Make it or break it!
In the world of Business Transformation (BT), project management plays a critical part in the successful delivery of the business transformation programs to an extend where I can say it is a “Make it or Break it”
And why is that?
Imagine a school music play and the effort required to coordinate everything to get it done successfully. Of course, there is a lot of planning, coordination and execution that goes into it to produce a high quality school play
Now imagine an orchestra and the effort required to get this done successfully. In essence and to the inexperienced eye, the tasks may be similar but the effort and complexity are just a different ball game altogether
This is the same thing when it comes to managing a non-BT project and a BT project. The main tasks of initiation, planning, execution, monitoring and closing may look the same on the surface but underneath the skeleton, is a different level of complexity
Having said that, BT project management requires a different calibre of project managers to help get the beast out of the door while achieving business outcomes
To be on the same page, let’s define what business transformation is. Business transformation is a significant change that an organization goes through impacting its people, process and/or technology. The change is usually a complex one with long term business outcomes to be achieved
Project management becomes the core part of delivering the business transformation and ensure that business outcomes are achieved. The calibre of the BT project manager is therefore a lot more complex and at a higher level of maturity. Below are the key characteristics for a successful business transformation project manager
Exceptional Business Acumen
Visionary and can see beyond the short term goals
Can see different angles and prospective
Diversified skill set
Knows and understands failure
Knows the job and acts beyond it
Debunking 4 Misconceptions About Story Points
by Christian Bisson, PMP
For the sake of my examples below, I assume teams use the Fibonacci sequence.
by Dave Wakeman
I recently came across some of management guru Peter Drucker’s thoughts on project management.
As often happens with Drucker’s writing, the lessons he wrote about many years ago are still applicable today.
In his thinking about project management, Drucker came up with the idea that it really came down to three ideas: objectives, measurements and results.
Let’s take each of these areas and think about how we should approach them today.
Objectives: Many projects get stuck before they even begin, due to a poor framing of the project’s objectives. We should be undertaking our projects only when we have moved through the project-planning phase to such an extent that we have a strong grasp of what we are hoping to achieve.
These objectives shouldn’t be fuzzy or wishy-washy. They should be solid and rooted in the overall strategy of the organization you are performing the project for.
This means you have to ask the question: “Does this project move us toward our goals?”
If the answer is “yes,” it’s likely a project that should be launched.
If the answer is “no,” it’s likely a project that needs to be fleshed out more, rethought or not undertaken at all.
Measurements: Drucker is famous for this adage: What gets measured gets managed.
In thinking about project management, measurements aren’t just about being able to improve project delivery. They’re also essential to ensure the project is headed in the right direction.
To effectively measure our projects, we need to have laid out key measurements alongside the project’s objectives.
The measurements should be specific, with expected outputs and completion dates, so you can affirm whether you are on schedule, behind schedule or ahead of schedule.
At the same time, the measurements should inform you of your progress as it compares to your strategic goals.
Results: Ultimately, projects are about results.
To paraphrase another great thinker, Nick Saban: If you focus on doing your job right on each play, you’ll put yourself in a position to be successful at achieving your goals.
Saban coaches U.S. football, but this works just as well for all of us in project management.
If we are focusing our energy on tying our projects to our organization’s strategy, through this strategy we focus our project efforts on the correct objectives in line with our strategy. Then we use those objectives to measure our progress against the strategy. We should be putting ourselves in a position to get the results that we need from our projects.
These results should be measured as positive outcomes. In Saban’s case, that’s wins. In your case, it might be a new technology solution, a successful new ad campaign or a profitable fundraising effort.
To me, reviewing Drucker’s thoughts on project management is a reminder: Even though there is a constant pull of new technologies, never-ending demands on our attention and a world where change feels accelerated, sometimes the best course of action is to step back, slow down and get back to the basics.
by Lynda Bourne
Project managers and processes go hand in hand. But are the processes of the past the right ones to guide future projects? And if project management is evolving beyond today’s generally accepted 40 or 50 processes, what should the next version of A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK® Guide) look like?
The Evolution of Process as a Concept
To consider these questions, let’s start by looking at the way processes have evolved. The concept of describing the process needed to accomplish a task emerged as part of the development of scientific management in the early 20th century. Scientific study and careful analysis defined the “one best way” of doing the work and the time it needed. Shortly after, the application of learned experience entered into the equation as a way to improve the current “best method.”
By the 1950s the concept of a process with defined inputs, transformed by the application of defined tools and techniques to produce outputs, was firmly established in quality control and management. Process improvement was central to the rapid development of post-war industry.
During the development of the 1996 version of the PMBOK® Guide, PMI adopted processes as the best way to organize and explain the complex flow of information through the life of a typical project. The PMBOK® Guide came to embody “generally accepted good practices that apply to most projects, most of the time.” Over the years, the 37 processes in the 1996 version of the PMBOK® Guide expanded to 49 in the Sixth Edition (released in 2017). Through the editions, PMI has progressively increased the emphasis on the need to customize and tailor processes to meet the needs of each individual project. But is this enough?
The questions I want to ask in this post are:
In the past, processes were developed around the concept of transforming specific inputs in a defined way to create consistent outputs. Business processes define how the how work is done within an organization, to meet the needs of its customers. PMI’s approach to generalizing processes across a management discipline adapted this basic concept.
The idea was powerfully successful when most projects, most of the time, had similar characteristics. They were approved, planned, built and closed. The same approach was used in construction, engineering and most other industries that did projects in the 1990s—and the concept remained largely true for the next 20 years or so.
However, does this generality still apply in the current environment, where some projects still follow the traditional approach (e.g., construction/engineering), others use various iterative approaches, while others take a fully adaptive and agile approach?
Some core objectives are consistent across of all of these approaches. For example, they all use some form of schedule management to get the right people into the right place at the right time, adequately resourced to do the right work. However, the processes applied to accomplish this objective have very little in common. For example, resources are allocated to logically constrained activities by the planner in traditional critical path method scheduling, in agile resources choose which activities to include in their next “sprint.” Similar challenges exist across most, if not all, of the knowledge areas. Has creating processes that can work across all of the different delivery strategies become impossible?
Focusing on the next edition
This brings me to the second question. What should the next edition of the PMBOK® Guide look like?
As our profession rapidly changes and diversifies, it remains central to the development of the world’s economy. So how do you think the PMBOK® Guide can best evolve to maintain its preeminent position as the global reference defining the management of projects?
Your answers will help inform my next post looking at managing the accelerating rate of change in our profession.
By Marian Haus, PMP
Trust is defined as a “firm belief in the reliability, truth, ability or strength of someone or something.”
Isn’t that what we all want in our professional and private lives?
Imagine a project with little or no trust between the project manager, team members and stakeholders. In such an environment, communication is opaque and piecemeal, and what’s communicated to you depends on your position in the organization. Silos are built to protect individuals, positions and knowledge. As for assignments, they’re meticulously planned and controlled, and work is delegated and rigorously followed up on.
I could go on and on.
Without trust, companies won’t survive for long in today’s world of VUCA (volatility, uncertainty, complexity and ambiguity). Without trust, for example, how can you as a project manager quickly respond to constantly changing customer expectations and environmental conditions?
The absence of trust is at the basis of the pyramid of The Five Dysfunctions of a Team by business consultant and speaker Patrick Lencioni. According to this model, conflicts cannot be solved creatively without trust. The lack of trust erodes people’s commitment, engagement and accountability—and therefore makes it difficult to attain goals and results.
I believe the evolution of project management over the past two decades is due in large part to the way trust is now valued in projects and in business. It’s an enabler for individual and organizational success. People are more empowered than ever to work independently (i.e., with no micromanagement) and to collaborate in trustworthy environments.
Companies that understand this have trust as a core value of their corporate culture and part of their corporate DNA. Leaders, project managers and employees of these organizations are not struggling to gain the trust of their peers. They are benefitting from and supporting the implementation of cultural changes based on trust, openness and fair collaboration.
How can project managers lead by example and work to create a trustworthy project environment? Here are some tips:
By behaving in a trustworthy manner and leading by example, you’ll gain your team’s confidence. People will rely and count on you in any circumstance.
How do you drive trust in your projects and organization?