Building a Great Project Team
Categories:
Teams
Categories: Teams
| I've worked on a number of great project teams. And I've noticed five key factors that led to us working well together--and to successful project completion. 1. Communication Tools Good communication is a team commitment. We used tools that worked for everyone on the team. For quick communication and reports, we relied on e-mail, but chose personal visits, phone conversations or conference calls when immediate responses or further clarity was required. And for document exchange, storage and update tracking, we turned to a shared web-based tool. 2. Role Clarity Teams work best when everyone can just work on what they know, rather than trying to figure out what they're supposed to do, and whether or not someone is covering other parts of the project. Clarifying roles in the beginning of the project helps teams steer clear of conflicts. Making sure team members focus on their specific work definitely helps keep the focus on project deliverables with a higher rate of success in the end. 3. Professionalism No matter how odd we may feel about something that someone says or does, we have to keep our cool. It allows us to focus on the solution rather than the problem. Handling matters professionally doesn't mean teams are perfectly aligned at all times or that a team member can't make a comment about someone being late on delivering a task. But what helps teams stay together and focused on the prize is the ability to evaluate a situation and correct whatever requires correction--whether it's a communication breakdown, badly handled process or missed deliverable. 4. Fun When appropriate, joking around and bonding outside of work can help team members get to know each other and break the barriers to communication and collaboration. 5. Authenticity and Integrity Although two items, they work hand in hand. And they are the basis for trust on a team. Integrity includes: keeping your word, committing only to work that you are qualified or can complete in time, keeping private discussions private, sticking to the confidentiality clauses and believing in team members. Being authentic to yourself and others is paramount. It also means keeping others accountable for the work they do, raising concerns, and listening to the input of others. What are some of the keys to great project teams you have seen? |
Eye-Opening Audits
| I've been preparing for the Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) level 3 audit along with my team for the last year and a half. Though we were quite comfortable that we would clear the audit, we were still apprehensive when the time finally came. You can never predict the mood of the examiner. He or she may ask some unexpected questions and you'll fail. The project team was excited before the audit and the process kicked off with a short opening ceremony. But the next five days were eye-opening. It was like the auditor was showing us a mirror--where we stand, where we need to improve. It forced us to look at our understanding of the fundamental concepts on the software processes and the metrics we utilize. For instance, he discussed the interdependencies across metrics. When it comes to software defect density, the value is determined by dividing total defects by actual effort. To keep defect density low, the auditor discussed that we would have to put in more time and effort. But that would increase the effort variance of the defect density formula. And it gave us something to consider. Audits by independent people or groups help us find our weaknessess, areas of improvement and strengths. I also do audits for our internal projects and highly recommend having an audit process every month or at least every quarter. Have you ever been audited by anybody? Please share your experience. |
Flawed Reasons for Avoiding Project Management
| Implementing the information systems needed to sustain a project management capability will often meet with resistance from within the organization. And much of this resistance can be rather fierce. For now, I want to discuss the most commonly used objections I've heard over 20 years of work. These actually come from those opposed to doing project management, and my intention is to assess whether or not there arguments are reasonable. I'll concentrate on two in this post and then pick up the other three in my next. Objection #5: "Project management systems, like earned value (EV) or critical path, don't apply to this kind of work." These arguments occasionally have merit, especially in organizations that have experienced attempts to impose project management information systems on non-project work. However, if the work has three or more of the following characteristics, then you do have a project: -If has discernible beginning and end dates -It has a service or product that is delivered -Resources are dedicated to it -One person or organizational element is responsible for the work's completion There is no doubt that some unconventional project work will need adaptations from classic EV and critical path management systems. But to assert that project management has no place in managing the work is an excuse and should be left to personnel who are not involved in management decisions. Objection #4: "EV and critical path are too difficult and expensive to implement." Again there's enough credibility in this argument to provide a fig leaf of cover to project management antagonists. But a closer look utterly destroys the assertion. There are two aspects to project management information systems: They provide a valuable information stream on cost and schedule performance and they provide an audit trail for the customer in the event the project goes badly. It's this second aspect that makes these systems labyrinthine. The performance information stream, when simplified, is actually very easy and cheap to install. But as is so often the cases, when "experts" get together to document the "proper" way these systems should be implemented, the requirements quickly get out of hand. The audit trail aspects of EV and critical path can be overemphasized to the point that their ability to provide needed management information is eclipsed. However, I must emphasize that simple EV and CPM systems, when freed of their audit trail baggage, are cheap and easy to install--and even the simple systems can provide very powerful management information. |
Setting Your Project Resources Straight
| Getting things done is easiest when responsibilities are clear. Because when it comes down to it, there's no special formula for project success other than being clear on key parameters such as requirements, scope, deliverables and resources. Take team members as an example. We need people with specific skills to execute project activities well. And knowing what's to be delivered and roles that are required to deliver those results creates for the team a picture of how the project will be completed. In project-based organizations, many project team members are not carrying out day-to-day functions. Team members often are brought in for a specific project with a specific role to fill. That role is not always as well-defined as, say, someone's role in auditing, marketing, operations management or human resources. As the project leader, figuring out and clarifying everyone's role and their responsibilities often comes from spending time on the project, asking questions and consulting project definition documents. Setting expectations of what is required of team members before the project is in full swing should be standard practice. One way to set expectations would be to clearly identify each role with its set of responsibilities and accountabilities within the project definition documents. Include an RACI chart--a matrix of all the activities or decision-making authorities undertaken in an organization set against all the people or roles--for areas such as communication, deployment, quality assurance and testing. When describing the role of a particular team member, it's also a good idea to distinguish his or her on activities that may not directly relate to the project, but may be required within the organization. What challenges do you face when doling out team responsibilities. |
Stakeholder Perceptions Are Paramount
| One of the first things salespeople learn is that perceptions are reality. And the same goes for project managers. Your perceptions and your reality may differ, but if you want to communicate effectively with someone you need to understand their version of the truth. Perceptions are also closely aligned with expectations. If a stakeholder perceives an organization as unresponsive and inefficient they will expect bad service. From this starting point, the stakeholder will readily accept as true every experience that contradicts their view of the world. A good experience can be written off as "the exception that proves the rule." This presents a distinct challenge to project managers who are developing a communication plan. Your stakeholder's perceptions of project management will be based on prior experience with other projects in other times and even other organizations. This is neither fair nor reasonable but it is a fact! The situation is made worse by another trait: our tendency to feel and remember bad experiences more strongly than good ones. Where negative attitudes occur, your solution is basically hard work. You need to assess the current attitude of your key stakeholders, determine the optimum attitude and then work to improve the stakeholder's perceptions of your project. There are three key elements to consider when working to change poor perceptions. 1. Build rapport and open communication channels that will be effective. You may need help from supportive stakeholders to achieve this. 2. Build your credibility by providing accurate, timely and useful information that precisely meets the needs of the stakeholder. Help them to be successful. 3. Whenever possible, differentiate your current project from the person's previous negative experiences. The bad news is one slip and you immediately reinforce the old perceptions. So stay focused and ensure every communication, authentic and credible. |
