Development Arena in Project Management

Revision as of 11:01, 18 February 2022

Abstract

Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, actor-network theory (ANT) ^[1] was developed by the philosopher and anthropologist Bruno Latour, as an independent approach to the study of science, technology, and society. Since then, several different frameworks have been developed, based on Bruno Latour's actor-network theory, among these the development arena by Jørgensen and Sørensen 1999, which will be the focus area of this article.

The development arena is an analytical framework that can be used as a tool to understand and analyze processes in which companies and other actors try to influence and control technologies, products, and markets ^[2]. Under the auspices of project management, the framework is firstly a unique tool to map the complex network, that the project team enters when working on a new project. By analyzing the development arena and its four elements; concerns, elements, locations, and translations, the project team must strive to identify where change can be enabled and how a reconstruction across relationships in the network can be made possible in the arena in order to create the desired change for the project.

This article will provide an insight into what defines a development arena, what elements the arena consists of, and finally how this framework can be used as a tool within management and more specifically its relation to project, program, and portfolio management.

^{[3] [4] [5]}

Introduction

As mentioned earlier, the concept of Develop Arena takes its most important theoretical inspiration from Bruno Latour, Michel Callon and John Law’s community of ideas – especially Actor-network theory (Jørgensen, 2012). We know ANT as a theory that can be helpful in the description and understanding of complex, heterogeneous networks, in which both human and non-human actors are involved. These actors are described in the network through the relationships they are part of. Unlike actor-network theory, the concept of development arena focuses rather on how development and change can be created in the network by inviting new actors into the arena and thereby reconfiguring the network. It can be argued that the Arena concept is a response to a need for an improved theory that deals more with transition processes in project management (Jørgensen, 2012).

Another important difference between the two concepts is that the Arena concept adds a “spatial dimension” to the theory. This spatial dimension must be understood as a delimitation or division of the network - i.e., the network is divided into different spaces in which different actors interact (Jørgensen, 2012). We can now add another concept that better describes these boundaries and spaces in the network - namely "actor-worlds", developed by Callon in 1986. An actor-world is described by Jørgensen (2012), as; "An actor-world is developed around a certain set of situations and is thereby limited to what we here call a location in the space of a development arena." (Jørgensen, 2012). Therefore, the Development Arena and the actor-worlds are strongly connected since the actor-world defines and identify different actions that take place in the network.

Finally, it is important to point out that development arenas are constantly evolving and changing, due to the continuous development in society, which the term itself also insinuates;

“The word ‘arena’ comes from Arabic. It refers to sand both as the ground for activities and as the never settled character of this ground and its place - it is moving and the ground is thus eternally reshaped (Fink, 1996).”(Jørgensen, 2012) 

So even though the actual mapping of the arena is static when you make it, you must understand that it is still changing and therefore dynamic.

In the following section, the development arena, and the various parts it consists of will be described in more detail.

Development Arenas and actor worlds

A development arena is generally characterized by four different parts;

1. a number of elements such as actors, artefacts, and standards that populate the arena,
2. one or more concerns which are shared by the arena’s actors, and which relate to a common problematization.
3. a variety of locations for action, knowledge and visions that define the changes of this space, and
4. a set of translations that has shaped and played out the stabilization and destabilization of relations and artefacts. (Jørgensen & Sørensen, 1999)

Elements

First, the development arena, as in actor-network theory, consists of various elements. The elements must be understood as the actors and actants (both human and non-human) that populate the arena. The elements and their actions help to define the arena and are distributed between different worlds of actors (Callon, 1986). The actor worlds represent different fields of knowledge and disciplines based on the actors involved in them. We thus see that it is the actors and their actions that define an actor world. This means that the different actor worlds problematize in different ways and that these worlds have their own individual interests. The problematizations that abound in the different actor worlds are described as the individual concerns or interests of the worlds.

Concerns

Concerns are, as mentioned earlier, the different problematizations that exist in the different actor-worlds. In the previous section, we mentioned actor worlds, as spaces where certain actions and interactions take place. The actor worlds are each supported by different problematizations of their current situation and their individual vision for future development and solutions. Concerns are thus all the individual challenges that the worlds of actors face in order to achieve their goals. These concerns are not necessarily one that the different worlds of actors share with each other. In connection with the mapping of the arena, there is also the so-called 'shared area of concern', which is the overall concern that all actors work towards - but often in different ways. But this we will get deeper into later.

Locations

In the development arena, there is no specific location where the actors are - this varies from arena to arena. In fact, there can be many different places where the actions in the arena take place. These locations depend entirely on the actors involved in the arena (Jørgensen & Sørensen, 1999).

Translation

The concept of translation originates from Michel Serres, who defines translation as a form of mediation that creates a connection between two things or views that were previously different (Elgaard Jensen, 2003). In that sense, a translation process has helped to shape the existing network and at the same time destabilize the previous one. It is this understanding of the concept of translation that must be transferred to the arena of development. In connection with project management, we, as design engineers, have an important role in being a translator / spokesperson / system builder, whereby we can bring different actors together for a common goal.

Now, one might wonder how the development arena can be actively used in management projects and not just as an expanded stakeholder network that provides a better overview. This will be discussed in the next section.

Development arena as a project management tool

• How can it be used in a project?
• How can it be used as a project management tool/boundary object?
• Illustration of a model

Now we will discuss what our role as project managers is in the network and how we can use the development arena to actively create a desired change across the network.

A project often arises when a development project is generated internally in a company or a project team has received a task from an outside customer who wants to solve a problem they are facing. When a company creates a development project with an overall problematization, they simultaneously enter a development arena. The company has thereby, in the form of the project, created their own actor world, which, like the other actor worlds in the arena, works towards a specific concern. As Jørgensen & Sørensen also write so clearly in their text; "To manage innovation is to enter a development arena." (Jørgensen & Sørensen, 1999). When we as project managers or project teams take on a project, we want to lead innovation and development in a certain direction. However, this is easier said than done, because it requires that a lot of different nodes in the network are brought together and that the different stakeholders are interested in working towards a common concern. It is also important to point out that it is not necessarily certain that all the different stakeholders are equally interested in being part of the project. In such cases, the designteam must broaden their horizon and look at how to invite new and relevant actors into the arena.

Using the development arena and its four elements; concerns, elements, locations, and translations, the project team must strive to identify where change can be enabled and how a reconstruction across relationships in the network can be made possible in the arena in order to create the desired change for the project. And now is the question – how do we do that? This is where the strategy comes into the picture.

Casestory/Example

• How to understand the framework and how not to
• Challenges of using the method in practice

Conclusion

• Conlusion
• How does Development Arena relate to project, program and portfolio management?

References

1. ↑ Callon, M. (1986). Sociologi of an Actor-Network - Michel Callon.pdf.
2. ↑ Jørgensen, U., & Sørensen, O. H. (1999). Arenas of development - A space populated by actor-worlds, artefacts, and surprises. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 11(3), 409–429. https://doi.org/10.1080/095373299107438
3. ↑ Callon, M. (2017). Some elements of a sociology of translation: Domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of Saint-Brieuc Bay. Logos (Russian Federation), 27(2), 49–94. https://doi.org/10.22394/0869-5377-2017-2-49-9
4. ↑ Latour, B. (1990). Technology is Society Made Durable. In The Sociological Review (Vol. 38, Issue 1_suppl, pp. 103–131). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954x.1990.tb03350.x
5. ↑ Sovacool, B. K., & Hess, D. J. (2017). Ordering theories: Typologies and conceptual frameworks for sociotechnical change. Social Studies of Science, 47(5), 703–750. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312717709363