The Irony Of Digital Transformation And PM

 

Project Management can be pretty ironic. Not the data collection and processing into usable information part, but the rest of it, particularly in the arena of digital transformation (ProjectManagement.com’s theme for February). “Wait, Michael” I can hear GTIM Nation say, “isn’t the data collection and processing piece of PM one and the same with its digital transformation aspect?” To which I will reply “Yes, they are largely one and the same, which is why it’s so ironic,” as well as “You guys pose prescient compound questions!”

If we were to be completely and brutally honest about the actual mechanics of processing data into usable PM information streams, we would have to admit that they’re pretty simple. Earned Value computations rarely leave the realm of arithmetic, and Critical Path Methodologies are the same way. You can conduct a manual forward and backward pass on a hundred-activity schedule network, accurately identify the critical path as well as the amount of float in the non-critical paths, and perform as many what-if scenarios where you fine-tune the bases of estimate as you wish, and never – never – swerve near algebra, trigonometry, or calculus. There is one exception that, in my opinion, proves the rule: when reducing the traditional formula for calculating an Estimate at Completion, a bit of algebra is needed, to wit:

EAC = BAC/CPI

…where EAC is the Estimate at Completion, BAC is the Budget at Completion, and CPI is the Cost Performance Index. Anyone who survived High School algebra, and who also knows that the Cost Performance Index is the BAC multiplied by the project’s/activities’ percent complete, divided by its actual costs, will recognize that this formula can be simplified to

EAC = ACWP / % Complete

…where ACWP is the Actual Cost of Work Performed. (Favorite Project Controls hack: this same formula also works for duration. Simply divide an activity’s actual duration by its percent complete, and the result is a fairly accurate estimate of that activity’s total duration.) However, except for simplifying (note: not altering, but simplifying) existing analysis formulae for utilitarian purposes, virtually all of PM analysis is performed using simple arithmetic.

And here’s where things become ironic. Even as the digital transformation has represented profound advancements in entertainment, defense, retail – almost everywhere in the free market, what similar advancements in PM can be attributed to digital transformation? Consider the difference in the special effects dinosaurs/monsters between Jurassic Park (1993) and Baby: Secret of the Lost Legend (1985), separated by just eight years, which turned out to be a very significant span in digital transformation time. Aside from the full-scale animatronics, the comparative differences in realism renders Baby unfit for any but the most undiscerning of audiences, and on a comical scale.

Meanwhile, Back In The Project Management World…

…we’re still looking at Gantt Charts, PERT Charts, and the Cost Performance Report in Format 1. Modern Baseline Change Proposals and Variance Analysis Reports would be readily recognized and usable by 1960s-era program sponsors. Why is that?

It could plausibly be because the 40-year-old formats are so groovy (40 years ago, that was actually a usable adjective for a couple of months), but I think it’s because the major barriers to advancing the PM capability within macro-organizations have little to do with improvements in information processing, and much to do with aspects that are generally categorized in the Organizational Behavior and Performance realm. I wish I could reclaim the money I’ve spent attending conference sessions that were essentially basic EVM and CPM, slathered with multiple variants of eat-your-peas-style hectoring on why and how PMOs should make everybody else in their organizations execute these techniques. No, the next advancements in advancing PM maturity will only come after a demonstrably repeatable strategy for implementation across the macro-organization is articulated, one that consistently overcomes the anti-PM tactics of Slow Roll and Silent Veto. Fortunately, PMI® has published such a book (I won’t mention the author).

Which brings us back to the digital transformation angle. You see, in advancing PM capability maturity, the actual software platform(s) used don’t have as much of an impact as the major element, cooperation. Cooperation is the coin of the PM implementation realm, and even the unequivocally optimal technical approach will fail utterly without it. Here’s another little bit of irony: it’s not the cooperation of the executives and managers that we’re looking for here. For some reason, PMO Directors often have this really bad habit of assuming that high-level buy-in to their PM implementation plans is all the organizational leverage they’ll need to achieve their goals, and it’s simply not true. The cooperation needed comes from…

Ooops! Look at that. Out of pixel ink. I’ll cover from whom this golden cooperation comes, as well as the best way of securing, in next week’s blog.