The Problem With PM Audit Standards
| I haven’t criticized a PM icon this blog for a while, so it’s about time I did. My targets? None other than EIA-748, Earned Value Management Systems, and documents associated with it from the National Defense Industrial Association (NDIA), specifically the NDIA/IPMD Surveillance Guide and Intent Guide. Where I believe these documents are creating problems in the PM world is in their macro-effect of influencing the whole PM codex away from actual Project performance, and towards process policing, not giving enough attention to its real-world consequences. First let me lay down some basics, so intuitive that I’m genuinely surprised that they have not already been universally accepted in the PM universe. The point of all Project Management Information Systems (PMISs) is to put into the hands of decision-makers that which they need to make, well, informed decisions on their Projects, on a day-to-day basis. This information needs to meet three criteria: ·It must be timely, ·It must be accurate, and ·It must be relevant. Based on my reading of these documents, I think they went light on that last bullet. Instead, they spend thousands of words describing process: how baselines must be created, must be changed, must have a documented audit trail to ensure no informal alterations have been made, so on and so forth. According to EIA and the NDIA, what are signs that your EVMS is suspect, or even invalid? These include the absence of: ·Documented processes and procedures, ·Precise alignment between the Work Breakdown Structure (WBS), Organizational Breakdown Structure (OBS), Schedule and Cost Baselines, ·Work Authorization documents, properly laying out the Scope, and with the appropriate signatures, and ·Change Control documents, laying out the nature of the change to the Scope, Cost, and Schedule Baselines, also with the appropriate signatures, …among others. Don’t get me wrong – all of these certainly point to a mature and robust PMO. But there’s a problem with them: they are almost exclusively process oriented, and, to my thinking, successful Project Management is not about scrupulously obeying someone’s else’s idea of correct process. Success in PM is about, well, success (again, something that should be so intuitively obvious that I’m shocked it hasn’t been widely adapted already). It’s analogous to having a team of the best engineers in the land working in your automobile factory, evaluating every part and bolt-tightening process, but then not arranging for anyone to actually start the car at the end of the assembly line. “Okay, Michael” I can hear the more process-aligned members of GTIM Nation say, “what do you think should replace these criteria as audit standards for Earned Value Management Systems?” Simple: do they work? And by “do they work?”, I mean do they actually help PMs bring their projects in on-time, on-budget? Here’s how to make that determination. First off, does the organization’s project portfolio have a preponderance of Projects that come in on-time, on-budget? The proof of the pudding, as they say, is in the eating. If a strong majority of the Projects in the portfolio do come in on-time, on-budget, then I’d say that’s evidence of that organization’s PMIS functioning rather well. Either that, or they are staffed with PMs who are so exceptional that they don’t need timely and accurate cost and schedule performance information in order to succeed. Of course, most organizations can’t point to an overwhelming Project success rate to provide ipso facto evidence of PMIS efficacy, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that such systems aren’t reliable. After all, some published estimates put the percentage of Projects coming in on-time, on-budget at 30 – 50%, depending on industry.[i] I believe that the litmus test for EVMS reliability should be: did the EVMS accurately predict those Projects that did overrun or come in late, by the near- actual amount of the overrun or delay? And how far in advance did the EVMS make that prediction? Because if the baselines were acceptably derived, percent complete data reasonably assessed, and actual costs correctly collected, even basic EV analysis will reliably predict the overrun/delay to within ten points (typically), and do so months in advance for anything but short-duration, low-budget work. I think that part (most?) of the reason that there’s some level of truth in the axiom that you can put fifty PMs into a room and they won’t agree on the color of an orange is due to this movement of the determiner of PM Information System validity in general, and Earned Value Management Systems in particular, away from actual success rates, and towards process and function policing. And that, dear GTIM Nation, is the problem with PM audit standards. [i] Retrieved from Chat GPT 6 Luna on October 27, 2026, 20:03 MDT. |
Posted on: October 31, 2026 10:54 AM
| Permalink |
Comments (1)
On Going Too Far…
| Much of the pixel ink spilled in advancing Project Management has to do with encouraging organizations that do not use its precepts to change their ways, recognize its utility, and thenceforth thrive. Make no mistake – I’m all for this. To a point. After that point, I have to ask, how much is too much? In my point/counterpoint-format debate, documented in PMNetwork (February 2008) with Dave Hillson (a.k.a., “The Risk Doctor”), David stated “…risk is an uncertain event or condition that—if it occurs—has a positive or negative effect on achievement of one or more project objectives.”[i] I quickly pointed out that such a definition excluded no part of the management process. I believed then, as I do now, that the risk management (no initial caps) crowd were (and still are) seriously overextending their epistemological purview. My understanding of this assertion is that almost every aspect of managerial decision-making can be reliably informed by performing Gaussian curve-based analyses, which I whole-heartedly reject. Generally speaking, they simply didn’t know when their preferred techniques’ efficacy started to deteriorate into irrelevance. Sadly, they’re not alone. As GTIM Nation knows, I’m a huge advocate of Earned Value Management Systems (EVMSs), and have no problems asserting that they are an absolutely essential aspect of the Management Information Systems supporting any real project of any real size or importance. And yet even here are multiple opportunities to over-play its importance at the urging of self-appointed experts, including those who belong to organizations that issue “guidance” on EVMSs. How does one know if those pushing Earned Value have gone too far? Probably the most obvious such indicator has to do with the development and use of the Estimate at Completion (EAC). Again, GTIM Nation knows of my opposition to the so-called “Bottoms Up” EAC, which involves re-estimating the remaining budget, adding that figure on to the cumulative actuals, and declaring victory. This method is not only wasteful in time, energy, and money, but it’s also demonstrably inaccurate when compared to its EVM-calculated counterpart, via the formula: EAC = BAC / CPI |
Posted on: October 21, 2026 08:08 PM
| Permalink |
Comments (2)
Are We Having Fun Yet?
| The quote “Find something you love to do, and you’ll never have to work a day in your life” is generally attributed to Harvey Mackay, but there are many similar quotes that may pre-date it. In any case, it’s been my experience that Project Management can be a truly rewarding profession, particularly if one happens to be good at it. It has also been my experience that PM can be highly frustrating, to the point of wanting to bite through twelve-penny nails, even if one happens to be good at it. I was engaged in a conversation with a friend recently, who passed along some advice his mother gave him, along the lines of “very few people ever get their dream jobs. You can either work at something you love for very little money, or something you hate for better money, but don’t expect to come into a ‘dream job.’” I quickly recognized the Payoff Grid implications of this advice, so:
If you are experiencing Scenario A2, good for you. I’ve been there, and it’s a great place to be. And, while its opposite Scenario (B1) may appear highly distressing, there are actually some benefits that can be gleaned from it, as I discussed in a previous blog “PM Lessons from Waiting Tables.”[i] Being in this situation can teach rather valuable lessons, even if the circumstances are less-than-desirable. Which brings us to the two Scenarios consistent with my friend’s mother’s advice, A1 and B2. PMs who engage in Scenario A1, perhaps for charitable or other, similar reasons, bring their expertise to efforts that are typically more noble than those that are more closely tied to their further monetized counterparts. Perhaps their dedication to a cause outweighs their need for renumeration, but whatever the particular circumstances, good on them. And, finally, we arrive at Scenario B2. If you, as a PM, are being paid well, but hate going in to work, I’ve also been there, and it can be straight-up dreadful. But why does it have to be this way? Well, I’ve compiled my top three reasons why the PM gig can be difficult, and here they are, in ascending order. 3. Involvement of non-Triple Constraint “experts.” I attained my PMP® in 1993 (#1004), so I’m kind of old-school on much of the PM codex. Back then, the PMBOK Guide® had eight chapters – the first three representing the so-called Triple Constraint of Scope, Cost, and Schedule. I take a highly skeptical view of the other five. GTIM Nation knows of my disdain for the risk managers (no initial caps), and of the Communications Managers and that whole business of “engaging all stakeholders,” even those who don’t want your Project to succeed. Quality, in my view, is a subset of Scope, since contractual quality standards are almost always documented in the Scope description. And Procurement, along with Human Resources, belongs under the Asset Managers’ umbrella. Procurement (a.k.a., accounts payable) is even part of the General Ledger, so, yeah, I’m justifiably skeptical of the capacity of these other five to either survive the redundancy test, or else meaningfully contribute to bringing in your scope on-time, on-budget. I have found that dealing with their demands on your time is often a PM buzz-kill. 2. People who hold the title of “PM,” but hate its precepts. They don’t call Project Management “the accidental profession” for nothing. Sometimes people who are strong in the technical discipline involved in a project but have never attended a management class in general, or a PM one in particular, will arrive at the helm convinced that the whole Work Breakdown Structure, Earned Value or Critical Path business is for the birds. These people will make life difficult for not only the PMO Director whose portfolio includes their work, but also for the Project Controls Specialist who is unfortunate enough to be assigned to them. Cringe-inducing office environment, indeed. 1. Asset Managers who are dead-set against PM. Think I’m exaggerating by placing these guys at Number 1? I’m not. In the early years of my PMNetwork column, The Variance Threshold, I actually had a PM, who identified himself as a U.S. Air Force officer, write to me saying that the accounting department he was working with refused to set up a chart of accounts that was aligned with his Project’s WBS. In other words, it was impossible to create an Earned Value Management approach to assessing his Project’s cost performance – he was, so to speak, flying blind. And, while other like-minded Asset Managers might not be as blatant in their anti-PM approach to conducting business, a low-level mistrust will often manifest in other ways. You see, their education informed them that the General Ledger is the natural and true source of any management information involving costs or budgets, so, when the PM-oriented usurpers arrive, these anti-PM types can become less than helpful. To be clear, I'm NOT saying that all Asset Managers are like this. But those who are can definitely become a millstone around the neck of the PM. What can be done? I genuinely don’t know. These are the types of problems that don’t easily lend themselves to template remedies. But, if all PM gigs were fun, our employers wouldn’t need to pay us as much, now, would they? [i] https://www.projectmanagement.com/blog-post/79563/pm-lessons-from-waiting-tables |
Posted on: October 09, 2026 10:43 PM
| Permalink |
Comments (3)
The Management Genius Of Abraham Lincoln
| In her excellent book Team of Rivals, The Political Genius Of Abraham Lincoln (Simon & Schuster, 2005) Doris Goodwin chronicles how Lincoln defeated Senator and former New York Governor William Seward, Ohio Governor Samual P. Chase, and former Missouri Attorney General Edward Bates to secure the Republican Party’s nomination for president in 1860 before she explores how Lincoln would add these very men to his cabinet once he was elected President. The three would serve as Secretary of State, Treasury, and Attorney General, respectively, even though they still held considerable animosity against Lincoln. While Seward would ultimately come to like and respect Lincoln during the American Civil War, Chase was not inclined to do so. Chase would, in fact, conspire against Lincoln to replace him as the Republican nominee in the election of 1864. Nevertheless, Lincoln kept Chase in the cabinet, believing him to be the best man for the job. I can only imagine how difficult it was for Lincoln to sacrifice his political future’s security and personal comfort in keeping a known adversary in his government, simply because of Chase’s capabilities. Goodwin actually quotes Lincoln as saying We need the strongest men of the party in the Cabinet. We needed to hold our own people together. I had looked the party over and concluded that these were the very strongest men. Then I had no right to deprive the country of their services.[i] Meanwhile, Back In The Project Management World… I remain convinced that one of the most toxic and far-reaching causes of a whole variety of organizational behavior and performance pathologies has to be the neglect (or even abandonment) of the organization pursuing, to the best of its ability, a meritocracy. If your team or group isn’t interested in attracting the most talented people that they can afford, irrespective of their immutable characteristics, then the odds of your team attaining a high-performing level of performance has already taken a hit. The abandonment of sustaining a meritocracy within the macro-organization can take many forms, but I’ll focus on the three that I’ve seen most often, and hold to be the most reliable red flags that this is the case. Nepotism. This particular path for diverting from a meritocracy is, perhaps, the most understandable of all, given the extent that parents are nominally inclined to sacrifice for their children. An entrepreneur starts a business, sees some level of success, and wishes to share that success with their family members by offering them jobs. But this deviation is plain from the start. If those same children were already employed in appropriately-paying jobs, they should not need additional help well into adulthood. Of course, there are exceptions, and I don’t envy those exceptions. One very capable fellow I worked with happened to be the son of a senior executive, and worked himself very hard indeed, knowing full well that the appearances would point to his not having earned his position on his merits. However, at the same company I also worked with two of the owner’s kids, and they were very poor performers. They knew they could not be fired, or even corrected, and it showed in their work habits. This company, coincidentally (?), had a serious morale problem. Cronyism. Cliques and clans within the macro-organization are common to the point of being ubiquitous, but that doesn’t make them any less toxic. People who advance within the organization due to their connections instead of actual contributions very much set the stage for Maccoby archetypes[ii] Jungle Fighters and Company Men to advance at the expense of the types that would actually contribute to that organization’s success, Craftsmen and Gamesmen. Once the technical direction gets set by the popular over the talented, the bad decisions accumulate, and the macro-organizational death spiral is likely to follow. Kiss Up, Punch Down. If you happen to observe this behavior in any of your colleagues or superiors, it’s a sure sign that a deviation from the meritocracy is underway. If one or two people in your organization are given to subtly (or dramatically) acting differently towards others based on whether or not they perceive that this other is in a position to help them professionally, then it might just be an annoyance. But if this type of behavior becomes more common, it means that somewhere, sometimes, this behavior works, otherwise it would have been eliminated through sheer Skinneresque behavioristic no-reward cycles. To be clear, I am absolutely not recommending that a PMO Director willingly tolerate clear opponents within their management circle. What I am saying is that differences in opinion on matters of determining the optimal technical approach or implementation strategy in advancing PM maturity is NOT a sign of disloyalty. And it doesn’t take the intellectual discipline of an Abraham Lincoln to recognize that. [i] Goodwin, Doris Kearns, Team of Rivals, The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln, Simon & Schuster, 2005. [ii] Maccoby, Michael, The Gamesman, The New Corporate Leaders, Simon & Schuster, 1976. |
Posted on: September 29, 2026 09:53 PM
| Permalink |
Comments (2)
“You’ve Got To Ask Yourself One Question … ‘Do I Feel Lucky?’”
| I’m confident that the majority of GTIM Nation, and many other readers who have just happened by, will instantly recognize the quote in the title. It is, of course, uttered by none other than Inspector Calahan, from the first Dirty Harry movie, played masterfully by Clint Eastwood. Each time he utters the line, or some variant, Inspector Calahan is pointing a large hand gun at a suspect who has just committed a serious crime, a weapon is within easy reach, and they’re being asked if they want to risk being shot. The reason I’m bringing it up is because it strongly reminds me of a particular organizational behavior and performance pathology, one that affects everybody in the company so afflicted, but PMs specifically, and it is this: does the organization you’re working for believe that you are lucky to be there in the first place? Of course, this unstated question is not being posed at the end of a deadly weapon, unless the organization we’re talking about here is some sort of organized crime unit. Instead, it’s a part of the culture, it permeates throughout, and manifests in several different ways. On at least one other occasion I’ve shared with GTIM Nation the story of the time I was interviewing for a PMO Director job at a mid-sized aerospace engineering firm, but it bears repeating here. The conference room was filled with engineers and engineering managers, and the Human Resources director. The engineers and (real) managers asked challenging and insightful questions about the type of cost and schedule performance measurement systems I would implement in a variety of settings and circumstances, and what would be expected out of them and their staff in order to make it work. I thought I was doing a bang-up job of addressing their concerns, when the discussion turned to HR. It was finally her turn, and she looked at me like she was doing me a favor for even being there, and asked “Why do you want to work for (company name)?” I actually had a really good job at the time, and was participating in this interview only because a friend of mine had asked me to, having recognized just how backward this company was from a PM capability point of view. As good as I had it, if these people could make a better offer, I was completely okay with entertaining it, hence my attending the interview. “I’m not sure that I do.” I began. “What does this company offer that would make it an attractive destination?” You would have thought that I just insulted the appearance of her pets, based on her reaction. The interview abruptly ended, and I never heard back. Which was just as well. What the HR director inadvertently showed was that this particular company thought an awful lot of itself, to the point that they were more than willing to display its arrogance to potential workers. If it was so transparently haughty to interviewees, imagine how it displayed this hubris to its existing employees. Where the “you’re lucky to be working here” narrative gets really interesting is when we use it to analyze how the four different Maccoby architypes[i] would deal with it. Generally speaking, the organizations that have more Gamesmen and Craftsmen will outperform those with a preponderance of Company Men and Jungle Fighters. But the organizations that holds the “lucky-to-be-here” narrative as part of its corporate culture will tend to repel Gamesmen, who are known for needing the decision-making latitude to take risks to bring in more work. Similarly, Craftsmen, who are focused on providing the highest-quality good or service that they can, will easily become frustrated when corporate policies and procedures mandate a technical approach that isn’t necessarily the optimal one, but the lucky-to-be-here zeitgeist strongly dissuades operating outside of those confines. Conversely, the Company Men will tend to swallow this dysfunctional macro-assertion in its entirety, and behave consistent with that belief. The combination of the presence of a significant number of Company Men in the organization, combined with this belief, will almost invariably deliver the phenomena of managers who are willing to fail (in PM space, to bring in their projects on-time, on-budget) rather than operate outside company guidance, even in the smallest degree. And this environment is perfect for the flourishing of Jungle Fighters, who can use their favorite tactic, the ex parte conversation, to point out every single variation from policy/procedure, large or small, real or perceived, to the detriment of their enemies. In short, the presence of the “you’re lucky to be here” narrative in any given organization’s culture will drive away the true performers, and lead to a highly political office environment. So, unless you’re really in to working in highly politicized workspaces, when you are evaluating a potential place to work, well, “you’ve got to ask yourself one question: do I feel lucky (for working here)? Well, do ya, PM?” [i] Maccoby, Michael, The Gamesman; The New Corporate Leaders, Bantam Books, 1978. |
Posted on: September 21, 2026 10:09 PM
| Permalink |
Comments (1)
