By Lynda Bourne
Ptolemy's world map (source: Wikipedia)
Do modern project managers and their clients rely on their charts and reports too much? We all know that project schedules, cost reports, risk assessments and other reports are produced by sophisticated computer software, these days increasingly enhanced by artificial intelligence. But does this sophisticated processing mean the charts are completely reliable?
The modern world is increasingly reliant on computer systems to direct and control many aspects of life—from self-driving cars, to autonomous warehouses, to the flight control systems in aircraft. But can this reliance on computer systems be translated to project controls information, or do we need a more ancient mindset?
Modern navigators rely on the accuracy of their GPS to know exactly where they are and where they are going. The autopilots are better than the human, but the data being used is precise and validated.
The same level of reliability and accuracy cannot be applied to project controls data. Every estimate is an assessment of what may occur in the future based on what happened in the past. Even when a sophisticated risk model is built, the P80 or P90 result is based on subjective range estimates taken from past events.
The future may unfold within the expected parameters, and it may not. We simply cannot determine the future in advance. While the quality of the project predictions is based on the quality of the data being used in the modelling processes (and the only guaranteed fact is the model will be incorrect), predictions do not control the future. The key question is: How useful are the models in helping navigate the project through to a successful conclusion? [Remember GIGO (garbage in, garbage out)?!]
In days gone by, navigators did not need accurate charts and satnav systems to reach their destinations. The Viking and Polynesian navigators crossed thousands of miles of open ocean to land on small islands using observations of the natural environment and tacit knowledge passed down from earlier generations. They knew certain seabird species only ventured relatively short distances from land, how clouds formed and changed over land, etc., augmented by primitive technologies.
Fast-forward a few centuries, and the early European navigators (Columbus, Magellan, Drake, Cook and countless others) had steadily improving charts that made navigating easier—but they also knew the best charts available were not accurate. The general shape of the world had been mapped since the time of Ptolemy (circa 150 CE), and as better information became available, better maps and charts were created. But these are still continuing to be improved into the 21st century.
So how did people navigate the globe without accurate maps and charts? I suggest there were four core elements in the approach, all of which can be applied to modern project management:
- Recognize the chart is a guide, get the best possible chart available and use it to plan your course—taking into account as much additional information and tacit knowledge you can access.
- Then, assume the chart is incorrect. Keep a sharp look out for unexpected issues and dangers, adjust course as needed, and keep collecting information along the way. You only run into the rocks you do not see!
- Keep adapting and adjusting your course to make the best of the current circumstances, using both known and emerging information—the destination does not change, but how you get there may.
- Then use the new information you have gathered to update the chart to benefit future voyages in the same direction.
To move from assuming controls information is correct, to seeing it as a useful guide that can be improved as better knowledge becomes available, requires a paradigm shift in thinking that sits comfortably alongside many of the concepts of agile.
The future is inherently uncertain and we can learn a lot from the way early navigators used imprecise charts to sail the oceans. Navigating the globe in past centuries and leading a project to a successful conclusion are both risky endeavours; this fact needs to be accepted, and the risks minimized by using the best available charts—while being aware of their limitations.
What do you think?
