Voices on Project Management

By Lynda Bourne

Every decision involves making a choice between alternatives, with the project leader picking from a number of options. This selection is influenced by information (albeit sometimes insufficient) and preferences rooted in values and ethics. In these circumstances, the modern trend of risk-based decision-making can be seen as a tautology: Every decision involves uncertainty and therefore incorporates an element of risk.

The worst option is to delay a decision until all of the necessary information is available—and, as a consequence, all of the opportunities have evaporated. So how do you make good decisions? The starting point is to accept there will be uncertainty in all true decisions—and the outcome matters. You have to choose between different options while navigating any number of obstacles ahead of you: incomplete information to support the decision, no clear best path and unknown outcomes of some options. The challenge is to make the best decision in the available timeframe balancing risk and reward. No process can guarantee a good outcome every time, but working through a pragmatic process can help improve outcomes.

Your decision-making process needs to:

• Define the objectives or outcomes you seek. This frames why you need make this decision and what success may look like.
• Consider the risk of each of the alternatives is by assessing the level of uncertainty and the nature of the possible outcomes. Educated guesses are okay.
• Rank the options based on the level of risk exposure and the probability of achieving the required objectives. A weighted decision-making matrix may help, but remember to keep costs and benefits in mind a well.
• Make the decision and move on to implementation.

Getting the weighting right is central to this approach. In some situations, particularly when safety is involved, dull, safe but expensive may be the best choice, particularly if the cost is not particularly significant in the overall project budget. Think about investing in the security layer for any on-line finance or ordering system, for example. In other situations where failure is only going to cause some embarrassment, innovative but risky solutions may be better, particularly if the cost is low. Case in point: No one can predict when a website will become ultra-successful (go viral), but you won’t be successful if you don’t try. Investing US$10,000 in an option that has a 10 percent chance of making US$1 million is a good investment (but prudent managers have plan B ready to roll).

There’s no way to ensure the best decision is made, and often no way of knowing if the decision you’ve taken was the best—you cannot re-run history. But you can measure bad outcomes; the worst decision is no decision. The next-worse option is a late decision. This always costs a lot of money and may result in opportunities being missed. And the next worse option after that are timely decisions based on a wrong premise—usually out of trying to avoid all risk.

If you avoid those pitfalls, you’re likely to be making a well-founded decision. This is the realm of competent managers. But you’ll also need luck on your side to be seen as making a “really good” decision. And for that, you make your own luck, to quote author Ernest Hemmingway. Deciding to make effective decisions is a choice you need to make.

What does your decision-making process look like?

by Peter Tarhanidis, PhD

Pressing into 2021, all of us must consider the skills we each need to lead through the current COVID crisis—and into the future. We all witnessed this pandemic’s damage across our businesses. And in response, many organizations have changed their ambitions and goals.

According to McKinsey, this new era of uncertainty has prompted CEOs to shift their leadership in four ways:

1. Making bold moves and aspiring to greater heights, redirecting resource capacity gained from working remotely toward these initiatives.
2. Taking notice of—and recalibrating—how they and their leaders “show up” and engage staff.
3. Shifting the main tenet of an organization’s purpose from the primacy of the shareholder to stakeholder capitalism.
4. Leaning into the power of peer networks.

While the executives at the top of an organization’s hierarchy quickly shift their mindsets, will leaders across the org chart keep up with business demands?

Here are four ways to be a more effective project leader in the future:

1. Build trust. Ensure your organizational culture leverages behaviors that motivate your colleagues and teams. Lead by example—show you can trust your team by letting junior staff members deliver a presentation to senior leadership, for example. 
2. Support career and talent development opportunities. Adopt new technologies that leverage the future workforce of humans and machines. Allow team members to explore the feasibility of new ideas and the implementation of artificial intelligence initiatives.
3. Learn to lead through complexity and ambiguity and bring others along in that journey as many continue to work remotely. Set a specific time of the day or week when you can be contacted to create the “virtual open door” policy
4. Lead through influencing abilities to more quickly respond to changing business needs. Use your peers and partners to define accountabilities and consensus on activities that can clarify one’s role to empower action.  

What are you doing to be a more effective leader in the future?

I’ve been trying to learn more about good decision-making and recently read Daniel Kahneman’s famous Thinking Fast and Slow. It’s very surprising to see the number of fallacies and biases that cloud our decision-making, with some impacting us more than others. Here are three of the most common fallacies that we encounter in project and program management, along with a few “smartcuts” (smarter way of doing things) to mitigate them. 

1. Planning fallacy: the tendency to underestimate the time, costs and risks of future actions, while overestimating the benefits of the same actions
Smartcuts:
•    Conduct a pre-mortem: Think of what could go wrong, work backwards and plan for those scenarios.
•    Use chunking: Break down the project into as small tasks as you and the team can.
•    Try consensus-based estimation: This method uses conversation and convergence to reduce individual cognitive biases—but it’s time-consuming. To strike a balance, I’d recommend using it only for complex features or projects in which there’s not much leeway in delivery time.
•    Add buffer: This decision depends on a lot of factors: type of project, whether there’s a need to have a definite deadline, complexity, dependencies etc. At a basic level, if you’ve been working with the team and have a history of how much the estimates are off by, you can plan to add that much buffer. If it’s a new team, and you don’t have any idea, look for similar projects use that data to gauge the buffer.

2. Sunk cost fallacy: an increased propensity to continue an endeavor once an investment in money, effort or time has been made 
Smartcuts:
•    Don’t just think about the time/money already spent. Instead, think of how much additional time/money is needed and if continuing the project will be a worthwhile investment.
•    Companies can help employees overcome loss aversion by putting greater values on gains and less penalties for losses. While this is something that happens at the enterprise level and might not be in our sphere of influence, you can influence it at a program and project level when framing wins and losses. For example, instead of saying, “We were over budget by 10 percent,” try framing it as, “We were within +10 percent of our initial estimates.”
•    Avoid perpetuating the stigma that stopping a project is a failure. Instead frame it as a lesson learned and incentivize people to make such decisions in the projects and programs they manage.
•    Consider opportunity costs. By sticking to the original plan, think of all the projects you’re giving up.

3. Status quo bias: sticking with the option you’re given even though the alternatives might be better
Smartcuts:
•    When you propose any change, be very clear and intentional about why you’re proposing it. Explain the problem statement you’re trying to solve and then detail the pros and cons of status quo versus the change.
•    Evaluate the opportunity cost of making the change versus sticking with the status quo.

While it’s not possible to eliminate all biases and fallacies, being cognizant of them and recognizing them will guide us in making better decisions.

What are some of the fallacies and biases you’ve held onto and how have you overcome them?

Here is a link to the unabridged version of this post.

By Cyndee Miller

This is normally the day where I’d write a post extolling all the amazing things that female project leaders are doing. And there’s certainly plenty to celebrate. Those women you see in the video above are leading the way in everything from space exploration and AI to healthcare and renewables. So let’s start with a simple note of recognition: Bravo!

But I’d be remiss not to also acknowledge a fundamental reality: The pandemic has taken an enormous toll on working women. A UN report found that while the unpaid workloads for both men and women have increased, women are bearing more of the burden. And according to a recent study by McKinsey and LeanIn.Org, senior-level women in the U.S. are far more likely than their male counterparts to feel burned out, exhausted and under pressure to work more.

Asked whether that aligned with her experience, Kat Megas, PMP, was blunt: “Yes, yes and yes,” she says on an upcoming episode of the Projectified® podcast.

And while she says she’s been “very encouraged” by peers and the organizations she’s worked for, there’s still some work ahead, says Megas, a program manager at the National Institute of Standards and Technology in McLean, Virginia, USA.

Megas outlines a situation that I think every single female leader—particularly those in male-dominated fields—has experienced at some point: Your idea is met by a sea of confused looks until a colleague says the same thing—and it’s lauded as a brilliant idea.

She puts it down to different communication styles—that women try to bring people along and pose ideas “as a question and something to be thought through so that the whole team can come on board.”

It’s a fair point and one that some teams are even looking to technology to solve. UK global creative agency AnalogFolk saw that women often choose wording that makes them sound passive. So the agency developed a tool called BigUp.AI that uses natural language processing and machine learning to analyze blocks of text and offer users more powerful wording. It’s impressive stuff—earning it a slot on the PMI Most Influential Projects social good top 10 list.

But Megas rightly points out that she and other women shouldn’t have to do all the adjusting.

“I don’t want to have to change who I am to fit into the mold. I like the way I approach things. I like the fact that I am a consensus builder. I like the fact that I think I have the right answer, but I will always be open to a broader discussion,” she says. “I would like to think that that would be a world where one day that would not be perceived as being indecisive or not being willing to take leadership or make the decision, and there would just be a recognition for different styles.”

This is about respect. And the differences are felt even more deeply among Black women in the U.S. They were the least likely among all respondent groups to report feeling like a valued member of their team, that they were being treated with respect and that there's a climate of fair treatment among coworkers, according to a Gallup survey conducted late last year.

At the same time, the COVID crisis has highlighted the emergence of a new female force in leadership, according to two speakers at the Brightline Strategy@Work conference last November. And they pointed to New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and German Chancellor Angela Merkel.

“One of the characteristics and attributes of what we’ve been seeing from women taking on those leadership and authority positions is decisiveness. Jacinda Ardern in New Zealand—obviously, incredibly decisive with a lockdown very early,” said Kit Krugman, head of organization and culture design at Co:collective.

“There is fierce resolve. There is decisiveness. There’s this determination coupled with the sense of relating to what others are going through—that empathy—that really seems to speak to people at this moment in time,” said Vince Molinaro, PhD, CEO and founder of Leadership Contract.

“It’s exciting to see just great leadership—full stop. And the fact that it happens to be a lot of women in political roles or political leaders, running our countries, is no coincidence. It’s great to see that playing out, and there’s lots to learn from what they’re doing. It’s just great to see how they’re managing the complexity of our times.”

How are you seeing women rising to these complex times?

by Wanda Curlee

Saying COVID has changed the way we do business is an understatement. Some companies accelerated their projects, pivoting to quickly to support clientele. Others had to overhaul processes because of virtual or hybrid working environments. One thing was certain: Standing idle in the face of uncertainty was not an option—and that has translated to big changes to how portfolios are managed.

Some projects or programs may have to be canceled or moved in the sequence or scope deleted. Any of these in a typical environment may be useful—but during COVID, that could be the end of a company or cause a severe financial burden. When projects and programs remain unfinished, the company’s goals aren’t met. Not meeting the company’s strategic objectives may mean the company gets beat in the marketplace or that they don’t have a new product to introduce or that they can’t meet an internal need. And the list goes on.

         Restaurants, service companies, construction companies and many others impacted by COVID had to move quickly. Leadership and portfolio managers had to shift with the changing economy. Those that pivoted with intent by thinking of alternate ways to move the company had a better chance of surviving. Within the restaurant sector, some establishments leaned into personal catering more, for example, while others sold off their meats and vegetables along with seasonings to locals as family dinner kits.

         Some portfolios went into overdrive to meet demands. The ones that come to mind in the U.S. are large retailers, supermarkets and fast-food companies. They were all considered essential. However, they also had to pivot. They designated shopping times for the elderly and those with medical conditions, for example. And many large retailers rolled out a variety of options for customers to get their merchandise: same-day delivery, curbside pickup and parking lot deliveries.

Leaders in many companies believe the world will go back to business as usual after getting to herd immunity via the vaccine. While I expect a sense of normalcy to emerge at some point, I don’t believe we’ll ever return to where we were before the pandemic. Even as the business landscape stabilizes, portfolios will still have to pivot quickly. It may not be a pandemic, but there could be a shift in the economy, politics or industry. Now more than ever, you must document the successes and failures within your portfolio—and use the information the next time you need to pivot.

What are some lessons learned you’ve gathered about managing a portfolio amid such uncertainty?