Viewing Posts by Linda Agyapong
“There is nothing permanent except change.”
So goes the popular quote from the Greek philosopher Heraclitus. What do you think about the paradoxical nature of this statement?
Change may be a constant, but our reaction to it shouldn’t be—that’s according to Michael Jarrett, PhD. He makes that case in his oft-referenced article, The Seven Myths of Change Management.
He says that fear and survival are often the roots of resistance to change. Such resistance does not occur only in the work environment, but within different areas of the society, "to protect social systems from painful experiences of loss, distress, chaos and the emotions associated with change."
Peter Senge, the author of “The Fifth Discipline,” throws further light on this by stating that, "People don’t resist change. They resist being changed." While change is not easy, it is necessary for growth.
As noted by the former CEO of General Electric, Jack Welsh, in an annual report, "When the rate of change inside an institution becomes slower than the rate of change outside, the end is in sight."
Peter Drucker, one of the most influential management thinkers, supports this with his assertion that, “The greatest danger in times of turbulence is not the turbulence; it is to act with yesterday’s logic.” This goes to confirm the saying that although change is difficult, not changing is fatal.
According to a 2018 McKinsey & Company survey, only 16 percent of respondents say their organizations’ digital transformations have successfully improved performance and also equipped them to sustain changes in the long term.
To drill down further, Lakecia Carter, PMP, warns that effective change management is not possible without communication and training, but training and communication aren’t possible without change management. This is especially important in the case of acquisitions, mergers and any other basic changes that occur within the organization. There have been numerous accounts of corporate mergers that have unfortunately ended due to ineffective change management.
This might make you wonder: If change is as critical as noted above, why is there such a huge failure rate? Some of the common reasons identified are ineffective top-down communication, lack of space and support, unclear objectives from management, lack of effective performance measures and last but not least, the underestimation of the emotions of those being impacted by the change.
In order to successfully drive organizational change, leaders need to engage individuals at all stages of the change process. This can be implemented using the change equation by Richard Beckhard and David Gleicher, among others, that can be written as D x V x F > R, where D = Dissatisfaction, V = Vision, F = First Steps, R = Resistance.
The equation means that in order for change to occur successfully, dissatisfaction with the status quo, a clear vision and first steps toward the vision must be greater than the resistance to change. Some of the popular change management models that can assist with this implementation are the Prosci ADKAR Model, the Kurt Lewin model and the 8-Step Process for Leading Change developed by John Kotter.
In conclusion, although change management is generally encountered throughout the overall corporate environment, it also has a specific application within project management. Within this setting, Carter advises that change management must begin at the project initiation phase—not the execution phase. She adds that change management should continue beyond the project life cycle, to enable the project manager to ensure that unapproved changes do not suddenly resurface as enhancements or requirements.
What have you learned from great thinkers on change management? Please share your experiences below.
by Linda Agyapong
"Who" really is a stakeholder?
I enjoy breaking down some of the buzzwords in project management.
In my previous post, we looked at “project success” vs. “project management success.”
Today I’d like to focus on “stakeholder”—one of the most buzzworthy terms.
For this discussion, let’s check in with our three favorite project managers: Jim, Mary and Alex. They have been tasked with a major construction project in Europe. On the first day of their kickoff meeting, as they were documenting their project charter, they got stuck because the three of them could not agree on identifying all the stakeholders for the project.
Turns out the targeted site for the construction project had a natural habitat for a specific kind of protected species—the moor frog.
Jim and Mary jointly agreed that moor frogs should never be considered as stakeholders of the project—after all, they were not humans. But Alex maintained that they should be considered as stakeholders because the frogs would either be significantly affected by the project, or they would significantly affect the project.
Alex then explained that the classic definition of a stakeholder—from the legendary business theorist R. Edward Freeman—did not segregate animals from humans, nor living things from non-living things. In his award-winning book, Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach, Mr. Freeman defined a stakeholder as “any group or individual who can affect, or is affected by the achievement of the organization's objectives.” He subsequently clarified that this definition can be expanded further to cover anything that the organization significantly affects, or is significantly affected by it.
Alex added that the very issue had been argued in the journal article Project Temporalities: How Frogs Can Become Stakeholders by Kjell Tryggestad, Lise Justesen and Jan Mouritsen. These authors took the stance that the natural habitat of the frogs provided some benefits to people in the community, such as via food, recreation or entertainment. Because of that value, the moor frogs should be classified as stakeholders.
Robert A. Phillips and Joel Reichart argued the opposite in their article, The Environment as a Stakeholder? A Fairness-Based Approach. They said that this natural habitat cannot be classified as a stakeholder because, “only humans are capable of generating the necessary obligations for generating stakeholder status.” Their basis was that stakeholders can only impact a project when they “make themselves known as part of the empirical process to develop the project.”
Tryggestad, Justesen and Mouritsen, however, advised that non-living things could be actors of the project if they make a visible difference within the project, such as significantly impacting any of the triple constraints of the project (namely time, cost and scope). Their rationale was that “an actor does not act alone. It acts in relation to other actors, linked up with them.” The frogs were then considered to be “an entity entangled in a larger assemblage consisting of both humans and non-humans.” At the end of their research, the frogs were classified as actors or stakeholders of the construction project.
To bring it home, Alex calmly advised his colleagues that the frogs have peacefully lived in that part of the community for several years. To avoid incurring the residents’ wrath, they should classify frogs as stakeholders and subsequently make the necessary arrangements to appease the community accordingly.
In the end, Jim and Mary unanimously agreed to this great suggestion.
I encourage you to think outside the box to identify all the potential stakeholders for your upcoming projects. Good luck!
By Linda Agyapong, PMP
I received a lot of interesting feedback on my last post, “What Defines Project Success,” which has necessitated a follow up.
For those who missed the discussion, Aaron Shenhar et al. summarized it perfectly by saying there is no one-size-fits-all definition for project success. Instead, it’s based on the philosophy of “how different dimensions mean different things to different stakeholders at different times and for different projects.”
Every project is different and hence could have different success criteria. These were the exact same sentiments that folks shared in the discussion on my last post. This time we’ll dissect the concept of project success by breaking down some of the buzzwords surrounding it.
Project managers Jim, Mary and Alex (the same characters from our prior discussion), entered into a high profile kick-off meeting with some Fortune 500 clients regarding an upcoming million-dollar project. When the floor was opened for the clients to ask questions, they unanimously said that nearly 50 percent of the discussion went over their heads because all they could hear were buzzwords.
These buzzwords were “project success” vs. “project management success” and “project success factors” vs. “project success criteria.” The clients could not figure out if they meant the same or not. Let’s help Jim, Mary and Alex break down these buzzwords to their clients based on recent research I performed.
Project Success vs. Project Management Success
Terry Cooke-Davies embarked on an empirical study to identify the factors that are critical in obtaining successful projects after stakeholders had been disappointed with the project results that were being obtained. His study was to address the following three broad concerns:
· The factors that make project management successful
· The factors that make projects successful
· The factors that make projects successful on a consistent basis
Although his three concerns may appear to be intertwined, Anton de Wit provided a distinction: Project success identifies factors that help to attain the overall objectives of the project, whereas project management success focuses on addressing some of the project’s constraints (including time, cost and quality) within the project.
Based on this understanding, Mr. Cooke-Davies concluded that there is a cycle of individual success (such as an individual’s leadership style), which leads to corporate success that later transforms into corporate best practices. As such, once these best practices are consistently applied, it could lead to making projects successful on a consistent basis.
Project Success Factors vs. Project Success Criteria
In their research, Ralf Müller and Kam Jugdev argued that project success factors identify the specific elements within the project “which, when inﬂuenced, increase the likelihood of success.” They added that these are the independent variables that enhance the success of the project. And Mr. de Wit described them as “those inputs to the management system that” directly or indirectly lead to the project’s success. (Can you name some specific examples?)
Conversely, Dr. Müller and Dr. Jugdev explained that project success criteria are the measures (or acceptance criteria) by which the final outcome of the project will be judged, i.e., whether the project is successful, challenged or a failure. They added that the project’s success is measured by these dependent variables. (Can you name some examples?)
So there you have it! Are you enjoying this ride so far?
In my next post I’ll tie this concept of project success to the stakeholder. Until then, I’m interested to get your perspective on this topic.
By Linda Agyapong
During lunch one day, project managers Jim, Mary and Alex got into an argument over who was best adhering to their industry’s project success criteria. They all had sound arguments. The problem was, however, an “industry standard” did not appear to exist.
Jim argued that he follows the good old “triple constraints” or “iron triangle” concept (i.e., time, cost and scope). Mary sharply retorted that she follows the “quadruple constraints” concept (i.e., time, cost, scope and quality), where the “quality” minimized bugs or defects. Alex quickly asserted that he is the best project manager because in addition to what both Jim and Mary did, he reduces risk, meets stakeholder expectations, and his projects generally add value to the organization in extra areas.
Before we jump into crowning who we think should be project manager of the year, let’s take a trip down some project manager memory lane based on recent research I performed.
Although PMI’s A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK® Guide) makes certain recommendations, the subject of project success criteria has been evolving for more than five decades.
In her report, Kate Davis summed up the different success criteria throughout the years:
1970s: Project success was centered on the “operations side, tools and techniques (‘iron triangle’).”
1980s: The technical components of the project and its relationship with the project team and project manager.
1990s: The “critical success factor” framework, and its subsequent dependence on both external and internal stakeholders.
21st century: The focus has primarily been on the stakeholder.
Davis isn’t the only one pointing out the changing criteria. Many academics and authors have noted the differences, including:
1980s: Jeffrey K. Pinto and Dennis P. Slevin expressed their frustration in a Project Management Journal article by asking, “How can we truly assess the outcome of a project when we (in the project management field) cannot fully agree on how project “success” should be determined?”
Late 1990s: David Baccarini from the Curtin University of Technology recounted in a Project Management Journal article that “a review of the project management literature provides no consistent interpretation of the term ‘project success.’”
2008: Graeme Thomas and Walter Fernández said that “although IT project failure is considered widespread, there is no commonly agreed definition of success and failure.” They described project success as being “a difficult and elusive concept, with many different meanings,” and hence called it protean (likening it to the Greek sea-god Proteus), based on its ability to continually change its “form to avoid capture.”
The current decade: Hans Georg Gemünden criticized the triple constraints for failing to consider other factors, such as stakeholder impact, since “value lies in the eye of the beholder.” He recommended project success criteria be based on its “targeted outcome and impact” to the organization’s business case.
Standish Group’s 2015 CHAOS Report redefined a successful project from one being “on time, on budget and on target,” to one being “on time, on budget and with a satisfactory result.” This redefinition was to ensure project deliverables met stakeholder expectations and also added value to the organization.
So based on the above, which of our three project managers (Jim, Mary or Alex) should be crowned project manager of the year?