PM-Interface

By Mike Adams, PMP®, President Elect - PMI Otowi Bridge
Twitter: @MichaelAdamsPMP, LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/michaeladamspmp

Edited & Reviewed by Sarah Maxwell, PMI Chapter Administrator
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/sarah-maxwell-91b23a4b

November 13, 2015, a new tragedy. I worked late that Friday and left my office in a hurry to meet my wife at a local Chinese restaurant for a quick dinner. We had plans to attend an Israeli-Palestine study group, which had been organized by a mutual friend. Neither of us much wanted to engage in a heavy topic at the end of a long week, however, the topic had serious potential to be interesting, and this friend is important to us both. Our attendance was important!

I arrived at the restaurant, and waited a few minutes for my wife. When she arrived, she looked upset. She sat down, soberly looked me in the eye, and asked, “Did you hear what happened?” I shook my head and braced for some bad news about one of our kids getting into trouble, or similar. She continued, “Paris has been targeted by a coordinated series of terrorist attacks, and there have been more than one hundred people murdered.” I was silent and immobile for a few moments. I then asked, “Do we know who did it? Do we know why?” She said no one had claimed responsibility. Shaking my head, I looked down, stared at a spot on the table until my wife interrupted by asking, “Are you OK?” I looked back at her and responded, “I miss the cold war!”

My mind flooded with images of the Berlin wall being dismantled by masses of people, who had finally won freedom. They jubilantly took to the streets and actively unified a broken Germany. There was laughter and crying. Families were reunited, and celebration was alive in the air. I sat in my college dormitory rapt by the history unfolding on my television screen. College seemed comparatively trivial. Perestroika ()¹ was on everyone’s tongue, and the world had become a charmed oasis, gushing possibility and excitement.

Only a few years earlier, humanity’s future looked bleak. The US and the USSR had a combined nuclear arsenal large enough to destroy the planet several times over, and the political rhetoric between the two global superpowers was aggressive and fevered. It seemed our world would likely end with a series of nuclear explosions, which would render this planet incapable of supporting human life. But on November 9 of 1989, masses of ecstatic citizens joined together to dismantle the most potent symbol of nuclear annihilation that my generation had come to know.

The Peace Dividend…

As I sprang from the protective care of my parents’ home, the world changed, and I ventured forth in high hopes of fashioning a new world, free from the nightmares of yesteryear. We would all cash in on the “peace dividend,” and create a better world.

Naiveté, optimism, youthful hope, no matter how you categorize my attitude, those dreams never materialized. Instead the sociological fallout from the tactical decisions of cold war leaders fundamentally altered today’s geopolitical landscape, and now we’re left scrambling to solve problems we don’t understand, while we ask how everything became so ugly, so fast.

Quick action, and a failure to assess!

During the cold war, we failed to assess the consequences of our actions, and in the ensuing decade we continued that trend. Today we continue to fail at assessing the sources of, and solutions to the conflicts in which we’re engaged.

According to an article in the Harvard Business Review’s November 2015 edition,² people have a bias towards taking action, even when it would be better to do nothing and wait for a thorough assessment. What if, ever since the destruction of the Berlin Wall, we’ve collectively been acting, when we should have been assessing? Why was the anticipated “peace dividend” so elusive? Why does today’s world seem less stable than only a few decades ago? Why are domestic and international terrorists a part of daily news and concern for so many people? How did this all happen and what, if anything, can we do about it?

After September 12, 2001, the USA emerged from stunning attacks with unprecedented goodwill. The global outpouring of solidarity and support was unmatched, and we capitalized on that goodwill, by mustering a full-scale invasion of Afghanistan, and later Iraq. Our collective bias towards action was insatiable, and our response, unconsidered. We committed to a course which has created a whole generation of adults, who can’t remember a time when the US was not at war on foreign soil.

But we had to act, and we had to act decisively!

I agree! However, we didn’t have to act blindly, or from anger. We should have conducted a thorough assessment of the situation. We should have considered the tactical relevance of the US training, provided to Al Quaeda fighters when they resisted the Soviet invasion of the 1980s. We should have examined Soviet failings as they attempted to conquer Afghanistan. We should have thought through the long term effects of destabilizing the region by destroying Iraq’s government. Rather we jumped into action, and today, we’re dealing with the consequences of that hasty decision with the formation of daesh, and their hatred for everyone who isn’t daesh, especially Muslims. It isn’t far-fetched to claim that things are worse than they were, and we’re the cause.

Poor assessments create strategic failures and portfolio blunders!

Portfolio management is the centralized management of one or more portfolios, which includes identifying, prioritizing, authorizing, managing, and controlling projects, programs and other related work to achieve specific strategic objectives.³

On September 20, 2001, nine days after terrorists had hijacked planes and crashed them into New York’s twin towers, destroying the World Trade Center, President George W. Bush delivered what would arguably be the most important speech of his life. Before Congress, as the globe tuned in to his broadcast, Bush said, “Americans are asking ‘Why do they hate us?’” he paused and continued, “They hate what they see right here in this chamber: a democratically elected government. Their leaders are self-appointed. They hate our freedoms…”⁴

President Bush had answered a question of fundamental importance to Americans and to our future. In saying, “they hate our freedoms,” President Bush singled out a foundational aspect of American identity, freedom, and told us the terrorists attacks were motivated because of that freedom. His answer gave stakeholders an emotionally palatable answer, which later turned into justification for invading two countries. Bush didn’t provide useful and considered information. He communicated no vision and failed to point us towards a strategic goal. The requisite conditions for portfolio success were absent, and today, a new generation struggles with the consequences of a shallow assessment as we try to right this ship before it sinks in the storm.

Is proper assessment easy?

Some will bristle at my assertions. “We had just been attacked, we had to do something. We couldn’t appear to be passive or afraid” These are all valid points. They tug at our limbic system’s sense of truth, however, they are wrong! According to the Harvard Business Review article referenced above, a study of goalie performances during soccer penalty kicks demonstrate that goalies should never dive to the left or right, but instead, stay on their feet and try to block the shot from the center. Statistically, this improves their chances of success by thirty three percent. 

Why then do goalies, especially professional goalies, consistently dive to the right or left when facing a penalty kick? Could it be due to the fact that no one wants to be the goalie who let a game winning ball fly by, without even attempting to dive? Does it seem better to fail while looking good than to fail while doing the right thing, even if it doesn’t look as good? Researches say this is exactly why, and the real consequences of losing an important game are outweighed by the emotional consequences of doing the right thing, and possibly being vehemently criticized for a publicly ignorant perception of inaction.

But terrorism isn’t soccer, and people’s actual lives are at stake!

That is exactly my point. Making a hasty and emotional decision doesn’t improve our chances of victory in a soccer game. Neither does it improve our chances for international political success.

On Saturday, November 14, after the Democratic debate concluded, I sent a tweet to @PMInstitute suggesting that we could fix Washington by replacing our leadership with a series of competent PMPs and PgMPs. My tweet was intended as humor, however, I think it contains a great deal of validity. 

Analysis, coupled with a measured response is responsible leadership!

The PMs whom I know veer away from impassioned, reflexive action, and steer towards considered and thoughtful plans. We know that collective wisdom is better than individual genius, and that innovative solutions sprout from the synthesis of divergent ideas and opposing points of view. Any competent PM can recognize that Bush’s 2001 address before congress was a well scripted message aimed at a particular stakeholder demographic, and geared towards creation of a unified response to an unfolding crisis. My criticism does not rest in Bush’s effectiveness at leading the US in a single direction; rather I condemn his thorough failure to skillfully assess the situation and consider the components of what had contributed to creating the crisis, and what would be necessary to navigate a perilous course to its resolution.

The evolution from reactive leadership to Pause And Learn...

In 2003, NASA’s Columbia Accident Investigation Board issued a report with suggestions for how NASA should move in the direction of becoming a learning organization. The first suggested process in the report was titled, Pause And Learn (PAL). PAL is described as “the critical foundation for learning from projects.” A PAL is a discussion of project participants in which they explore what went right and what went wrong. These discussions take place shortly after the event, to minimize the bias of hindsight and maximize accurate recollection. PALs bridge the gap between individual learning and team learning.⁵ They are based on the US Army’s practice of After Action Reviews.⁶ They allow a team to share knowledge, so that the team learned a lesson, rather than lessons being held by any single individual.

In our current position, where ideological extremism has resulted in recent terrorist attacks being perpetrated against civilians in Paris, San Bernadino, Beirut, and Colorado Springs. How might a meaningful Pause and Learn point us in a better direction than our natural bias towards immediate and emotionally fulfilling vindictive action? Internally, and internationally, we are identifying enemies, making lists of targets, and planning a response. What if our knee jerk reactions are setting us up for a continuation of failures, similar to what we've perpetrated over the past twenty five years?

An Inappropriate strategy may result in disaster.

According to a Harvard Business publication from July 1963, few companies invest the necessary time into “analyzing environmental trends and using the intelligence as a basis for managing their own futures.”⁷ Is this problem so ingrained in our behavior that we’re doing the same thing in national and international politics?

In 1957, the Ford Motor Company launched the Edsel. With confidence high, the company spent 250 million dollars on extensive consumer polling, a year long pre-sales advertising campaign, specialized marketing for men, distinct from the advertising aimed at women. Ford lost 350 million dollars on this business blunder, according to the September 2015 Business Insider edition, Ford’s gamble cemented Edsel’s position as an icon of spectacular failure.

Despite Ford’s extensive polling of consumers, and their reams of consumer preference data, Ford relied on gut instincts and board-room posturing to guide their product development and product marketing. This resulted in decisions which ignored data and steered away from a data-driven strategy. Ultimately, the product failed, and the company was lucky to survive.⁸

Is it possible that the Edsel would have failed even if management had proceeded with a strategy grounded in data? Sure; however, as with professional soccer goalies, Ford’s chances for success would undoubtedly have improved with a data-driven strategy. This is where competent project managers could make a difference. PMs, as a group, tend to rely on facts for their business decisions and recommendations. This is why PMI has enjoyed fantastic success and has grown its industry influence over the course of a few decades.

A project or program manager who is guided by a strategic vision while monitoring progress and accounting for team perspective, is a leader who can guide projects towards success and see where adjustments are needed to correct course.

How might this sort of grounded assessment have impacted US actions after 9/11? How might they prescribe a course in our current predicament? At every level, assessment; based in fact, and guided by a dispassionate review of available information, indicates the path most likely to result in success.

How do you think actions might have been different in this world after the events of 9/11 had our reaction been measured and tactical rather than emotional and driven by outrage?

How could we apply these lessons as we proceed with our response to recent terrorist attacks in Paris, Beirut, Colorado Springs, and San Bernadino? 

What could we learn moving forward, and how does this impact your thinking about business?

[1] http://www.britannica.com/topic/perestroika-Soviet-government-policy

[2] https://hbr.org/2015/11/why-organizations-dont-learn

[3] http://www.pmi.org/certification/~/media/pdf/certifications/pfmp_faqs_v3.ashx

[4] http://edition.cnn.com/2001/US/09/20/gen.bush.transcript/

[5] http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/about/organizations/OCKO/pause/#.Vk9SUnarTmE

[6] http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/army/tc_25-20/tc25-20.pdf

[7] https://hbr.org/1963/07/how-to-evaluate-corporate-strategy/ar/1

[8] http://www.businessinsider.com/lessons-from-the-failure-of-the-ford-edsel-2015-9

By Mike Adams, PMP® 
President Elect - PMI Otowi Bridge 
@MichaelAdamsPMP

Holy smoke, the closing speaker was incredible! She earned her standing ovation, and gave us all something to think about as we head out into our respective jobs back home.

However, before the closing speaker, we had one final day of PMI X-change, where I met with two folks who discussed innovation from the context of working within the confines of forwarding a specific strategy. One of the most interesting ideas put forth was that innovation can be encouraged by simplifying complexity into categories, which allows people to spend less time sorting out the complexity and more time imagining how to apply what is already there in new ways. Aside from that, a safe environment is essential, and the willingness to take a chance and fail.

After breakfast, I checked in at the PMI Community Area for "Ask an Expert Sessions." The experts were busy, and discussions for me ranged from working with unwilling team members to exploring scheduling software options with the manager of a PMO. I always pause when someone asks for a software solution to their problem, because so often, process can fix what software will never touch. This situation may have had some of that, but our PMO director is also in need of some robust software. At the close of the hall, and the last "Ask an Expert" session, we got a group picture of the experts, this is no small feat. Experts like to wander around and are easily distracted, so getting them all together to take a photo is challenging, but being project managers, we were able after much effort to accomplished even that task!

Then a few of us experts attended "Scaling Agile" by NK Shrivastava. He discussed some implementations of Agile in huge organizations, which require more structure than most Agile teams appreciate, but when you scale that stuff big, you need controls. I asked a few questions about risk management and planning for mitigation, but decided to leave him alone, as I don't have experience with agile. After the presentation, I asked about Agile in my workplace, particularly with regards to running a software implementation on a fixed budget. He paused, and then said he wouldn't typically employ agile for that sort of project, unless there were a great many unknowns. We all discussed his presentation, along with various ways to scale agile, and somewhere in the back and forth, he let us know that it is a requirement for every person presenting at PMI Congress to have published a white paper on their topic. This prompted me to ask if it is easier to write a white paper than it is to read one...appropriate laughter ensued and we parted ways.

There was time yet in the day for one more session, so I stopped in on "The Promotable Project Manager," by Richard Heaslip, author of "Managing Complex Projects and Programs." His presentation was great. He the findings of studies into the expectations of leadership from project managers in varied organizations. The studies presented the hypothetical situation of an executive encountering a project manager in the hall and saying something like, "I am worried about a specific aspect of your project, and think that this ...may be a solution."

The question being studies was how most PMs respond:

1. Arrange a meeting between the executive and the project's SME accountable for that specific area
2. Listen carefully and communicate the executive's suggestion to the SME
3. In addition to #1 or #2, discuss how the SME might react to the suggestion
4. In addition to #1-#3, the PM discusses their own perspective on the issue
5. In addition to #1 - #4, the PM explores the team or organization's perspective on the issue.

Given those options, most PMs elected to arrange a meeting or relate the executive's comments to the SME. There were some who might also discuss the SME's perspective, but very few who would discuss their own point of view, much less the team's or organization's perspective. It turns out 50% of executives in the same organization want their PMs to respond using #5, while 50% believe this is overstepping their appropriate bounds. The suggestion was for organizations to meet and discuss the level at which they want their PMs to operate, and then communicate that to their PMs and hold each other accountable to it. In terms of a PM, his suggestion is to develop the ability to contextualize your projects from an organizational perspective, but be prepared to craft your answer, based on the audience, and their expectations.

At the close of the congress, we were treated to a presentation by Stacy Allison, author of "Beyond the Limits: A Woman's Triumph on Everest," who gave an incredible presentation about her adventure and lessons in becoming the first American woman ever to reach the summit of Mt. Everest. Stacy did a masterful job of contextualizing every aspect of her journey within the framework of building a team, or making important decisions. Her's may have been one of the best presentations I've ever seen. It wasn't the most funny, or entertaining, but it was real, and pertinent and applicable. I will be thinking about her presentation for months to come. Click here for a short video of her speaking at another event.

After that, we team of PMI experts went to Disney Springs and treated ourselves to Cuban food, and then we wandered around and I found this fifteen foot tall statue built with LEGOs.

This was my first trip to PMI Global congress, and it was great. I enjoyed everyone I met, I loved the speakers and the breakout sessions. I especially enjoyed being a member of ProjectManagement.com's expert brigade. We all expressed the hope that we'll have the opportunity to attend future PMI Congress events as experts.

Thanks for the memories, for the friendships, for the wisdom and for the experiences. The 2015 PMI Global Congress was spectacular!

In the upcoming weeks, the experts will convene to figure out what we'll propose for next year. We'd like to host a panel discussion on Saturday morning, followed by an invitation to book a fifteen minute consulting session with one of us. I'm curious what sorts of sessions would you be interested in from us? We considered exploring how business material is presented. Currently, we all agree that it is generally rather *BORING*

Would you be interested in attending a session, where we explore ways of presenting business and project management material in a more entertaining fashion? Leave your comments and let me know. We will have to write a white paper on it...which I promise won't be boring!

By Mike Adams, PMP® 
President Elect - PMI Otowi Bridge 
@MichaelAdamsPMP

Schlop--skoosh, “Aaaah...Nooo!” I grimaced slightly as the stale smelling mud ebbed over the tops of my sneakers, seeping through the netting above my toes, and flowing past my ankle to fill the cavity of my shoe surrounding my foot. “Aaaach...yuck, I really should have paid more attention to where I was stepping!” I had been exploring the surrounding area of a beaver pond, and I had been hyper focused on noting the incredible magnitude and variety of fauna, insect life, fowl, and aquatic animals. I simply wasn’t paying attention to where my foot landed, or how soft the saturated earth was. Rather I was intoxicated with deep blue sky, stretching in every direction, broken only by dramatic cloud formations on the eastern horizon, which billowed enormous monuments of grey and white masterpieces that architects could dream of matching in grandeur and beauty, but never achieve.

Photo by Mike Adams beaver dam by Mike Adams near Creede, Colorado

I grinned broadly at my wife, who was equally rapt in the natural beauty surrounding us, and said, “this is incredible, I can’t believe how beautiful this place is. But now that my foot is soaked, I sure hope we see a beaver.” She smiled and nodded. I can say, without a moment’s hesitation, that if you’ve never been to Creede, Colorado, you should GO!

We were in the middle of an 18 mile scenic drive through historic mining sites, and Tara said, “Oh wow, there are beaver ponds. I want to stop and look for a beaver.” That little excursion was a high point on an already memorable and incredibly fun vacation. Since that point, I’ve been contemplating that beaver pond, which was a sanctuary of diversity in the natural ecosystem. It inspired me to do a little reading about beavers and their ecological effects. Did you know that beaver engineering and beaver dam construction are a natural marvel? Beaver activities create layers upon layers of ecological effect that increase biodiversity and enhance a natural habitat.

In my article, “Innovation: Of Collision and Conflict,” I briefly explored permaculture‘s use of the edge effect to increase biodiversity, and encourage natural innovation. Today, we’ll lightly explore systems theory, and how a “beaver dam,” on the surface may appear as a mere blockage, but in fact, it is an enhancement, which encourages biodiversity, and improves the ecological robustness of an area.

Beaver ponds are temporary constructs, which are created by and maintained by beavers. I suppose in that way, they mirror a project, except that most projects I know of are not managed by beavers. Beaver dams give rise to an oasis for certain types of plant and animal life, which don’t compete well in forest areas outside of the beaver’s manufactured environment. Beaver ponds create fertile ground for fields to grow when a beaver moves to a new location, they create a habitat for waterfowl, insects, plants and animals which would otherwise not be found in the area. They help to retain water in areas that might otherwise be somewhat arid, and they encourage tree species to grow, which might otherwise be choked out by the species of trees that beavers enjoy eating.

So how does this relate to business? It is tempting to say it doesn’t, I just wanted to write about my vacation, but it does. A business is a system, which has workflow, work stoppages, and people engineering the environment in which the business takes place. The lesson we could learn from the beaver is this. Since we’re engineering the environment in which we do business, we get to ask, what type of environment do we want that to be? What sorts of mechanisms do we need to implement in order to encourage that environment? How do we protect the benefits of that environment once we’ve successfully created it without having the whole system become a stagnant nuisance?

Enter systems engineering, a sub-set of systems theory. In previous articles, I’ve explored the notion that a senior PM ought to be engaged in, and focused on delivering the business benefit of any project they are managing. Traditional project management has a tendency to conceive of a project as an island, independent from the organization and culture for which it is being conducted. While this point of view creates certain efficiencies for the project, it requires a lot of planning and contextualizing about project deliverables prior to ever engaging a project manager, or planning the execution of that project. In short, the creation of meaningful project requirements, which align the project with organizational strategy becomes a project in itself, because once the project begins, the PM won’t focus on the business strategy in which the project is grounded, rather she will focus, exclusively on conforming to time, scope and budget requirements.

This may be workable for some construction projects, but it isn’t a good strategy for today’s economy in general. Organizations want project managers who understand the business context for their projects and who focus on fulfilling the business justifications that initiated projects to begin with. A PM who understands the system inside of which her project is established will better be able to actively monitor and control the execution of that project to fit within that system or, in some cases, to transform that system in ways that the organization wants.

While our beaver is a haphazard author of systemic transformation, we can learn from his example and employ those lessons to intentionally align our projects with organizational strategy, while accounting for how project results will be received and embraced or resisted. A savvy PM will consider the whole ecosystem inside of which her project is occurring and proceed from the context of how to maximize the benefit of her efforts, rather than simply adhering to the traditional confines of time, scope and budget.

She will consider the myriad processes involved and work to identify strategic locations to place beaver dams that slow the flow of work or communication, or decisions and allow for needed reflection, germination of ideas, or perhaps strategic review. Once the silt and other fine particles obscuring clarity have settled, important decisions can be made as to the direction or next steps.

What are your thoughts on utilising systems theory or systems engineering in project management? If you avoid this sort of thinking, why and how do you work around it? Please share any experiences you’ve had with applying systemic thinking for a successful project.

Photo by Mike Adams, stream running down hill from the beaver dam near Creede, Colorado

By Mike Adams, PMP® 
President Elect - PMI Otowi Bridge 
@MichaelAdamsPMP

I’ve been involved in project management for nearly 17 years. I’ve managed and worked on construction projects, home remodel projects, IT infrastructure projects, IT software implementation projects, and strategic initiative pilot projects for nonprofits.

All of these projects have one thing in common. Every single project somehow serves an important business need. Sometimes the project manager may be aware of the business need, and sometimes not. Sometimes the project manager may be focused on producing business value and sometimes not. The best projects I’ve worked on were ones where the PM was clear about the business value of their project, and they actively invited both the project team and broader group of stakeholders to explore how the project could fulfill on their needs, or produce value for them.

In my experience, the best PMs are able to see a project within the business context that justifies that project, and they’re able to zoom in and explore project details from that same context. It is easy to get focused on aspects of the project, particularly aspects where a PM possesses expertise, like carpentry, or use of the best technology. Alternately, a PM might be overly focused on fulfilling the triple constraint, rather than seeing where the project might be aimed in the wrong direction and bringing that to the sponsor or steering committee with a suggestion for reevaluating the scope, schedule or purpose in light of changes in the market, available technology, or economy.

One of my favorite examples is the “Iridium Constellation Project.” By traditional standards, this was a well managed and successful project, however it failed to fulfil on the anticipated business benefit, and within nine months, the company was forced into bankruptcy. For those, who are unfamiliar, the Iridium constellation was a network of satellites, put in place to provide handheld communication via phone from every location on the globe.

Iridium was well planned, well executed, and at its inception, the landscape of mobile communication was spotty and unreliable, so it had a great business justification. By the time the project was completed, however, mobile communication had transformed, and the need for a handheld satellite phone had become very specialized. Cellular networks had become affordable, reliable and widely adopted. The market had changed dramatically, leaving Iridium in competition with a robust and much cheaper alternative for mobile communication. Some will say the project sponsor and executive leadership should have seen the direction of things and cancelled the project. No argument here, however, this is a perfect example of why project managers ought to focus on delivering business value, rather than simply adhering to the confines of the triple constraint.

Before you suggest that my article falls outside of a PM’s job, keep reading, because from a historical perspective, you are right. However, as our economy and the very nature of business transforms, project management is having to evolve to stay relevant. In December, PMI is implementing changes to the requirements for maintaining your PMP certification. As part of these changes, PMI has introduced the talent triangle, which adds elements of strategic thinking and leadership to the tool bucket a PM is expected to maintain. In February, at the Region 7 Leadership Summit, the PMI region 7 staff partner pointed out that business leaders participating in the PMI Global Executive Council are asking PMI to develop standards so that PMP holders will demonstrate and bring competence with strategic thinking and leadership. The council indicated that while technical project management skills are important, they are comparatively easy to develop in employees, but that leadership and strategy are where they could really use PMI’s support.

PMI responded by developing the PMI talent triangle. Check it out if you haven’t done so yet. It will impact your future training and action plans, in terms of maintaining your PMP. Also, PMI’s OPM3 information is worth a look. These are good indicators of what businesses need and the direction our profession is going.

Project managers are increasingly expected to step outside of triple constraint project management and engage in business analysis, organizational change management, and business strategy. They are expected to not only manage work within the triple constraint but to provide leadership, and keep an eye on the business value of their projects. From my perspective, these changes are positive. They serve to increase the value of experienced project managers, and they certainly elevate the profession.

What are your thoughts about new trends in project management? How are you preparing for tomorrow’s economy? Are you ready to partner with executive leadership in steering projects towards fulfilling on business strategy?