Strategic Project Management

Thanks to a newsletter I receive from Openview Labs, this morning I was introduced to a blogger I have not read before, Richard Lawrence. He is a certified SCRUM coach and writes about software development and making software teams happier and more productive. This morning, Openview cites a recent article written by Lawrence suggesting that development teams should focus more on being predictable than being productive. He argues that increased productivity will fall out of a predictable approach to software development.

Although Lawrence is writing about software development specifically, I believe that what he's suggesting will apply to any kind of project-based work. In fact, his assertions remind me of the old story of the tortoise and the hare. Slow and steady (predictable) wins the race.

Lawrence suggests that a focus on predictability drives a team to:

1. Develop and complete smaller projects that can be completed in a day or two. I like the idea of breaking the work up into smaller, bite-sized, chunks. Although there will always be larger projects with time-lines that stretch out to months or even longer, breaking up those large projects into shorter durations with complete-able deliverables allows teams to show value at more regular intervals. This is good for stakeholders, team morale, and ultimately project success.
2. Work on a smaller number of project deliverables at once. I once worked with a fellow who was incredibly productive if he had a couple of project deliverables on his plate at a time. Less than that and he would fuss over a project deliverable forever—more than that and he would be so overwhelmed that he would freeze up and accomplish very little. Admittedly, every team member is different, but keeping expectations reasonable (in my opinion) helps project teams be more productive.
3. Ensure that the definition of done that is identified before the project is started is the same definition of done when the project is completed. I've noticed that the longer the duration of a project, the more likely the definition of done will morph into something other than what was originally intended. Sometimes this might be the result of scope creep, but often it is the result of unforeseen impediments that over the course of a lengthy project make it difficult to completely accomplish the goals of the initiative.
4. Enable individual team members to cross disciplines to get things done, avoiding unpredictable wait times. Shorter duration projects often encourage team members to step outside of their "defined" roles to get things done. Which, after all, is what work management is all about, right?
5. Make achievable commitments based on past results. From a management perspective, it's easier to predict the results of a series of shorter duration projects than it is to predict the results of a project that will drag on for months at a time. From the individual team members perspective, it allows them to feel a sense of accomplishment at regular intervals. Most people respond well to feeling a sense of accomplishment at a job well done. The more often they are able to do that, the more productive they will be.

On the other hand, Lawrence suggests (and I agree), focusing on productivity usually leads to:

1. Individuals optimizing for their own productivity (i.e. lots of tasks getting done)
2. Over-committing
3. Starting projects without necessarily believing they'll get done in the time-line required
4. Sacrificing quality for speed (i.e. "Just get it done; we'll clean it up later.")
5. Communicating and collaborating less ("All that conversation slows me down. I need to focus on my work.")

Lawrence argues that a strict focus on productivity might increase a project teams ability to get more accomplished in the short term, but focusing on predictability is a better long-term solution for helping project teams increase productivity. I have to agree.

Slow and steady wins the race.

Is predictability part of your work management methodology? How do you utilize your project management tools to increase predictability and ultimately productivity?

 

In 1519, driven by his personal ambitions and desire for fame, Hernando Cortes left Cuba for the Yucatan Peninsula with 11 ships and a small army to explore and conquer the Aztecs—defying the orders of Diego Valazquez, the Spanish Governor of Cuba (who wanted the glory and praise from Spain for himself). After landing on the new world, and before advancing into the interior for conquest and treasure, Cortes infamously destroyed his ships, eliminating for his troops the possibility of retreat or mutiny.

Of course, I am not suggesting that personal ambitions should be our motivation or that project objectives should be pursued at any cost, however I am suggesting that a  motivated and committed project team will be more likely to achieve a successful outcome. The question then becomes, short of "burning the boats," what can project leaders do to "appropriately" motivate their project teams.

I think most project managers would agree that arbitrary deadlines and heavy-handed command-and-control management tactics simply don't provide a long-term solution to motivating and engaging project teams. In the 30 or so years of my career, I've seen these tactics unsuccessfully employed by many managers, however today's workforce seems to be even less inclined to respond to such methods. In the long term, fostering an atmosphere where team members feel a sense of ownership for project deliverables is a much more productive approach. What's more, there is a relatively simple strategy for creating this type of project environment:

1. Empower Individual Project Team Members with the Ability to Make Decisions About Due Dates and Timelines: This might seem counterintuitive at first, but team members are more likely to take ownership of project deliverables if they make personal commitements to completion dates. At the very least, empowering team members to push back on unrealistic time-lines and provide alternatives will give project managers a more accurate picture of project status.
2. Foster an Atmosphere Where Team Members are Recognized for Their Accomplishments: If the only time team members hear from their manager is when there's a problem, it might feel to team members like you are "burning the boats." People typically take pride in what they do, and sincere and positive recognition for their accomplishments is a powerful tool for engaging the workforce.
3. Management and Peer Visibility is a Powerful Motivator: Providing peers as well as managers visibility into team member accomplishments allows team members to receive additional (and potentially very powerful) positive recognition from their co-workers.

Of course, having the right team in place is critical to making all this happen. There will always be people who won't step up regardless of how they are managed, the project management tools, or the methodology in place. The short answer may be that those people aren't right for your team. Those are questions that you will need to answer for yourself. However, as a general rule, I have found that most people want to do a good job, respond well to a little autonomy, and appreciate honest feedback (provided it's not only negative feedback).

What do you do to keep your project teams engaged and motivated.

 

Answering the question, "How do you measure IT project success?" shouldn't be that difficult, right? However, I think most of us would agree that pushing projects to completion on time and under budget should NOT be the only measure of whether or not a project is successful. Most seasoned project leaders will agree that any project, to be truly successful, must provide the business value it was intended to produce. Let me share a couple of other suggestions regarding what I believe projects need to be considered successful:

1. Success is about doing the right projects, not just doing them right. Delivering business value and satisfying customer needs is critical—and starts with the evaluation of which potential projects will meet those needs and provide that value. Hopefully, this has always been the case, but organizations are realizing that they have to do more than give lip service to meeting customer expectations and organizational goals. It must become a primary measurement of how we determine the success or failure of any IT project.
2. Project teams need to completely understand how "quality" is defined and how to build it into every project. Although everyone would agree that "quality" is very subjective, if everyone on the team doesn't have a thorough understanding of the cost of defects and rework, it doesn't matter what work management tool you use, it won't help. Edward Deming used to talk about how organizations must build quality into the product, it can't really be inspected in. Quality assurance needs to be a part of every process from start to finish. Smart organizations are looking at defects and their root causes through the project-life-cycle to develop methodologies that improve the quality of their final deliverables.
3. The final product needs to be stable, compatible, and easily maintainable. It's just too expensive for organizations to maintain software that's unreliable or incompatible with current systems. With staff and maintenance budgets at a premium, software that isn't will be abandoned for something that is.

The way organizations measure the success of project-based work is changing. Managers who leverage project management tools to meet the new objectives are able to better address business needs and ultimately increase their value within their organizations.

How do you measure project success?

 

A balanced investment strategy has proven to be the most successful approach for maximizing return while reducing risk in an investment portfolio.  Does the same approach apply to the successful management of an organizations project portfolio?

An experienced financial adviser will tell you that a balanced investment strategy is the most successful approach for maximizing return while reducing risk in your investment portfolio.  The investor works to balance return and risk by diversifying investments in both high risk/high return and low risk/low return opportunities.  Understanding each investor's overall risk tolerance is crucial to crafting a meaningful investment strategy.

Successfully managing an organization's project portfolio to maximize return while reducing risk requires the same approach—an understanding of the organization's risk tolerance, and investment strategy that takes that tolerance into account, and an execution that aligns with the organization's strategic and financial goals.

Although there are many organizations that believe it's better to be safe than sorry, that might not be the case.  Value-driven risk management acknowledges that some risks are positive opportunities to be pursued, while others aren't worth worrying too much about, given the likelihood of occurring.

The first step to evaluating the viability of any project is to determine it's potential value, based upon pre-determined metrics that reflect:

1. The project goals
2. The project costs
3. Th project's alignment to the mission and vision of the organization
4. The organization's risk tolerance
5. The project risks and any mitigation plans

Pre-determined metrics for evaluating project objectives, risks, business value, and alignment to organizational strategic and financial goals enable project decision-makers to manage technology and implement systems in a disciplined way that balances the need for positive return from investments with the costs associated with maintaining an innovative and productive line of business.

Maximizing project investments from the ground up depends on how successfully we can manage and lead project teams.  I don't believe that keeping people busy is the challenge—however, choosing the right projects is sometimes problematic for business leaders.

Poor decision-making leads to bad project investments.  Much like how a skilled investment adviser makes decisions, the key to making good project decisions lies with pre-determined metrics for evaluating potential projects to validate initiatives from the ground up.

Project portfolio management software and work management methodologies that facilitate and encourage this type of evaluation before a project even starts will make the process easier to implement—however balancing risk and return is more than plugging numbers into a software program.  It requires an organizational commitment to not only doing projects right, but doing the right projects.

How do you balance risk and reward?