Categorisation of interventions

In the preceding paragraph a list of project and process management interventions is discussed. Al- though the representation of the interventions in section 3.3 is one-dimensional, interventions exist in different forms. Therefore in this paragraph the interventions are further categorised based on other characteristics. The three criteria that are used in categorising the interventions are:

2 The intensity of the intervention (3.4.1) 3 The dimension of the intervention (3.4.2) 4 The duration of the intervention (3.4.3)

Based on the literature study these three criteria are qualified as most suitable to evaluate discrepan- cies between the interventions. On these subjects substantial differences between individual inter- ventions are observed. These differences are considered to affect the outcome of an intervention in a specific project situation.

Advantage of these criteria is also that they can be classified on a binary scale and thereby the inter- ventions can be divided in 2 distinguishing categories.

3.4.1 Intensity: intervention depth

A first criterion is intensity, qualifying the depth of an intervention. Intervention depth is a concept described in intervention management literature by Homan (2005). It does focus on how intense an intervention does encroach in the behaviour of the stakeholders or how intense an intervention does interfere in the operation of a system or project. The intensity of interventions can be qualified on a sliding scale between superficial and deep.

Superficial interventions have a limited impact on the behaviour of the involved actors. The degree in which these interventions constrain or stimulate actors or systems in their actions is limited. The de- sired change in behaviour is limited. An example of a superficial intervention is making a stakeholder

analysis. An analysis is a method to increase knowledge about a subject, but the subject of analysis is not expected to change its behaviour as a consequence of the research.

Deep interventions aim at realizing a significant change in behaviour of a stakeholder or system; they can include changes in standards and norms. Changes in behaviour can for example be achieved by us- ing incentives. If negotiations between stakeholders lack speed, it can be beneficial to show them prospects of gain. This can make it beneficial for them to reach agreement as fast as possible. The stakeholders change their behaviour because of the prospects of future benefits. This is an example of a deep intervention.

Table 3-9: Examples of superficial and deep interventions

Intervention style Superficial Deep

Process oriented Stakeholder analysis Show prospects of gain

Project oriented Assume loyalty to problem definition Define stringent responsibilities

An important remark on this criterion is that some interventions can have both a superficial and a deep impact. This is because the impact of the interventions is depended on the manner of applica- tion. An example is the introduction of new process agreements aimed at directing stakeholder be- haviour. Initially stakeholders can perceive these agreements as an unimportant rule; stakeholders might even try to ignore the agreements. At this initial stage the impact of the intervention is only superficial. However, it is possible that afterwards involved stakeholders realize the importance and advantages of the agreements. If stakeholders get used to the agreements a change in applicable norms takes place. At this stage the impact of the interventions has become deep.

3.4.2 Dimension: intervention width

A second criterion is dimension, qualifying the intervention width. Also intervention width is a con- cept originating from intervention management literature and described by Homan (2005). Interven- tion width describes the number of stakeholders that are affected by an intervention. The width of in- terventions can vary between narrow interventions and comprehensive interventions.

Narrow interventions are aimed to change the behaviour of one stakeholder or even a single person within an involved actor. An example of a narrow intervention is inviting a group of local citizens to discuss preliminary project plans.

Table 3-10: Examples of narrow and comprehensive interventions

Intervention style Narrow Comprehensive

Process oriented Involve ‘local intelligence” Enlarging the scope of a project Project oriented Focusing at personal targets Focus on one problem solution

Comprehensive interventions intend to affect the complete stakeholder network. A comprehensive intervention can be a change of scope in a project to enlarge the possibilities for win-win solutions. All stakeholders are affected by this intervention which is aimed to stimulate the cooperation between the involved actors.

There is no exact distinction between narrow and comprehensive interventions. It is also possible that interventions are aimed at a group of actors with a specific characteristic, for example all involved

public stakeholders. These types of interventions are positioned in the middle between narrow and comprehensive interventions. It is also important to recognize that the dimension of interventions can change. For example an intervention can first be applied as test on a small group of stakeholders and, if the intervention is successful, afterwards to all involved stakeholders.

3.4.3 Duration: intervention length

A third criterion is the duration, qualifying the intervention length. The intervention length does focus on the period in which the intervention takes place. Related to this duration a distinction can be made on a gliding scale between temporary measures with a short duration and interventions which contain a constant change in procedures and have a long duration.

Temporary interventions are often concrete measures aimed at realizing one demonstrable objective. An example of a temporary measure is the employment of three design teams to stimulate creative concurrence. Although beneficial results of this creative process can last long, the intervention itself is only a short decision.

Table 3-11: Examples of temporary and constant interventions

Intervention style Temporary Constant

Process oriented Stimulate creative concurrence by employing several design teams

Believe in trust as basis of agreements and cooperation

Project oriented Increase time pressure Focus on intense cooperation with main actors

Constant interventions often aim at realizing a new working procedure or a specific attitude. To real- ize this objective it can be necessary that the manager does focus on a specific subject for a longer pe- riod of time and constantly emphasizes the need for a certain attitude. An example of these constant interventions is the continuing focus of a project manager to cooperate only with the main stake- holders and pay less attention to other stakeholders.

It is important to recognize the difference between the duration of the intervention itself and the con- tinued existence of the result of an intervention. Also interventions with a short duration can have impact on the long term.

3.4.4 Main aspects of categorisation

Categorisation of interventions can be useful because specific project situations require specific in- terventions. Therefore, in appendix I a comprehensive overview is presented of project management and process management interventions and their characteristics. However, there are also aspects that limit the added value of the categorisation.

 First the categorisation into two categories remains a simplification of reality. It is more realistic to conclude that the interventions are positioned on a gliding scale between two extremes.  Second the categorisation of interventions can only function as a snapshot in time. This is because

the nature of interventions can change. Interventions that start superficial can become deep while narrow interventions can also be used comprehensive.

In spite of these disadvantages, the categorisation of interventions can be helpful for project manag- ers to choose the best available intervention. Important lesson is that if an intervention is narrow, su-

perficial and temporary, it is relatively easy to implement. Conversely deep, comprehensive and con- stant interventions involve a much more complex implementing process and demand more efforts from the project manager. This can be explicated because the impact of these interventions is more intense, more actors are involved and they are confronted with the intervention during a longer pe- riod of time.