PMO Bytes

As a manager of a project management office, I often find myself doing the matchmaker’s job. The difference is I don’t play cupid for couples, instead I match up project managers with projects. Easy job for the money you would say. Not necessary. A wrong decision made would have a good project ruined or even the reputation of a promising project manager crushed. Just like the sacred duty of the matchmaker who ties the nuptial knot and toys with the fate of two fine souls, the task of project manager selection and assignment carries a lot of weight and responsibility in itself blessed with trust, hope and expectation of the stakeholders. It is not something mundane and easy as many of us would have believed and we should not take it too casually.

How do you pick your project manager for the job?

Depending on the domain knowledge and skillset that the individual has? Using some scheduling approaches like round-robin and first-come-first-serve? Or simply based on whoever is available? Regardless of what approach you use, just make sure you don’t leave it all to the computer to handle it as the matchmaking job is more of an art than a routine that can be defined scientifically. There are no fixed rules on 'how to select project manager’, but there are a few pointers below that may help you to get started with.

1. Balance the workload: This is common sense. We know we should not overstretch the employees by giving them too much work that they can actually handle. On the other hand, it is not easy for us to resist the temptation of giving more work and responsibility to those people that we most trust. This often results in a skewed workload distribution with a couple of ‘fortunate’ project managers being overstressed while the rest happily sitting on the cold bench. Use a resource scheduling tool or keep a resource planning sheet to track the workload of your project managers and ensure that you have a well-balanced resource utilization plan.
2. Equal opportunity: No matter what approach you use to select your project manager, you need to ensure every project manager has a fair share of participation in projects of various types and sizes. This is crucial for their individual development and growth. You may think that it is better to assign the same project manager to the same type of projects so that he or she can be specialized in that area. However, there is no harm to rotate the project manager into other types of projects occasionally to provide wider exposure and keep the interest level high. It can be really boring to keep doing the same thing over and over again.
3. The cold bench: Many people have this habit of picking up those that are left sitting on the cold bench for the next available job. This reminds me of those trucks that pick up odd job workers, or coolies, from pick-up points to be ferried to a plantation or coal mine for a day job in exchange for a couple of dimes. Availability is the only selection criterion considered. It does not matter if the resource fits the job. Imagine how bad it can be if a matchmaker just pairs up couples irresponsibly based on their availability. It is alright to first check out who is available, but you should also assess holistically to see if the person is suitable to work on the project before assigning him or her as the project manager.
4. Best for the bore: In sports like soccer and basketball, coaches will usually put in their best team for the most challenging game. The same logic applies to managers when it comes to selecting the best project manager for the most interesting and challenging project. Does this always work? Not necessary as Michael Schrage proclaimed “Put Your Best People On Your Most Boring Challenges” in his Harvard Business Review article. Try putting your best project manager in the most boring project and see if he or she still works wonders. Sometimes, the most boring job could be the most challenging one and an occasional swap like this may help to rekindle the passion and creativity in the team.
5. Domain knowledge: This is one of the most arguable and fervently debated topics. The purists would argue that a project manager should remain as a generalist, well-trained in project management skills and not necessary to have good domain knowledge, while the pragmatists would claim the opposite that having good domain knowledge would help the project manager to do better in specific type of projects. The agreement with the former argument is firmly supported in the article “Must Project Managers be Subject Matter Experts?” written by Hessel Friedlander. Unfortunately, there is no straightforward answer to this question as it depends on various factors like the nature of the project, organization culture, and the availability of supporting SMEs etc. and therefore, has to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

Boss: “Good job, well done!”

Employee: “Dear Boss, don’t we deserve something better than these bland and over-clichéd compliments?”

I am not sure about you, but I have received a lot of these craps since my first job and, to be honest, I was responsible for sending out a handful of them too. Don’t get me wrong. There is nothing wrong to praise or encourage someone after he or she has done something great. In fact, you often need to do that to keep people motivated. The objective is good. It is what being said that ruins the game. With all due respect, I think it is pure laziness or simply ignorant of the situation that causes bosses to send out such unimpressive compliments. Imagine how the employees would feel when they have already received the same “well done” the N number of times. Some would have just moved on without thinking too much on these tasteless words, while there are those who would have taken it with a pinch of salt and doubted the sincerity of the act. For the worst of it, some might have even taken it as an insult for the hard work they have put in. I have a colleague that once asked me – “If everyone keeps telling me that I have been doing a wonderful job out there, then why ain’t I getting my well-deserved promotion?”

I have to agree with my colleague. In fact, we have to be more cautious and sensitive when we are giving our compliments and feedback as our team deserves it. Don't do it for the sake of doing it. The problem with many of us is we are too busy (a bad excuse for being lazy) and tend to take whatever convenient as a quick response without giving much thought on the repercussion. We keep doing this so often that it has become a bad habit unknowingly. Fair enough, people will just become immune and don’t give a damn when they have had enough of those craps. I believe people will feel more appreciated if we are a little bit more specific and elaborative in our feedback. For example, instead of just saying “Well done!” plainly, we could try saying “You have done a marvelous job in cutting down the cost by 20% and yet, able to complete the project in time without overworking the team.” See the difference? Be more appreciative with what the team has done for you. A little retouch on the feedback like the previous example works magic. It not only shows your gratitude sincerely, but also helps the person to know exactly what he or she has done well.

Another interesting pattern that I have observed is people like to be the ‘good guy’ or ‘Mr. Nice’. We enjoy being ‘accepted’ and being ‘liked’ at work. Who’s not? As a result, we tend to only talk about the good things that people have done but reluctant to point out their faults (office politics is an exception). This is not healthy. A good and balanced feedback should consist of both positive and negative elements that help to reinforce our learning. As much as we would like to praise people, we should also provide constructive advices on what they have done wrong and how they could do better. This is exactly what we should do in the project closure meeting. As Matthew Syed, the author of “Bounce”, wrote – “We need to know where we are going wrong if we are going to improve… Feedback is, in effect, the rocket fuel that propels the acquisition of knowledge, and without it no amount of practice is going to get you there.” So make it a point that you will remember to be ‘negative’ in order to be constructive when you are giving your feedback to someone next time.

To those leaders and bosses out there, if you are still sending out crappy compliments, then here is the good news – “Good job, well done and you are not the only one.”

A junior project coordinator in my team raised this question some time back – “How can I provide an accurate estimate of the project cost when I don’t have much information on the project?” This seemingly simple question had actually gotten several old-timers in the room dumbfounded. Not that it is hard to find an answer to it, but the fact that we are trying too hard to find the answer is where the problem lies. We need to learn to make appropriate assumptions and set the right expectation, and communicate out appropriately. It is not uncommon for us to receive a call or email from someone in another department requesting a cost estimate on a project initiative (consider yourself lucky if you do get a half-page description on it). Some of you would probably rush in immediately spending hours and days using some of the most complicated tools to get the right figures for the cost estimate only to find yourself stuck with the question above.

During the early stage of project initiatives screening, we want to provide senior management with cost estimate that is as accurate as possible to avoid overestimation that often results in the project being dropped or underestimation that causes overblown of budget during project execution. The fact is we can’t provide accurate estimate on the cost if the information we have in hands is limited. Yet, it is not justifiable for us to invest too much time and effort into gathering information that we need for cost estimation if the project has not been approved. Isn’t this ironical? I believe many of you should have encountered this awkward Catch-22 experience before while managing your projects. Below are a few tips to help you to get along if you are caught in a similar situation again.

1. Avoid analysis of paralysis: Let’s be realistic. You won’t be able to get an accurate cost estimate if you don’t even have the detailed requirements of the project scoped up. You need to understand and work around the constraints. There are various types of cost estimate that you can provide, each targeted at a different precision of accuracy, depending on the amount of information you have on the project requirements. It just does not make sense stressing yourself and burning your nights to come up with a cost estimate that will become outdated the moment it leaves your outbox.
2. Make appropriate assumptions: Just as you have to avoid analysis of paralysis, you need to learn to make a few valid assumptions to move on. There is nothing wrong in making assumptions when you are working on the cost estimate with the limited information you have as long as the assumptions made and associated variances are clearly stated. Here is the catch – do not assume that your stakeholders are aware of the assumptions you have made.
3. Set the right expectation: Make sure your stakeholders are aware of the differences between guesstimate and estimate. Let them know that guesstimate is just a ballpark figure on the cost of the project and they should not take it as the final amount as it will be adjusted when the project requirements are finalized with more information becomes available. It is also a good practice to associate your estimate with a validity date so that people will know when and what to look for.
4. It is a continuous process: Many people say that you will never know how much a project will cost until it is completed. Quite true, but this should not give you a reason not to get your cost estimate earlier even if it is just guesstimate. Both you and your stakeholders should understand that cost estimation is never a one-time activity and the initial estimate will not last you till the end of your project. It is a continuous process that needs to be conducted iteratively at different stages in the project lifecycle and reviewed together with the stakeholders.
5. Buffer is nice, padding is bad: Someone once told me that it is common to have buffer but not padding in cost estimation. Not bad, we are playing with words. The problem is we keep using these two words interchangeably in projects when they actually represent different things altogether. Paddings are usually added by task estimators ‘illegally’ without the knowledge of the project manager that will eventually float up and bloat up the entire estimated cost. Buffers, on the other hand, are ‘legitimately’ added by the project manager after considering all possible costs in order to provide allowances for unforeseen changes. Let’s admit it. When tasked to give an estimate on something vague, most people are tempted to add extra allowances into the calculations to secure themselves a bailout card in case the actual cost turns out to be more. Make sure you eliminate all those hidden paddings before they eliminate your project from the selection list due to overblown cost.

On a gloomy Monday morning in October, in a prison cell-like conference room in northern part of Singapore, a group of people gathered around a whiteboard each with a marker pen of different color in their hands. Their expressions were deadpan. Their eyes fixated on a RACI chart in the center of the whiteboard. The atmosphere was intense. A heated debate had just ended a moment ago. The group could not reach an agreement on the ‘R’, ‘A’, ‘C’ and ‘I’ assignments for the RACI chart.

RACI chart, in general, describes the participation by various roles in completing tasks or deliverables for a project; nothing more, nothing less. However, most of us are pretty lousy when it comes to using the RACI chart correctly. I am not sure since when we have become so ‘RACIst’.  It did not happen overnight for sure. Like it or not, we have long been abusing the use of RACI chart. We are using it more for defining political boundaries than as a tool for clarifying roles and responsibilities. A RACI chart, to us, is a power map – one that defines who are in control and who are being controlled. It defines the territories each marked in different color and alphabet. As a result, we have to struggle through the ‘RACI chart battle’ every now and then due to this aberrant ‘RACIsm’ in us.

The RACI Chart Battle

Most people vie for the ‘A’ in every task as it symbolizes authority and control. They want the authority to approve as many tasks as possible yet, most often than not, they have all forgotten about the accountability part of it. The fights on this piece are the most intense. Each ‘A’ won is a critical map pin that can help them to extend their political boundaries. The more map pins the merrier, nothing else matters. On the other hand, people are also trying their best to push away the ‘R’ assignments. They see the 'R' as bane that belongs to no one else but the pathetic scapegoats. It is easy to pay lip service, but when it comes to actually doing the job, nobody really likes to be held responsible for it. This is partly due to the fact that people that are responsible to get the job done are usually not given the right or sufficient authority that is required for the execution. Then there is this ‘egocentric’ group. They want to have a say and their voices to be heard in every single meeting and discussion. They aim for the ‘C’ in every task and want you to seek their advices in everything you do. Attention is what they want to get from you. As the saying goes, ‘too many cooks spoil the broth’. In fact, if you have to consult a long list of people before arriving at a decision in your project, you would probably have a hard time in getting things done efficiently. Last but not least, we have the Kiasu group. They are the nosy type who afraid of being ‘kept in the dark’. Although they have nothing to do with anything, they often demand others to keep them in the loop of everything. People in this group have huge appetites for reports. You should not be surprised to find them subscribed to hundreds of newsletters but hardly read one. To them, information is power, relevant or not is the least of their concerns. They feel insecure and get panicky if they are out of the loop. Apart from the bloodshed, the battle usually leaves us with a useless RACI chart that is full of wrong and redundant responsibility assignments. Time wasted and relationships worsened. What do we gain here?

Battles like this have plagued many projects in the past. It is time for us to put things back in the right perspective by reestablishing RACI chart back to its original form and let it be what it should be. If you have not been through a RACI chart battle yet, then well, congratulations! However, if you have gone through one or participated and contributed in some of those battles, you should seriously consider pulling yourself out. Do your homework and use RACI chart correctly for the right purpose. Stop being a ‘RACIst’!

Our minds have been infested by the adage ‘Customers First’ since the day we stepped into the society. We hardly doubted its truth. It is obvious, isn’t it? A company exists to serve the customers well so as to sell services or products to them in return for some profits. In order to achieve this grandiose objective, they have to put their customers in the first place isn’t it?

“No, employees first, customers second!” heralded Vineet Nayar, Vice Chairman and CEO of HCL Technologies, as he kicked off the seminar in Singapore in February 2011. Vineet was there to talk about how value is created in the new knowledge economy and how organizations leveraging information technology across industries can be transformed through disruptive management. This, according to Vineet, builds on top of the philosophy of “Employees First, Customers Second” (EFCS), an innovative management approach that empowers employees, drives passion in them, encouraging individuality and entrepreneurship, and moves the organization forward. Watching Vineet sashaying across the stage, passionately telling stories and giving examples to explain the philosophy of EFSC while characteristically waving his hands in the air to reinforce some of his points, was a great enjoyment. However, I wonder how many people in the audience are ready to embrace such radical management practices of confronting the truth, building trust through transparency, inverting the management pyramid by empowering the employees, and shifting the responsibility of change from top to bottom.

“Oh, wait a minute Vineet. Are you telling us to value someone that we are paying money to more than someone we are getting money from? This sounds crazy!” I heard a murmur in the audience. I must admit that I do have some reservations about the effectiveness of EFCS when I first heard about it. Let’s face it, the thought of ‘Customers First’ is so deeply ingrained in us that most people find it hard to shake off. It is just so common sense. What so good about giving the employees all the focus while paying less attention to the customers? How can this benefit the organization? We know that having a team of talents is half a battle won in this new knowledge economy, but placing them ahead of our valuable customers is another story altogether. Yet, the gargantuan success and growth of HCL Technologies over the past six years since the introduction of EFCS in 2005 is definitely not accidental. As I explored further into this, I started to see some light from another direction.

Let’s turn the table around and ask the question ‘What could be bad about putting Customers First?’ instead. In general, it is perfectly alright to have a customer-centric culture where the focus is on serving the customers well with their needs as top priorities. Things turn bad when people start worshipping the customers and treating them like kings. In such a culture, the employees will do everything to please the customers and satisfy their needs blindly regardless of whether there is real value in doing it. They behave like seamstresses who sew according to instructions instead of couturieres who design for the haute couture. In other words, they have given up the freedom to be creative and the opportunity to lead. Eventually, they are likely to end up as one of the followings.

1. Cover girls: No, I am not talking about those anorexic catwalk prima donnas that appear in the front pages of magazines. I am talking about employees who cover up or sugarcoat the reality with their sleek and dashy presentation slides. Some extreme ones might even tweak the figures in the monthly reports just to make them look good. There is only one reason that they are doing these – to avoid causing any unnecessary worries. As a result, the customers will never know the actual situation till it is too late for any constructive remedies when the problems eventually surface up.
2. Milquetoasts: They are the pusillanimous mice who succumb under the thunderous roars of the intimidating customers. It is uncommon for them to challenge back or reject any request from the customers. Taking in instructions without demur is what they do best. They are extremely afraid of the customers and will do anything just to avoid provoking them. Consequently, the customers will only get what they have asked for but not what they actually need.
3. Bamboozlers: This group is the worst among the three. People in this group are so eager to please the customers that sometimes they tend to oversell and commit on what they cannot deliver. They are the typical snake oil sellers who will not hesitate to sell you a photocopy machine touting that it can also brew you a cup of aromatic espresso. Fooled by cajoling words and inflated reality, customers will usually end up in disappointment realizing that all the commitments are nothing but empty promises.

I have collaborated with HCL Technologies in a couple of projects over the past few years. I wouldn’t say that they are flawless in their EFCS implementation, but at least they have a lot lesser employees that behave like the three types mentioned above compare to other vendors. On the contrary, I am fortunate to have worked with a few great people in HCLT who accept responsibility and take ownership with pride and step up and lead when the situation calls for it. “Employees First, Customers Second”, to me, is no longer just an interesting catch phrase. I am witnessing it in effect.