I am the pm for a large software development effort (accepted the position recently). My problem - the sponsor of this project asks me for status, which I provide, and then asks another person to 'verify' the status - which, so far, is not the same as I reported. As far as talking to the sponsor about this, what is the recommended approach? I don't want to blow my cool - so have been avoiding it. As far as talking to the other person, again, what's the approach that doesn't sound accusatory? Anyone else have this kind of problem? This is a new one for me (and I don't like it). The sponsor had asked this 'other' person to be the pm on this project, and the other person declined.... but sure likes to point out the problems!!! Saving Changes...
Wow, you are in a difficult spot. I wonder if the other PM (who apparently turned down the assignment) may have believed that the project would be excessively difficult, or may not want to work for the sponsor, or may have a number of other reasons to decline the project. It may be helpful to you if you can discern what the context of this decision was.
I think that context and perceptions are at the core of your difficulty. I think that once you understand why this other person turned down the project and what he stands to gain by 'torpedoing' your efforts, you will know how to approach him. Your conversation certainly needs to be based on this piece of context. You may be able to find a way to use him to provide feedback directly to you so that you can fix them before they get reported to the sponsor, although this tack will take some work. You need to wait until you can talk without getting upset or defensive, if you lose your cool, things will only get worse.
As for approaching the sponsor, you need to figure out why he feels the need to get a verification. Maybe that's his standard practice, in which case, you shouldn't be concerned (at least about this). If he has some distrust of you, try to find out what that is and find out what you can do to earn his trust. One sponsor on a project I was on wanted to get micro-status updates, bue I found out that it was because he was reporting directly to his boss, the number 3 man in a Fortune 200 company! He was obviously under a lot of pressure, and once I understood it in context, I just gave him what he wanted.
In summary, I think that by putting yourself in the positions of these two people and trying to lok at the world from their perspective, you can gain valuable insight into what they are trying to accomplish Saving Changes...
Sometimes, these "soft skill" issues can come down to a failure of process. I'm curious why the two statuses (stati?) are different. If you are using good objective PM practices (such as critical chain-based buffer management, or carefully tracked EVM reporting), there should either be agreement on status, or a trivially easy explanation of the differences, at least by the one using such tools. Saving Changes...
Michael WoodProject Manager / Business Analyst / Business Process Improvement Guru| Independent ContractorGig Harbor, Wa, United States
Interesting managerial approach - double reporting. Here I would go to my sponsor and acknowledge that there is a conflict in the two status's being reported. Be very objective here. Do not defend your status report. Instead, suggest a reconciliation process that when completed will assure the sponsor that an accurate status of the project will be achieved and maintained. This way, you are demonstating your desire to work in the best interests of your sponsor. Once the reconciliation is complete, you and the project auditor can create an ongoing process that will assure the sponsor that he/she is getting the "real story". I would love to know how this unfolds. Saving Changes...
For better or worse, I tend to take a head-on approach to issues such as the one you mentioned which I would classify as a 'Roles and Responsibilities' problem. I agree with a number of the other postings that this should be approached logically, not emotionally if your desire is successful resolution.
I would ask for a meeting between the sponsor and the 'other person' to discuss and document agreed roles and responsibilities on your project. It stands to reason that this will cause less frustration for the sponsor, yourself, and the 'other person'. A definate win-win. Saving Changes...
