Guessing is not a strategy: How to build decision velocity with AI and real-time data
June 10, 2026 | Live Webinar
From Lab to Hospital, More Lessons Learned
| In my last post, I discussed my experience at the lab and insurance desk at a hospital. Now I'd like to share the remainder of the story and my analysis on the lessons learned from the hospital stay. A nurse on my first evening in the hospital asked me to sign some papers. As I read the papers, there was a note that said I should not sign if the paperwork was not explained to my satisfaction. I looked at the nurse and said, "No one has explained anything to me. How can I sign?" The nurse looked at me and asked me to hold on for a moment. After some time, a doctor came, explained the process and situations that could arise during the operation. I asked some more questions that he answered, and I signed the papers. Thursday morning, the operation was completed successfully, with follow-up visits by the doctor and nurse. On Friday, the process continued. A group of three senior staffers came in the room, introducing themselves as administrators, and asked if the air conditioning, food and other services were okay. In the evening, the doctor visited again and told me all was well and he would discharge me the following day. He said he would start the process in the morning and requested my patience as the billing and insurance-approval process might take many hours, even perhaps the whole day. On Saturday morning, the administration staff visited again and asked if all was well. At noon, the staff took my signature on the bill and asked me to wait for approval. I sat around and inquired about the approval few times, but no luck. I finally got approval by 7 p.m. -- but by that point I had had dinner at the hospital and afterward moved to my house. Analysis: My experience at the lab and at the hospital were quite opposite. At the lab, the work at hand was minor, but it escalated. However, at the hospital the work at hand was greater and there were more opportunities for issues to arise, yet all went well. I think it was the hospital's well-defined process and disciplined execution that allowed for a smooth experience. Takeaway 1: Words Have No Meaning, Only Action Works At the lab, the manager was trying to defuse a situation by promising and explaining, but actions were missing, and therefore the matter became heated. At the hospital, when I was asked to sign papers without explanation, I raised the concern -- and the nurse and doctor both handled it well by doing what was expected without uttering a single word to the contrary. Takeaway 2: Keep the Ego Under Control The manager at the lab appeared to possess a big ego. First, he did not accept the problem; moreover, he defended his and his team's actions. Second, as he was also a doctor, he could have collected the blood himself but chose not to, perhaps because it wasn't in his job description. He missed the opportunity to win over customers and set an example for his staff. Takeaway 3: Set Expectations If the hospital staff had not set expectations that it would take two hours for approval on the estimated cost and a whole day for approval on the final bill, I would have waited impatiently and probably fought with the staff over the delays. But setting expectations in advance helped them control customer reactions and achieve satisfaction. Takeaway 4: Have a Process, Maintain Discipline and Re-evaluate The most interesting thing I found is that the administration staff visited my room twice and personally asked if all was going well. They were monitoring that discipline was being maintained and if anything in the process needed to be fixed. I think this was critical in ensuring foolproof processes and disciplined staff. What's the top customer service lesson you've learned from an unlikely source? |
Eliminate the Fear Factor
Categories:
Stakeholder Management
Categories: Stakeholder Management
| A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK® Guide) and most modern management texts emphasize leadership and motivation over directive control. Yet if employee surveys are to be believed, around 70 percent of managers still operate in command-and-control mode. These managers rely on authority, discipline and fear to drive performance. And their team's commitment to the organization and performance suffer accordingly. It's simply futile to tell people they must come up with a bright idea within the next 30 minutes or sanctions will be applied! Fear damages creativity and destroys openness; frightened people cannot work effectively in a knowledge economy. If people are scared of being blamed, the last thing they'll do is pass on accurate information about an issue or a problem. And effective management decision-making depends on the open transmission of bad news. Project controls staff must know what's really happening and need honest estimates of future consequences to provide planning advice. To understand how serious this problem can be, consider that one of the causes of the up to ₤425 million loss so far on the ₤2.4 billion U.K. Universal Credit program -- ultimately credited to "weak management, ineffective control and poor governance" -- was that no one in the development team felt able to highlight their problems to senior management. Fear of being blamed kept the knowledge of the problem from the people who needed to know. Trusting and empowering your team, open communication, leadership and motivation are all closely interlinked and in combination create high-performance teams. This is not a new concept. At the beginning of the 19th century, the Prussian military developed auftragstaktik (or mission command) under the core tenet of bounded initiative. The leader's role is to clearly outline his/her intentions and rationale. Assuming people have proper training and the organizational culture is strong, subordinates can then formulate their own plan of action based on their understanding of the actual situation. What do these ideas mean for project managers?
How do you eliminate the "fear factor" from within your team? |
Are Portfolio Managers the Next Chief Strategy Officers?
| A relatively new but increasingly important role is emerging: the chief strategy officer (CSO). From Starbucks to Siemens, many organizations now have a designated CSO. A CSO can be defined as an executive responsible for assisting the CEO with identifying, communicating, executing and sustaining strategic initiatives -- basically, what a portfolio manager does. And I would argue that the next CSOs will come through the portfolio management ranks. Strategy itself is about renewal, and renewal is achieved through transformation. Therefore, a key part of strategy is innovation. That's not just technical or product innovation. It's also managerial, organizational and process innovation implemented through portfolios (and of course, the corresponding projects and programs). As with a portfolio manager, the core responsibilities of a CSO include translating strategy into execution:
There are four main types of CSOs:
What do you think? Are portfolio managers the next chief strategy officers? |
Benefits Realization by Roller Coaster
Categories:
Benefits Realization
Categories: Benefits Realization
| In 2011, a new landmark emerged in southern Taiwan: the E-DA Theme Park. Even today, few know that it was the outcome of a massive town regeneration program. Or that its main backer was one of the most successful companies in the Asian business world: Taiwan-based Yieh United Steel Corp. (YUSCO). The E-DA Theme Park -- and the many development groups behind it -- was an initiative proposed by YUSCO's founder, I-Shou Lin. Mr. Lin committed YUSCO to this venture because of his desire to transform a decaying city: Kaohsiung. Fifteen years ago, Kaohsiung was an industrial center and a major harbor for southern Asia. But in the intervening time, stagnation had set in. The price of land and levels of pay kept falling. And as decline became a long-term trend, the city started losing its population. Mr. Lin thought tourism could regenerate the city. And, as the biggest company in the city, he felt YUSCO had a duty to help. Thirty years ago, Mr. Lin bought land on the nearby Guan Yi Mountain. He purchased it not for a short-term commercial plan, but as a long-term investment. And E-DA Theme Park was just the investment to build on the land. To help him realize this ambition, Mr. Lin found a program manager, Chi-Hwa Yang, who had been very successful in retail, restaurants and construction. After visiting and studying different kinds of tourist centers across the world, Mr. Yang formulated a strategy. To make the best use of the remote and enclosed mountain landscape without disturbing the existing economy of the city, Mr. Yang calculated that two tourist attractions, a theme park and a shopping mall, would fulfill Mr. Lin's vision. The shopping mall would bring in major brand outlets and customers, while links to the theme park and shopping mall would be through the nearby international airport and the existing transportation infrastructure. Tourists drawn to the theme park and the shopping mall would have to use Kaoshiung's hotels, restaurants and other local businesses, safeguarding existing jobs and creating new ones. Due to the limited land available, about 3.7 hectares (9 acres), Mr. Yang folded most of the 50 theme park attractions into several buildings, which allowed the creation of a controlled, comfortable environment for tourists despite the often-scorching sun of southern Taiwan. Mr. Yang also thought the theme part needed something distinctive and decided on a Ferris wheel -- but where it was situated was as important as the iconic attraction. The Ferris wheel was placed directly in front of the hotel, so tourists and hotel visitors could clearly see each other. This initially sparked controversy over lack of privacy for hotel visitors -- but Mr. Yang solved the problem by limiting the wheel operation to the daytime and installing "blackout" curtains for the hotel rooms facing the ride. It worked. When the theme park opened in 2009, the Ferris wheel's glorious, iconic image helped attract a large number of visitors and investors. The Ferris wheel was just one of many decisions that Mr. Yang made the right choice on. For the past three years, many business outlets at the theme park have experienced massive growth. The park is also very popular, getting packed to capacity during holidays. This has meant the hotel occupation rate across Kaohsiung has risen to new levels. And across the city, businesses were not adversely impacted by the new development. Following Mr. Lin's vision, Mr. Yang's out-of-the-way development meant the E-DA Theme Park didn't draw customers away from the city -- rather, it became a destination for tourism, with the city as its base. Furthermore, the rise in tourism boosted local businesses and led to an increase in local property prices and new development. The success of the development groups backed by Mr. Lin and guided by Mr. Yang is a mark of excellent program management. It is also an example of the long-term, wide-scale benefits that when, handled professionally, program management can deliver. Who says business and social responsibility are mutually exclusive? Have you worked on a project where program management benefited social needs and business objectives? |
Manage Risk Like a Formula One Driver
Categories:
Risk Management
Categories: Risk Management
I attended my first Grand Prix in 2000 at the Indianapolis Motor Speedway, and quickly became a Formula One (F1) enthusiast. I have attended several Grand Prix races in Asia, North America and South America; visited iconic F1 destinations such as Autodromo Nazionale di Monza and the Ferrari factory in Italy; and even met a few World Drivers' Champions. Over the years, I have noticed that F1 and project management are very similar. Every race of the season is a milestone. Engineers, designers and mechanics work for the driver, who is always looking to minimize risk and maximize opportunities -- just like the project team and a project manager. Mr. Lauda, with 25 wins, one of the greatest F1 drivers, is well-known by racing fans for two things: his rivalry with James Hunt and his accident on 1 August 1976, during the German Grand Prix Nürburgring. During the 1970s, Nürburgring was the season's most dangerous circuit. It was known as "the Graveyard" and had claimed the lives of five drivers. In the 1976 race, the weather conditions were far from ideal. Mr. Lauda called a meeting with the rest of the drivers to vote to cancel the race. The drivers understood that the Nürburgring ring required perfect weather conditions to be even remotely acceptable in terms of risk. Due to Mr. Lauda's position in the F1 standings, canceling the race would've benefited him, but he was more concerned about the danger. The race went on despite the rain. During the race, Mr. Lauda's car went off the track and his fuel tank punctured, setting his car on fire. He was trapped for almost a minute in a searing inferno before other drivers could rescue him. Mr. Lauda suffered burns to his face and smoke inhalation. As with race car drivers, project managers face risk with different levels of severity. A project manager's risk tolerance level depends on different factors: organizational culture, national culture and experience. It's not only imperative that we provide early identification and assessment of risks -- the point is to know and stick to a risk threshold. We may face hardship for accepting the risk and not being successful, but we need to learn the lesson and move on. As Mr. Lauda said: "I accept every time I get in my car that there is a 20 percent chance I could die, and I can live with [that risk] -- but not 1 percent more." Another lesson in risk management from Mr. Lauda comes not long after his crash. Like a phoenix, 42 days after his near-fatal accident, he went back to the track and kept fighting Mr. Hunt for the championship. The Japan Grand Prix, the last race of the season, would crown the next World Drivers' Champion. Again, weather conditions were poor, delaying the race for several hours. While it was still raining, Mr. Lauda started the race but quit after a few laps. His team was surprised to see him coming back to the pit stop and asked him what was wrong with the car. Whie the car was in perfect condition, Mr. Lauda assessed the risk as too high. And when the team tried to present a technical justification for his quitting, Mr. Lauda told them to tell the truth: that he made the decision based on the weather. He had reached his risk threshold and decided to leave his championship hopes to other drivers -- including Mr. Hunt, who garnered enough points to beat Mr. Lauda and take the top prize. We project managers are paid to decide the future of projects, programs and portfolios. Sometimes, those decisions are difficult to accept -- by sponsors and stakeholders, not to mention ourselves -- but will provide long-term benefits to our organization. And canceling or postponing a project, program or portfolio will not prevent our professional career from progressing -- on the contrary, it can reinforce our knowledge and experience. After the Japan Grand Prix, Mr. Lauda continued his successful racing career and became champion in 1977 and 1984. I have my own experience of approaching risk management by determining the environment and sticking to thresholds. When working on a regional project in Central and South America in 2010, the project faced a geopolitical risk that slowed down progress. But in many countries in the region, 2010 was a presidential election year. This event usually contracted economic activities months before the election and sometimes even after. As elections impacted different countries at different levels, we had to define and implement contingency plans for some; for others, we accepted the risk, and yet for others, we didn't accepted the risk and suspended the project temporarily. How do you face risk? Are you a risk taker or a risk-averse project manager? And how do you define acceptable risk? |