Dallas, Revenge, And Setting A PMO’s Strategic Direction

 

The famous television drama Dallas had a reboot, starting in 2012 and lasting for three seasons. It brought back three main characters from the original series, Sue Ellen, Bobby, and, of course, J.R. Ewing, some familiar characters (Cliff Barnes), and adult versions of J.R.’s and Bobby’s sons, John Ross and Christopher, respectively. I think part of the reason that the original version was so successful had to do with the steady and predictable nature of the inter-character conflicts. J.R. was the perennial villain, but it was actually pretty easy to root for this character to prevail against the always irksome Cliff, the constantly righteous Bobby, or the equally-villainous-but-not-as-clever Jeremy Windell, head of rival WestStar Oil.

But the reboot didn’t maintain this predictability. Characters who were introduced early in Season 1 who presented as clear-cut protagonists would later become extreme antagonists (Christopher Ewing’s fiancé), and vice-versa (Bobby’s wife’s ex-husband). Keeping track of who was aligned with (or now set against) whom became a dizzying affair (pun intended), as the network among the known characters seemed to endure major re-alignments, and on a consistent basis.

Just one year prior to the Dallas reboot, the ABC network launched a series entitled Revenge. Loosely based on Alexander Dumas’ book The Count of Monte Cristo, Revenge took place in The Hamptons, and followed the attempts of the suddenly-wealthy Emily Thorne to extract revenge against the people who betrayed and conspired to murder her late father. I must confess that I was among this show’s early enthusiasts, until something unusual began to happen. Characters who presented as clear-cut protagonists would swerve into the antagonist’s category, and back again. Keeping up with who was allied or opposed to whom became a dizzying affair. As plot lines began to hemorrhage plausibility trying to keep up with the making/maintaining/breaking/re-establishing alliances among the characters, ratings suffered. Both the Dallas reboot and Revenge were cancelled in 2014.

Meanwhile, Back In The Project Management World…

GTIM Nation is aware of the axiom “Quality, Affordability, Availability: pick any two.” When an organization seeks to set up or renew its Program Management Office (PMO), it’s often due to a need or problem that requires a response, or at least the creation of an organization that’s capable of providing a specific remedy. I would venture a guess that, in most cases, the PMO’s genesis is rooted in an unfortunate tendency for the projects in the portfolio to overrun, come in late, or both. The PMO gets set up and, with the introduction of some basic Earned Value and Critical Path Methodology systems, managers are suddenly making much more informed – better – decisions, and the frequency of late and over-budget completions is reduced, or even eliminated, or at the very least everyone has a legitimate early-warning when things are about to head off of the rails. In other words, a quality PM service has now been provided. And here is where the trouble often begins.

Whispered criticisms of the cost of the PMO become spoken complaints in the board room. The PMO Director will usually put up a decent initial defense, but our friends, the accountants, will continue to increase pressure to “reduce costs.” At this point the PMO Director has a choice: either reduce his talent pool, or make them less available for the level of demand, all to make the PMO more affordable. In essence, the Asset Managers have made one of the decisions key to the PMO’s long-term strategy, that it must be “affordable.” Unfortunately, the high-level talent that led to the portfolio’s performance turnaround rarely want to be seen as “affordable.” They expect to be paid commiserate with their contribution and, if they’re not, will leave. Make no mistake: setting up a training program to help move entry-level Project Controllers to mid-level, and mid-levels to advanced, is not an automatic solution. Such programs are not cheap.

What’s the solution? Admittedly painting with a very broad brush here, my recommendation would be: establish which two of the Quality-Affordability-Availability triad will serve as the PMO strategic foundation, and stick to them. Know that whichever aspect is the one not central to the strategy will become the focus, not of criticism, but of condemnation:

• The affordable, available system will be condemned for not being good enough;
• The affordable, quality system will be condemned for the waiting period for implementation;
• The quality, available system will be automatically condemned by our friends, the accountants, for costing too much.

But you, PMO Director person, must stick to your strategy. Know that these condemnations are coming your way, and be prepared to counter them. Otherwise, you run the risk of trying to correct the condemnation du jour, losing strategic direction and integrity, and ultimately getting cancelled.

And not even setting up the “Who shot J.R.?” cliffhanger will save you.