Voices on Project Management

by Cyndee Miller

The rogue monkey gets the banana. Researchers first made the discovery in the late 1970s, but the lesson remains for project leaders looking to keep pace with disruption.

Let’s peel this one back: In Jamil Qureshi’s opening keynote at PMI EMEA Congress in Dublin, Ireland, he told the tale of one monkey that chose not to believe the evidence put forth by its monkey colleagues that came before. It questioned the bias of its environment, adjusted its mindset—and was rewarded for its defiance. Seeing any parallels?

“I cannot tell you the value of a rogue monkey in your organization,” said Mr. Qureshi, a psychologist and performance coach. “Every single thing worth having on this earth has come from rogue monkey thinking.”

The greatest inhibitor to human performance, Mr. Qureshi said, is a steadfast adherence to our belief systems. (We all have them. Trust me, you’re no magical exception.) “We prove ourselves right even when we’re wrong, and that’s the problem.”

We must be willing to change the way we think. It’s the foundation of our decision-making process. “We think, we feel and then we act,” he said.

Hold off on the grand gestures, though.

“Proving ourselves as leaders is not about doing something dramatic. It’s about doing something a little bit more, more consistently,” said Mr. Qureshi. True leaders look inward, find what they already do well—and do more of it.

None of this will go very far without proper motivation, however. We’re drawn toward our most dominant thoughts, he says. And if those thoughts sound like “don’t fail” …? Um, we’re in trouble—our subconscious will only hear “fail.”

“People who are truly disruptive are motivated by what they seek to achieve, not by what they seek to avoid,” he said.

That’s how you move teams “from transactional to transformational.” The really bold ideas come from making the connection between two previously unconnected things. Look at PayPal, Spotify or Skype. “It took someone outside the sectors to give us what we wanted,” said Mr. Qureshi. Too often, companies and project teams are bad at being different—but the future demands it. “The only way to stay future relevant and future literate is to think about what the customer is valuing all the time, not what we wish to sell.”

So, are you ready to go rogue?

by Lynda Bourne

In my last post—It’s Time for a Long, Hard Look at Processes—I questioned if A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK^® Guide) should be updated every four years, or if it should become a dynamic knowledge management system similar to Wikipedia. The post generated a number of comments, which I’m going to try to address now.

The fundamental purpose of a standard is to offer standardized advice organizations can rely on. Standards are frequently referenced in contracts and other formal documentation, and they form the basis for certifications. The PMBOK^® Guide fulfills all of these purposes. In this situation, stability is essential. Globally, standards are reviewed and updated every four to five years to balance the need for currency against the need for consistency. 

The PMI Registered Education Provider (R.E.P.) community has a busy few months each time the PMBOK^® Guide is updated, requiring them to go through their training materials to bring them all up to date. This is magnified many times over as organizations around the world update their documentation to align with the new standard.

But the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standard is only one part of the PMBOK^® Guide. The guidance part is the larger aspect of the book and also, in my opinion, the most useful. This element is a knowledge repository and if access to validated information is readily available, knowledge management systems should seek to be as up to date as possible. To achieve this, most knowledge management systems are web-based and assume that once information is printed, it is no longer current. Managing a knowledge management system needs skill and knowledge but should be a real-time, full-time function.

Given this, I suggest that PMI separate the standard part of the document from the knowledge element. The standard section would consist of the ANSI Standard (part two of the current PMBOK^® Guide) and the supporting core knowledge that does not change much. This standard and supporting information would remain on the four- to five-year update cycle. The resulting document would be much thinner than the current PMBOK^® Guide.

The knowledge element builds onto this as a cloud-based resource and should be the subject of continual improvement and updating. Allowing PMI members to contribute their knowledge on a continuous basis, subject to review and edit, would allow the body of knowledge to grow and adapt as project management grows and adapts.

A careful design of the knowledge structure based on the PMBOK^® Guide—augmented with information from the other standards published by PMI and enhanced with current developments from industry—would create a very useful and dynamic source of knowledge for the global project management community.

If access to this project management knowledge bank is free to members and available for a fee to commercial users and non-members, the value of membership would be enhanced and PMI would be positioned to maintain its position as a global leader in the development of project management.

It’s an interesting challenge. What do you think?

By Ramiro Rodrigues  

A great deal of effort is often put into a project kick-off meeting—so why isn’t that visibility just as important on the other end of the project?

What is a project closing party?

A project closing party is an event that intends to provide visibility and recognition to the main professionals involved in a completed project. Obviously, there is no sense in celebrating a project that got aborted or that didn’t reach its main goals and targets. So, we are talking about those projects that managed to get to end with the best combination of its intended results.

Within this proposal, it is reasonable to say that what will drive the size of the closing event will be the size (and budget) of the specific project, since it is necessary to achieve coherence between these variables.

What are the benefits?

I see two arguments for hosting these events at the end of a project—one strategic and one motivational.

On the strategic side, a closing party brings visibility to the executing organization (and, if applicable, the hiring organization) that the project has reached its predicted goals. It will help to reinforce to those at the strategic level of the organization that the team is capable and reliable.

From a motivational standpoint, these events will help recognize the efforts of the project team.

How should they be executed?

If you think a closing event could benefit your project efforts, here are some tips to abide by:

1. Forecast the closing event in your project planning. It will allow you to make the proper arrangements of budget, time and resources.

2. Manage expectations: Don’t hide the event, but also don’t overestimate what is forecasted in the plan.

3. Honor the forecast: You can’t skimp on the event if it’s forecasted from the beginning—it will only leave a negative impression on the people involved.

4. Gather people and acknowledge the merit: Just like in the kick off meeting, you should identify and invite the right stakeholders to witness the recognition of that specific team who performed great work.

Done well, events like a project closing party can have positive repercussions on your next projects.

Do you regularly host or attend closing events at the end of your projects? I’d love to hear your thoughts!

by Ramiro Rodrigues

Project managers: Are you sometimes looking to make plans faster but without being superficial and therefore riskier to the project?

Developed in the 1980s, design thinking is a structured mental model that seeks the identification of innovative solutions to complex problems. Although the concept has existed for decades, it’s only made its presence known in the corporate environment over the last 10 years.

Swiss business theorist and author Alexander Osterwalder similarly sought to accelerate collaborative reasoning when he introduced the Business Model Canvas. Canvas helps organizations map, discuss, rework and innovate their business model in one image.

But a series of proposals for the use of the Business Model Canvas for various purposes outside of business models has also appeared — including innovation, corporate education, product development, marketing and more.

For project professionals looking at alternatives to developing quicker and more collaborative planning, Canvas may sound like a great option. Of all the proposals that come up for the use of Canvas in a project environment, integrating stakeholders may be the best. Canvas brings stakeholders into the process and will help to minimize resistance and increase collaboration, resulting in a better proposal for planning problems and making the project more aligned to the interests of organizations.

But while the arguments put forward for Canvas all seem positive, there is still a dilemma: Can Canvas fully replace the overall project plan and the planning process? Is it possible to do without a schedule of activities, a detailed cash flow, a matrix of analyzed risks — just to limit ourselves to a few examples?

That is probably too extreme.

The general sense is that the integration of Canvas with specific planning — such as the cost plan and the risk plan — is the most productive and generates the best results.

It may be worth asking your project management office for their thoughts.

Have you ever used a Canvas for your project planning efforts? If so, what tips can you share?

“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.