Conduct research using at least two of the articles on handling project conflict management. 3 articles attached to select from.In your paper, identify the different styles you found in your research,

Conflict Resolution Tool for Project Managers: Evaporating Cloud M. C. Gupta & S. A. Kerrick

A Conflict Resolution Tool for Project Managers :

Evaporating Cloud

Mahesh C. Gupta

Sharon A. Kerrick

College of Business

University of Louisville

USA

ABSTRACT

Today’s ever changing business environment requires managers to interact globally with people

across functional areas with conflicting points of view. A preliminary literature review suggests

that a generic tool to understand and resolve conflicts is desir able. This paper demonstrates how

a theory of constraints -based logical tool, an evaporating cloud, can enable IT managers to

better understand conflicts underlying most problems. Using a commonly encountered conflict as

an example, we show how this tool v erbalizes a problem through the logic of cause and effect,

surfaces the assumptions causing the conflicting actions and decisions, and presents injections –

potential solutions – that can cause the conflict to evaporate (i.e., disappear or be resolved ).

Us ing a real -world IT project management case study, we also explain the usefulness and

versatility of this intuitive tool via a web app for novice users. We conclude this paper

acknowledging its limitations and providing some future research directions.

IN TRODUCTION

One of us ( 2nd author ), a former owner of a $22M technology development firm, has first -hand

experience observing , diagnosing, and lead ing projects from conceptualization stage to the

termination stage in the capacity of a senior leader , project manager, functional manager , staff

member as well as a client. Due to a myriad of reasons (e.g., significant uncertainty about

decision -making authority, groups working wit h different goals and expectations), the author has

witnessed conflicts of varying intensity (measured in terms of frequency and magnitude) at

various stages throughout IT project life cycle s. It’s been well documented by T he Standish

Group International (1995) that only 16% of application development projects were considered

successful in terms of being completed on time and with budget. There are many elements to an

IT project and internal risks and external risks need to be facilitated according to Mar chewka

(2010) , and with these risks tension and conflict arise. In order to foster strong relationships and

better communication between parties , as well as promot e continued progress toward project s’

objectives , the 2nd author has employ ed various conflict resolution techniques and has many ‘war

stories’ dealing with failed (i.e., not delivering on the agreed upon objectives) projects. Thus, a

search for a better approach to conflict management in particular and project management in

genera l continues (literature overview in the next section further supports this assertion) .

Hence, this paper introduce s Goldratt’s evaporating clouds as an enabling tool to resolve

conflicts and successfully implement theory of constraints (TOC) -based ideas to deliver projects

on time, on budget , and within scope . The process of project management ( PM ) inherently

requires input from and interactions among various stakeholders with different point s of view Journal of International Technology and Information Management Volume 23, Numbers 3/4 2014

about how to achieve project objectives throughout a project’s life cycle. Thus, conflicts within a

project are inevitable and even desirable (Tjosvold, 2008). Increasingly, organizations are

recognizing conflicts as a source of innovation and creativity (Nemeth , Personnaz, Personnaz, &

Goncalo , 2004) and are adopting a more strategic approach to managing conflicts. Thus, conflict

management (CM) competenc y is being recognized as useful by project managers but there is a

dearth of systematic process approach es to resolve the conflicts (Lipsky & Seeber, 2006 ;

Kerzner, 2006 ).

The primary purpose of this article is to provide insight on a tool , the evaporating cloud (EC)

developed by Dr. Goldratt, the founder of the Theory of Constraint ( TOC ), as a systematic

approach for getting from a conflict stage to a solution stage. Recently, much has been wr itten

about the EC (Gupta , Boyd, & Kuzmits , 201 1), but its versatile applications in the PM area have

not been addressed. This paper is organized as followed: in this section, we will further discuss

the term “conflict ” by briefly summarizing various types/categories of conflicts that occur in the

project environment. In the second section, we discuss conflict resolution tech niques as

suggested in various literature and show that there is still a need for a comprehensive tool and

generic approach to resolve conflicts. In the third section, we provide a brief overview of

relevant TOC concepts and introduce Goldratt’s Evaporatin g Cloud ( EC) as a structured and

systematic conflict management tool using a simple example from an IT project manager’s

perspective . In the fourth section, we discuss a real -world application using an EC webapp . We

conclude this paper by acknowledging the limitations of our work and recommend future

research to empirically test the usefulness of this tool for IT project managers .

Conflicts in Projects : Definition and Types

Although there is no one clear definition of conflict, in this paper we adopt a broad

organizational conflict conceptualization proposed by Rahim ( i.e., “an interactive process

manifested in incompatibility, disagreement, or dissonance within or between social entities i.e.,

individual, group, organizations , etc .;” 2002, p. 207) . This definition recognizes the fact that

many types of conflict – administrative, technical, or personality – arise due to the interplay of

different expectations with respect to time, cost, and scope among diff erent parties such as the

project manager and team, the client, functional managers, and senior managers. For example,

senior managers may insist that certain administrative procedures confirming the organization

and legal standards are followed, and proje ct managers may find themselves arguing for

scheduling of a specific resource , shorter task completion time or stringent technical procedures,

while functional managers may complain that the resultant time and cost estimates are too

restrictive. Along with human resource s being an integral part , projects necessitate the

cooperation of many social entities and personality clashes are often at the source of many

conflicts.

LITERATURE OVERVIEW

“If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants. ” Although the phrase credited

to Isaac Newton has a long and ancient history, in this paper we use this quote metaphorically to

suggest that Goldratt’s Evaporating Cloud (EC) builds on known conflict resolution techniques

and thereby offers a metho d to identify conflict, initiate open discussion about the conflict and

potentially diffuse or resolve the conflict . Our primary purpose is not to conduct a

comprehensive review but rather to establish that indeed the EC is a synthesis of major known Conflict Resolution Tool for Project Managers: Evaporating Cloud M. C. Gupta & S. A. Kerrick

conflict management approaches and represents a versatile simple framework that has practical

applications in most conflict situations.

Perhaps o ne of the most widely -understood paradigms for understanding and resolv ing

conflict is that of fight (co nfronta tional ) or flight (avoidant) (Wysocki, 2009). Over a period of

time, s everal modes and styles of dealing with conflict have been identified by researchers that

have advanced almost in a linear progressing fashion . Follett (1926) was many decades ahead of

her time when she conceptualized three styles – domination, compromise and integration – while

favoring an integrative approach to conflict resolution. Schmidt and Tannenbaum (1960)

introduce d the avoidance approach into the mix, agreeing with Folle tt that the collaborative (i.e.,

integration) approach is the most appropriate depending on informal, perceptual, role and other

factors. Blake , Shepard, and Mouton (1964) extended the mix to include the accommodation

(smoothing ) approach (i.e., common interests are emphasized and issues causing hurt are not

discussed) and problem -solving approach or confrontation approach (i.e., both parties work

through their differences collaboratively to reach a solution that is optimal to both ). From the

perspective of IT man agers who are confronted with conflicts all the time, it is natural to view

conflict as a problem to be solved by encouraging open discussions and allowing parties to

express their areas of disagreement to arrive at a solution. Researchers have view ed prob lem -

solving, confrontation , and collaboration approaches as interchangeable parts of an integrative

approach (Burke , 1969). Thomas and Kilmann (1974) are generally credited for popularizing

these general styles and developing a questionnaire to help managers gain a deeper

understanding of their dominant style and thereby guide them to determine if changes in their

style could increase their effectiveness i n resolving conflicts. These conflict management styles

can be further categorized by two dimensions as shown in Figure 1 (Thomas & Schmidt, 1976) .

These dimensions are the degree of concern for self with noted attention on assertiveness and the

degree of concern for others with noted attention on cooperative ness .

Figure 1: Conflict Management Styles: A Framework.

Thus, high concern of self and others represents a collaborative style , which is seen as a superior

approach to handling conflicts because it promotes creative problem solving and both concerned

parties work together to achi eve mutually beneficial results (Wysocki , 2009 ). The consistent

application of the collaborative style increases the probability that win -win results will be

achieved for both involv ed parties. The PMBOK TM Guide suggests that project managers should

be proficient in “… managing conflicts in constructive manner, and encouraging collaborative

problem solving and decision -making ” (p. 229) and notes about conflict resolution: “If conflict High

High Low

Concern for Self (Assertiveness)

Concern for others (cooperativeness)

Accommodation /

Smoothing

Collaborative/

Confrontation/

Problem -solving

Compromise

Avoidance /

Withdrawing

Domination /

Repression Journal of International Technology and Information Management Volume 23, Numbers 3/4 2014

escalates, the project manager should help facilitate a satisfactory resolution. Conflict should be

addressed early and usually in private, using a direct, coll aborative approach ” (p. 239). It has

been suggested that when conflict is managed it could be constructive and potentially add value

(Tjosvold, 2008; Deutsch, 1994).

W e believe Goldratt’s evaporating cloud synthesizes the major contributions discussed above

and present it in the next section as a structured and systematic approach to addressing and

potentially solving project conflicts. Thus, the paper attempts to answer the research question :

Does the evaporating cloud provide IT project managers with an enabling mechanism to

represent a conflict and initiate the dialogue to uncover underlying assumptions and find

win/win solutions ?

THEORY OF CONSTRAINT S THINKING PROCESS ES

Since its inception in the late 1970s as a production floor scheduling software, theory of

constraints has evolved into an overall management philosophy of constructing and

communicating practical solutions to the business problems . During the past decade, TOC -based

project management, explained in a business novel Critical Chain (Goldratt, 1997) , has received

considerable attention in scientific journals such as Project Management Journal (e.g., Worley ,

2005 ) and International Journal of Project Management (Elmaghraby , Herroelen, & Leus , 2003)

as well as various public and private organizations such as Boeing, Delta Airline, Hami lton

Beach, Lucent, Medtronic, NASA, the US Air Force and the US Navy (www.realization.com ;

www.tocinternation.com ). TOC -based project management concepts and principles ha ve been

explained in several books such as Newbold (1998 ), Leach (1999 ), and Hu tchin (2001 ) and

critically reviewed with results and practical implications documented in scientific journal

articles s such as Herroelen , Leus, and Demeulemeester ( 2002 ); Raz (2003 ); Trietsch (2005 ); and

Blackstone , Cox, and Schleier (2009 ). With respect to evaporating clouds, recently significant

contributions have been reported in the TOC conferences (e.g., TOCICO , 2013) and specialized

books ( e.g., Fedurko, 2011, 2013 ) to improve the tool’s effectiveness and efficiency .

Although t he reasons why projects fail are well -documented in the traditional project

management literature (Pinto & Mantel, 1990; Singh & Johnson, 1998; Matta & Ashkenas,

2003) , TOC -based PM proposed that a successful PM methodology should identify and address

core problem(s) - the root cause (s) of many problems (or sympt oms or undesirable effects).

Goldratt (1994) developed and Dettmer (20 03) further refined a set of cause -effect -cause logic -

based tools , formally known as the thinking processes (current reality tree, evaporating cloud,

future reality tree, prerequisite tree and transition tree). Although t he se five thinking process

tools can be used in conjunction to so lve organizational problems, each tool can also be used on

its own to solve certain aspects of a complex problem. The evaporating cloud is especially useful

for solving conflict on multiple level s and Goldratt (1994) illustrated its usefulness in resolving a

variety of inter -organizational , intra -organizational , inter -personal, and intra -personal conflicts.

THE EVAPORATING CLOUD

The Evaporating C loud is a structured and comprehensive approach to identifying and presenting

various elements of a conflict situation, identifying underlying assumptions that cause the

conflict to continue to exist, and developing injections that can invalidate one or more of the Conflict Resolution Tool for Project Managers: Evaporating Cloud M. C. Gupta & S. A. Kerrick

assumptions (Dettmer , 2003 ; Gupta et al ., 2011 ). It has been argued that a conflict can be defined

more clearly and completely by verbalizing and annotating the conflicting actions or decisions a

project manager feels he needs to make, the specific needs these differing actions are attempting

to fulfill, and the common goal these needs are attempting to satisfy (B arnard , 2007). As

suggested by Barnard (2007), Figure 2 lists a set of questions that a manager might find helpful

in identifying all five elements of a conflict.

Figure 2: Five entities evaporating cloud structure.

The evaporating cloud is composed of five structured entities . M ost problems faced by managers

can be viewed as conflicts, either between two parties (people or departments) or, frequently and

importantly , internal conflicts experienced by the project manager (or any staff member of an

organization) . What one party in the conflict wants is entity D and what the other party wants is

entity D ’. These two entities must be in conflict either because they are mutually exclusive or

due to resource contention, that is to say, the organization cannot afford to do both. The structure

of a cloud shows that each party’s want is necessary in order to satisfy a specific need denoted by

entities B and C. In addition, bot h needs must be met in order to achieve the parties’ common

goal, denoted by entity A. In other words, these two needs are necessary conditions for

accomplishing the common objective. In order to demonstrate the versatility of this tool, we

proffer a simpl e example of a day -to-day conflict to which project managers can relate and a

real -world complex application to impress its usefulness using a webapp .

A day -to-day conflict example : One of the most common problem s encountered especially in a

multi -project environment is regarding late delivery dates. A conflict pertaining to task time

estimates can be seen playing out at various levels. For example, when managers ask for input on

task times, functional managers or staff members want (or may feel pressure t o) include

contingency in the estimates to compensate for uncertainty in task performance. In a competitive

environment and in situations where projects are always running late, there is also pressure to

complete a project as soon as possible and project m anagers want to reduce these time estimates

and ask to use high -probability task estimates. It is common for senior management to expect

staff to establish “stretch goals” and achieve low -probability task estimates . B D

GOAL : I/We want …

Q5: What is the

common objective for

which B & C are needed?

NEED : I/We must …

Q3 :What need of the system

will the action in D satisfy ?

What need will be jeopardized

by D’?

NEED : I/We must …

Q4: What need of the system

will the action in D’ satisfy?

What need will be jeopardized

by D?

My (Our) Side

Other Party's Side

ACTION/WANT

I/We feel pressure to …

Q1: What action / decision do you

currently feel pressure to take to

deal with the problem?

OPPOSITE ACTION/WANT

I/We also feel pressure to …

Q2: What opposite action / decision

do you also feel pressure to take? Journal of International Technology and Information Management Volume 23, Numbers 3/4 2014

Identify and display the elements of a conflict : A cloud can be initiated by either party. We note

that entities B and D represent one side (e.g., “initiator’s side ”) of a conflict while entities C and

D’ represent the “other party’s side .” Although anyone can use the EC to resolve an inter - or

intra -personal conflict, we will explain the tool from an initiator’s perspective (i.e., the

perspective of someone who is directly involved in the conflict and willing to initiate the process

of resolving the conflict [e.g., the project manager ]).

Follo wing the series of questions presented in Figure 3, a cloud shown in Figure 3 can be created

from the project manager’s point of view. We see from entities D and D’ that the project

manager wants staff -members to “ not include conti ngencies in project task estimates” and, on the

other hand, he believes that staff -member s feel pressure to “include contingencies in project task

times.” Thus, the manager has clearly stated the opposite actions the two sides feel pressure to

take. Through furthe r questioning and analysis (as suggested in Figure 3), the manager seeks to

understand the needs that each party is attempting to meet (entities B and C) by taking the

actions D and D’. Figure 3 reflects an example of the two parties’ needs in the top and bottom of

the figure. It is worth pointing out that in a good quality cloud , entity D should endanger entity

C, and entity D’ should endanger entity B. For example, a staff -member feels that not including

contingencies would endanger his need to ensure del ivery commitments. Lastly, we note that

there is one common objective stated in entity A that requires both needs be met. In this case,

each party’s goal is to “have on -time project completions.”

Figure 3: An example of an IT management cloud.

Communicat e a cloud : The cloud is read from left to right, starting with the objective in entity A.

The initiator should read the other party’s side first and then, his or her side. The bottom side will

read as:

In order for the company to [‘have on -time project completions ’], the staff -member must (or feel

pressure to) [‘ensure delivery commitments are kept ’], and in order to [ ‘ensure delivery commitments

are kept’ ], the staff member must (or feel pressure to) [‘include contingencies in project task times ’].

Conflict Resolution Tool for Project Managers: Evaporating Cloud M. C. Gupta & S. A. Kerrick

The top of the cloud is read the same way. However, the conflict arrow (D and D’) is read as:

On one hand, the project manager feels pressure to [ not include contingencies in project task time ’].

On the other hand, the staff member feels pressure to [‘include contingencies in project task times ’].

Thus, we note that the initiator, the manager, by reading the staff member’s side first,

acknowledges the staff member’s action and even attempts to understand the need behind his

action. By reading his si de, the project manager is stating the action he wants to take and clearly

states the need he feels is important to fulfill. Finally, he also states the conflict between the two

actions.

Identify assumptions : Underlying each arrow in the EC is one or more assumptions explaining

the conditions under which the relationship between two entities in the cloud is valid. For

example, assumptions underlying arrow C -D’ in Figure 3 explain why D’ is a necessary

condition in order for the need C to be met. In the event that a necessary assumption under arrow

C-D’ can be rendered invalid, D’ will no longer be a necessary condition for achieving need C.

In general, a ssumptions are statements about reality that are accepted a s true even if the

statement is untested. One way to invalidate an assumption is thus to provide evidence that the

assumption is not valid, that is, that the entity at the base of the arrow is not actually necessary in

order to have the entity at the head of the arrow. When the assumption is valid, another approach

is to come up with an action or change in conditions ( called injection) that will make the

assumption invalid. Once the necessary condition relationship between entities is broken, the

cloud “eva porates.”

To identify assumptions underlying the arrow (say, between entities C and D ’), we read the

arrow as “ In order to [ C], the project manager must [D ’], BECAUSE … ” The sentence

following “BECAUSE” is an assumption. For example, in our example cloud in Figure 3, we

may surface the assumption under C -D’ arrow by reading out loud the following:

In order to [‘ ensure delivery commitments are kept’ ], the staff member must (or feel pressure to)

[‘include contingencies in pr oject task times ’] BECAUSE

1. uncertainty surrounding task s can hurt my delivery commitment s

2. not completing the tasks as per estimates leave s bad impression s of my abilities

3. my performance is judged based on whether I finished my tasks on time

4. as soon as an estimate is given to the project manager, it is seen as a commitment

5. constantly juggling various tasks related to different projects makes it almost impossible to provide

exact task estimates

For the D -D’ arrow, we read “ On the one hand, we must have D. On the other hand we must

have D’. We can’t have both BECAUSE… ” However, the most powerful solution is found

between D and D’, but the assumptions here are probably also the most challenging to invalidate,

if it is possible. The relations between B and D and C and D ’ are usually the easiest place to

surface assumptions and develop injections. The end result of this process of analyzing the cloud

should be at least one feasible injection that invalidates an assumption and breaks an arrow

between any two ent ities in the cloud (Goldratt , 1990).

Find an Injection (a possible solution) : Theoretically speaking, e vaporating a cloud is

accomplished by examining the assumptions for any arrow and determining whether they are

invalid, or they can be made invalid by taking a simple action. In practice , a good place to start Journal of International Technology and Information Management Volume 23, Numbers 3/4 2014

evaporating the cloud is with the arrow of greatest concern to the initiator (i.e. , the connection

that the initiator would be most like ly to cha lle nge ). In the example above in Figure 3, the

solut ion required realizing that the current project task time estimation practices are setting up

the staff members to fail unless they pad their estimates. The desired action on the part of the

project manager could be to devis e a new way of evaluating delivery commitments of staff -

members for accomplishing their individual tasks.

A Real -world IT C ase Study using EC W eb app

In this section, we discuss one real -world application by employing a web -based interactive

application designed to complement and expand upon the existing knowledgebase

(www.evaporatingclouds.com) for novice users (Andersen, Gupta, & Gupta, 2012). We believe

that such a webapp can be customized and housed on a company’s Intranet along with a library

of clouds for employees to consul t/modify when they are faced with a conflict of their own . The

appendix shows a typical output (organized in three panels) that the EC web app will provide to

novice users as a pdf document. Following a cloud development process very similar to the one

exp lained in the previous section, the webapp allows the user to enter information concerning the

conflict in a step -by -step manner, providing opportunities to revisit input entered in previous

steps. The webapp also guides the user through the process of sur facing underlying assumptions

and generating possible solutions.

Panel A in the appendix shows the story line in sufficient detail highlight ing conflict the IT

manager for a Utility Company is facing in this case study . Panel B shows the final cloud

developed to the satisfaction of the user after an iterative process , and Panel C shows a set of

assumptions and possible solutions generated. With respect to this specific IT case study, after

the cloud was developed (Panel A ), assumptions were surfaced (Panel C) and subsequently

challenged; the IT manager arrived at a couple of possible injections challenging assumptions 4

and 5 under arrow B -D. The IT manager was able to find contingency funds ($25,000) and

concluded that pr oject could be implemented in phases including delays not exceeding 45 days.

We also point out that TOC proponents may argue that a better injection is possible i.e., use this

opportunity to introduce TOC -based project management technique, Critical Chain , to manage

this mobile app development project and other projects to ensure on time and within budget and

revised scope . However, the timeline of this decision and the limited knowledge about TOC and

its tools and techniques precluded the decision -makers f rom adopting (or even considering) this

option. Organizing a few workshops on such topics remains a viable option in the near future.

Our major purpose of sharing this case study was to demonstrate that such an app can serve as an

enabling tool, especially when the parties to a conflict may be residing in countries located at

different parts of the globe which is increasingly a fact in more and more IT implementations

such as ERP systems.

DISCUSSION

IT project management has become a significant and necessary development to help technology

professionals achieve goals ; however with any project there is always conflict . Formal project

plan s generally focus energy on mechanical aspect s (tools and techniques, methodology, etc.) of

managi ng projects. However, the behavioral and cultural aspects of managing IT projects are the Conflict Resolution Tool for Project Managers: Evaporating Cloud M. C. Gupta & S. A. Kerrick

main sources of conflicts that require a paradigm shift . We believe training all stakeholders to

employ the EC tool as a way of communicating and resolving their view points is a potential

preventive way of minimizing the escalation of conflicts to higher levels thus requiring an

optimal solution approach.

In this section, we discuss how the EC tool complements the existing approaches, namely,

conflict management styles grounded in the works of founding originator s (e.g., Folle tt, Thomas ,

& Kilman n) and “principled negotiation” methods (Fisher , Ury, & Patton , 1982 ). As discussed

earlier, there are five conflict management styles (s ee Figure 1 ) that managers employ from time

to time to resolve conflict s depending upon the situation. E xperts agree that collaborati ve style is

probably the most preferred approach to resolve a conflict but it is perceived to be time

consuming and difficult to employ . As shown in the above example, the structure of the cloud

and the process of building and evaporating a cloud lead to collaborating style s of resolving

conflicts. In the example discussed earlier in Figure 3, the staff member giving in and letting the

project manager reduce the task time estimates by taking the contingencies out (entity D in

Figure 3) serves as an example of obliging style by possibly alerting the project manager to the

subsequent delays in meeting the delivery commitments. Alternatively, the project manager

might employ a dominating style and impose his decision (i.e., reduce the task times [entity D ]),

possibly without understanding and explaining the need behind his decision. This style

completely refuses to acknowledge the want s and need s of the staff member (entities C and D’ in

Figure 3 ). The staff member may avoid the issue by simply following the project manager’s

order. In avoiding style , the staff member has a sense of what he wants (entity D’) but he does

not attempt to identify the other entities of the cloud. In compromising style , the staff member

and project manager acknowledge each other’s wants and it is also possible that the real needs of

both parties are understood. A compromise solution requires each party to ‘give and take’ a bit

on each other’s wants but may have a negative effect on their respective needs. In the

collaborative style , both parties’ needs (entities B and D) are satisfied. Bo th parties’ needs are

acknowledged and a common objective is clear. The project manager understand s and

acknowledges the valid assumption the staff member is making and works out a possible

injectio n i.e., not evaluating the performance delivery commitment based on individual tasks of

the project. Such a solution, in general, leaves a good impression (e.g., of being a good player on

the other party ). Lastly, the project manager developing and discuss ing the complete cloud with

the staff member represents a problem solving style , where both parties proactively surface the

assumptions together and come up with an injection that invalidates an assumption and find s a

solution.

In their classic text, Getting to Yes , Fisher , Ury , and Patton (1982 ) advocated four fundamental

principles of negotiation , and as seen in the example above, Goldratt’s EC tool seems to build

naturally on these principles. First, t he EC cloud diagram uses a visual representation of the

conflict in the form of five boxes labeled A, B, C, D, and D’ (see Figure 3 ) connected with

arrows , which allow both parties, the project manager and staff member, to focus on the visual

instead of each other and thus effectively separate people from the problem . Second, the EC

diagram requires that both part ies’ interest s (needs) be identified and explicitly stated in boxes B

and C, and stated positions (wants) be presented in Boxes D and D’ . Thus, each party is more

easily reminded to focus on a chieving its interests rather than arguing over its stated position .’

Third, the EC encourages both parties to think about alternative means of achiev ing what each

party really needs (stated in boxes B and C) rather than what the parties say they want (stated in Journal of International Technology and Information Management Volume 23, Numbers 3/4 2014

boxes D and D’). Importantly, it provides opportunities to identify the assumptions underlying

the arrows of the cloud. Since there are five ar rows in a cloud, with several assumptions possible

behind each arrow, the cloud provides a structured approach to generate a variety of

possibilities .’ Lastly, the strength of the EC for project managers is its helpfulness in identifying

both parties ’ inte rest s and then, agreeing on a common objective , which requires fulfillment of

both parties’ interests and not necessarily their positions.

Finally, we conclude with an important observation regarding intra -personal conflicts , which

stakeholders might face. We can make a slight modification to the above example and create a

situation where by a team member is asked to provide an estimate on his task time. We note that

the team member might find himself captured in a conflict: pressure to give a shorter e stimate

(ensuring efficiency , i.e., get the task done quickly) and pressure to pad the estimate (ensuring

confidence , i.e., it will be done on time). Similarly, many other important and common day -to-

day conflicts that team members face in a typical IT env ironment can be identified (see Figure

4).

Figure 4: Examples of IT Project Management related conflicts.

Although it is not clear how the above -mentioned conflict management styles or principled

negotiation steps can be applied to intra -personal conflict, the EC tool can very easily be

employed to develop a cloud by team members as well as any other stakeholders in order to find

a viable solution by surfacing and invalidating an assumption or develop ing a simple in jection.

CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS

In this paper, project managers and other stakeholders are introduced to the evaporating cloud a s

an enabling tool to (i) present all elements of a conflict situation (i.e., the goal, the two needs and

the two conflicting wants) , and (ii) resolve the conflict collaboratively by surfacing the

underlying assumption(s) and by either invalidating the assumption(s) or creating injection(s) to

address valid assumption(s). We demonstrated that the EC builds on the well -known conflict

resolution approaches (e.g., conflict management styles and principled negotiation methods)

project managers have used in practice. D

ACTION/WANT

I/We feel pressure to …

Accept new tasks

OPPOSITE ACTION/WANT

I/We also feel pressure to …

Not to accept new tasks(i.e.,

complete committed work)

ACTION/WANT

I/We feel pressure to …

Turn in work on

my task early

OPPOSITE ACTION/WANT

I/We also feel pressure to …

Not to turn in work on

my task early

ACTION/WANT

I/We feel pressure to …

Pad my task estimate

OPPOSITE ACTION/WANT

I/We also feel pressure to …

Not to pad my task estimate Conflict Resolution Tool for Project Managers: Evaporating Cloud M. C. Gupta & S. A. Kerrick

The primary focus of this paper has been on using the EC to comm unicate effectively, and

resolve day -to-day conflicts managers face in a non -confrontational and speed y manner. We

point out that the art of developing and resolving clouds requires practice and recently, efforts

have been made to further simplify the proc ess of developing clouds, surfacing the assumptions

and finding powerful injections (Barnard, 201 3; Fedurko, 2013). We believe that such research

will be useful in addressing undesirable effects related to the behavioral and cultural aspects of

managing pr ojects and further enable successful implementation of CCPM methodology in near

future .

We are aware of few organizations where higher -level management discuss es their difference of

opinions using th e clouds . We envision its inclusion in IT management practices as a viable

conflict management tool. Towards this goal, we believe that more empirical research needs to

be done. Empirical evidence of the effectiveness of the EC will provide project managers the

necessary motivation to train all stakeholders in the use of the EC for resolving conflict at the

workplace. Such research efforts are underway and we hope to share preliminary results in the

near future. Last but not least, we believe that the webapp discussed earlier and when made

available on compan y’s Intranet along with a library of clouds has potentials to address conflicts

faced by team members working together on IT implementations from all over the world.

REFERENCES

Andersen, S., Gupta, M. C., & Gupta, A. M. (2012 ). A managerial decision -making web app:

Goldratt’s evaporating cloud. International Journal of Production Research , 51 (8),

2505 –2517.

Barnard, A. (2007). Goldratt’s Theory of Constraints Odyssey Program . Goldratt Group.

Louisville, Ky.

Barnard, A. (2013). Solving that problem . Goldratt Research Labs, July 2013.

Blackstone, J. H., Jr, Cox, J. F., III, & Schleier, J. G., Jr. (2009). A tutorial on project

management from a theory of constraints perspective. International Journal of

Production Research , 47 (24) , 7029 –7046.

Blake, R. R., Shepard, H. A., & Mouton, J. S. (1964). Managing intergroup conflict in industry .

Houston, TX: Gulf Publishing Company.

Burke, K. (1969). A grammar of motives . University of California Press.

Dettmer, H. W. (2003). Strategic navigation: A systems approach to business strategy .

Milwaukee, WI: ASQ Quality Press.

Deutsch, M. (1994). Constructive conflict resolution: principles, training and research. Journal

of Social Issues, 50 (1), 13 -32.

Elma ghraby, S. E., Herroelen, W. S., & Leus, R. (2003). Note on the paper ‘Resource -

constrained project management using enhanced theory of constraint’ by Wei et al.

International Journal of Project Management , 21 (4), 301 –305. Journal of International Technology and Information Management Volume 23, Numbers 3/4 2014

Fedurko, J. (2011). Behind the cloud: Enhancing logical thinking [TO C Reader]. Retrieved from

http://www.toc -goldratt.com/product/Behind -the -Cloud

Fedurko, J. (2013). Through clouds to solutions: Working with UDEs and UDE clouds [TOC

Reader] . Retrieved from https://www.toc -goldratt.com/product/Through -Clouds -to-

Solutions

Fisher, R., Ury, W. L., & Patton, B. (1982). Getting to yes: Negotiating agreement without

giving in . New York, NY: Penguin.

Follett, M. P. (1926). The giving of orders. In H. C. Medcalf (Ed.), Scientific Foundations of

Business Administration . Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins, Co.

Follett, M. P. (1926). The illusion of final authority. Bulletin of the Taylor Society , 11 (5), 244.

Goldratt, E. M. (1990). Theory of constraints . Croton -on -Hudson, NY: North River Press.

Goldratt, E. M. (1997). Critical chain . Great Barrington, MA: North River Press.

Goldratt, E. M. (1994). It's not luck. Great Barrington, MA: North River Press .

Gupta, M., Boyd, L., & Kuzmits, F. (2011). The evaporating cloud: A tool for resolving

workplace conflict. International Journal of Conflict Management , 22 (4), 394 –412.

Herroelen, W., Leus, R., & Demeulemeester, E. (2002). Critical chain project scheduling: Do not

over simplify. Project Management Journal , 33 (4), 46 –60.

Hutchin, T. (2001). Enterprise -focused management. London: Tho mas Telford Publishing.

Kerzner, H. R. (2006). Project management, a systems approach to planning, scheduling and

controlling. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley & Sons.

Leach, L. P. (1999). Critical chain project management . Boston, MA: Artech House.

Lipsky, D. B., & See ber, R. L. (2006). Managing organizational conflicts. In The Sage handbook

of conflict communication , 359 –390 . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Marchewka, J. T. (2010). A framework for identifying and understanding risks in information

technology projects. Journal of International Techno logy and Information Management ,

19 (1), 61 -74.

Matta, N. F., & Ashkenas, R. N. (2003). Why good projects fail anyway. Harvard Business

Review , 81 (9), 109 –116.

Nemeth, C. J., Personnaz, B., Personnaz, M., & Goncalo, J. A. (2004). The liberating role of

conflict in group creativity: A study in two countries. European Journal of Social

Psychology , 34 (4), 365 –374.

Newbold, R. C. (1998). Project management in the fast lane: Applying the theory of constraints.

Boca Raton, FL: The St. Lucie Press. Conflict Resolution Tool for Project Managers: Evaporating Cloud M. C. Gupta & S. A. Kerrick

Pinto, J. K., & Mantel, S. J. (1990). The causes of project failure. IEEE Transactions on

Engineering Management , 37 (4), 269 –275.

Rahim, M. A. (2002). Toward a theory of managing organizational conflict. International

Journal of Conflict Management , 13 (3), 206 –235.

Raz, T. (2003). A critical look at critical chain project management. Project Management

Journal , 34 (4), 24 –32.

Schmidt, W. H., & Tannenbaum, R. (1960). Management differences. Harvard Business Review ,

38 (6), 107 –115 .

Singh, A., & Johnson, H. (1998). Conflict management diagnosis at project management

organizations. Journal of Management in Engineering , 14 (5), 48 –63.

The Standish Group International . (1995). The C haos Report. Retrieved from

www.standishgroup.com/sample_research/pdfpages/Chaos1994.pdf

Thomas, K. W., & Kilmann, R. H. (1974). Thomas -Kilmann conflict mode instrument . Tuxedo,

NY: Xicom.

Thomas, K. W., & Schmidt, W. H. (1976). A survey of managerial interest with respect to

conflic t. Academy of Management Journal , 19 (2), 315 –318.

Tjosvold, D. (2008). The conflict -positive organization: It depends upon us. Journal of

Organizational Behavior , 29 (1), 19 –28.

TOCICO. (2013, June). Theory of Constraints International Certification Organiz ation

International Conference (11 th annual). Frankfurt, Germany.

Trietsch, D. (2005). Why a critical path by any other name would smell less sweet. Project

Management Journal , 36 (1), 27 –36.

Worley, T. L. (2005). Using constraint management to optimize motion picture production.

Project Management Journal , 36 (4), 44.

Wysocki, R. K. (2009). Effective project management: Traditional, agile, extreme . Indianapolis,

IN: Wiley Publishing.

Journal of International Technology and Information Management Volume 23, Numbers 3/4 2014

AP PENDIX

Panel A

Panel B

Panel C Copyright

ofJournal ofInternational Technology&Information Management isthe property

International InformationManagement Association(IIMA),Inc.anditscontent maynotbe

copied

oremailed tomultiple sitesorposted toalistserv without thecopyright holder's

express

writtenpermission. However,usersmayprint, download, oremail articles for

individual

use.