Setting the Real Schedule
| Effectively planning a project timeline starts with gathering the appropriate inputs to develop schedule process. And spending the time to carefully plan the activities, sequence them, define durations by gathering this data from performing resources, build resource calendars and get estimates is critical to the project. It ensures a great start, good data and estimates that are better than just an educated guess. But, I often find many holes in the scheduling exercise. You have to deal with a lot of details about the activities being planned, the maintenance windows, resource availability (or unavailability), the timing and sequencing of activities, the amount of detail we have vs. the amount we actually need, etc. I find it helpful to map out key activities on a wall, with the critical path being set and clear. Then I break the activities down and put the similar chunks of information together. You don't always get a complete picture of the schedule--it's a progressive process. And you sometimes you miss some things when you don't visualize all the steps that you have to go through. But it fleshes out the dependencies and the risks. Of course a lot depends on the project itself, how much information is already available and how much knowledge the person who does scheduling has about the technical side of the project itself. Many project managers tend to bypass this process or minimize it and leave it to the day-to-day "figuring out" process, rather than planning the scheduling sessions with the team. That reduces the quality of the overall plan and forces the project to go through more changes than it has to. Controlling the project schedule is a process that is done a lot easier when the upfront work is done. Coupled with accurate reporting on project status, the schedule can be easily adjusted and kept up to date and relevant, without constantly re-baselining the schedule. |
Stop Being So Humble!
Categories:
Career Development
Categories: Career Development
| I had the honor of presenting on the power of acknowledgement at PMI Global Congress 2009--North America in Orlando, Florida, USA last week. Whether it was a long presentation or a booth demo, people told me they were inspired into action. I got into a deep conversation on acknowledgement with Efrain Pacheco, a senior project manager at the U.S. Department of Justice and assistant vice president of the Chapter-to-Chapter Outreach Program for the PMI Washington, D.C. chapter. Efrain shared something poignant. He told me he's humble by nature and this is the way he was brought up in Ecuador. And as a result, he has difficulty accepting acknowledgements. At the Executive Office for Immigration Review where he worked as project manager for the information systems and IT support, for example, Efrain was given an award for turning around project. It was given to him in from of his whole office. So he smiled, but he told me he couldn't say anything or even let himself feel anything because he felt so strongly that his entire team should have received the award. Efrain's story brings up two important issues: the need to accept acknowledgments with grace and appreciation, and the positive value of wanting to share the glory with one's team members. I am going to focus on the first now and address the other in a future post. Here's the deal, folks. When we don't accept an acknowledgment graciously, it's as if that person gave you a gift, and you said, "No thanks. I don't want or need that. I don't even like it." That's what an acknowledger is left with when the acknowledgee says, "Oh, it was nothing" or "It was no big deal." Or as in Efrain's case, when he just smiled but didn't express his appreciation and allow himself to feel the joy that comes naturally with being acknowledged. He just couldn't let it in. Instead, he kept a wall around himself. When I told him he was rejecting a gift, he was shocked. He had never thought of it that way. He is now committed to working on accepting the precious gifts of acknowledgment. Remember,
someone who acknowledges another in a heartfelt and authentic way is making
himself or herself vulnerable. They are trusting that the person will fully
receive their gift. Don't disappoint them. |
The Origin of Stakeholders
Categories:
Teams
Categories: Teams
| Stakeholders must be important. A Guide to the
Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK® Guide)--Fourth Edition has over
380 separate references to the word "stakeholder." But the thousands of managers struggling today to
meet stakeholder expectations may be interested to know that only a few years
ago no one bothered. The whole concept of business or project stakeholders
is a relatively new phenomenon. The
legal concept of a stakeholder is not new. Neither is the concept of "having a
stake" in something. One
must also presume the concept of delivering a quality product to meet the needs
of the end user, customer or client is not new. In
fact, many 19th century businesses had enviable reputations for customer
service. Which leads to the question: What changed? The
origin of a business stakeholder in management literature can be traced back to
1963, when the word appeared in an international memorandum at the Stanford
Research Institute. Stakeholders were defined as "those groups without whose
support the organization would cease to exist." The
concept of business stakeholders was also a core part of the work on systems
analysis in organizations conducted by researchers at the Tavistock Institute
in London, England in the late 1960s and early 1970s. The concept has since
grown from those beginnings. During
the last 30 years, the people and organizations covered by the term
"stakeholder" have continued to expand and evolve. Stakeholder theory now includes
the concepts of corporate social responsibility, organizational theory, systems
theory, customer relationship management and governance. And
in the last few years, stakeholders have come to encompass anyone with an
interest in or who is affected by the work of an organization or its
deliverables, or as someone who contributes to the work or its outcome. Now
that the idea of a stakeholder has come of age in the project world, the new
challenge is stakeholder relationship management maturity. Organizations that
develop this capability quickly are likely to have a significant competitive
advantage--at least until their competitors catch up. |
Harold Kerzner: Project Managers Must Understand Business
| Project managers are in for some big changes. Coming in on schedule and within budget is all well and good--but it's not enough. That's been the running mantra for a while now, but it seems to be gaining even more traction as Harold Kerzner, PhD, explained in the first-ever closing session at a PMI global congress in North America. "Time and cost used to drive all decisions," said Dr. Kerzner, senior executive director, project management at the International Institute for Learning Inc. "Now we're saying, 'Wait a minute, are we providing value?'" Without that, the project will be axed. "If management doesn't see how a project will deliver a value, that project will be canceled even if it's meeting time and budget constraints," he said. Not all constraints have equal value, Dr. Kerzner said. That's quite a mind shift for project managers--and it's going to take a whole new skill set. Indeed, Dr. Kerzner boldly predicted earned value management will be "obsolete very shortly," upstaged by value measurement methodologies that consider intangibles such as goodwill or reputation. And while a mastery of technical knowledge use to suffice, that's now considered "old school." "Project managers must understand business," he told the crowd. They will also need an understanding of politics, culture/religion, stakeholders and people. And Dr. Kerzner predicted a new wave of certifications in complex projects, virtual teams, cultural differences and morality and ethics. Project managers who go in armed with those skills will find a receptive audience in the executive crowd. "The biggest change in the last several years has been in senior management support of project management," he said. "Senior management no longer views project management as a career path. It is now viewed as a strategic competence necessary for survival of the company." Do you agree with Dr. Kerzner? Are you seeing increased demand for business understanding--or should project managers stick to what they do best? |
Taking on Project Management Myths, Part 3
Categories:
Communications Management
Categories: Communications Management
| In my last post challenging project management myths, one responder noted that I was unclear about what part described the myth and what part described the challenge statement. Here are numbers 5 and 6 on the hit parade, with the parts a bit better defined. Myth 6: Complete and detailed procedures are an essential part of a successful project control system implementation. Truth: Writing procedures are generally a waste of time and they don't help advance project management maturity. Think about it, is there anything in the universe easier to ignore than a document? But the myth persists that procedures by themselves can advance an organization's project management capability. Usually these procedures are signed by a high-ranking member of the organization, who is attempting to compel obedience or participation in the project control system. But unless the organization has authorized someone to actually fire or demote others for failure to comply with the document--which happens rarely if ever--then the procedures themselves won't help. Myth 5: If a schedule based on the critical path method isn't available, a good interim step to manage a project's schedule is to create a list of milestones or action items and meet to review them on a regular basis. Truth: Action item lists and milestone databases are essentially polls and have no place in legitimate management information systems. I once worked on a major program in which participants entered project data into a milestone database and provided monthly updates to those milestones. At the beginning of the year, all of the milestones were scored "green," meaning the milestone would be met on time. Byabout the ninth month, a few "yellows" would show up in the status column, indicating a possible delay. More yellows would show up in month 10, followed by even more in month 11 along with a few "reds," indicating the milestone would be missed for that fiscal year. By the last month, easily half of the milestones were either red or yellow. Lots of scolding and badgering would then ensue, followed by a new "baseline" for the next fiscal year, and-- shazaam!--all the milestones would be green again. Asking participants what they think of their performance is not a performance management system -- it's a poll. And polls are not substitute for real management information systems. I look forward to your responses because I know a whole bunch of people are going to disagree with these two. |
