"One-Size-Fits-All" Doesn't Fit

 

It doesn't really matter if it's music, clothing or even religion, we can get exactly what we want without compromises—you can download the songs from your favorite album (excluding that one song you don't like), watch the television programs you like whenever you want to watch them and buy jeans made specifically for your personal style, size and body type. And, don't forget fantasy-league football, baseball and basketball teams with fan-picked rosters.

It would appear that the era of one-size-fits-all has come and gone.

Nowhere is this more true than in how we approach managing projects and other work. I attended a recent webinar hosted by Gartner Managing Vice President and Distinguished Analyst, Audrey Apfel, titled: Be Prepared for the Future of Program and Portfolio Management, in which Apfel argues that over the next few years organizations will invest 30% less time and money in what we would traditionally consider project management. This is not to say that project leaders won't have plenty to do, in fact, I think they will be busier than ever—they will just be busy doing different things.

Apfel suggests that there is a growing understanding that project management practices don't always work in the real world. The linear nature of projects doesn't always fit with the way work gets done. I must agree. It's no secret that most people don't exclusively work on projects—they also do a lot of other work unrelated to formalized project work.

Apfel describes how we approach four basic types of work, which resonate with my personal opinions:

1. Simple: This is what we would define as non-project work. For many people, this is where they spend the majority of their time. This type of work is often managed with simple "to do" lists or other tools. The simple nature of the work doesn't diminish the value of the work (or the need for visibility into the work), only the way in which it is managed.
2. Complicated: This is the work we would traditionally associate with projects. We can analyze cause and effect to create a reasonable plan to approach the work.
3. Complex: This work would be defined as program work. The work is different from project (or complicated) work because the only way to really understand the cause and effect relationship is through retrospective. And often, it's necessary to nudge the outcome to get the desired effect.
4. Chaotic: This is not the type of work most of us deal with on a regular basis from a project investment point of view. This work describes the work driven by the "squeaking wheel." We act because someone's told us to do so. I call this the "drive-by" work we all deal with on an unfortunately regular basis.

I don't think anything about the above is earth-shaking, but is the face of what we will more than likely be dealing with as the role of project leader evolves. With this in mind, one of the first questions we need to as is, "What is the type of work we're doing?" and "How can I produce value as quickly as possible?"

Over the coming weeks, we'll talk more about this "evolution" and what it means to us and our role as project leaders. Needless to say, I'd be interested to learn more about how your organizations are dealing with the death of a "one-size-fits-all" methodology.