Strategic Project Management

I was talking to a friend of mine the other day, and somehow we started talking about how the workplace has changed in the last 20-30 years (he's a bit younger than I am). Regardless, we both agree that the workforce has changed, and how we deal with the workforce needs to change along with it.

I'm really impressed with the people I get to associate with every day. The Millennial Generation is probably the most tech savvy generation I have ever known. They have grown up working in teams and collaborating since elementary school and are undoubtedly the most empowered group to enter the workforce in the last 30 years that I'm aware of. They are motivated to make a meaningful contribution to whatever organization they work for and don't want to waste time on anything that doesn't provide value.

This is why I believe that the traditional command-and-control management practices of the last century just don't work anymore. Earlier this morning, Raechel's blog post, The Truth About Leadership and Leading Yourself, speaks to this from the point of view of someone at the beginning of her career. "I'd...been thinking a lot about the concept of 'leading yourself,' because I don't believe that having a title with the words 'manager' or 'director' in it is a requirement for leadership," she writes. "In fact, I think leadership qualities, when it comes to the work place most often develop in entry-level positions (or even before that) as people gain experience, opinions, and habits for how they handle work situations, interact with people, and manage their work."

Titles don't impress this generation. If you want to lead this team, you need to earn their respect—it isn't going to happen simply because you're their manager. In fact, it really doesn't matter what your title is, if you're a jerk and you try to "command," you're edicts will fall on deaf ears.

Is their a generation gap in your team? How do you keep all your team members engaged and motivated? Obviously a one-size-fits-all approach to workers from Boomers to Melenials isn't the answer. Please share your successes—and challenges so we can all learn from each other.
 

I heard on the news last week that a credit union in our area had recently failed and their assets were purchased by some financial institution in Virginia. Over the weekend I stumbled upon a few warning signs that your financial institution might be in trouble. Of course there are a number of "financial" indicators, but I thought some of these might be a little more reliable:

1. They have an incessant need to lower expenses by chaining pens to the desk
2. There are no withdrawal slips available anywhere, but there are plenty of deposit slips
3. The branch manager is wearing a tie that has another bank's logo on it
4. All the teller lanes are closed but one
5. You're charged a $12 fee to make a deposit, a $9 fee to open their door, and a $27 fee to breath their oxygen for three minutes
6. When you cash your check, they give you Euros
7. There's an auction going on in the back parking lot—lots of desks and filing cabinets
8. The FDIC answers the customer service phone line
9. The Commercial Loan department wants to know how much you can loan THEM
10. The bank's vault door is open, but the front door is still locked at 9:13 am

Although not as entertaining, there are early warning signs for projects that are in trouble, if you're watching. The earliest signs are hard to measure, but easy to recognize if you are paying attention:

1. Lack of interest: Whether it's a lack of interest within the project team or among the project stakeholders, it's often demonstrated by people not showing up for meetings, a lack of active participation and feedback, or a poorly energized user base. This is an early warning sign of a project in trouble.
2. Poor communication: If nobody is communicating, including stakeholders, team members and end users, there could be a problem.
3. Lack of velocity: Projects should always be moving forward. The best way to keep a good velocity is to divide your project into small deliverables at frequent intervals. If the project isn't moving forward, it's likely in trouble.
4. A "no-bad-news" environment: Nobody likes to be the bearer of bad news, but sometimes organizations need to face the reality of negative news. This includes project team members who don't want to be the messenger and business leaders who tend to shoot said messenger. If there is not an environment where the communication is honest about "reality," projects tend to fail.

You don't need to depend on some of the intangible signs that a project is in trouble, there are a number of measurable signs as well:

1. Lots of overtime: A project running on schedule should have little or no overtime. Overtime is often a quick fix, but leads to poor employee health resulting from too much caffeine, too many late nights and too much junk food. (It also leads to mistakes.)
2. Diversion of resources: When people are pulled from one project to work on something else it could be a sign of trouble. If you've budgeted your human resources properly, a few hours here and there on a troubled project can quickly add up and cascade down, endangering healthy projects.
3. Ratios trouble: Cost ratios and schedule ratios are financial metrics that allow business leaders to measure budgeted time and money verses money and time actually spent. Without metrics, all you have to rely on is the accuracy of communication you receive from project teams.
4. Milestones aren't met: This is pretty obvious, but it is surprising how many times this warning sign is ignored. Small, discrete and often, are the guidelines for the milestones of a successful project.
5. Scope changes: A common approach to shoring up a lagging project is to change the scope. Eliminating features or relaxing requirements is not uncommon, but if project teams are doing it because the project is in trouble, it's a huge warning sign of danger ahead.

Of course, warning signs are not the work management harbinger of doom, they are just warning signs that a project might be in trouble. Depending on how your organization handles project-based work, the right project management tools can help identify potential problems early, when there's still time to do something about them.

How do you spot failing projects early—when there's still time to take action?

 

A few days ago I mentioned that my department is moving to a new building on campus. Well... moving day has come.

It's been interesting to watch how everyone is looking at the change. I don't think it matters what type of change it is, adapting to change is sometimes challenging; and how individuals react to it is different.

I love new things. And to be honest, I'm looking forward to the new building (even though I don't really have time to pack up my desk and personal belongings). My wife laughs at me all the time because I'm usually up for a new experience—although they sometimes turn out to be expensive (I'm going to avoid a discussion here about my long-boarding accident last fall and shoulder surgery).

With that in mind, here are a few personality types I've noticed when approaching change:

1. Happy Henrietta: She loves change. Can't get enough of it. Every change is a new adventure and opportunity.
2. Cynical Sam: "This change isn't going to do anything," he says. In Sam's mind, there isn't a change that's going to really make a difference. Change is something to be endured and tolerated. Definitely NOT something to get too excited about.
3. Ambivalent Anthony: To Anthony, one thing is as good as another. Just tell me what you want changed and I'll do it. Change is nothing to get too excited about.
4. Contrary Calvin: Cal isn't really against change per se, he just doesn't want to be inconvenienced by it. "I didn't decide to make this change," he says. "Don't expect me to go out of my way to make everyone else feel good about it."
5. Negative Nellie: Nellie hates change. She knows any change is going to make her life more difficult. "I don't know why we have to make this change," she says. "Everything was fine before. We've been doing things this way for years."

When I started writing I thought I would fall into the Happy Henrietta camp, but I have to admit that depending on the change, I can think of times when I have acted like all of them. The next time I'm involved in a change initiative, I think I'll be less inclined to pigeon-hole the people on my team by expecting them to react the same way they did during the last major change.

Do you have any other personality types you'd like to add?

 

Earlier this morning, I stumbled upon a blog written by Richard Ford for the Wall Street Journal. He was talking about work in general, but his comments inspired a response, I've reproduced it here:

Over the thirty plus years of my career, I’ve seen a lot of changes in the workplace—and the workforce. My father’s generation seemed convinced that work was meant to be something unfulfilling that one did for a paycheck. It didn’t matter if you enjoyed it; you just did it. I may have spent my entire career chafing at that notion, but my younger colleagues can’t imagine why anyone would do something that would “demoralize [them] into granite” just to make a few bucks.

The implication for organizations managing people is huge. According to a classic psychology experiment cited by Matthew Crawford in his book Shop Class as Soulcraft: “Children who enjoy drawing were given marker pens and allowed to go at it. Some were rewarded for drawing (they were given a certificate with a gold seal and a ribbon, and told ahead of time about this arrangement), whereas for the others the issue of rewards was never raised. Weeks later, those who had been rewarded took less interest in drawing, and their drawings were judged to be lower in quality, whereas those who had not been rewarded continued to enjoy the activity and produced higher-quality drawings.”

I’m not suggesting (nor do I believe Crawford is suggesting) that the only way for people to be fully engaged in what they are doing requires them to be “playing” all the time. However, I am suggesting that money (although important to all of us) isn’t the only thing that keeps people motivated and engaged. In fact, I’ve observed that those who enter any particular profession strictly for its income potential eventually become discouraged and dis-engaged. Your writing career is a great example of that.

The ability to direct your own work, learn new things, collaborate in teams of your choosing, and demonstrably contribute to an organizations’ goals help make work feel less like work—and ultimately help people be more productive.

What are you doing to embrace the new paradigm and help your teams be more productive?

Late last year I was in the Seattle area with a colleague doing some product research. After a day of visiting with customers, he asked, "Where do you want to go to eat?"

I replied, "I don't care, what sounds good to you?"

"It's your call," he said.

He then explained that I had complete control over where we would go and because it was "my call" he would  go anywhere I choose without complaint. I have since adopted this approach into the daily lunch-time routine and often look at the person I'm going to lunch with and say, "It's your call."

We make decisions every day, some of them are a lot more important on where we go for lunch. Scott Adams, the creator of the Dilbert comic strip once said, "Informed decision-making comes from a long tradition of guessing and then blaming others for inadequate results."

Adams' description of how decisions are made might be accurate for many organizations. Over the years of my career I've noticed that many companies don't foster good decision making practices—handicapping project leaders, project teams and their organizations. The following three keys might help your organization foster a workable decision-making process:

1. Decide who can make decisions: Prior to the beginning of any project, determining who has decision-making power is the first step. Of course, on most projects there will likely be several decision makers.
2. Determine what decisions can be made and by whom: Different members of the team will probably have different decision-making responsibilities based upon their role. Identifying the scope of everyone's responsibility regarding the type of decisions they can and can't make avoids confusion and makes it possible to streamline the process. Nobody wants to "Mother, may I?" every move they make, nor should the project leader or stakeholder be expected to make every decision.
3. Decide how decisions will be made: Identifying how decisions are made and how they are shared with project team members is almost as important as the decision itself.

Regardless of your work management methods or the project management tools you use, making project decisions is part of a project leaders' job. What's more, it's been said that in-decision becomes decision with time.

The Chinese philosopher Confucius suggested, "By three methods we may learn wisdom: First, by reflection, which is the noblest; Second, by imitation, which is the easiest; and Third, by experience which is the bitterest."

I don't think there's anyone who has to make decisions on a regular basis that wouldn't agree with Mr. Confucius. What are you doing to foster a good decision-making environment?