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...
I have seen this struggle time and time again. Does the tech lead call the shots or the PM? What about the sponsor?
Ultimately, the decision of "who is in charge" is up to your senior manager or senior managers. You might find articles about this topic, but what matters for you is what your managers say. Different companies will have different answers to this question.
> 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?
This cannot happen!! There are so many reasons!
> 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.
Yes, PM owns the delivery which includes Quality, Cost, Schedule. PM is the person who understands these 3 constrains and can lead a project to success. If you an Architect takes ownership of the project, then he will deliver a beautiful solution - will he consider cost and schedule!!!!
Best Regards,
Vivekanandan M Saving Changes...
Darren KosaPlanning & Controls ContractorHampshire, United Kingdom
Hi Monya,
Interesting scenario, I’d be inclined to revisit the TORs (If there are any).
Ultimately it’s who the buck stops with. Who is the individual with responsibility for delivering the project to time, cost and quality.
If it’s not the PM then it looks like they’ve got an easy, if unfulfilling, ride. But as sure as eggs is eggs you can guarantee it’ll be the PM who gets it in the neck for any delays, overspend or quality issues.
Not a situation I’d like to be in and I'd try to extricate myself ASAP.
Regards,
Darren Saving Changes...
Jim DicksonProject Manager| Governement of British ColumbiaVictoria, British Columbia, Canada
The Sponsor owns the project. They pay the bills and approve expenditures. They give the "go" / "no go". A Lead Technical Architect or PM cannot be the owner. The Team owns the solution. The Technical Architect can design and develop the solution and the PM can ensure delivery but the Sponsor and stakeholders collectively own the solution. If you have challenges in this regard then you need to step back and reasssess the project governance and sponsorship. Saving Changes...
Rajiv SharmaRajiv Sharma| HCL Technologies Ltd.New Delhi, Delhi, India
One fundamental fact is that Project Manager is responsible for Ontime and defect free delivery. This means he has to make sure that requirements are met.
As far as the technical lead/architect is concerend PM may use him as an expert in certain design methodology etc.. He is definitely not the person to be held responsible for time, quality and cost.
In one of my projects we had a technical lead who was instrumental in creating a reusable component that reduced the total development time by half. Technical expertise is best used for ontime and defect free project delivery. By utilising his expertise we achieved a near perfect project delivery and he was awarded for his valuable contribution. One thing here is that PM is the main person who faces customer on delivery, time and cost matters it cannot be architect or technical person.
It is PM's job to make sure that all the technology risks are well thought of and mitigated. Saving Changes...
I do not want to start an argument, because I agree with all the posters who are saying that a project manager SHOULD be responsible for delivery, schedule, budget, and so on. I especially agree that the sponsor is truly in charge. They make the final decisions.
Still, it is important to recognize that the title "project manager" has no universal, generally-accepted definition across all companies. The PMBOK Guide has a definition for "project manager" and "sponsor", but Human Resources professionals do not always accept or use it that way.
I have seen many, many companies where the person with the title "Project Manager" was really more of a project coordinator. Sometimes their authority is limited to schedule updates, or even just scheduling status meetings.
I would urge everyone to recognize that many organizations use these terms differently, and use the word "SHOULD" instead of "DOES" or "IS". So instead of "the project manager IS responsible...", consider saying "the project manager SHOULD BE responsible....". Instead of, "The PM owns...." consider "The PM SHOULD own...."
I do not want to start any argument, but I wanted to balance out some of the thoughts already offered here. I would hate to see someone go into their organization and get hurt because they decide that their new "Project Manager" title means that they own and control certain things. Saving Changes...
Darren KosaPlanning & Controls ContractorHampshire, United Kingdom
Alex,
Good point, the message I was trying to get across is unless it implicitly states so in your terms of reference, the individual assigned to deliver the project would be the project manager. Whether in cases such as this it's the technical lead is largely irrelevant (semantics are far as I’m concerned), they then take on the PM role by default.
I would be wary if I was interviewing for a PM role, only to discover that the role itself was a glorified project coordinator. You may be getting an armchair ride on that particular project, but it doesn’t exactly enhance the CV.
I struggle with this at my current job. My background is such that I was always empowered as the Leader for projects I managed and could make many decisions, but still escalated high level issues to project sponsors. At my curent job, I struggle with getting support as the leader of the project. They see the Project manager, Business analyst and Architect as joint leaders which doesn't quite work as well as they think. One thing that has helped is for me to push back on being held accountable for on time, on budget etc when I'm not able to influence those areas as I should be. This has opened some eyes and given me more control of projects, but not in all cases. Saving Changes...
The Project Manager is accountable for the full cycle of the Project and this includes the resources assigned. The resources [the team] work with the PM in providing proposed technical solutions and so on. . To ensure that a Technical Lead and or Architect does not assume ownership of a project the roles and responsibilities must be clearly defined, agreed and signed-off by the Sponsor at Start-up; this formal approach will eliminate assumptions made by individuals. I would also say that if the PM is seen as not strong others will take advantage of his\her weakness and will try to take ownership of the project. Saving Changes...
Rob MartinConsulting (Contract)| Microsoft (Thailand)Lam Luk Ka, Pathum Thani, Thailand
One thing as a Project manager you must do is set the rules.
The Ol' Tech Architect will always try to steer things his/her way.
That's the nature of the beast.
A Great PM will have them steering it they way they want.
It's all about the people.
No people, no cooperation, no fun . . . . . . . . . . no project! Saving Changes...
