Guessing is not a strategy: How to build decision velocity with AI and real-time data
June 10, 2026 | Live Webinar
Delegate to Project Team Members and Coach Them to Succeed
Categories:
Education
Categories: Education
| Project managers have notoriously full schedules. As difficult as it can be sometimes, delegating is a must. While more than 80 percent of our time is spent communicating, the other aspects of the job are crammed into the remaining 20 percent. If we focus too heavily on individual tasks, we will crash into our myriad deadlines. This is where delegating becomes essential to leading successful projects. Personally, I would rather do everything myself than ask another team member to do things for me. But this attitude can lead to significant catastrophes:
First, tell team members the information that you need and give them a deadline. Prepare a template to make it easier for them and to ensure you get all the necessary information. For good measure, I might remind them of what I need from them 24 hours before the deadline. Delegation has a few benefits. First, you'll make your deadlines because you'll get the right information from the right sources, on time. Secondly, team members are exposed to structured work and reporting methods, and will see the significance of the work they contribute to the project. Finally, you'll increase trust within the team because of greater responsibilities, which can enhance self-worth for team members. What is your take on delegating? What tasks have you delegated to your team members? What positive impacts do you see from delegating tasks to your team members? |
Use Project Management Tools in the Right Context
| Recently I came across an ad for a project management technology application. It was a picture of seven robots in a group, which symbolized humans. The slogan read, "If your team looked like this, any PPM solution would work." It made me wonder how many organizations actually believe that technology applications do the work and produce results -- not humans. How many organizations and project managers sufficiently analyze their project needs and the compatibility of new technology to their organizations' existing set-up and processes? Companies often buy expensive project management applications and then force teams to conform and adapt to the application rather than customize the application to the needs of the people and project. But buying applications because other organizations use them does not by default mean you, too, will become a leader. Like with best practices, experience has taught me that technology and tools are valuable -- but only if they fill gaps and needs effectively. Technology is important and can increase efficiency, but in the correct setting and context. Projects are planned and executed by people -- therefore technology must complement and be understood by the humans who use it. Before investing in new project management applications, you must consider things like training, costs and your team members' willingness to use the tools. Otherwise it could amount to an expensive burden. What experiences can you share of failing to engage stakeholders before investing in technology? What factors should be considered before investing in new applications? |
Program Managers as Top Chefs
Categories:
Program Management
Categories: Program Management
| Given the lack of understanding about the work of program managers, I thought it would be helpful to explain their role by using a restaurant as a metaphor. Think of the kitchen as the project management office (PMO), menus as the programs and each dish as a project. The chef is the program manager. The restaurant owner and manager rely on the chef to create the menu, which has to reflect the restaurant's cuisine, but with a range of affordable (yet profitable) dishes. The chef must then supervise and motivate others to cook the dishes. Cooks are like project managers. They're responsible for executing the dishes designed by the chef and ordered by the customers. Other kitchen staff members are like the project team, helping create each dish successfully. Restaurant managers are like general managers in a project setting. They coordinate the different arms of the restaurant, supervise the staff, order supplies, take care of the accounts, pay wages and handle customer complaints. However, they rely on the chef to ensure the restaurant is successful. The restaurant owner, manager and chef meet regularly to discuss business. These discussions are the restaurant equivalent of strategic planning. The chef learns what's required of the menu (or program) and how much money is available to spend on preparing dishes (or projects). In a lot of companies, the owner, manager and chef are all the same person. Yet many people can't successfully perform all three roles. The restaurant owner and manager may want to be involved in the cooking, but it's far more effective if they have the support of a properly trained chef. The same is true in the business world. We need to spend time educating CEOs and general managers about the benefits of working alongside a properly trained program manager. Then we won't just have great restaurants, but great companies. What do you think? How does having a defined role of a program manager help organizations? |
Does Project Management Make You Happy?
Categories:
Human Aspects of PM
Categories: Human Aspects of PM
| Alfred Lord Tennyson once said, "The happiness of a man in this life does not consist in the absence but in the mastery of his passions." I think this directly correlates with project management. To me, part of the secret to happiness is being able to connect how you approach life with what you do for a living. Then your passion will come out naturally. Let me explain: I tend to classify people in three groups. Each group finds joy in what they do in life and that is related to their approach to project management. Searchers are always looking for the next thing. If they don't like what they are doing, they simply change their direction. They like freedom and avoid tight schedules. They approach life from a "big picture" perspective. Searchers are better at the beginning of a project. They are passionate about thinking how to approach the project to achieve the best results. That's what makes them happy. Wrestlers have clear, defined objectives. They don't give up until they achieve their goals. From a project perspective, they are very passionate about doing the job until they get results. That is what makes them feel fulfilled. Balanced people are equal parts searcher and wrestler. Life has taught them that both traits are needed to get results. I tend to think that seasoned project managers are balanced. They find satisfaction in the ability to propose the big picture -- like a searcher -- and then pursue it until they get there -- like a wrestler. They are happy because they know they are contributing to build a better world. If you are lucky enough to find and establish the connection between what you enjoy most in life and how you approach a project, you will enjoy every second of your profession. Perhaps it will happen to you as it happens to me: You won't care whether you get paid for your work on a project because you've enjoyed the process so much. The only thing that you'll seek is personal and professional satisfaction with your daily duties. It makes you happy and will bring out the spark you need to stand out of the crowd. If you don't feel happy with your current job in project management, perhaps you should try to answer these three questions: What are you looking for in a career? What kind of person are you? What are you willing to do, even if you are not going to be paid? |
Influencing Senior Project Managers
Categories:
Stakeholder Management
Categories: Stakeholder Management
| How do you change a stubborn senior manager's mind? For example, he or she might claim your project only needs six weeks to complete, even though you have a carefully researched and resource-loaded schedule that proves 10 weeks is needed. Arguing won't work. In fact, given the power structure, arguing will simply put you in a worse position. Doing nothing simply delays the problem and you will eventually be held accountable for your perceived failure to meet the stakeholder's unrealistic expectations. To change a senior manager's mind, you need to change the manager's expectations. Though you may battle a heavy overlay of skepticism, use of effective communication and a planned strategy should do the trick. Effective communication requires that at least two of the following three elements be present: • You're known as a technical expert. • You're credible: People know you provide reliable and accurate information. • The information you're communicating is relevant to the receiver. Influencing a skeptical senior manager requires you to boost all three facets. You cannot do this alone. Some options to consider include: Co-present your case with a trusted source. You increase your chances of success by sharing the stage with someone the executive trusts. Build the value of your ideas on the credibility the co-presenter has established with the executive. Demonstrate endorsements to build power. Ask others in positions of power to let the executive know they support your idea. Stroke egos and use the executive's credibility. Authentically move ownership of "the" idea -- not "your" idea -- into his space. You can do this by using phrases such as "You've probably seen this data already," or "I'm sure your analysis has shown similar results." These approaches need organizing and take time but are essential if you are going to effectively advise upward. How do you influence your senior managers? Read more on stakeholder management. |