Monya RobbNational Services Project Office Manager| Dimension DataNsw, Australia
Has anyone experienced the challenge of changing the organisational culture where a Technical Lead/Architect assumes ownership of a project and the Project Manager is viewed as a Project Co-ordinator?
My view is that the Project Manager owns the Project Delivery, but the Technical Lead/Architects owns the solution and its compliance to the requirements.
Any interesting articles available on this challenge? Saving Changes...
Gabrielle MaherPMO Consultant| IndependentLondon, London, United Kingdom
Hi Monya - I had a bit of a giggle when I saw this posting - with total respect to yourself of course - its such a common source of confusion.
What I have found useful is to do a RACI mapping of all the roles and responsabilities of the project team, including sponsors, stakeholders, project board etc. - It is best practice to do this at the very start of every project. Clarity around Roles and Responsabilities are absolutely the responsability of the project manager - and its good governance. If people are not clear about their R&R from the start - including the Sponsor, Stakeholders, Board - you run the risk that the project will fail. Most importantly be forewarned - if the project fails - you can be sure the project manager will get blamed.
RACI
R = Responsible (this is a doer - a producer)
A = Accountable (the buck stops here) - who will be held to account if the project fails
C = Communicated with (this is a 2 way communication street)
I = Informed (People included in MI - a one way comms channel)
If you then list all the deliverables / products the project will produce - and ensure you divide the list into PM deliverables (Plan, Risks, Issues, Finance, MI etc) and technical deliverables - you will have a much clearer view of the RACI of the project - who is doing what - who is accountable for what.
Remember to include the roles of governance (project board, sponsor and stakeholders) in your list.
PRINCE methodology - defines the following R&R
Sponsor - this is the person paying for the project - the client - and therefore owner of the project. At an organisational level they may directly pay for the project - or represent the business interests of business stakeholders who have a vested interested in the successful outcome of the project. They are generally the main beneficiary of the project - as are Stakeholders. The sponsor is the highest point of decision making for project governance - they have a stop - go mandate - as do the project Board.
The project Board - also have a stop go mandate from an organisational / governance perspective - and can stop / delay a project at any time if they are not confident the project is healthy - can deliver. They are the people the organisation trusts to oversee the project / investment in the project and as such are held to account should the project fail (from an organisational perspective).
The PM is responsible to report into the board about the general health and delivery status of the project (and not your technical lead!!). It is the PM responsability to deliver the project within the agreed constraints (time, cost, scope) - as set out in the business case - Project Initiation Document - financial forecast and project plan / schedule - which should be agreed by the board at the start of the project. Any deviation / exceptions (scope creep) from the agreed constraints need to be reported to the project Board. Risks and issues should also be reviewed by the board as should external dependencies, costs and quality. The board represents the organisation decision making forum for projects. The board has the responsability to satisfy themselves that the project is healthy and ready to move to the next stage. Therefore the board should review the progress of the project (plan, risks, issues, costs, quality etc) and 'support' the PM to overcome difficulties he/she encounter (and not blame them). If they fail to review the project - and do not direct, guide and support the delivery of the project - they can be held to account.
They need to be advised of their responsabilities (to review, direct and guide the project) and accountability by the PM if they are not aware of them. They equally have the responsibility to appropriately resource the project (cost, people, and other resources). Should they fail to adequately resouce the project - the project manager should advise them of their options and risks. The Board is not forum to give a PM a hard time.
The Project manager - is the person delegated and entrusted by the client (Sponsor) to deliver the project on their behalf. They have the responsability to the sponsor / and board to advise on the 'true' status of the project, its risks, issues, financials, scope creep etc. They will be held accountable by the Sponsor / board if they fail to advise the broad of any major problems affecting the successful delivery of the project.
The technical lead should support the project manager in the technical design and delivery of the project. They should be responsible for producing the technical design - ensuring it fits within the overall organsational technical strategy - and assuring the PM the design if fit for purpose. They are generally a technical architect - or report to one - or report into an Enterprise Technical Architectural forum. The project manager relies on the TA to assure the project technically. It is not the job of the project manager to act as technical lead - the PM should act on the direction of the sponsor and board.
I think of a technical lead as an Architect - he/she designs the new house the client wants - and he / she is responsible to oversee the building of the house technically - and ultimately ensures it doesn't fall down.!
Hope this helps.
Saving Changes...
Monya RobbNational Services Project Office Manager| Dimension DataNsw, Australia
Hi there Everyone,
Thank you for your replies. They are much appreciated.
Gabrielle, your response was of much value - as I have been identifying the challenges and the processes used in project delivery in our organisation, I have identified the lack of the Governance and Roles & Responsibilities being defined on projects. My intention is to drive the implementation this key concept of correct project planning to include the 'rules of the game' and who does what and when.
Thanks again for the response.
Kind regards
Monya Saving Changes...
Gabrielle MaherPMO Consultant| IndependentLondon, London, United Kingdom
Hi Monya - happy to hear this is helpful. Lots of organisations have this problem - lack of governance - lack of clarity around R&R for project and programme management. Its great to see you have identified this as an issue - and are taking the initiative to improve your organisations governance processes. This should really help drive the organisation's maturity in Project best practice. You should have access to capability maturity models, role definitions and governance best practice for your preferred inhouse methodology (PMBOK?). We mostly use PRINCE in the UK and it should be fairly similiar. Best of luck.
Saving Changes...
David WhelbournSenior Project Manager| xwave Solutions IncFredericton, New Brunswick, Canada
I have seen this in North America, it is less of an issue in the UK and I think it is because of the PRINCE2 adoption.
In my humble opinion if the responsibility lies with the PM then the PM is ultimately responsible for the decision / adoption of technology suggestions. I have used my influencing skills to steer the Architect to that answer I need for the success of the Project.
A project environment is not a place for a democratic vote on the path to success. Unless the all the voters are crucified when it fails.
To help focus attention on the 'responsibility' aspect I have asked the Architect to sign a document stating they are now the Project Manager and Accept full responsibility for delivery of the project.... they sit up straight then.
Saving Changes...
Gordon MacMasterw3r Consulting/Day Is Done Inc.Grosse Pointe Woods, Mi, United States
Follow the money. Whoever is funding the project decides who is in charge.
The situation is not unique to technology projects - many people want the command but none of the consequences.
Saving Changes...
Mark Price PerryBusiness Driven PMO Evangelist| BOT InternationalOrlando, Fl, United States
Hi Monya,
There are a number of interesting articles on project management roles and responsibilities and downloads of example constructs available here on gantthead. Just search on "roles and responsibilities" and you will find quite a bit of useful and usable information. Click to see example. And most books on Project Management address this too.
For many organizations, part of the Roles and Responsibilities problem is that these things are only casually addressed as part of the PM methodology and left somewhat up to the discretion of the project manager to communicate and manage. Hence, different practitioners and participants are likely to have different expectations and views resulting in ad hoc execution and lower levels of realized maturity.
While many PMs have the skill to manage this quite well, Roles and Responsibilities and the project configuration thereof are really a matter of organizational policy. The choice to leave it to chance or to "get it right" for the organization is a management responsibility. So, to answer your question, "Has anyone experienced the challenge of changing the organizational culture...", my answer to you is yes and the best way to effect the desired change is to improve those components of your PMO processes, policies, and guidelines that at present are preventing all those involved from speaking a common language, following a common process, etc. Again, I view this as a process defect and management issue, not a PM vs. technical lead debate.
Great post and replies. I hope we continue to hear and learn from others. ~ Mark Saving Changes...
Hans RobbersSenior Director| SalesforceVlissingen, Netherlands
Monya
I do agree with all previous posts.
Project sponsor is accountable for the budget
Project manager to manage the budget constraints, time, scope, quality and resources In this way he controls the process and reports/escalate to the project sponsor and suggest course of action, e.g. extend the timeline, change the scope, resource mix etc.
The Architect will propose a solution and will be challenged by the pm if the solution fits the constraints. If not and the project owner is not willing to change the budget the solution needs to be adjusted, to fit the constraints.
In case the architect owns the project there are no constraints set at the beginning which means after the design phase it becomes more or less obvious what the budget and constraints need to be. This might lead to surprises
