Voices on Project Management

By Christian Bisson, PMP

In the world of project management, you will encounter the “email philosophy” and the “project management tool philosophy” of how project tracking/communication should be done.

Emails can be an effective way to communicate or keep written documentation to refer to. Heck, I love emails. But ultimately, a properly used project management tool will be more efficient for your team. Here’s why:

1. Documentation Efficiency

Email might be a great way for you to track your written communications, but how properly it’s used and archived depends on the recipient. In contrast, with a project management tool, the “documentation” will be stored somewhere within a task or other type of item within the tool. Everyone can refer to it, and it should be easily found in the appropriate location instead of somewhere in someone’s inbox.

For example, I once took over a project from another project manager who used emails to manage the project. To help me get up to speed, the project manager had extracted a dozen emails and sent them over. I had to go through all those emails threads, most of which were out of context or outdated.

A better option would have been to have the relevant information within a project management tool where I could have reviewed the available information and known exactly who was doing what.

2. Task management

You could send someone an email listing tasks to accomplish, but unless that person replies with a status or you regularly ask for one, you will not get an update. If an update does come, only you and maybe others from the team will be aware, assuming they even read the email.

A project management tool will allow you to track all those tasks, with a proper assignee and status. It will be simple for someone to have all his or her tasks displayed and ordered in priority, including a description of each task/issue. In the meantime, the project manager can easily track the status of the project without having to constantly ask for one.

In my next post, I’ll talk about how to overcome challenges when switching from managing via email to managing via a project management tool. 

By Conrado Morlan

If you’ve been a project practitioner for a long time, you’ve probably heard a variety of opinions about you and your colleagues. Many of those opinions may have reflected an oversimplified image of the project management profession. In other words, you and your colleagues were stereotyped.

The project management profession has given me the opportunity to travel across three continents and to work with people from different cultures and generations. I lost count of all the different stereotypes I was associated with, which involved my country of origin (Mexico), the country I lived in (the United States) and people’s previous experience with IT project managers, But many of the stereotypes were common despite the different situations where I worked.

Being stereotyped gave me the opportunity to change people’s oversimplified idea of me and my profession. On top of my daily duties, I had to transform that bad and/or ugly perception into a good one. Even when my title was IT project manager, my role was not purely technical—in many projects, the business function was also part of the project team.

Working with business and technical functions put me between a sword and a wall. On the business function side, people stereotyped me as too technical, while on the IT side, co-workers assumed I was not technical at all and too structured. In many meetings with business functions and IT team members, I had to show that the “real me” did not fit the stereotype they had in mind.

My credentials exacerbated the situation a couple of times. When team members learned I had several certifications, they feared I was going to “play by the book” and make them change the way they had been working.

Instead, I merely promoted discussions in which the team realized there were areas of opportunity in their way of working that could be improved.     

The “manager” stereotype popped up quite often. Team members openly told me I was not their direct-line manager and did not have authority over them. I had to address this stereotype and help people understand I was not there to manage but to lead.

So I held meetings with team members and their managers, in which roles were defined, the importance of the project was communicated and lines of communication were established.

At the end of the day, it’s incumbent on projects managers to face the stereotypes that are out there and work to change negative perceptions. As a project manager, how do you react to stereotypes? What are you doing to erase the stereotype you have been associated with?

By Mario Trentim

Ever heard this joke? “You don’t need superpowers to change an organization. You only need one project manager—but the stakeholders must want to change.”

In this post, I want to remind you to put yourself in your stakeholders’ shoes. As you think about the changes to be delivered by your project, take their different perspectives seriously.

If you ask most people about their attitude toward change, they give answers trying to show how flexible and adaptable they are. After all, nobody wants to play the naysayer role. We don't want to be seen as resistors.

For example, I once asked my MBA students if they like change. They cheerfully answered "Yes!", to which I promptly answered "Fine, let's extend our class by five hours. Moreover, I want you to read seven papers and two books by the end of next week so that you can take a four-hour exam."

It’s easy to prove the point that we don't like bad changes. But what about good changes, the ones that benefit us? Do we really even want a change that’s good for us?

In reality, our behavior and attitudes often contradict what we believe. Why? Because we are afraid, and our expectations and interests are different and changing. Our relationship to specific changes isn’t static.

The biggest issue is that organizations (and project leaders) don’t always present planned changes in ways that makes it easy for people to answer the most important question: “What’s in it for me?”

I sometimes hear project managers complaining about their stakeholders. They say, “stakeholder X always changes his mind,” or “stakeholder Y creates obstacles to my project,” and so on.

Wake up! Stakeholders are not the problem. The truth is that your project is the problem. After all, what is a project?

From its definition, a project is a temporary endeavor to create a unique result. So, your project will create something that didn't exist before, something that wasn't there.

A project is a disturbance in the environment.

As a functional manager, for example, I will have to give up my status quo. I would be “forced” by your project to learn how to use the new enterprise resource planning system that you want to install. Do you really think I would help you? Is the functional manager the problem? No.

As a project manager, your job is to convince stakeholders they are going to benefit from the outcome. Show them what they will earn. If you fail, they won't help. As long as your stakeholders are not happy, your project is doomed to fail.

Want to learn more? Check out the webinar Managing Stakeholders as Clients. And, please, leave your comments!

By Lynda Bourne

In the first part of this two-part series, I looked at the diverse nature of projects and project management across different organizations. In this post, I’ll explore the concept of professionalism and how it applies to the practice of project management.

The Concept of a Profession

The term “profession” has a number of distinct attributes that have changed over time.

The starting point for being a professional is the fact you are paid for your work. The next element of professional relates to skill and pride in the quality of the work being produced. The concept of a profession evolved from a need to regulate the delivery of skilled services to the community. 

With the arrival of the concept of educated people undertaking a skilled role such as accounting or engineering, the idea of a professional institution made up of its members emerged. 

These institutions were created by their members to act as regulatory bodies for the profession they represented. They established formal qualifications based upon education and examination, with powers to admit and discipline members.

Early modern tradition recognized four professions: divinity, medicine, law and engineering. This starting point expanded through the 19^th and 20^th centuries to encompass a range of other professions. The expansion continues to this day.

Characteristics of a Profession

Traditionally, a profession:

• Renders a specialized service based upon advanced and specialized knowledge and skill. The profession collectively possesses a body of knowledge and a repertoire of behaviors and skills.
• Is organized into one or more professional associations that control the actual work of the profession and the conditions that surround it (admissions, educational standards, examination and licensing, career paths, ethical and performance standards, professional discipline).
• Enjoys a common heritage of knowledge, skill and status to the cumulative store of which professional members are bound to contribute through their individual and collective efforts.
• Is bound by a distinctive ethical code in its relationships with clients, colleagues and the public.
• Is charged with a substantial degree of public obligation by virtue of its possession of specialized knowledge.

This framework was supported by governments, which used membership in professional institutions as a convenient way to regulate the provision of services to the general public.

For traditional professions this tidy arrangement between the individual, the professional institution and the government worked very effectively in many parts of the world through to the 1950s and 60s. 

However, in the last 50 years or so, the traditional framework has started to break down and new concepts are emerging. Governments are increasingly moving to directly regulate the provision of professional services to the public, with the professional associations focusing on education, skills development and the encouragement of “good practice.”  

There now seem to be three distinct types of professional associations:

• Those that qualify and licence members to practice the profession, sometimes with the support of government regulations.
• Those that qualify members, but where the government separately licences the member to practice.
• Those that qualify members, but there are no regulatory constraints on practice—membership is a competitive advantage.

Professional institutions such as PMI and IPMA fit into the third category. These associations are focused on developing the knowledge and capability of the profession, but anyone can practice.

This creates an interesting anomaly! Traditionally professions emerged from a group of professional practitioners creating an association to protect their specialist skills and knowledge and restrict entry to the profession.

In contrast, project management would appear to have evolved to the stage where associations are driving the development of the profession and are actively seeking members. However, the lack of regulation allows anyone to practice.

What’s a Pro Look Like?

So, back to the question posed at the start of these articles: Is project management a profession? If your benchmark is the practices of the 19^th and 20^th centuries, definitely not: professional associations do not control the right to practice as a project manager. 

However, in the paradigm of the 21^st century, we are well on the way to being a modern profession based on professional associations. And while the ability to practice project management is never likely to be regulated (we don’t threaten public safety in the way doctors and engineers can); the desire of employers to engage professional project managers (i.e., capable, qualified and ethical people) is apparent. 

The challenge for the associations over the next few years will be developing the elements beyond certifications needed to support professionals, and to create ways to make this distinction attractive to members and recognizable to employers. Simple certifications are unlikely to be enough, the associations and professional members will need to demonstrate a distinct “professional” way of working.

Given the massive differences in practice between an engineering project manager running a multi-million building site and an “agile” IT project manager developing a new app, defining the core elements of professional practice will not be easy. 

Some of the areas I believe will be important are:

• Stakeholder engagement and communication: projects are done by people for people. Effectively working with and influencing people is the key to success.
• Practical ethics: courageously and honestly providing the best information possible (based on reliable processes), and dealing with uncertainty (risk) and problems openly and effectively.
• Managing your project team: projects are temporary organizations with a unique set of challenges for the team leader.
• Focusing beyond narrow constraints of success (time, cost and scope): partnering with executive management and contributing to the creation of a successful project outcome. Professional project managers will be at the center of an organization’s ability to generate value from change.

These are my ideas—what do you think will shape our profession?     

By Jen L. Skrabak, PMP, PfMP

Seven in 10 organizations have a PMO, according to PMI’s 2016 Pulse of the Profession. That’s roughly the same as what other PMI surveys have shown in recent years. Why has the prevalence of PMOs plateaued? It could be that many people still perceive PMOs as providing low value but high administrative costs while doing little to improve project delivery. 

Worse, the general state of project management isn’t improving in spite of this increase in PMOs. Organizations waste US$122 million for every US$1 billion invested in projects, according to the 2016 Pulse report. That’s a 12 percent increase over the previous year.

Why the disparity between project success rates and the prevalence of PMOs? There’s a gap between the vision and reality of PMOs. Here are four reasons why people may hate PMOs—and what PMO leaders can do about it.

1. Redundancy Over Efficiency

I’ve worked in multiple Fortune 100 organizations where there were not just one, but multiple PMOs, that a critical portfolio may have to report into.

There may be functional PMOs (i.e. IT PMOs and/or business division PMOs), capital-planning PMOs, product PMOs, or enterprise PMOs, just to name a few. These multiple layers can cost the portfolio manager tremendous time and energy in trying to manage multiple PMO demands and requests. 

There is value in centralizing and standardizing portfolio information and providing visibility to executives to enable decision-making. However, the next time we just start up a new PMO or implement portfolio management processes, we should ask ourselves if there are existing areas that already provide the same type of oversight and control.   

2. Bureaucracy Over Execution

In many organizations, it takes a village just to get a new program or project approved. The focus is on the administrative side of things—filling out the right forms and attending the right meetings—and rarely on improving project delivery or execution. If a PMO’s primary focus is on gathering status reports for a dashboard, it loses touch with day-to-day execution. 

There is a lot of complexity in organizations that portfolio managers must navigate, and the key is not to add more. 

Ask yourself: Is your PMO’s focus on adherence to process and methodology, gates and deliverables? Are you generating voluminous portfolio data without succinct actionable plans that will increase project success? 

3. Templates Over Talent

PMOs often focus on generating templates rather than having trained and skilled project managers that can assist in all aspects of delivery, especially enabling organizational change management. Portfolio management processes need to be sustainable and repeatable, demonstrate measurable impact and contribute to project success. 

Too often, PMOs focus on the templates to try to enforce the process instead of having the right talent in place to help programs and projects be successful. 

4. Tactics Over Strategy

For some organizations, there’s not as much value in tracking schedule and budget adherence as there is in developing the next innovation that will greatly advance strategy.

By definition, strategy changes in response to environment conditions, competitors, or the need to innovate. Is there agility (speed and flexibility) in your PMO processes that allow you to react rapidly? How can you inspire innovation in your portfolio rather than stifle it? Is your PMO positioned to identify the next innovation, and rapidly move it forward? Why not?

Why do people that you have worked with dislike PMOs? How can they be improved? Please share your thoughts below!