Requirements

I haven't been interviewed in a podcast before, so I found this unscripted piece to be an interesting experience, one I might do again. You have to think on your feet, interpret the questions, draw on your experience, and try not to stumble over your words. Very challenging!

As the well known saying goes: "When you fail to plan, you plan to fail!". This may seem to be in juxtaposition with the Eisenhower saying "The plan is nothing; Planning is everything!" (both quotes paraphrased), but not when you give it a little thought.

Not having a plan will always be a disaster. Expecting that the plan you create will never change is also inviting calamity. And creating a plan without the collaboration of those who commissioned the project and those who will deliver it is also guaranteed to make your project end (if it ever does and is not cancelled) in a bad space. This is the "Planning is everything" part.

So what sort of planning should you do?

Those of us from the old school often like to take a predictive approach, while those of us from the "new" school may prefer an adaptive approach. Although, as a good friend of mine recently pointed out, "Agile has been around so long now, one probably has to consider it old school!". And that is food for thought. 

Using the right tool for the job, or as Scott Ambler or Mark Lines might say per Disciplined Agile, finding your WoW (Way of Working) is what is important. 

But in the end, whether you deliver using predictive, adaptive, or something in between, the important thing to remember is that what you are delivering has to fit into the organization's strategic DNA. Hopefully in your organization projects that land at your feet do so because the executive team has decided on the portfolio of programs and projects and authorized only those to move forward, heading rogue projects off at the pass.

I hope you enjoy this seat of my pants podcast with Trina L. Martin in her podcast entitled "Trina Talk". 

https://trinalmartin.com/podcast/trinatalk-episode140/

We often think at a micro level on our projects when we elicit requirements. Maybe this is because many of us come from an analytical background. 

I was yanked out of the micro level by the course presented by the very engaging Ricardo Vargas, Executive Director of the Brightline Initiative. Sometimes it serves us well to look at the macro level.

I received more responses than I expected when I posted a few very short articles on LinkedIn entitled "Strategy Formulation is not Strategy Delivery" and another called "Project Management: It's all about the Outcomes... NOT The Outputs". The volume of responses, mostly positive, speaks to the fact that we may be focusing on the wrong things at times, maybe too much on the delivery of products while we manage our projects. That is, on the output of our projects. The infamous iron triangle of Scope, Time and Cost may have led us down that path.

But things are changing.

Linking the organization to a portfolio of programs and projects aimed at achieving organizational outcomes is "where it's at". Strategy formulation is not strategy delivery.

If we fail to plan for and provide resources for strategy delivery we will be headed down the road to the small town of Failure.

What resources do we need to commit to Strategy Delivery? This should be related to the value of the business benefit(s) the portfolio(s) of programs and projects are expected to achieve. Think business cases.

Resources include executive support and frequent involvement, money, people you hire or contract to do the job or to back fill operational resources who have the organizational knowledge for the tasks at hand.

Resources may also include information radiators for awareness of organizational targets and progress.

PMI's recent Benefits Realization Practice Guide highlights the need for a "Benefits Owner", someone in the business to ensure the products of the project are used to deliver on the value expected from those who helped formulate the business case that caused a project to be authorized and funded in the first place.

And the newest release of the Standard for Project Management, now in exposure draft, has been formed around principles and the "value delivery system". 

Where PMs used to be advised to ensure projects line up with strategic goals, the shift now is to ensure projects are never initiated that do not.

What are your thoughts around this?