Guessing is not a strategy: How to build decision velocity with AI and real-time data
June 10, 2026 | Live Webinar
Viewing Posts by Lynda Bourne
Make Your Project Communication Really Sing
| The core purpose of communication is to share information or direct a behavior change. This is particularly true of communication with your project team members. The challenge of effective communication is keeping a consistent point and changing your presentation and rhythm to avoid becoming boring. Great communicators use a similar approach to great music. It does not matter if you listen to Beethoven's "Symphony No. 5" or Queen's "Bohemian Rhapsody." You find consistency and variety in both. Patches of high intensity contrasted with quieter movements create a memorable and complete masterpiece. The same effect can be achieved in your communication by balancing positive and negative elements of a message or changing the direction of the information flow. For example, if you want someone to stop an undesirable behavior, point out the problem, but also highlight the benefits of the change you want to occur. Or rather than telling the team they are behind schedule, change the direction of the information flow and ask them for ideas to regain the lost time. The point you are making is consistent, but the variety in presentation leads to engagement. Another key element is to finish on a high note. Great music does not fade away. It builds to a crescendo! Great communicators such as Martin Luther King Jr. or Winston Churchill had a consistent, heartfelt message they communicated in a way that would create a strong reaction in their listeners. Both had different speaking styles, but each had a real sense of rhythm and performance. Their speeches are carefully crafted for effect, but the presentation adds enormous weight to the message. While you may never need to 'fight on the landing fields' or 'have a dream' to change a nation, taking the time to think through how you will present the information in your communication in a way that is engaging and memorable will help you be more effective in getting your message across to your audience. Do you spend more time drafting your message or thinking about how you will communicate the message? |
Why 'What's In It For Me?' Works in Projects
Categories:
Stakeholder Management
Categories: Stakeholder Management
| Have you ever wondered why many executives don't turn up for your steering committee meeting and those who do are usually on their smartphones? Chances are that the only information the executives received about your meeting was the agenda and the briefing notes, which focus on the project's status and technical performance. This is abstract data that takes time to read and understand. As a consequence, it becomes paperwork that is put aside to read later, buried under other paperwork and eventually forgotten. To be successful in attracting the attention of busy executives, focus on a 30-second 'wake-up call' that will cut through the thousands of other messages circulating in your organization and get the executives attention. You cannot communicate unless you get the other person's attention first; so your 'call' must persuade each member of the committee to be both physically and mentally present for your meeting. Only then will your more complex messages be heard and possibly acted upon. The solution is 'What's In It For Me' (WIFM). WIFM appeals directly to the attention and decision-making functions of the human brain. The amygdala, a part of the brain, rules much of our actions and behavior. The amygdala determines in a fraction of a second what we pay attention to. It will pay no attention at all unless it can immediately see WIFM. To cut through each executive's communication overload, your 30-second 'wake-up call' needs to be direct and simple and appeal to the person's emotions. Pleasure and fear are equally effective emotions, so the call should worry the executive--or make him or her feel good. It should not focus on a third party, such as you or your project. The amygdala is expert at screening everything that doesn't directly interest it, including things that are abstract, complex or about someone else. Uninteresting or confusing messages are rejected in the blink of an eye, before the rational and analytical areas of the brain have a chance to begin the thinking process. Only after you have gained the executive's attention can you engage with the person and deal with the substance of the meeting. Strong messages start this process, but the real work of the meeting will require the use of more highly crafted forms of communication built around the concept of effectively 'advising upwards.' Ask yourself: 'Are we getting the attention of those most important to us?' If you are getting attention, are you keeping it and building it? And if you don't know, what can you do to find out? |
Can Modern Executives Learn from the Romans?
Categories:
Stakeholder Management
Categories: Stakeholder Management
| In September 2011, Project Management Journal published an article comparing similarities between public works management in the Roman era and similar projects today. The only significant difference that was noted from the last 2,000 years is the proliferation of formal tools and techniques we now use compared to the 'seat of the pants' (or should that be toga?) approach used by Roman managers. However, in my opinion, the authors, Derek Walker and Christopher Dart could have added a few more differences. For example, the simpler social structures of the Roman era provided a direct link between project initiator and the manager responsible for the work. For major works, the emperor would frequently be the person directly funding the project. He would also appoint the manager. Another way projects were launched: To enhance his or her prestige, a benefactor funded other projects. The appointed manager bore personal responsibility for the project's success. Interestingly, he also had to lobby for the unpaid appointment. The manager's prestige and the standing of his family for generations to come could be influenced by success or failure of a significant project. Most of the actual work was contracted to commercial organizations on similar terms. The contractor was obliged to complete the work for the price agreed upon by both parties. Failure could literally have fatal consequences for the contractor and serious consequences for his descendants. Probably the most significant difference between the Romans and today's project professionals was the overall commitment to success demonstrated by the Romans. There were direct lines of accountability from the benefactor funding the project to the contractors delivering the work. Everyone's prestige was at stake. Today, the complexity of modern organizations and multiple competing objectives tends to obscure the link between a project and the organization's overall strategy. Most project managers are committed to the success of their projects. But this commitment is not necessarily reflected in the higher levels of the organization, as evidenced by the number of articles on 'selling' the benefits of a project to organizational management. When there is a clarity of purpose, such as building the London Olympics, remarkable results can still be achieved. Unfortunately, within the matrix structures common in most organizations, in my opinion, one of the real challenges is finding a 21st century way to recapture the Roman's top to bottom commitment to the success of each project. How do you think this level of stakeholder alignment could be achieved in your organization? |
Executive Sponsorship: Benefits of Advising Upward
| The purpose of a project or program is to have its deliverables create value. But this value can only be realized if the new process or artifact 'delivered' by the project is actually used to achieve the intended improvements. Executives have a central role in this process. There is a direct link between the decision to make an investment in a project and the need for the organization to make effective use of the deliverables to generate the intended benefits. In turn, this creates a valuable ROI. According to PMI's 2012 Pulse of the Profession, in organizations where senior management has at least a moderate understanding of project and program management, 59 percent of the projects successfully meet or exceed the anticipated ROI. This is compared to just 51 percent of the projects in organizations where the senior management has a limited comprehension of project and program management. This is where a project sponsor comes in. An effective sponsor is the direct link between the executive and the project or program. The sponsor is crucial to ensuring top-level management support for the project contributes to the project's success and is critical to achieving the ultimate goal of generating an ROI. According to Pulse, 75 percent of high-performing organizations have active sponsors on 80 percent or more of their projects. If your project has an effective sponsor, make full use of his or her support. The challenge facing the rest of us is persuading less effective sponsors to improve their level of support. To impart project knowledge into other areas of the business, the team needs to be able to 'advise upward.' Here are three tips to do so: 1. Create a conversation about value with other project managers and teams within your organization. This is a very different proposition to being simply on time, scope and budget. It's about the ultimate value to the organization created by using the outputs from its projects and programs. The key phrase is "How we can help make our organization better?" 2. Use the right evidence. Benchmarking your organization against its competitors is a good start, as is understanding what high-performing organizations do. 3. Link the information you bring into the conversation with the needs of the organization. Show your organization's executive how this can provide direct benefits. In most parts of the world, organizations need to do more with less to stay competitive. Developing the skills of project sponsors so they are active is one proven way to achieve a significant improvement with minimal cost. In fact, if projects are supported more effectively, there may be cost savings and increased value at the same time. And what's in it for us as project managers? We have a much-improved working environment. Everyone wins. Do you have an active sponsor on your project? Do you think active sponsors improve project success? How involved are the executives in your organization? To discuss Pulse of the Profession on Twitter, please use #pmipulse. See more on the Pulse of the Profession. |
Finding the 'Flaw' in Projects
| The next time your boss asks you for a number, a deadline date or another fixed value, remember anything you say will be wrong. The reason is 'the flaw of averages.' Discussed in a book of the same name by Sam L. Savage, the flaw of averages basically explains why everything is behind schedule, beyond budget and below projection. For example, you're developing two software modules. Both are expected to take between eight and 12 weeks to complete. When both modules are finished, your organization can start a new process, which requires four additional staff. Your boss asks you for a completion date so the additional people can be brought 'on-board' and the new profitable line of business started. You say, "Eight to 12 weeks," and your boss replies, "Give me a date!" You estimate that a safe date would be 10 weeks, the average of eight and 12 weeks. Everyone is happy. But should they be? Let's look at the flaw of the average: Based on your projected date, your boss works out his profit forecast for the next quarter based on an estimated profit of US$1,000 per week. You take the first seven weeks developing the application, and the new team uses the application for the remaining five weeks. This sounds sensible, but the estimate of US$5,000 profit is the best that can be achieved. If you finish early, there is no upside. The new people will not be available. If you finish late, however, sales will be lost. The cost of the unproductive new staff will be an added expense until both modules are working. On average, the profits achieved are likely to be significantly less than US$5,000. Plus, you're more likely to be late than early. The probability of finishing each of the modules in 10 weeks or less is 50 percent. It's like tossing a coin - there is always a 50 percent chance of it landing on 'heads.' Since two modules need to be finished in 10 weeks or less, think of the options when you toss two coins: Tails + Tails Tails + Heads Heads + Tails Heads + Heads There is only a one in four chance of you achieving the 'average.' That 25 percent probability means there is a 75 percent probability of being late. Therefore, on average, you can expect to be late. All you did was assess a reasonable number based on your expected average time to complete each module. The problem is not your estimate, but the way it is being used. This is the flaw of average. The next time you are asked for a 'number,' use your skills in managing upward to build flexibility into the conversation. For example, offer your boss a safe date with an option for improvement. "We will definitely be finished in 12 weeks, and there is a possibility of finishing sooner." Point out the cost risks of being early and late. Keep the boss updated as you work through the project. Or, do some serious analysis. Offer your boss a range of dates with different levels of probability. You need tools for this, but you want a target date with an 80 percent probability of achieving. Effective stakeholder management needs more than simply complying with a request -- however reasonable it may appear on the surface. |