Why was the project manager fired..?

My first thought is that any project that maintains a green status throughout either has so much slack in the plan it could never fail or someones been a little creative with the reporting. If project 1 could stay green all the way through then the timeline should have been shorter to stretch the team a bit more and try to deliver earlier.

Project 2 has clearly had some issues but these have been dealt with and the costs have been kept under control. if they were bothe delivering the same then project 2 actually delivered 15 days quicker than project one even if it was 10 days behind its original plan

Posted: Dec 5, 2011 5:48 AM

I believe we should first clarify what 'better manage' means. Then we should also look at other factors and assumptions set on these two projects before we can say anything. Just by looking at the gantt chart alone can't tell much.

Posted: Dec 5, 2011 6:54 AM

Richard - excellent assessment. Your perspective that a project that maintains a green status throughout might be an indication of too much slack or creative reporting is a key point (in this example all of the reporting data for both projects is bona fide). You also spotted that despite project issues, project 2 not only completed within costs but also 15 workdays (21 calendar days) earlier than project 1. Richard, the executive has just given you a pay raise and promoted you to fill the open PMO Director position. The full answer to the above problem will be posted in a few days. Thanks for playing.

Posted: Dec 5, 2011 9:34 AM

thank you, I could do with a newposition, my current contract finishes on 23rd December lol

Posted: Dec 5, 2011 9:48 AM

Wai Mun, excellent observation. What does "better managed" mean? And, wouldn''t it be great if all of the executive dashboards that we give our executives ten minutes to look at during a staff meeting were actually good dashboards..! This project dashboard is hardly perfect, nonetheless it is very representrative of what many executive are given. Not surprising, stats from hundreds of attendees of workshops that I have given in which this very exercise is done shows that well over half of the PMOs provide dashboards very similar to the one in this very exercise. In fact, at the Singapore workshop last year, it was more than half..!




Now Wai Mun, the executive wanted to fire you, but I talked him out of it and explained to him that you are a superstar and that we can't fire superstars! But since you brought up the excellent observation about what does better managed mean, can you tell us what does "better managed" mean to you... and based upon what better managed means to you, which project was better managed? Thanks so much for playing. The full answer to the above problem will be posted in a few days.

Posted: Dec 5, 2011 9:52 AM

Well Mark, knowing how you like tricks and riddles and having the benefit of Richard's answer (which earned him a pay raise and promotion) and Wai Mun's refusal to answer on grounds that there is not enough context (which you also seemed to liked), I am going to take a different approach. Here are my answers.


1. Which project was better managed? Can't tell, could be either.


2. Was the executive justifed in firing the eager and overconfident project manager? Well, maybe not firing the PM, but on account of my answer to question 1, the PM answered incorrectly and that was why he was fired.


3. What does this say about the use and value of the Project Management Triangle? It is a technique to use, but not mis-use.


Posted: Dec 5, 2011 10:10 AM

Anne, excellent...! You too have earned a pay raise and promotion..! Would you be surpised if I told you that in dozens of workshops conducted to date with, collectively, several hundred project management and PMO professionals, there has been a widespread majority sentiment that the first project in the above example was the "better managed" project on account of having nothing but "green" in all of those status indicator columns..? Thanks so much for playing. The full answer will be provided in a few days.

Posted: Dec 5, 2011 12:24 PM

Rich, awesome insights..! Product of the project "Business Value" - would not this be great to also see in the context of a PMO project dashboard? And you are spot on - the iron triangle does not really emphasize this. Purists might argue that the "scope" element provides for what will become business value, but pragmatists will point out that, in practice, usually the scope element is concerning itself with the delivery of project scope and not really (or directly) the delivery of product of the project benefits or business value.

And yes, hitting every task (plan = actual) is either miraculous or an example of sandbagging or it could be something else perhaps. So interesting to see how people react to the project with the "all green" status indicators. Most PM folks have been conditioned to assume that all green is better, no matter what. Show the same two projects to a group of Agile ScrumMasters and you will likely get a much different perspective.

Great answers. The boss just gave you a big pay raise and skip-level promotion to Head of Strategy and Organizational Transformation..! Thanks so much for playing. The full answer will be provided in a few days.

Posted: Dec 5, 2011 3:12 PM

Okay, I''ll play.

Question 1: Which project was better managed? Answer - can''t tell. If time to market is important, then the 2nd project. If absolute fail-safe task end dates, then the first project.

Question 2: Why did the executive fire the PM? Answer - the PM did not demonstrate an understanding of the business context of the projects, rather just assumed that all green status indicators must mean that the project was better managed.

Question 3: What does this say about the PM triangle? Answer - a fool with a tool is still a fool.

Interesting topic, I look forward to the answer.

Posted: Dec 5, 2011 7:31 PM

Scott, well played! Turns out, one can deduce quite a bit afterall and you are spot on with all of your answers. In a few days, the answer to this little exercise will be given. In the meantime, you have been given a handsome pay raise and the big corner office.

Posted: Dec 6, 2011 11:43 AM

I can say from my 13 years of Project Management experience that Project # 1 looks unreal OR the Project plan had enough of buffers in terms of resources and time.

Posted: Dec 6, 2011 2:38 PM

Spreji, excellent observation! Interesting how experienced PMs like you are quick to point out that the first project is more likely to be unreal or padded with buffers as opposed to having the mindset that the project with all of the "green" status indicators was (without debate) the better managed project between the two. You are spot on. Thanks for playing..!

Posted: Dec 6, 2011 2:55 PM

I agree that project #1 likely has less than ideal planning as it finished all green and on time. We really need to understand the context of the projects. If the goal of both projects was to complete the effort in the shortest time possible, then the PM of Project #1 didn't push the resources hard enough to meet this business goal (the time component of your iron triangle). Both projects have every task exceeding 10 business days and this tells me that something is fishy about the planning, or the work effort estimates. I believe there is slack in both projects but we'll never know as the tasks are too long to control effectively.
I'm also curious about the business value and if the the projects have equal business value, then project #2 was delivered 21 days sooner and this could translate into high financial value.
Obviously the executive knows more that we do about the projects and may be justified in firing PM #1 for his comments. If so, it's a failure of management for letting this happen.


Posted: Dec 6, 2011 4:01 PM

Bob, excellent comments - spot on...! The business context (including business value of the product of the project) are indeed paramount. Thanks for playing.

Posted: Dec 6, 2011 7:11 PM

I think that the project that is green all the way was not scheduled aggressively enough, so it did not take much effort on the part of the PM.

The PM was fired because he answered with what he thought the Exec wanted to hear instead of offering a comprehensive response, which probably would have included a request for more details.

The bottom line is the bottom line of the triangle. If both projects were on the money, they were both successful; project #1 likely could have been on the money faster. Time = money; faster = mo'' money. Better PM may have gotten #1 done ahead of schedule.

Posted: Dec 6, 2011 9:58 PM

But wait... if you have all green, what then are we learning that can be applied to the next project we run? NOTHING is all green (i.e. perfect). Either someone is fudging or as previously posted, there's so much slack (under promising way too much to appear to be over-delivering). This is the thing that sticks out for me. It's not that I WANT to have problems with my projects but if there are no challenges to manage then what on earth am I there for?

Posted: Dec 6, 2011 10:50 PM

I always become suspicious when a schedule seems "too good to be true". No matter how well one plans and allows for risk mitigation delays and inaccurate estimations you will NEVER be exactly accurate on all your tasks - some will finish ahead and some behind of baseline. Also there are typically additional tasks that need to be added during a project which were not anticipated at the planning stage. So Project #1 worries me. As for Project #2, this looks like a more typical example of a real project. However, it seems that the Project Manager is inclined to "panic" a bit when things start going off track. Making tasks RED too quickly can raise alarm bells and cause panic too soon and one does not want to be labeled as a "cry wolf" sort of Project Manager. For example, I would have expected Task 2 to go to Yellow status and not Red status based on the overrun %. Regarding which PM should be fired I would rather work with both PM's to fine-tune their short-comings and strengths as they could learn from each other and improve their skills for the next project, but then maybe I am a softy!

Posted: Dec 7, 2011 12:23 AM

It's good to "hear" what folks are saying. I don't think this is a good way to report at all. In Project #2's schedule 7 days are green, 3 are red & 5 are yellow. So 47-50% of the time the project was green. Does that deserve a yellow overall status? What drives what the overall status is? Also, what about Agile methodologies here? If the team is trying to do iterations of either 25 or 20 days then Project #1 was potentially "managed" better. I totally get what everyone is saying about #1 not being realistic & I agree. However Project #2 consistently ran over its suggested duration implying that potentially the plan was too agressive for the team as they missed 3 of 5 deadlines. Especially as the project started to come to the end - the last 2 deadlines were missed. Depending on the "launch" date of the project #2 it might have been prudent to throw some $$ at it - keeping the cost green all the way through could have definitely impacted the schedule & scope. If the lateness of Project #2 impacted a change that was regulatory, mandated or hugely cost-savings, then coming in on cost may have been detrimental. Some of this may have to do with the corporate culture & desired way of managing risks. It might be that time is unknown, especially when dealing with new technologies or new products never before tackled. Then the idea of schedule, cost and even scope are rarely known to a full extent so it could be that "padding" is acceptable. Just throwing out another way of looking at this. My 1st impulse was to reject #1 as better managed though.

Posted: Dec 7, 2011 1:37 PM

Based on some of the answers above, if I ever have too much green on my status charts, I’ll be sure to mess something up on purpose so it will be more believable. :-)

A common factor in some of the answers above is that they speculate on the assumptions (e.g., there must be slack). It’s possible that Project 1 was incredibly risky and the PM managed multiple change requests, staff issues, technical challenges, and made many great decisions and tradeoffs in order to stay in green. Furthermore, it’s possible that Project 2 was very easy with no risk and was late because the PM forgot to pass out work assignments in a timely fashion.

If all things are equal between the projects (i.e., risk, slack, resource availability, technical challenges), the Project 1 is clearly the better managed project. Maybe the CEO will instead fire the executive who fired the quick thinking PM who made this same analysis and hire him back as the replacement executive.


Posted: Dec 7, 2011 3:02 PM

Both projects are green on cost, and if you assume both projects deliver identical value project B came in sooner - but 10% late on date commitment. Even though it finished sooner, project B did not deliver what was promised and now I see this PM as unreliable, which makes me look bad to my boss - so B gets canned.

In real life I would not dismiss someone on the results of a single project.

Posted: Dec 7, 2011 4:17 PM