Voices on Project Management

By

Peter Tarhanidis, Ph.D.

Project management methodologies have evolved significantly over the years, with waterfall and agile emerging as two of the most prominent approaches. Each has its strengths and weaknesses, making them suitable for different types of projects and organizational needs.

• Waterfall is a linear, sequential approach to project management. It is characterized by distinct phases; each phase must be completed before the next begins with limited ability to revisit or revise previous stages. Waterfall is effective for projects with well-defined requirements and a clear path to completion, such as construction or manufacturing projects.
• Agile is an iterative, incremental approach designed to accommodate change and foster continuous improvement. It emphasizes collaboration, customer feedback, and small, manageable units of work called sprints. Agile is well-suited for projects where requirements are expected to evolve, such as software development or other innovative fields.

Surveys indicate:

• 51% of companies implement waterfall and 71% of companies utilize agile.
• PMI’s 2020 Pulse of the Profession® report Ahead of the Curve: Forging a Future-Focused Culture indicated that 11.4% of investment is wasted due to poor project performance.
• The Standish Group’s CHAOS report showed only a 31% project success rate.
• Harvard Business Review estimated a $3 trillion annual global financial loss, wasted resources, missed opportunities, and negative societal impacts due to project failures.

Given these statistics, you may ask which method is best for a given project. Many organizations find value in blending these methodologies to create a hybrid approach, leveraging the structured planning of waterfall and the flexibility of agile. This hybrid model can offer a balanced framework that enhances efficiency, adaptability, and customer satisfaction.

While waterfall's structured approach provides clear milestones and accountability, its rigidity can be a drawback in dynamic environments. Agile's flexibility and responsiveness to change make it ideal for such settings, but it can struggle with scope creep and lacks the clear, long-term planning of waterfall.

The hybrid approach seeks to combine the best of both worlds, providing a structured framework that remains flexible and adaptable. By relying on a competency and development framework, management can highlight the key components of hybrid—consistently applying best practices to mature success and project outcomes.

Key components of hybrid project management include:

1. Phase-based structure with iterative execution: Projects are divided into phases similar to waterfall, but within each phase, agile sprints are used to execute tasks. This allows for detailed planning and requirements gathering upfront, followed by iterative development and testing.
2. Defined milestones with flexible deliverables: Hybrid project management sets clear milestones to track progress and ensure alignment with overall goals. However, the deliverables within each milestone can be adjusted based on iterative feedback and changing requirements.
3. Customer collaboration and feedback loops: Regular interactions with customers and stakeholders are maintained to gather feedback and make necessary adjustments. This aligns with agile’s emphasis on customer collaboration and helps ensure the project remains on track to meet user needs.
4. Comprehensive documentation with adaptive planning: Initial project documentation and planning follow a waterfall approach to establish a clear roadmap. Throughout the project, adaptive planning is used to refine and update this documentation based on iterative insights and changes in scope.

Steps for implementing a hybrid model:

1. Assess project requirements and environment: Evaluate the project's nature and complexity, and the environment in which it will be executed. Projects with stable requirements and clear end goals may lean more toward waterfall, while those with uncertain or evolving requirements may benefit more from agile practices.
2. Define phases and iterations: Establish major project phases with clear objectives and timelines. Within these phases, implement agile sprints or iterations to manage work increments, allowing for continuous assessment and adjustment.
3. Foster collaboration and communication: Create a culture of open communication and collaboration among team members, stakeholders, and customers. Regular meetings, such as daily stand-ups and sprint reviews, can help maintain alignment and address issues promptly.
4. Balance documentation and flexibility: Ensure that initial project plans and requirements are well-documented but remain open to revising them as the project progresses. Use documentation as a living document that evolves with the project.
5. Monitor progress and adapt: Use waterfall’s milestone tracking to monitor overall progress, and agile’s sprint reviews to assess interim deliverables. Be prepared to adapt plans and strategies based on feedback and performance metrics.

The leadership required in hybrid project management has a blend of strategic oversight and adaptive facilitation to balance the structured rigor of waterfall with the dynamic responsiveness of agile. Effective leaders in this context must embody several key traits and skills to ensure project success:

1. Visionary thinking: Leaders must articulate to the team a clear vision of the project’s goals. They need to establish long-term objectives while accommodating short-term adjustments, maintaining alignment with overall project aims.
2. Flexibility and adaptability: Leaders must pivot between structured planning and iterative development. They must be comfortable with change and capable of guiding their team through unexpected challenges and shifts in project scope.
3. Strong communication skills: Open, transparent communication is essential. Leaders must facilitate continuous dialogue among team members, stakeholders and customers. Regular updates and feedback loops are crucial for maintaining alignment and addressing issues.
4. Collaborative mindset: Encouraging a culture of collaboration is vital. Leaders should promote teamwork, ensuring that all voices are heard and valued. This involves fostering an environment where team members feel empowered to contribute ideas and solutions.
5. Strategic decision-making: Effective hybrid project leaders must be adept at making informed decisions quickly, balancing the need for detailed planning with the flexibility to adapt plans based on real-time insights and feedback.
6. Risk management: Proactively identifying and mitigating risks through both structured risk assessment and iterative reviews is crucial. Leaders must be vigilant and responsive, adjusting strategies as necessary to keep the project on track.

By embodying these qualities, leaders can successfully navigate the complexities of hybrid project management, ensuring that projects are both well-organized and adaptable to change. The overall benefits of hybrid project management provide for:

1. Enhanced flexibility: Combining structured phases with iterative sprints allows for greater adaptability to changes in project scope, requirements and market conditions.
2. Improved stakeholder engagement: Regular feedback loops and collaborative practices ensure stakeholders are consistently involved and satisfied with the project’s direction.
3. Risk mitigation: The hybrid approach can identify and address risks earlier in the process through iterative reviews, reducing the likelihood of major issues arising late in the project.
4. Balanced planning and execution: It provides a comprehensive planning framework while maintaining the flexibility needed for creative problem-solving and innovation.

In conclusion, hybrid project management offers a robust framework that leverages the strengths of both waterfall and agile methodologies. By blending structured planning with iterative execution, organizations can achieve greater efficiency, adaptability, and customer satisfaction, making it a versatile approach for a wide range of projects.

Please share in the comments how your organization defined hybrid project approaches and any case studies that you would like to share.

References

1. PMI Pulse of the Profession®: Ahead of the Curve: Forging a Future-Focused Culture
2. The Standish Group: Benchmarks and Assessments
3. It’s Time to End the Battle Between Waterfall and Agile
4. Agile vs Waterfall: Which Approach Should You Choose for Your Project
5. Waterfall vs Agile Methodology: What’s Better for Your Project?

By Mario Trentim

According to Le Chatelier’s Principle, any change in the status quo prompts an opposing reaction in the responding system. Although Henry Louis Le Chatelier was a chemist, his principle applies to project management, right?

No project occurs in isolation: Each inevitably disturbs the environment because it stems from the organization’s structure, politics and strategic objectives. So, it’s no wonder that some projects can’t succeed despite a project manager’s best efforts.

To make things happen, you need a support coalition of powerful and/or influential stakeholders. But how can you get the necessary buy-in for a project?

Let me assure you: You will fail if you try to guess what is in your stakeholders’ heads. We all have a natural tendency to do that because, by nature, we feel uncomfortable with uncertainty and ambiguity. That explains why we are always trying to "fill the gaps."

What does this have to do with project management? Everything. Project managers must overcome two biases that pose obstacles to successful stakeholder management.

The first is that we see the project from our perspective, which leads us to narrowly identify stakeholders. Forgetting to include the project’s "hidden stakeholders" can be catastrophic.

The second, which I believe is bigger, is that we conduct stakeholder assessment and analysis with preconceived thoughts and distorted vision.

The secret to stakeholder management is obvious: You cannot catch fish using your favorite food as a bait. You have to use the fish’s favorite food!

When assessing stakeholders and strategizing how to engage them in your project, be sure to do your homework. When possible, ask your stakeholders directly about their expectations regarding the project.

This diagram offers an overview of potential stakeholder interview questions:

 (Monteleone Consulting, 2010“Generic Questions for Interviewing Stakeholders”)

Of course, to a certain extent you need to be skeptical of the answers your questions elicit. My MBA students always ask me: How do you know if a stakeholder is telling the truth?

My answer is simple: you don't. You cannot tell for sure if a stakeholder is trying to manipulate the project (and you). But here’s a tip. Keep observing your stakeholders' behaviors and attitudes. Always put yourself in the stakeholders' shoes and discuss hypothetical scenarios with your core stakeholder management team.

Here is a worst-case scenario: I once had a sponsor who was against the project. I admit it took me some time to realize that he would do everything he could to make the project fail.

How did I discover the truth?

I’ll explain in my next post—don’t miss it. Until then, share your thoughts. What would you do in this situation?

The new Knowledge Area, stakeholder management, was cheerfully welcomed in A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK^® Guide)—Fifth Edition.

We all agree on the importance of stakeholder management. It’s common sense. However, it is not common practice. Few project managers have a formal approach to stakeholder management. And many organizations lack guidelines to manage stakeholders.

Figure 1: Lack of stakeholder management leads to poor results. (Trentim, 2013)

Most of us rely on soft skills, communication and leadership to manage stakeholders. But while they’re helpful, interpersonal skills are far from being the sole way to implement stakeholder management. As a matter of fact, there are hard skills in stakeholder management — tools, techniques and methods that should be diligently applied to enhance stakeholder management and improve project success rates. 

For example, there are at least 10 different tools for stakeholder identification. Often, project managers rely only on brainstorming to write a stakeholder registry, conforming to the methodology imposed by a project management office (PMO). That’s why I believe we need a paradigm shift.

Figure 2: The virtuous cycle—as opposed to the “vicious cycle”—for managing stakeholders (Trentim, 2013)

A project manager’s goal is to add value. Value depends on stakeholder expectations and perception. Consequently, the project manager’s goal is to engage and involve stakeholders in value creation. This is what we call managing for stakeholders.

On the contrary, the term stakeholder management assumes we can manage expectations. This is wrong. We cannot manage people, to paraphrase U.S. author and businessman Stephen Covey. We lead people. We persuade and influence stakeholders.

In 2013, the Project Management Institute published my book, Managing Stakeholders as Clients. It presents a framework with a paradigm shift from traditional stakeholder management by first setting the premise that we can’t manage stakeholders or their expectations — we can only lead, influence and persuade people. To my surprise, I was the recipient of PMI Educational Foundation’s 2014 Kerzner Award* at PMI^® Global Congress 2014—North Americafor my results in managing projects and programs. But in particular, the award recognized my creation of this stakeholder management framework and the results of its application.

The main difference between stakeholder management and managing for stakeholders is this: Stakeholder management’s goal is to manage stakeholders’ expectations, enhancing support and reducing negative impacts — a reactive measure. It’s almost as if project managers develop stakeholder management plans to protect themselves from external interference.

Managing for stakeholders means involving and engaging stakeholders in value creation, boosting their support and having them take ownership in a proactive way. Managing for stakeholders embraces change as a learning process.

While stakeholder management is instrumental, employing processes for conformity, managing for stakeholders is results-oriented. In summary, stakeholder management is an attempt to manage stakeholders’ expectations toward the project. On the other hand, managing for stakeholders is clearly oriented to manage the project and its results for the stakeholders, on behalf of their changing needs and expectations.

Now that it’s clear we should start approaching stakeholder management from a different perspective, in my next post I’ll share more tips and details from Managing Stakeholders as Clients. Don’t miss it!

How do you manage for stakeholders?

*The PMI Educational Foundationadministers the prestigious Kerzner Award. The Kerzner Award is sponsored by International Institute for Learning, Inc. (IIL)to recognize a project manager who most emulates the professional dedication and excellence of Dr. Harold Kerzner, PhD, MS, MBA.