PHASE 2 – STORMING “IDENTIFICATION OF COMPLICATION AT SINGLE PROCESSES”

Following is the simplification of the storming phase of Tuckman:

        "In the sequence, the second point is actually specified by polarization and conflict around the interpersonal problems with associated emotional responses in the sphere of the task. These behaviors actually act a resistance to the influence of group and the requirements of tasks might be classified as storming" (Tuckman, 2001, p. 78).

        Team members, in this phase, seem to discuss their own certain objectives. Normally, such arguments end in struggles related to power, due to which tension is caused in the relations of members of a team. In this phase, however, first agreements are accomplished by individual members of the team. The team’s performance may not have begun yet as the team is undergoing orientation.

        In this guide's second step, managers have to confront complications in a way which is similar to the phase of storming where the given task is addressed by the team. Is there any complication in the running project? The established connection from this study shall be supporting managers in identifying the indicators for complications in their projects. First, managers analyze their projects using their own project range's internal categorization. Their project is ranked in accordance with its size. Observing the connection, they seem to get an indication where the actual issue is existing. In the first phase, an idea was gained by them concerning the possible enablers of complications. The project manager, with the present data regarding their project size's subjective categorization, is capable of categorizing the project. Generally, the enablers of complications are connected with the size of the project. The number of enablers for complications rises with the project size. With the available information of their subjective categorization of the project size and the clue of enablers for complication in the project, the project manager is able to categorize the project. Often the enablers of complication are linked to the project size. The amount of potential enablers for complication increases with the size of the project. With numerous enablers, complication seems to affect several processes within projects.

        It is important to always consider the possible enabler for complexity or complication if the complication is really impacted by them within projects. Moving on, processes must be analyzed if they are the cause of the complication.

        It is actually possible that complication in the future might be predicted by organizations. That is why it is more projectable to handle projects which are complicated.

        Relevant processes and identified enablers are analyzed effectively in the team of the project. From different perspectives, the complicated project is analyzed. Its understanding is underpinned by the common analyzing in the team of project and empowers the acceptance of actions which are derived and defined in the phase of norming.

        For this model, the standard of PMI is foundational; it is capable of being implemented to different standards as they are created also in individual levels of the process. The model can also be modified and implemented internationally with respect to the geographical area. Overall, managers are supported by the link and processes are indicated by it in PM which is influenced by the complication.

The gap for the identification of complication in projects must be closed with this connection inside the model of five-phase.

        After the implementation, the main causes of complication are understood by the manager of the project along with sensitive processes. The most authentic tools for handling the complication can be selected by him using a new model Managing Complication by PMI.