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. |
Ignore Stakeholders at Your Own Risk
| I've been discussing stakeholders and communication for some time now without focusing on the key question: Why do stakeholders matter? Well, on most projects, stakeholders equate to risks. There are a few risks that don't involve people--inclement weather, for example--but 90 percent of the risks on most projects are caused by one or more people: • Quality risks almost always occur because people do not follow or not understand processes. • Design risks are usually the result of people not communicating. • Time and cost risks typically tie back to the performance of people doing the work. • Even inclement weather is influenced by people's perceptions--what's deemed "too wet to work" in a temperate climate may be seen as okay in a tropical monsoon climate. People also determine if a risk is acceptable or not. Whether a risk is perceived as acceptable or not is 100 percent inside a person's mind. As project managers, our job is to reduce risks to a level that gives the project the best overall chance of success. Yet extreme risk aversion will kill a project more effectively than a gung-ho attitude. Of course, what constitutes a sensible level of risk is totally dependent on the perceptions and risk attitude of your key stakeholders. That's why a central part of effective stakeholder management is ascertaining the risk attitude of your stakeholders. And then you must either adapt the project to fit within these parameters or provide the necessary information to help the stakeholder change his or her perceptions of what is acceptable. The more that people feel they understand a situation, the more willing they are to accept risks. Similarly, if you have a trusting relationship with someone, you're more likely to rely on their capability to safely manage risks on your behalf. The most useful risk management strategy you can use on your project is effective stakeholder management supported by good communication. What has your experience been? |
Are You Ready for Your Next Status Report?
Categories:
Leadership
Categories: Leadership
| Reporting project status can be exciting--or can be one of those things you'd do anything to avoid. By conducting frequent, but relevant and appropriate status reviews, including the stakeholders in the process and presenting fact-based information, you will help to avoid any unpleasant project surprises. To make the reporting process run smoother, project managers should consider these elements when preparing their reports: Timeliness: This is all about the reporting cycle, the aspects of "when" and "how often" you report. Pick times that will most benefit the stakeholders. Fact-Based Information: Validate information before it's reported to the stakeholders and produce trustworthy reports that others can base critical decisions on. These steps help gain stakeholder confidence and contributes to the overall success of the project. Relevance: Know whom you are reporting to and what information is relevant to that stakeholder. Appropriateness: Be aware of any sensitive information that should be presented only to specific individuals. Presentation: Spend a little time identifying the medium - such as handouts, e-mail, verbal, telephone -- as well as the method -- free form, discussion-based or single-person, etc -- for the report. Knowledge: When you don't have the full details on information to be presented, invite a direct resource that produced the result to the presentation. Audience: Focusing on specific individuals or groups allows you to provide relevant and appropriate information. By considering all of these elements, you can present a clear picture of the project's status to the necessary attendees. |
Who is a Stakeholder?
Categories:
Communications Management
Categories: Communications Management
| Everyone is talking about stakeholders these days. Surprisingly, this has not always been the case. The modern concept of stakeholders seems to have emerged from the work of the Tavistock Institute in London, England in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Forty years later, the concept of stakeholder has expanded to include all of the people and organizations that have a real or perceived '"stake" in the project or its outcomes. A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK® Guide) breaks down a stakeholder as a person or organization that: • Is actively involved in the project • Has interests that may be positively or negatively affected by the performance or completion of the project • May exert influence over the project, its deliverables or its team members In my work on mapping and managing stakeholders, I have found it important to expand on this basic definition to understand the "stake" of the stakeholder. This helps determine the best way to engage with them. Here are some of the different stakes a person or organization may have (most have more than one): Interest: To be affected by a decision related to the work or its outcomes Rights: To be treated in a certain way or to have a particular right (including legal or moral) protected Ownership: To have a legal title to an asset or a property Knowledge: To possess specialist or organizational knowledge needed for the work Impact or influence: To be impacted by the work or its outcomes, or have the ability to impact (or influence) the execution of work or its outcomes Contribution: Relating to the support or assets including the supply of resources, the allocation of funding, or providing advocacy for the objectives of the project Once you understand the stake the stakeholder is seeking to protect, profit from or enhance, you can structure your communications to let the person know you understand their hopes or concerns. From this starting point, you're in a much better position to manage the relationship to the benefit of both the project and the stakeholder. |
Stakeholders: Changing Attitudes, Securing Support
Categories:
Communications Management
Categories: Communications Management
| My last post touched on stakeholder attitudes. Attitude is derived from perceptions--in this context, the stakeholder's perception of the project and how its outcomes will affect the stakeholder's interests. Fortunately, perceptions are negotiable and can be changed by effective communication. Change perceptions and a change in attitude will follow. In my research, I considered two key dimensions to attitude: 1. How supportive or opposed the stakeholder is toward the project 2. How receptive the stakeholder is to communication from the project team Although receptiveness may seem less important, you cannot change a stakeholder's level of support if they refuse to communicate with you. Levels of support can range from active opposition to active support. For each of the important stakeholders, the project team needs to understand the stakeholder's current level of support and then determine a realistic optimum level. Exactly what that realistic optimum is varies. For example, environmental activists can never be realistically expected to support a new road through a wilderness area. The realistic optimum may be passive opposition and a communications plan developed to negotiate an outcome that the environmentalists can live with. Your project sponsor should be an active supporter. Communication needs to be planned to engage the stakeholder in actively supporting the project. That means open communication. If the stakeholder is unwilling to communicate, ways need to be devised to open channels. This may involve using other stakeholders in the network around the project to open the communication, changing the way you communicate or just plain persistence. Only after communication channels are open can you start to listen to the other person and understand their needs, concerns or ambitions. Once these are known, you're in a position to either explain how the current project meets those needs or consider risk-mitigation strategies to modify the project to reduce issues and enhance opportunities. The whole point of stakeholder management is to optimize the overall attitude of the stakeholder community to allow the project to succeed. A very significant proportion of the risks around most projects are people-based. The only way to identify, manage and/or mitigate these risks is by effective two-way communication. More on this later. |
