Project Management

Built-In Engagement

From the Game Theory in Management Blog
by
Modelling Business Decisions and their Consequences

About this Blog

RSS

Recent Posts

George Jetson, Bring Me A Rock!

How To Obstruct A PMO

Rage, Rage Against The Dying Of The Project

Think You Have A Culture Problem? Think Again.

Finally! A GAAP Concept PMs Can Get Behind!

Categories

Game Theory, PMO, Politics, Risk Management, Strategic Management

Date

linkedin twitter facebook Request to reuse this  


My oldest son graduated from a prestigious law school and works as a trial attorney. During a recent visit home he and his fiancé disagreed about the hair color of the opposing council at a trial she had seen. After hearing them go back and forth a couple of times, I interjected.
“Objection! Evidence not corroborated by the witness!”
“That’s gibberish” my son replied.
“Not according to the law shows I’ve seen.” 
“How would you like it if I were to just place near-random project management terms together as some sort of assertion?”
“Sadly, it would be nearly indistinguishable from much of what passes for legitimate PM writing” was my reply. And, in an instant, I knew what I wanted to blog about this week.

Valid theories in science – even management science – do not need catchy but inchoate phrases to gain acceptance. Light travels at 186,000 miles per second. This hypothesis turned theory when it was supported by experimental evidence. But consider some of the things we, as PM practitioners, accept as axiomatic, but haven’t been supported by anything but the most subjective and anecdotal of evidence.

For example, a comment on one of my blogs was “Quality needs to be buil(t) in, not controlled and managed in.” The commentrr, I’m sure, didn’t come up with this on his own – it had surely been repeated multiple times in classrooms, professional society chapter meetings, or in his workplace. But I don’t even know what that means. When creating products or providing services, if you have a good design/technical approach, use the appropriate tools, materials, and methodologies, and employ people with the appropriate level of expertise, barring human error a quality product or service will be delivered. The distinction between building, controlling, or managing “in” is fairly amorphous, rendering the distinction functionally irrelevant. And yet we, as a PM community, are somehow expected to accept this saying uncritically. I think the true nature of the assertion that “quality needs to be built in, not controlled and managed in” could be articulated as “hire more quality engineers, and pay them better, or else you will be made to look stupid for not knowing the difference between ‘built-in,’ ‘controlled-in,’ and ‘managed-in.’” (Actually, it might be kind of fun to isolate a dozen or so Quality Engineers, and have them define “built-in,” “controlled-in,” and “managed-in” in sufficient detail as to be able to differentiate any quality initiative as belonging to just one category, and then compare their answers.)

Another commonly-accepted idea is that all project managers must “engage stakeholders.” I think this term was created to be deliberately vague, in order to push the poorly-articulated theories of the communications experts (how ironic is that?). Take the first part of the term, the word “engage.” According to dictionary.com, this term can have polar opposite meanings, ranging from “to attract or please” (#4) to “enter into conflict with” (#7)i.   

The definition of “stakeholder” isn’t much more precise. According to BusinessDictionary.com, the definition is “A person, group or organization that has interest or concern in an organization.”ii  By this definition, the Washington Redskins are stakeholders of the Dallas Cowboys (which pretty much necessitates “engage” definition #7 to be used).

So, just to be clear, a term that can have as wildly differing meanings as “attract or please your employees” to “enter into conflict with your enemies” has no practical meaning at all on its face. And  yet, to “engage stakeholders” has become so uncritically accepted in modern PM circles that to even challenge it is to risk being permanently identified as hopelessly backwards in the management sciences. Does that seem right?

Now, excuse me as I prepare to “control-in” my “engagement” of the “stakeholders” who leave comments in the comment section…


  i Definition of “Engage,” retrieved from Dictionary.com, http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/engage, August 23, 2015, 11:38 MDT.
 ii  Definition of “Stakeholder,” retrieved from BusinessDictionary.com, http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/stakeholder.html, August 23, 2015, 11:43 MDT.

 


Posted on: August 24, 2015 11:03 PM | Permalink

Comments (3)

Please login or join to subscribe to this item
avatar
Mathew Irwin IT Project Manager| Black Hills Corporation Rapid City, Sd, United States
Definitions are indeed important! Sometimes we just do not stop to use correct english to make the statements and thesis accurate.

avatar
Michael Adams Solutions Architect| LANL Los Alamos, Nm, United States
Michael, thanks! :-)
I think the problem is that people write about project management or business from the context of connotation, rather than relying on the literal meaning of a word.

This, I think, gives rise to quality being "built-in" rather than "managed-in." It is the sort of thing that really drives me nuts (ask my wife), and thankfully as an IT PM, I don't have to work with it too much. But my suspicion about quality being "built-in" is that when people say this, they mean that quality ought to be part of the planning and implementation of a project, rather than an afterthought or solution to a break-down (which I guess would be when it is "managed-in").

The definition of stake-holders has always been troubling to me. The PMBOK uses that definition and of course, engaging stakeholders will mean something different depending on the audience, their concerns, their influence, etc...

I hadn't thought of the meaning for engage, but you're right. Depending on the PM, the stakeholders, the circumstances, and the available weaponry, engage could evoke drastically different meanings.

avatar
Manas De Amin Director| Computer Technology Group Kolkata Kolkata, West Bengal, India
Michael, I believe you have written it in a light tone. As a School boy when I first learned Geometry, I asked why an axiom is an axiom and why we use it as a proof? I got an answer, "An axiom is an axiom because it is an axiom". Yes, we should ask for evidence and quality of evidence as well. I believe you son also does that in a court room as an Attorney. However, I believe communication has lot to do with context, culture, practice and other local factors. When an Army commander sees enemies and orders his/her troops, "Engage them"; the troop opens fire. Similarly, if a PM is told about some reluctant stakeholder and asks team,"Engage him/her"....team members won't open fire within or outside the office premise.

Please Login/Register to leave a comment.

ADVERTISEMENTS

"Failure is unimportant. It takes courage to make a fool of yourself."

- Charlie Chaplin

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsors