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
Persuade Stakeholders for Effective Project Governance
Categories:
Stakeholder Management
Categories: Stakeholder Management
| One of the biggest challenges faced by all sectors of the project management profession is persuading senior executives to focus on implementing effective project governance. Governance is a "top-down" process. Most of the risks and rewards associated with a project or program are determined long before the project manager is appointed. Effective project management delivers a realistic and achievable outcome efficiently. If the parameters for the project are unrealistic in the first place, the best project management can do is stop the situation from deteriorating further. Failure is guaranteed. Wishful thinking is not an effective substitute for effective project governance. A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK® Guide) does not have a miracle process that will magically transform an impossible set of objectives into an achievable set of objectives. The organization's executives need to balance risks, rewards and capabilities to set realistic objectives and then use effective governance systems to oversee the delivery. The only way to achieve meaningful change is by communicating to affect a change in the understanding of stakeholders. When senior executives require effective project governance, we can better assist them in establishing effective and robust systems. If you're lucky enough to work in an organization with effective project governance, broadcast the benefits. If you work in an organization that could improve its governance, use your skills to advise upwards. If your organization is on the road toward effective governance, keep helping it along. If we are successful in making effective project governance the normal way organizations operate, the rate of project success will increase, as will the standing of our profession. What can you do to help create the climate for better governance? |
Win-Wins Can Build Your Project Team's Brand -- and Your Profession
Categories:
Stakeholder Management
Categories: Stakeholder Management
| The recent Qantas Airways network shutdown was a good example of an industry taking a long-term view of what is best for the industry. Rather than overtly exploiting the problems and passenger discomfort caused by the disruption, Qantas' competitors scheduled additional capacity and cooperated to minimize the overall inconvenience to the flying public. An obvious consequence to this is that passengers may discover they like the rival airline and keep flying it. But overall, the airline industry worked to minimize the damage to the air travel category. Everyone recognized the collective overall need to keep the flying public flying and returning to repeat the experience. This win-win approach is a stark contrast to the situation where a competitor's primary aim is to score a short-term win, regardless of the damage caused to the sector. If Qantas' competitors had resorted to negative advertising pointing out how bad the Qantas service was, for example, there would have been damage done to the overall perception of flying. Now, consider your next argument with one of your project's stakeholders, either internal or external. While your stakeholders may not be competitors, it may benefit you to use the same "win-win" approach. You have a clear choice: You can work collaboratively to build your project team brand and even enhance the larger project management profession. Or, you can go all out to win -- and if you lose, make sure your competitor can't win. The latter approach always causes long-term problems. If the customer loses, the relationship will be damaged and they'll be looking for an opportunity to get even. You also permanently damage your long-term opportunities. If you lose, you're no longer part of the solution. You've effectively negotiated yourself out of a role. The alternative is a collaborative approach where you seek to build the best outcome with as many of your needs, wants and ideas embedded in the final solution as possible. This collaborative solution will, of course, include some of your stakeholder's wants and ideas, but may result in an overall better outcome for everyone by transforming the problem into a win-win solution. In this scenario, you may have made some compromises, but you're still in the game and can influence the outcome. The relationship is maintained and you have helped maintained the image of the team and the project management profession. What do you think? Short-term "wins" may feel good. But if the consequence damages the customer's perception of you and your project, is the short-term gain worth the long-term pain? |
How to Manage Key Stakeholder Expectations
Categories:
Stakeholder Management
Categories: Stakeholder Management
| Successful projects meet or exceed key stakeholder expectations and requirements. How can this be done when working with the client, sponsor, senior management and users of the project's deliverables? The need to effectively manage stakeholder expectations is a consistent theme in the PMBOK® Guide. This goes beyond the simple delivery of specified requirements -- it covers all aspects of a project's work and the manner in which it's accomplished. The first element is to ensure the project's deliverables will actually meet the requirements of the project. Failure to do so means an unsuccessful project. Take the time to ask the right people the right questions -- after all, they expect your deliverables to work. The next step in building success is to map the expectations of the key stakeholders. Do you really understand what they expect from the project? Accurately mapping expectations requires skillful listening and the ability to decipher what's meant, not just what's said. Don't be afraid to enlist senior management to ask questions on your behalf. As you begin to understand your stakeholders' expectations, they will fall into two groups: realistic and unrealistic. Realistic expectations still need managing. Make sure you can fulfil them -- then make sure the stakeholder knows you are meeting them. Your communication plan must present the right information to the right stakeholder in the right manner. Unrealistic expectations are more difficult to manage. They are unlikely to be met, and when you fail to achieve the "impossible," the project will be deemed a failure. Fortunately, expectations are not fixed, but exist in a person's mind and can be influenced or changed. The key to shifting stakeholders' expectations is to provide new and better information. Developing a communication strategy that brings the right information to the stakeholder's attention in a believable fashion is a subtle art. This is particularly tricky when advising upward with the goal of changing senior managers' expectations. (I'll write more on this in my next post.) What challenges have you faced in managing key stakeholders' expectations? How have you found success in managing and meeting those expectations? See more posts from Lynda. See more posts on stakeholder management. |
Are Happy Project Managers More Productive?
Categories:
Leadership
Categories: Leadership
| Fact: A happy person is more creative, productive and engaged than an unhappy person. As project managers and leaders, we are responsible for optimizing our teams' productivity. One effective way for you and your team to achieve great productivity is to create a happy workplace. Creating a positive environment is your responsibility as a leader. As the saying goes, "There are no bad soldiers under a good general." In his book, Full Engagement, Brian Tracy outlines a simple series of actions any leader can take to encourage positive contributions from everyone. These ideas are not new. Aristotle believed the underlying motive for every human action was the desire to be happy. The golden rule for creating happiness is to "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." But this requires a number of specific actions. First, avoid destructive criticism. Destructive criticism sparks feelings of fear, rejection, anger and defensiveness. Leaders should resolve never to criticize, attack, insult or diminish another person -- including team members. Instead, look for good in everything that happens and learn to view problems as opportunities. Second, stop complaining. When you complain about something you become a victim of the situation, diminish your self-confidence and open yourself to feeling inadequate. You hurt yourself much more than the target of your complaints. Third, remove fear from the workplace. If you want people to be innovative and creative there has to be room for experimentation and failure. It is impossible to improve without risking failure. Remember: Fear of failure can prevent improvement. Finally, do not condemn anyone for any reason. This can irreparably damage relationships. Here are some positive actions you can take to develop a happy and productive project team:
|
Different Perceptions of Risk on Projects
| The July Project Management Journal includes an interesting paper highlighting two approaches to understanding risk: 1. Risks as facts: Risks are treated as objective, technical, neutral events that can be managed based on the knowledge produced by objective analysis using probabilities and expected values. The outcome is rational decision making. 2. Risks as subjective constructions with multiple dimensions: Risk managers choose the context and perspective they adopt. This allows multiple rationalities to coexist, depending on the values and perspectives of the observers. (This explains why some people find jumping out of an aircraft fun.) From a project perspective, risks are uncertainties that matter. All estimates about future project outcomes incorporate a degree of uncertainty. This includes the three key dimensions of project management: timing, cost and quality of future project deliverables. The project manager cannot be certain that the estimates that make up the project schedule or cost plan will prove to be correct, or that the project team will create deliverables to the appropriate quality standards. The rational management approach is to assess the risk factors and develop appropriate time and cost contingencies, backed by appropriate reviews and tests to ensure optimum quality. This approach is highly objective and rational. However, you cannot rely on your stakeholders having the same view as you. If a stakeholder sees your project in a different context, their perspective on risk will be different. For example, if you created a contingency plan using a Monte Carlo analysis, an executive may interpret the plan as a sign you don't understand the project because he or she expects a single definitive result. From this stakeholder's perspective, the precise calculation of a critical path method schedule offers certainty and minimum risk. The authors of A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK® Guide) have a different perspective, which understands the benefits of 'three-point estimating.' You cannot assume your stakeholder will have the same view. The challenge is to accept that a range of stakeholder perspectives will occur. Stakeholders may derive completely different opinions from the same data. You should anticipate this possibility and adjust the way you package your project information to communicate more effectively and ensure both you and your key stakeholders have a common understanding of the risks and issues confronting you project. How do you deal with the challenge of managing different stakeholder perspectives on risk? Read more on risk management. Read more on stakeholder management. |