It's all about the outcomes..... NOT the outputs.

 

We often think at a micro level on our projects when we elicit requirements. Maybe this is because many of us come from an analytical background. 

I was yanked out of the micro level by the course presented by the very engaging Ricardo Vargas, Executive Director of the Brightline Initiative. Sometimes it serves us well to look at the macro level.

I received more responses than I expected when I posted a few very short articles on LinkedIn entitled "Strategy Formulation is not Strategy Delivery" and another called "Project Management: It's all about the Outcomes... NOT The Outputs". The volume of responses, mostly positive, speaks to the fact that we may be focusing on the wrong things at times, maybe too much on the delivery of products while we manage our projects. That is, on the output of our projects. The infamous iron triangle of Scope, Time and Cost may have led us down that path.

But things are changing.

Linking the organization to a portfolio of programs and projects aimed at achieving organizational outcomes is "where it's at". Strategy formulation is not strategy delivery.

If we fail to plan for and provide resources for strategy delivery we will be headed down the road to the small town of Failure.

What resources do we need to commit to Strategy Delivery? This should be related to the value of the business benefit(s) the portfolio(s) of programs and projects are expected to achieve. Think business cases.

Resources include executive support and frequent involvement, money, people you hire or contract to do the job or to back fill operational resources who have the organizational knowledge for the tasks at hand.

Resources may also include information radiators for awareness of organizational targets and progress.

PMI's recent Benefits Realization Practice Guide highlights the need for a "Benefits Owner", someone in the business to ensure the products of the project are used to deliver on the value expected from those who helped formulate the business case that caused a project to be authorized and funded in the first place.

And the newest release of the Standard for Project Management, now in exposure draft, has been formed around principles and the "value delivery system". 

Where PMs used to be advised to ensure projects line up with strategic goals, the shift now is to ensure projects are never initiated that do not.

What are your thoughts around this?