Guessing is not a strategy: How to build decision velocity with AI and real-time data
June 10, 2026 | Live Webinar
The Fox and the Goat: Objectively Analyzing Project Risk
 One day, a Fox fell into a deep well and couldn't climb out.A thirsty Goat soon came to the same well, and seeing the Fox, called down to ask whether the water was good. Pretending to be happy (and not in despair), the Fox lavishly praised the water, saying how absolutely delicious it tasted, and encouraged the Goat to come down and join him in the well. The Goat, thinking only of his thirst, stupidly jumped down. As he drank, the Fox informed him of the difficulty they were both in and suggested a scheme for their common escape. "If," said the Fox, "you put your forefeet up on the wall and bend your head down, I will run up your back like a ramp and escape, and then I will help you out afterwards." The Goat agreed and so the Fox leaped upon his back. Steadying himself with the Goat's horns, he safely reached the mouth of the wall...and took off as fast as he could! When the Goat complained of the Fox breaking his promise, the Fox turned around and cried out, "You old Goat! If you had as many brains in your head as you have hairs in your beard, you would never have gone down without making sure there was a way back up. Only a foolish fellow exposes himself to dangers from which he has no means of escape!"  Aesop ably teaches that understanding and successfully managing risk is critical (even if you're not a goat). Although some of the risks faced by everyone doing project based work might be positive opportunities to pursue, the lesson of the Fox and Goat is to "Look Before You Leap." One of the first steps to evaluating the viability of any project is to determine the project's value based upon pre-determined metrics that include:
The best time to determine the viability of any project is before it's begun. Evaluating potential projects against pre-determined metrics makes project selection easier, while standardizing the selection process enables organizations to make decisions based upon accurate and reliable information. Regardless of your work management methodology, the right project management software can make it easier to validate that every project you pursue aligns with strategic and financial goals. It's a fact of life in today's economic climate that project managers are making do with fewer resources. They need something to make them more efficient. The trick is not to do more with less, but to do less with less—in other words do more of the right things. Following Aesop's advice to look before you leap, and formalize a project evaluation process that includes risk, alignment, benefit and value, helps decision-makers focus on the right projects. How does your organization evaluate project risk? Are there metrics established to keep every project focused on providing the most value for the least amount of risk? |
Posted on: April 05, 2010 09:49 AM
| Permalink |
Comments (0)
Work Management and the Facebook Imperative that Cannont Be Stopped
 In a recent (March 10, 2010) guest post on TechCrunch forwarded to me yesterday, The Facebook Imperative Cannot Be Stopped, Salesforce.com's Marc Benioff addresses the "ruckus across the blogosphere" created by an earlier post titled, The Facebook Imperative. In light of the recent conversation going back and forth between the PapercutPM, our blog, and others in the #pmot universe, I thought it was particularly interesting."Why isn't all enterprise software like Facebook?" asks Benioff. "Energized" by what he sees as the next generation of collaboration software, he continues, "There are an overwhelming number of you who agree that it's time to transform the business conversation the same way Facebook has changed the consumer conversation." Does that apply to project management software and the way project teams collaborate? I certainly believe it does. However, I think it's less about the particular medium and more about what it is within the medium that fosters the dialog. In a comment on yesterday's post, Derek Huether of The Critical Path blog wrote, "Top down communication is being replaced by direct communication, regardless of the organizational structure. It doesn't matter if you are using Facebook, Twitter, or some other new media communication tool. Just have the conversation! Increasing the communication pathways to discuss a project will increase the probability of success. We all want that, right?" Benioff says, "I consider Facebook and Twitter—and the ability to tap into my network of friends and followers—one of the most productive ways I can start my day. Using these new Internet phenoms, I've tested new ad campaigns and elicited great customer responses, promoted my book to a large audience of people who cared, and with the help of my network, even named new products—all before I sat down for breakfast." Anyone involved in project based work who works with a team, can hopefully see the value this type of collaboration and networking could deliver to a project. Describing how his organization is using Salesforce Chatter, Benioff argues, "I have learned more about my own company in the last three days using Salesforce Chatter than I have in the last three years. The awareness I have today of what is happening with our employees, our customers, our products, our customer service escalations, and even the deals we are closing is spectacular. Social computing for the enterprise is about seeing what matters to your company, what is happening with your products, and among your people. It's about the information you need to make decisions finding you." I believe Benioff is talking about the same type of paradigm shift we discussed yesterday. Project management software companies who are looking at social media and working to incorporate 'what it is in Facebook and Twitter' that fosters communication will be successful at creating the next generation of project management tools. "Facebook and Twitter have shown us the way," says Benioff, "...not everyone has to get it yet, but eventually they all will. As they say: Shift happens." |
Posted on: April 02, 2010 10:34 AM
| Permalink |
Comments (6)
Work Management and Communication—Is It Time for a Paradigm Shift?
 Previous to the acceptance of plate tectonics to explain large-scale geological changes, geologists assumed that the Earth's major features were fixed. The theory grew out of the hypothesis of continental drift proposed by Alfred Wegener in 1912. The paradigm shift that followed (plate tectonics) describes the Earth's lithosphere as broken up into tectonic plates that move in relation to each other at the boundaries. Earthquakes, volcanic activity, and oceanic trench-building occur at these boundaries.Plate tectonics is only one of many paradigm shifts that have changed the way scientists look at the world. According to Thomas Kuhn, who coined the phrase in 1962, "A paradigm is what members of a scientific community, and they alone share." A paradigm shift is a change in basic assumptions within the ruling theory of science.  Kuhn used the duck-rabbit illustration at right to show how a paradigm shift could cause someone to see the same information in an entirely different way. In light of recent conversations with colleagues interested in how project teams communicate within the context of project based work, I wonder if there is an approaching paradigm shift regarding traditional methods of communication and the proliferation of social media like blogs, Twitter, Linkedin, and Facebook, etc. Not so much regarding the specific media, but rather in how people interact with each other and within the media. Whether or not you see the rabbit or the duck at first glance, it appears that we may all be looking at the same information and seeing it differently. One of the many challenges faced by project managers revolves around collecting quantitative and qualitative data regarding the projects they oversee. Although project and portfolio management (PPM) software is widely used to manage and report on projects, most PPM software approaches the collection of project data from an executive level down perspective. Traditional software methods for capturing project information are inherently so complex that they alienate team members and force managers to beg, cajole, and nag for status updates at worst—and only provide quantitative project information at best. Respectively ineffective and inadequate, in my opinion. What's more, task management and collaboration software designed for team members, typically lacks the reporting capabilities required by executives for making informed decisions, once again relegating project managers to collecting information and creating status reports to be pushed up the org chart. I believe this diminishes the role of project managers, who's time is best spent "leading" teams. The way people interact with social media demonstrates that under the right conditions, people will gladly update status, collaborate, and interact both quantitatively and qualitatively. Is it the simplicity of the interface? Is it the instant gratification they receive from their Facebook friends? Or is it something else? Whatever the reason, I suggest the imminent paradigm shift will involve how successfully organizations can integrate those aspects of social media that make sense into the work management process, opposed to those who are turned off by what they consider the trivial aspects of Facebook and Twitter. Feel free to weigh in with your thoughts on this topic. |
Posted on: April 01, 2010 10:28 AM
| Permalink |
Comments (8)
Deming's 14 Key Principles and Project-Based Work
 A recent blog post by @task's CTO Nate Bowler, Software Engineering Management, Bug Week, and Giving Away Minivans, generated some discussion regarding Deming's aversion to incentives and how @task applies incentives to the software development process. I think everyone can agree with Nate when he suggests that "creating meaningful performance metrics for a software engineering team is difficult."I don't plan on going into all 14 of Deming's Key Principles here, but there's some pretty good background on Deming and his list of key principles on Wikipedia for those unfamiliar with them. Suffice it to say, he has been credited with a significant contribution to helping Japanese manufacturing improve the quality of their products and their reputation in the world. Of Deming's list of 14, I think the following apply to the current discussion: #10—"Eliminate slogans, exhortations, and targets for the work force asking for zero defects and new levels of productivity." Deming argued that this only created adversarial relationships because the root cause of poor quality belongs to the system, not to the workforce. I must admit that in theory, I agree with Deming—but an empowered workforce, with the objective of zero defects, is the way to fix a broken system. That being said, the key here is a workforce empowered to correct a flawed process. #11a—"Eliminate work standards (quotas) on the factory floor. Substitute leadership." In the sense that arbitrary quotas and artificially created deadlines hurt morale and inhibit workforce productivity, I agree with Deming. Does that mean that organizations should abandon metrics altogether? I don't think so. Athletes successfully use benchmarks and performance objectives to improve performance—the key is to keep the definitions of success consistent. Oh, there is no substitute for effective leadership. #11b—"Eliminate management by objective. Eliminate management by numbers, numerical goals. Substitute leadership." In a world without stakeholders, executive boards, and shareholders, objectives might not matter—unfortunately, for most organizations, managing and executing to objectives is important. Once again, the key here is to manage those objectives that make sense and not create arbitrary objectives that do nothing but force people to run around in circles. Fortunately, Deming's philosophy offers a number of valuable manufacturing work management best practices that can be embraced by any organization engaged in project based work. However, because I am in no way a purist, I tend to embrace those ideas that are likely to contribute positively to the project management process, and ignore those that might not. After all, my reading of Deming leads me to believe that he was not directly addressing the project management process, but rather the manufacturing process—similar, but not the same. Have I missed the point? Feel free to weigh in with your opinion. |
Posted on: March 31, 2010 10:27 AM
| Permalink |
Comments (3)
Work Management Success: Managing Stakeholder Expectations and Delivering Value
 Managing project based work is more than time-lines and milestones—it also includes managing stakeholder expectations and delivering value.If you're lucky, project stakeholders have clearly defined the value and what the successful outcome of their project might look like. I say lucky because unfortunately, clearly defining the potential value of an initiative before the project has begun seems to be the exception rather than the rule in most organizations. However, if success is not clearly defined, it's up to the project manager to initiate a dialog to determine the value and desired outcome. Otherwise it's difficult to successfully complete any project. And what's more, it's never a good idea to be measured against a moving target. In most organizations, a stakeholder's attention span is pretty short. Long projects that require a lot of stakeholder patience tend to falter and ultimately fail. Providing value regularly, at short (3-4 week) intervals, keeps stakeholders engaged and interested. Execute against the objective It's easy for change orders to morph a project into something different than what was intended. Keeping stakeholders focused on the objective can be challenging, but its critical for project success. If a change doesn't contribute to the defined objective, stakeholders need to understand the ramifications and how changes could impact the final outcome. Executives aren't as interested in your particular work management methodology as they are in the results. Keep stakeholder communication focused on progress and value. Be concise and brief. Spending a lot of time buried in the details with stakeholders will not only be frustrating for them—it doesn't do you any good either. Four keys to managing stakeholders: 
|
Posted on: March 30, 2010 10:57 AM
| Permalink |
Comments (3)