2012.09.11-peter o'neill- six ways to sabotage effective project management

Warwick Business School 12 September, 2012

Warwick Business School

Assuming the Basics are in Place:

The organisation has a suitable and effective strategy in place

Projects are aligned with organisational strategy

Appropriate PM methodologies are in place for significant projects

12 September, 2012


Six Common Ways to Sabotage Success

1. Initiate and try to deliver more projects than can reasonably be resourced

2. Insist on single estimates of cost, benefit and schedule from day one

3. Resist attempts to freeze appropriate levels of scope definition as projects progress

4. Make it clear that risk management is solely the responsibility of the PM and project team

12 September, 2012


Six Common Ways to Sabotage Success (continued)

5. Demand simple measures of project progress as the main approach to monitoring and controlling

6. Ignore the importance and value of effective and rigorous post project appraisals

12 September, 2012


1. Initiate and try to deliver more projects than can reasonably be resourced (causes)

Invalid paradigms:

The more projects we do, the more will succeed

If a project has potential value, it should be done

Cancelling a project implies poor management

Methodology gaps:

Lack of business case (particularly benefit) rigour

Failure to include resource implications in cases

Lack of resource-based portfolio management

12 September, 2012


1. Initiate and try to deliver more projects than can reasonably be resourced (strategies)

Include requirements for resource estimation, and resource commitment in project approval processes

Review resource estimates and resource usage during key stages

Be prepared to delay or cancel projects if resource cannot be committed

Develop more flexible project (and operational) resourcing solutions

12 September, 2012


2. Insist on single estimates of cost, benefit and schedule from day one (causes)

Range estimates (“the project is likely to generate

between 5% and 15% more sales, beginning in either Q3 or Q4, at a cost of £2 million +/- 30%”) are inconvenient, difficult to compare and appear to reduce PM accountability

Management performance targets are much easier to present plans for using single estimates

12 September, 2012


2. Insist on single estimates of cost, benefit and schedule from day one (strategies)

Include evaluation of levels of project uncertainty in evaluating new projects (i.e. Obeng’s classification1 or Glenday’s sieve2)

Provide guidance on expected estimate ranges at project stages

Develop probability models to assist in portfolio management, PM accountability and management performance planning

12 September, 2012


3. Resist attempts to freeze appropriate levels of scope definition as projects progress (causes)

Progress and schedule confidence are more

intuitive and visible measures than scope clarity and confidence

Discipline and integration are lacking in stakeholder management

Scope control CAN reduce flexibility

Management and customers do not understand (or support) the need for change control

Impacts of poor control are not visible/measured 12 September, 2012


3. Resist attempts to freeze appropriate levels of scope definition as projects progress (strategies)

Provide guidance on expected (and incremental) scope freeze points at project stages

Ensure communication and negotiation of scope decisions across key stakeholders

Require appropriate (and incremental) change control processes within project stages

Visibly review – and be prepared to deliver consequences for – late scope changes

12 September, 2012


4. Make clear that risk management is solely the responsibility of the PM/project team (causes)

Escalation of decisions on risks to more senior

or functional management is seen as ‘passing the buck’ or lack of PM competence

Functional staff (or suppliers / consultants) can be resistant to providing clear information or recommendations that may question project viability

Functional staff (or suppliers / consultants) may not be comfortable with decision uncertainty

12 September, 2012


4. Make clear that risk management is solely the responsibility of the PM/project team (strategies)

Acknowledge the presence of significant or emerging uncertainty in many projects and reward transparent integrated discussion

Build escalation levels into risk classification tools (i.e. Probability / Impact grids)

Provide clear guidance on the processes to follow when risk information is required from outside the ‘project team’.

12 September, 2012


5.Demand simple measures of project progress as the approach to monitoring/controlling (causes)

‘% Complete’ is simple to understand (?)

Typically, PM software uses simple measures

Simple measures appear to provide consistent comparisons between project performance

The negative impacts of such measures are rarely clearly visible

More complex measurement often generates reporting which acknowledges uncertainty

12 September, 2012


5.Demand simple measures of project progress as the approach to monitoring/controlling (strategies)

Provide clear and consistent guidance on how measures such as ‘% complete’ should be derived

Use Earned Value (where appropriate) to separate schedule from cost impacts

Concentrate progress reporting on the probability and requirements of meeting agreed scope & benefits as well as time & cost

12 September, 2012


6. Ignore the importance and value of effective and rigorous post project appraisals (causes)

Making progress on existing projects is seen as

far more valuable than reviewing old ones

Resource pressure prevents availability of staff time for activities that are not ‘urgent’

The value of estimate vs actual data, identifying and sharing best practice / poor performance factors isn’t understood or appreciated

Reviews tend to be a search for who to blame

12 September, 2012


6. Ignore the importance and value of effective and rigorous post project appraisals (strategies)

Sample some finished key projects to identify the size of the potential rewards for effective appraisals

Visit ‘good practice’ organisations to understand the value and usage of data and learnings

Require the dates and resources for TWO post project appraisals (PPA1 & PPA2) to be agreed as part of execution closeout approvals

12 September, 2012


References

1. Obeng, Eddie. All Change! The Project Leader's Secret Handbook (1995) Financial Times Pearson Publishing

2. Glenday, Ian. Breaking Through to Flow: Banish Fire Fighting and Produce to Customer Demand (2005) Lean Enterprise Academy Ltd

12 September, 2012