Dear Friends, thank you for your excellent insights and comments regarding the "Why was the project manager fired" exercise..! As is so often the case, we learn so much from each other. So, thank you so very much again for sharing your insights, perspectives, and wisdom.
As for the exercise, this little exercise is one of several exercises that I have given over the last several years in PMO workshops all around the world. The purpose of this exercise is to invite discussion and debate about how we approach the practical application of project management in today''''''''s business reality. There are some that advocate the premise that there needs to be much more business acumen and judgment in how we go about managing projects and the PMO and that we should not just look to technical project management measures as if in a vacuum.
I suppose that I would count myself as one who also agrees with this premise. And, per the recent Gartner Group PPM and IT Governance Summit, there is no more committed person to this premise than the CEO of PMI, Mark Langley, who commented "If we only view project success in terms of the triple constraints (scope, time, cost), then project management will fail us all." Mr. Langley went on to say that today''''''''s businesses and today''''''''s PMO and project leaders need a new project management triangle - one that has at its three points technical project management (scope, time cost), business acumen, and technology leadership. These and other comments by Mr. Langley were extremely well received by the audience of CIOs of leading Fortune 1000 firms and on several occasions he received sustained applause at his business driven, practical application message.
But back to the exercise. This exercise is purposely vague. It is purposely vague in order to entice a conversation and point of view and perhaps bias. If all of the details were made available at the onset, then such an exercise would be far less interesting and insightful. In fact, if all of the facts were served up, then it would not be an exercise at all, rather just a scenario.
In the case of these two projects, both are actually the exact same project. The project was not that complex nor long for that matter. The product of the project was a new web order entry system. As soon as the system went live, the business would enjoy a one million dollar per month benefit stream. The executive sponsors of the project expressed their desire to have this capability delivered as soon as possible. The executives didn''''''''t even mind if the project team had to work nights and weekends and if the project incurred costs in excess of the initial plan. They just wanted that million dollar per month benefit stream to start as soon as possible. Obviously, they wanted a product that would work.
The first project manager felt that it was important that all of the project tasks completed as planned, as according to this project manager, that was the sign of good project management. Though some tasks could have completed earlier, the project manager was more concerned with avoiding a late completion of tasks. And in fact, in reviewing the task estimates with the project team members, the project manager encouraged the team members to provide a very safe estimate that they knew they could make as opposed to being more aggressive in order to complete the tasks (and project) earlier. The project manager reviewed the plan with the sponsor and the sponsor agreed to it - not knowing the degree of rigor that the project manager used (or did not use) in getting those task estimates. So the project manager finished the project in 125 days and all of the tasks completed on time.
The second project manager, having taken what the executives said as important, was not at all concerned over having tasks scheduled more aggressively and perhaps missing some of these more aggressive dates. In fact the second project manager viewed that as quite important in squeezing out as much time as possible in the overall project effort. And, the executives wanted and supported this very approach. So rather than asking for safe estimates, the second project manager asked for aggressive estimates and challenged the team members as opposed to giving them buffer. Though some tasks finished late and the project overall finished later than planned, 110 days vs. 100 days, it finished 15 mandays earlier than that of project manager #1 whose project finished in 125 days. And actually, the 15 mandays was 21 calendars days which equated to a $700,000 benefit on account of finishing earlier than the first project.
So, in this particular case, without a doubt Project Manager #2 did a better job of managing the project irrespective of what the green, yellow, and red status indicators might have led one to think.
Of course, by design, none of this project context was made available up front as part of the exercise. Rather the purpose of the exercise (like Mr. Langley, the CEO of PMI pleads) was to show a vivid example of how easy it is to incorrectly assume that good project measures (as in status indicators of technical project management) means good project management.
Note: there could have been a completely different business context to the project, such as a project that does not have an imminent time to market benefit and that resolutely requires an exact date of completion for all tasks and the project that can be known and achieved, etc, for which the first project with all of the green indicators would have been the better managed project.
Congrats to all of you who played..! You all got this example correct and I suppose you all saw through it right away. Perhaps gantthead members are highly skilled and experienced, but as a comparison to what I have seen vis a vie past PMO workshops where we do this exercise:
- About one third of the workshop attendees insist that the first project was better managed no matter what the business context. And they cite the fact that the sponsor agreed to the project and was happy with the outcome as proof. This is not the right answer and this is what our CEO of PMI warns us about!
- Another third of the workshop attendees assume a context and provide a conditional answer. Based upon what the parameters of the project might be (which are not provided in the exercise), a case could be made that either project could have been better managed. This is the correct answer.
- And another third of the attendees refuse to play on grounds that there is not enough information to make a call. And that is okay too. Not everyone likes to take a position without sufficient facts. However, part of the purpose of the exercise is to discuss and highlight how in many businesses that is exactly what takes place! And with the usual conviction that the first project, the one with all of the green status indicators, was the better managed project. It happens.
There are several points to the exercise. The key point being that project management and project management techniques are a means to an end - but not the end unto themselves. Perhaps no one explains this better than PMO gurus Steve Rollins and Gerald Kendall who in their book, Advanced Project Portfolio Management and the PMO, talk about the importance of benefit delivery and even propose a "Deliver Now" PMO model, one in which it might be perfectly advantageous to miss one or more of the technical project management (scope, time, cost) baseline measures in favor of the product of the project outcome. Simply put, is it better to miss a cost target of $10,000 in favor of a realized benefit of $1,000,000 or is it better to make the planned cost target and forgo the opportunity to realize the $1,000,000 realized benefit? This is a business decision, not a technique or calculation that runs on auto-pilot.
In addition to the project management context to this at the project manager level, there is a context of all of this that resides with the executive and leadership team. Those executive and leadership teams that take the view that a project that has tasks in a status of anything but green are poorly managed projects may (or may not be) contributing to this problem.
Bottom line, project management can be applied in a manner that is indifferent to the product of the project context or project management can be applied in a manner that is a driver of the product of the project context. Surprisingly, not everyone sees this the same way. So glad that all of you that had a play at this exercise..! Thanks again and stayed tuned for the next exercise "Why did the project manager get promoted to PMO manager?"
