Jeff DahlProject Leader| Edward JonesMaryland Heights, Mo, United States
What is your opinion on the two? I am a business side project leader that has over all responsibility for several large international projects that are being run from within the business department and have IS team memebers instead of the IS project leaders leading the entire project. This has forced us to review and build new work flows and processes on exactly who is responsible for what within the execution of the project.
So to all of the expert PM's what do you think? Where would you draw the lines of responsibilities between a business side PM and an IS PM that work on the same project.
Oh, also the role I am in is not a business analyst role, although that is one of the roles I have assumed in this position.
Difficult to provide suggestions without knowing more about the type of project(s) you have…
Although some organizations prefer to split projects in “business side” and “IT/IS side”, experience shows that this is actually hampering the effectiveness and efficiency the project is managed with.
Regardless, there cannot be a “canned” answer… The role / responsibilities should be drawn according to the project specifics… Imagine a project that has the IS/IT deliverables depending on business deliverables, then business deliverables dependent on the IS/IT… Different than a project where IS/IT deliverables would need to complete to allow the business side to start…
Some organizations split the project leadership between business side and IS/IT side PMs to ensure that a quality control step is performed when the IS/IT deliverables are completed and handed over to the business side…
If this is the reason behind the thought of having 2 PMs for the project, then a solution might simply employ “gate checkpoints” for deliverables that would need to be handed over to the business work teams…
In some other cases the IS/IT deliverables might require subject matter knowledge to ensure effective planning and control. A senior technical resource can provide the necessary input can have the authority to provide supervision in order to have this requirements met without complicating the project structure too much…
Saving Changes...
Brian HillCISA, AFCHSM. CEO| Laughing MindMorpeth, Nsw, Australia
What matters to me is the strength of the delivery, regardless of which side of the business you're drawing your resource/leadership from. If your IS/IT team or resources have a strong understanding of the business, and the deliverables are heavily skewed towards enabling technologies, then it makes sense to allow them to lead, with business in a supporting role. That said, however, the inverse is also true. Your WBS will no doubt have a number of elements that are tech based, whilst others will be business based, and may be concerned with introducing and embedding the tech initiative into the business (e.g through a transition or release product). I'd tend to be treating the IT/IS deliverables through use of a sub project run by IS/IT, with stage gates in place to provide assurance of quality, delivery, using User Acceptance Testing as the acceptance gate for passing delivery back to the business side. Letting the business side drive the 'Requirements" WBS elements, with the IS/IT side driving the associated "Feature" and "Release" WBS elements (through whatever PMM they use-XP/Agile/FDD/Waterfall) works well in my clients settings. When executing any release, strong co-ordination and orchestration of the two elements is the important aspect- which is the responsibility of the PM leading, and your project executive/board/sponsors.
Without knowing about your business, and where the strengths of the respective PM teams lie, its difficult to say. I've seen both sides deliver poorly when there is a sufficient gap between the teams to allow an us/them subculture to fester (with WBS quality delivery falling through the gaps between the two), and both can deliver well when treating delivery in a collaborative team approach, which recognises that you're all in it together, and delivery/assurance responsibilities are set out clearly. Best of luck, sounds like you have some complexity to manage. :-) Saving Changes...
Jeff's question hits very close to a situation I continue to re-visit. I'm hopeful to receive opinions from others using this same thread. (Hope that's ok Jeff.) I manage a Project Office for a financial institution and continue to struggle with who on our project teams should coordinate and drive the resolution of technical issues that surface as a result of UAT, data feed errors, system beta testing, etc. At one time our organization included both IT PMs and Corporate PMs. The role of IT PM was eliminated meaning our non-technical PMs are often managing IT heavy projects. The IT subject matter experts are assigned to the project in the role of a IT Manager, Business Analyst or another IT specific resource. I find that our Project Managers are often working to resolve these technical issues, but struggle because they do not have the expertise. I'm trying to put some boundries in place to help the PMs and IT resources know when the PM should own and drive these issues, and when these should be owned by the IT resource.
If anyone can provide guidance or recommendation I would really appreciate it. Thanks! Saving Changes...
Hans RobbersSenior Director| SalesforceVlissingen, Netherlands
Jeff
It is hard to be precise since it is, as others say as well, dependent on type of business, governance model etc.
In general I normally prefer to have the project manager It and Business acting on basis of equality both reporting into the project sponsor.
The IT pm is delivering the solution whilst the Business pm is ensuring the business is ready to receive the solution, thus training, OCM. Furthermore the Business pm is the owner of the business case and responsible to implement a tracking mechanism to ensure the business benefits are measured and reported upon.
This works in most cases pretty good. The joined activity is the UAT where one is delivering and the other is taking over.
Hopes this helps
kr Hans Saving Changes...
Andrew SparksSenior Practice Director| OracleEindhoven, Netherlands
Interesting consensus from the commenters.
I think that a buddy system of IT Lead PM and Business Lead PM is a worthwhile investment. Having said that having representation from both talent pools does not in itself get you out of carefully selecting the candidates.
What it does do is increase chance that each of the two does not get too far off track either in their "weak" area or in their "strong" area.
Drawing from aviation - the co-pilot concept is there primarily so that the 2 pilots can watch each other's backs and guard against pilot error. Saving Changes...
Hans RobbersSenior Director| SalesforceVlissingen, Netherlands
Fully agree with Andrew. Both should act back to back whereby one is shaping the future, the business project manager whilst the other is delivering the solution to realise the business case, the IT project manager and is therefore cost focussed on the IT side Saving Changes...
I agree with much of what has been written so far, and see no point in being redundant. I will state, however, that in my company it is not uncommon to have both IT and Business PMs. Typically, the Business PM is responsible for the overall project and the IT PM runs the IT portion of the project, reporting up to the Business PM.
While the IT PM is working on getting the software created and infrastructure in place, the Business PM can focus on communicatoins, training, new business processes, etc... It allows for more work to run in parallel and can help projects to conclude successfully, more quickly.
It is not a division of effort that is needed on every project but, more often than not, it is a beneficial practice. Saving Changes...
Quickly I believe that the IT and business PM should not report to one another, they should report to the sponsor. Also someone asked about business PM having IT resources directly reporting to them because of the elimination of the IT PM role. This puts a lot of pressure on the business PM as they are not usually technically savvy enough to understand estimating and problem resolution and often are spending too much time trying to understand instead of managing the project. My suggestion would be to have a technical lead, this person would be a experienced developer who basically becomes your right hand person when it comes to the IT issues. They explain to you the problems in business terms and you can decide on the solution without having to understand the technical details only the impacts. Saving Changes...
I like to borrow from the construction industry to answer this question.
On a big construction project there is an "owner's PM" who works for the building owner. He or she work with and oversee the "contractor's PM" who works for the general contractor. The owner's PM looks after the needs of the owner, and the contractor's PM coordinates most of the work.
Usually the owner's PM will keep a plan that includes milestones or key tasks from the contractor's plan. There is a lot of overlap, but there are some unique responsibilities of the owner. The owner's PM makes sure that all that work is done on time, as needed for the contractors. The owner's PM also provides better oversight and monitoring than the owner could do by him or herself.
I think the business-side PM can act like an "owner's PM" in a construction job. He or she looks after the best interest of the business sponsor. Be careful not to second-guess every technical decision, but make sure the business needs are met.
I hope this model and approach helps. I have worked very successfully this way in the past. I think having two PMs, one for the business and one for the IT group, is ideal. They can form a very powerful partnership, and they each audit one another. Saving Changes...
Community Champion
