DE- Rey Writer
Nawaf Alsulami
T81-5508
Dr. John Williamson
September 26, 2017
Dairy Entry: Source of Project Initiation: How Thrust Matters
Summary: All in all, Dr. John R. Bechtoldt investigate why are projects different? So, he came up
with a conclusion that one of the reasons why projects are different is because the way decisions
are made. So, based on John, decisions are made based on project thrust/ initiation. Therefore, he
defined thrust, identified four distinct thrust groups, defined decision models associated with
each thrust grouping, and finally provided which leadership styles ( L1, L2, M) that best fit to
each model.
First of all, there is two aspect to project initiation/ thrust which are Stimulus (why) and
Direction (who). The trust stimulus or why projects are considered can be a result of either
technology-push or need-pull. Examples of a technology-push are investigating new
technology for enhanced performance or competitive advantage or applying new technology to
improve existing process/method. Yet, searching for solution to new or existing problem is an
example of need-pull. In the other hand, thrust direction can be classified into two components
which are Top-Down or Bottom-Up. Top-down thrust is known as an externally generated
project which accurse because of corporate mandated, customer requirements or directed actions
due to regulations or new laws. In contrast, bottom-up is internally which generated down at the
project levels, for example an engineer come up with an idea of developing the process or a
solution to a problem in the production unit.
Second, Based on thrust stimulus and direction, Dr. John was able to group thrust into
four groups which represented by the bellow figure.
Nawaf Alsulami
T81-5508
Dr. John Williamson
September 26, 2017
Third, after grouping thrust, John list five project management decision models which are
Rational Decision Model, Behavioral Choice (Bounded Rationality), Conflict Resolution Model,
Political Model, and Garbage Can Model and married each one of them with the thrust groups.
Every project is a unique and its decision is formed differently based on project thrust and John
was able to draw a relationship between them and mapped the decision process so project
managers will be able to understand how and why decisions were formed in their own projects as
it shows in the bellow figure.
Nawaf Alsulami
T81-5508
Dr. John Williamson
September 26, 2017
Finally and most importantly, John was able to identify what leadership styles managers
must apply based on decisions model and project thrust. For me personally, this is the take out
piece of knowledge out of chapter 9. As a project manager knowing ahead about project thrust
and how it affects the decision process, will give me an idea of which characteristics and
leadership role I need to have and apply to deliver my project successfully. He explained in
details why a specific leadership style is best fit a specific thrust group more than the others but
this is not the intent of my summary. Therefore, I will just summarize the final point he made
about the relationship between project trust, decision models, and leadership styles. That all can
be summarized in the bellow figure.
Application: In 2012 when I was working for Saudi Aramco Oil Co at the Corrosion and Inspection
Department as a corrosion engineer, our manager asked me and other two engineers to do a
Nawaf Alsulami
T81-5508
Dr. John Williamson
September 26, 2017
statistic study about the number of leaks we had in our up-stream to be used as a reference since
a virus attack destroyed most of our data base. So, while we were working on that project we
realized that more than 75% of leaks was drain leaks. Therefore, we developed an entire plan to
minimize that specific type of leak by replacing the material was used and applying a specific
type of coating. We had a full plan including the charter, business case, materials and techniques
will be used, cost, execution plan…etc. this is obviously an entrepreneurial thrust that required
M and L2 leadership roles. However, we represent our solution to the manager and somehow, he
got an approval from upper management. My teams, the three engineers, was responsible of
working with one Gas Oil Separation Plant out of 15 plants as an experimental project to see
how effective this project will be in reducing maintenance cost. Unfortunately, that project was
almost failed because the plant team was not cooperating enough with our team. My team was
consisting of three engineers who were focusing on process M more than the people world L2. In
fact, we could not figure out why the plant team was delaying the task we asked them to do.
Therefore, we presented this issue in the second meeting saying that the plant team was not so
helpful for us. Therefore, our manager took over the project and suddenly the project was
running smoothly. He applied L2 leadership role with the plant team. So, he was able to move
the project forward through team building and acceptance. Once he sold the idea and the
importance of the project to the plant team, we were able to successfully deliver the project a
little bit behind schedule but on budget with the help and support of the plant team. In
conclusion, if we used L2 leadership style with the plant team at the bargaining of the project
besides M leadership role that we had, we would have avoided the delayed that accrued in the
beginning of the project.