least different) than the addition of the effects of the independent elements, and some interaction with the environment outside the system boundaries. All the elements of any military weapon are a system: hardware parts, personnel to operate and maintain equipment, support elements such as aerospace ground equipment (AGE), training capability, etc. This is perhaps the most common use of the term in the Air Force. All the principles, rules, regulations, records, processing equipment, etc., that organize and use information about Air Force personnel constitute a system. Any of the Air Force major commands is a system.

Any individual is a part of many systems--family, work organization, church group, the nation. Normally, systems overlap other systems, with the result that boundaries are often difficult to identify precisely. Systems also exist as systems within Systems, as in the hierarchical nature of organizational systems or the universe of earth, solar, and galaxy systems. Thus the concept "system" is at once enlightening--a common frame of reference for much of natural phenomena; yet it is confusing--the complexity which the term makes explicit is often formidable.

So what is systems management? It is basically a frame of reference for a manager in his job. His task is "getting things done through people" or "making decisions concerning the resources assigned to him to accomplish set goals." Systems management is not a substitute for but rather complements traditional management thought and theory. Traditional management approaches identify the functions required of any manager--planning, organizing, directing, and controlling. Specific management principles--generalizations concerning successful management practices--are identified: for example, Fayol's 14 principles. Most management actions involve interaction with people, and thus typical management theory stresses communication skills and an understanding of individual and group motivation and behavior. However, systems management is not a substitute for such management thought.

Systems management involves a way of thinking about the phenomena with which and within which the manager must work. The manager usually has resources assigned to him in the form of an organization--a squadron, group, office, division, etc. He is responsible for the accomplishment of specific objectives, using these resources. His organization is a system he must manage. It exhibits many characteristics common to all systems: subsystems, interaction of subsystems, an environment that will influence the system, and others. It has a goal or goals, with inputs to the system and outputs to the environment. His frame of reference for his management actions is his organization as a system within many larger systems, as a system interwoven with other systems, and as a system composed of subsystems. (Figure 1)

The systems manager knows that his organizational system will have a life cycle consisting of (a) start-up, where the management functions of planning and organizing are vitally important; (b) stable operations, where the management functions are all-important, and directing and controlling are most common; (c) major change, where the forces of the environment have forced a system change requiring replanning and reorganizing; and, sometimes, (d) system termination.

Because he is a systems manager, he aware of at least two characteristics of his organization that may not be emphasized by the manager who does not adopt the systems outlook or approach. First, the systems manager looks for the prime subsystems of his organization and evaluates the interactions among them. For instance, he is aware of the values and goals of the personnel and the congruence between them and the organization's goals. He is aware of the social needs of the people in his system and the effect these needs may have on the technical subsystem of knowledge and techniques needed to accomplish the goals. He is aware of the formal structure of his organization, a subsystem, and interwoven with it the informal structure, another subsystem. He knows that the total task of his organization has been subdivided and given to subgroups, but that coordination is required to put the subparts together effectively. He knows the importance of the interaction between subparts, interaction in the form of flows of materials, paperwork, funds, good or bad feelings/attitudes. In a word, he is keenly aware of his task of system integration.

Second, the systems manager is constantly looking to the environment of his system. He knows that his organization is an open system--not mechanistic and dosed but open to environmental forces that are constantly bringing about changes. He anticipates change, controls or shapes it when he can, prepares his organization for it, maintains reasonable stability during it, but never stubbornly ignores or resists change. He realizes that change is a way of life, so he welcomes it and uses it to the advantage of his organization.

A manager at any level can take the approach of a systems manager. From the Chief of Staff of the Air Force down to the crew chief of a B-52 maintenance team--all can take a systems approach to their management tasks. In so doing, they will use the traditional concepts and theories of effective management, but they will do so with an appreciation of the systems characteristics of their organization and other organizations. They will be especially aware of the integrative nature of their job and the necessity to be open to change.

Effective managers realize that "normal" operations involve organizations that are constantly adjusting to the environment through making minor changes and shifts in emphasis. Occasionally, however, environmental forces develop which necessitate major changes within the system. For example, because of new technology the United States Air Force might determine that it must develop a new first-line air superiority fighter. A new, improved, different weapon system is determined to be necessary. The alternative is an impaired ability (or inability) of the Air Force system to accomplish its air superiority goal. This is a significant undertaking. The normal operation of Tactical Air Command with the F-4 as the air superiority fighter will change. Air Force Logistics Command must make changes to support a different weapon system. Training, personnel planning, facility planning--all are affected. This is a major change to the normal "steady state" operations of the Air Force system. As another example, a company decides that, to stay competitive, a new product must be introduced to its line. This introduction will be a major change to the company. Engineering, manufacturing, plant layout, marketing, quality control, etc., will have their normal operations changed. A major change for an organizational system is often called a project, and a special manager is often given the responsibility of project management.

Project management can be thought of as a technique used to accomplish a major change in the organizational system effectively, efficiently, and with minimum disruption to ongoing activities. The project manager is responsible for planning the project, organizing the resources provided to accomplish the change, directing the effort of the resources, and controlling the work progress. He is often provided an organizational system, a project team, dedicated to him and the project. In many respects he has management responsibilities similar to those of other managers, but his task is different with respect to time frame, complexity, span of influence, importance to the overall organization.

A project is a one-time undertaking with a definite start-a major change is recognized as needed-and a definite end; the change has been accomplished and "normal" operations are under way. The time span of a project can be brief, or it may extend over more than a decade. The C-5A project began in the middle sixties and is still in existence, although it is only a fraction of its previous size and is in the process of dissolution. This limited time frame is in contrast to that of the manager of an organizational system with a continuous, relatively stable task. As an example, for the indefinite future a wing commander is responsible for the manning, training, and operational readiness of his wing and its weapon system.

The project manager is identified, in essence, as the general manager for a specific major change to the overall system. The F-15 System Program Office (SPO) Director is the general manager for introducing this new weapon system to the entire Air Force. In the case of a company introducing a new product, the "product manager" is the general manager for getting the new product into "normal" operations throughout the company. The change is usually complex, with interacting considerations across the organization. It involves a large degree of uncertainty--doing something that has not been done before. Usually new ideas and new technologies are being implemented, with associated unknowns. As the general manager for this aspect of the overall system, he must recognize, plan for, and innovate around this inherent complexity and uncertainty. By contrast, the manager of ongoing operations normally has a well-defined task to be done repeatedly. Historical data may exist concerning the task, and only minor changes are expected in the future.

The project manager's span of influence is broader than that of the manager of an ongoing organization. Not only must the project manager focus on his organizational system to be managed--is project office--but he must also focus on and operate across the overall organization. In order to implement change effectively, he must know the characteristics of the system being changed. The F-15 project manager must know the entire Air Force system: the subsystems that will be affected by the F-15, the interactions of the subsystems, the external pressures on the Air Force, like potential enemy threat. He must coordinate the activities not only of his project organization but also of many different organizations within the total Air Force system. A project manager and his project organization could be called the integrating instrument for the project effort. This task to coordinate and influence the effort outside his own organization can sometimes be very frustrating for a project manager. He must deal with diverse elements of the overall system that have their own subgoals and interests. Therefore, the project manager, more than the traditional manager, operates in a dynamic climate and must constantly balance and trade off a broad variety of variables in influencing and making decisions for the good of the overall system.

Finally, the project manager's task is different in terms of its importance to the overall organization. The change is being implemented to sustain the continued good health of the organization, perhaps to assure its survival. The task often has high visibility within the overall system and outside –DOD, Congress, the public. The reputation and good name of the overall organization may be significantly affected by the success of the project’s implementation. This is not to that management of ongoing subsystems is not important, but the importance of major changes is normally of a higher order of magnitude.

In sum, the project manager is like managers in that he has a system managed--his project team. He is unlike other managers because he and his office are the instruments of change for the larger, overall organizational system. He is responsible for integrating the efforts of all affected elements of the system to implement a major of significant complexity and importance.

We have said that systems management is a frame of reference, an outlook, a way of thinking for a manager in fulfilling his responsibilities. The systems manager focuses on his organization to be managed as a system. This point of view identifies the system boundaries and the influences outside the boundaries. It identifies the subsystems within the system and the relationships between them. It places attention on the input from the environment to his system, the transformation within his system, and the output--all in accomplishment of the system goal. The manager with this approach emphasizes two aspects of his job: the integration of the various elements of his system to operate smoothly and effectively and the need to be aware of, anticipate, and take advantage of system change brought about by forces in the environment.

We have also said that occasionally change is of significant impact and cannot be effectively accomplished via "normal" system efforts. An approach to managing the implementation of a major change that has effects across the organization is called project management. A temporary project manager, and perhaps a project office, is established to integrate, across the total system, planning and other activities to assure a smooth change. The complexity, uncertainty, and broad impact of the task demand special management attention--the project manager.

These two management approaches have application throughout the Air Force. The manager of any Air Force organization can profitably view his organization as a system. He can perform his management functions with knowledge of the systemlike characteristics that must be dealt with. This manager is constantly "testing the water" of the environment outside his system. When he identifies the necessity for a major change, he will assign special management responsibility for that change to someone within his organization--a project manager. This approach to management, which is not a substitute for but builds on traditional management theory, can be successfully applied by the crew chief of a maintenance crew on up the Air Force hierarchy to the commander of a major command.

To tie these concepts together, consider the crew chief for one of the Air Force's aircraft. The crew chiefs system is composed of the crew members, the tools and equipment assigned to them, the work areas, the technical orders and other guidance, and perhaps other elements. The prime input to his system is the aircraft in need of care, maintenance, and perhaps repair. The prime output is a combat-ready aircraft. There may be several meaningful classifications of subparts of the system. There may be subteams of individuals with different skills. He may identify several informal groups that are important to maintaining high morale. He may identify the social needs and values of his personnel, to assess the impact upon the organizational goals. The crew chief will be aware of the influence of outside forces: the larger maintenance organization, the total weapon system a part of which his crew maintains, the Air Force personnel system, the major command, and also the total Air Force system. For instance, he may become aware of a coming change to some maintenance procedures, a change that will affect almost all elements of his system. His approach is to establish one man, and perhaps others to help him, as the "focal point" for this change--in essence a project manager. This same type of example is easily adapted to an aircraft commander or the man who heads a major command.

Finally, let us return to the opening remarks. Systems management does not belong to those engaged in acquiring or supporting weapon systems but is a frame of reference for management actions available to Air Force managers at all levels. Project management is not restricted to research and development projects but is a management approach that can be used to insure that a major change to any organization is accomplished smoothly. Our challenge is to use these concepts and others to become more effective Air Force managers.

Contributor