Strategic Project Management

I'm not a big fan of flying.

It's not that I'm claustrophobic or afraid the plane will crash into the ocean, but the romance of air travel has disappeared for me and it somehow feels like I'm sitting in a big bus with way too much time to think (Will the plan actually make it across the ocean? Will the landing gear work properly as we touch down? You know, all the normal stuff you think about whenever you get into an airplane). As I write this, I'm headed to the Gartner Summit in London to make a presentation, so I have a lot of time to to think about that too.

I do admit to a fear of loosing my luggage, which has forced me to pack light enough that a week's worth of necessities could fit snugly into my carry-on and briefcase. I'm not what you would call a seasoned traveler, but I have been doing it enough lately that I've pretty much figured out how to toss what I don't need and condense everything else down to the bare essentials. I'll also admit that as I was packing on Friday night, my wife was pretty impressed that I was able to pull it off—she is NOT a light packer.

As I was getting ready to throw everything into my two small bags, I had to be very thoughtful about what got left behind and what got included. Usually by this time (several hours into my flight), I've remembered something I'd forgotten and am metaphorically kicking myself. However this time, I can't think of anything I've forgotten, and am confident that I have everything I need.

I think it's because I was trying to streamline the process of going through the airport, eliminate the requirements to check a bag and mitigate the risk of loosing the suit I need to wear for my presentation this week. The simplicity of my luggage choice doesn't make the packing process any less important—in fact, in some ways it's forced me to be more thoughtful. I think it represents an even better packing plan.

I'm not a big "P" process guy. I am a fan of the simplest plan possible to achieve the desired outcome—which is why I like my "Streamlined Carry-On Plan." I don't think anyone in the airport payed too much attention to the "Streamlined Carry-On Plan," because it's nothing new. It just makes sense to me and about a million other travelers I run into whenever I fly.

With that in mind, I have to ask, "Why then, do so many of us try to over-complicate the plans associated with our projects by insisting on carrying too much process baggage?"

A good friend and analyst, Donna Fitzgerald (@nimblepm) once told me, "Project managers used to be a lot more results focused. I'm afraid we've let our focus on method and process actually make us less effective than we used to be."

When my focus became streamlining my luggage requirements, I became better at ensuring the results I was looking for (a quick trip through the airport and no anxiety about losing any luggage). I wonder how many of the requirements we build into project plans are really necessary? Could we improve the outcome of our projects by focusing less on superfluous requirements and more on creating the simplest plan possible that would allow us to achieve the results we want? Einstein said, "Any idiot can make things more complicated, it takes real genius to make things simple."

For example, I know that there are some projects that require more governance than others. Does that mean that everything we do requires the same level of project heartburn? Donna also suggested, "We have entered a world of much more global competition and over the next five years, things are going to get lean and mean as a general practice. The good news is if you're agile, if you're collaborative, if you now how to get to value, you are going to excel."

Her words strike a cord with me me. Unfortunately, there's still that nagging question about the plan crashing into the ocean.
 

When my daughter was a little girl, she loved coloring books and connect-the-dots puzzles. I have to admit, I remember liking them when I was a little boy too. For the most part, if you were careful, the dots would reveal a fun picture you could color. However, getting to the end and finding that you missed a line someplace or you added a line you didn't really need would ruin the picture—you need to connect all the dots in the right order to create the proper picture.

I think it's safe to say that most of us recognize that without the project team or without the project leader, nothing gets done. However, I don't think we can ignore the other dots that need to be connected to our project management picture. In my opinion, the role of project stakeholder is also critical to project success.

There may be times when a project might not require a formal sponsor, however there are many times when they do. In fact, there are times when a project without a sponsor is doomed to fail. That being said, simply having a sponsor isn't enough. Let me share a couple of sponsor-related dots that must be connected:

1. The sponsor's role must be clearly defined: Don't assume that the project sponsor knows his or her role in the project. Most business people don't really understand project management process (they just think they do). Make sure the sponsor knows exactly what's expected of him or her. It's never a good idea to make them guess about their role. They will appreciate the explanation and you will appreciate the results.
2. Watch to make sure your sponsor doesn't fall "out of the loop": If you sponsor doesn't have the political clout within your organization to help you push issues forward, he or she won't add much value to the project. It's important to pay attention to how connected your sponsor is to the decision-makers in your organization. Remember, ineffective executives sometimes get the ax too. Don't let your project languish on the chopping block with them.

Sponsor relationships should add value to your project. If they don't, you may need to evaluate whether it's the way you interact with your sponsor, or whether you are connecting the wrong dots.

What do you do to manage sponsor relationships? Have you ever had to work with a sponsor who was "out of the loop"?

I hope you enjoy today's connect the dots.

 

I recently read an article by Rasha Mourtada titled Bosses Fan the Flames of Burnout. In discussing the real cost of employee burnout Mourtada suggests, "It is estimated to cost $300-billion in lost productivity in the U.S., causing financial damage through high turnover, reduced productivity and absenteeism, as well as hurting employee engagement and morale." Wow... that's $300 billion with a "B". No matter how you slice it, that's a lot of money.

You might be asking yourself, why am I writing about this, overworked and even "burnt-out" employees are something we all have to deal with from time to time, don't we?

We've been talking a lot lately about empowering team members to be a bigger part of the process, I believe that when people are engaged and take ownership of what they're doing, among other things, burnout becomes less of a problem for organizations. And, I'm not alone. Ellie Maggio, managing director of Emend Management Consultants feels the same way. As cited by Mourtada in his article, "The number one issue for executives is that they have to have more trust in the people they work with," says Ms. Maggio, explaining that less micro-managing gives the executive more time, but also gives employees a greater sense of ownership over their work, which increases engagement and combats burnout."

Although she is not talking about project teams, I think it's very easy to make the connection. What's more, she makes a very good argument for increasing organizational transparency up, into strategic plans and organizational goals. "Transparent communication is essential," says Ms. Maggio. "If management is open with staff about the future plans for the organization and employees, that leaves them feeling settled and secure in the job. It's important but a lot of employers overlook it."

In the context of our recent conversations about the "strategic" nature of projects, project plans and project leaders, I think it's pretty obvious (at least to me) that everyone on the project team should, at the very least, understand the strategy and vision behind every project they are working on. That is the way to drive ownership and engagement within the team. That's how we start to elevate the role of project leaders to someone organizations turn to for strategic thinking and how we eliminate or reduce the costs associated with burnout.

"To avoid burnout in the first place, Ms. Maggio stands by a strategic approach," writes Mourtada. "'Burnout is the antithesis of employee engagement,' she says. '...If an organization is strategic about human resources, they're going to have higher engagement and less burnout.'"

The costs of turnover and burnout may be difficult to calculate within your organization, but they are there—and they are expensive. I think it's encouraging that some of the actions required to reduce burnout within our project teams are the very things that encourage efficiency, team member engagement and the successful execution of projects.

As a project leader, if you don't understand the strategic value of the project you are assigned to plan, ask. Find out why the organization is doing what they're doing. If you don't want to ask, shame on you. How can you successfully execute a project if you don't fully understand its value? What's more, how can you expect your team to take ownership of their contribution to the project if they don't understand why they are doing it?
 

Last week I wrote a post about providing recognition to individual contributors on a project team, Don't Make Individual Team Members Blow Their Own Horn. If you've been following this blog for any length of time, you know that I am a firm believer in empowering the team to create and invent value for their organizations. We talk a lot about facilitating an environment where everyone on the team can contribute to something bigger than themselves, take ownership and dare I say it, act more strategically. Although I hadn't put it in those words before, I received an interesting comment on Gantthead which I would like to share here (click here to read his comment).

Dr. Paul D. Giammalovo (www.build-project-management-competency.com) asks, "...how do you consider project management to be 'strategic'?"

Dr. Giammalovo suggests that managing work isn't strategic (in fairness, I am not in construction management, I work with knowledge workers, which might be a bit different), which if we look at the last 50 to 100 years of practice he is right. Project management has not been a very strategic discipline. He suggests that, "...project management/project managers are not high enough up in the decision making process to be 'strategic' decision makers ... at best we are tactical, and although we clearly may be working on strategic projects within the organization, I can see no way to justify any claims that project managers are making strategic rather than tactical decisions, even though the projects we manage may be considered to be strategic in nature."

Although I respect Dr. Gimmalovo's opinion, I think this is a great example of what's wrong with the current project management paradigm. Although project managers in many organizations aren't part of the strategic decisions made by executive leadership, does that imply that they should not approach a project plan strategically? Does that imply that their approach to any project should not be strategic? Does this mean that project leaders and project teams should be drones that simply shut up and do the work assigned to them without question and without thought?

Steve Denning, in a recent article for Forbes suggests, "In today's marketplace, where continuous innovation is key to winning and retaining customers and the work is too complex to be accomplished by individuals, crushing the spirit and creativity of teams is a productivity disaster."

Unlike Dr. Giammalovo, I fell into the role of managing projects. I am not a big "P" process guy. I believe our goal as project leaders is to provide value to our organization, foster the most productive environment we can within the project teams we lead and successfully execute projects.

The PMI promotes the thought that project management deserves a seat in the C-suite. As long as we continue to act and respond to a call to think and be more strategic as contrary to our discipline, it will never happen. What's more, we won't deserve it. In my humble opinion, everyone on the project team should be aware of, and on-board with, the strategic vision of every project. That, my friends is the way to engage the workforce, improve efficiency and ultimately execute projects more successfully.

According to Vlatka Hlupic, in an article published in ComputerWeekly, he suggests that applying this type of management approach in a German IT consulting company "...resulted in an 1,700% increase in profit and a 23% increase in the number of employees in the first year, and a further 240% increase in profit and a 20% increase in the number of employees in the second year, despite an economy in a recession."

Do you want a seat in the C-suite? Those kinds of results will get you there (and yes, you will have to think more strategically to do it).
 

Last week, Dave Garrett wrote an interesting post on social media and project management, Can Project Management Software be as Engaging as Facebook?. There were many great points brought up in the article and interview with Vantage Software's founder Alex Leblanc.

I believe there is a lot we can learn from social media tools like Facebook and Twitter. The millennial generation has been collaborating on teams since elementary school and they have spent the lion's share of their young adult lives collaborating with friends and family within social media. In my opinion, it just makes sense to leverage this knowledge into a project management solution that utilizies the familiar metaphor. What's more, it's not just the millennials that are jumping into social media with both feet. Many in my generation are turning to social media to reconnect with old friends, keep track of family or business colleagues spread around the world or follow their hobbies and other interests. Addressing the collaboration and business needs of the "Facebook Generation" with something that works and feels like Facebook just makes sense.

With that being said, in any discussion about the merits of social media within the project management context I think we need to identify and address the elephant in the room. No CEO is going to spend any money on a tool that simply incorporates a Twitter or Facebook feed into its project management solution. Business leaders don't want to fund an employee's ability to waste time talking about what they are going to eat for lunch or where they might be spending their weekend holiday. The conversations need to be about the work and projects that team members have in common, it's the Facebook metaphor that's important, not Facebook. Twitter-like but not Twitter.

Additionally, it's not the tool or the methodology or whether or not it utilizes the strengths of social media that will ultimately make a difference. It will be our approach to how we manage "process" and lead "people" that will make the difference. Without a doubt, process is important. If I didn't believe that, I wouldn't be writing about it. However, if we continue to rely on tired and arcane notions of command-and-control to jam tasks and assignments down the throats of our project teams, we will fail regardless of the project management tools we use.

Top-down management methods fail. They produce information we can't trust for making decisions, they create a work environment people dislike and ultimately cause projects and project teams to struggle and fail.

Steve Denning, in a recent article for Forbes wrote, "The mode of coordinating work must shift from bureaucratic control to dynamic linking." In other words, our job is to facilitate and help project teams collaborate with each other to develop and execute on solutions rather than build unwieldy project plans and make task assignments. "Communication must shift from top-down command to adult-to-adult conversation, thus avoiding the dispiriting effect of top-down commands."

When we achieve that attitude within our organizations, applying the social media metaphor to the work management process works. Until then, it will fail—much like our current approach to managing projects.