As PM, we are doing as below: it depends on scale of project, small or big, generally, we are doing as below: our PMs has some authority to make decision on the spot, if there is some technical or financial issues which are not possible to handle, then we have a technical team made of four expert engineers including PM, they are evaluating and sending there final decision on the issue.
...
1 reply by Luis Branco
Jan 12, 2020 5:03 AM
Luis Branco
...
Dear Ahmad
Thank you for participating in this reflection and for your opinion.
Whose final decision belongs?
When you have to communicate the decision, are there any aspects you consider?
I would have to disagree with you entirely on this point. A team collaborates in the decision making process by gathering relevant information, alternatives, risks, pros/cons and all the other elements already defined by others in the decision making process but ultimately (and that's what they get paid for) the project manager assess the risk and either escalate up to project sponsor or client for a decision on a particular course of action or the project manager makes a decision on behalf of the client acting in their best interest. For example if there are two alternative approaches to a project e.g. build a tunnel or build a bridge to cross a body of water, the client employs a project team made up of many experts in various fields in order to solve the problem. The client may decide based on cost, environmental issues, time to completion or planning permission but in most circumstances the client will go with what the project manager will advise them as they ultimately are the experts in managing project and not the client. Decision by consensus do not really happen in the real world on large scale projects. There is always one person depending on seniority who makes the decisions.
Daire
Dear Adrian,
Many project mangers start out as engineers and SME's in their areas of expertise and gravitate up to being project managers when they have learnt the lay of the land and how large scale project operate. A Politician would be seen as foolish if they hire an expert group and do not heed their advise. Its like telling somebody else how to do their job. Simplex but I believe in distilling a problem into its simplest form. Any infrastructure project in my home country have required political involvement to make it happen but all the technical implementation of the projects have used private companies working on behalf of the government. All employ project manager and engineers in order to make the best use of resources and funding.
I would have to disagree with you entirely on this point. A team collaborates in the decision making process by gathering relevant information, alternatives, risks, pros/cons and all the other elements already defined by others in the decision making process but ultimately (and that's what they get paid for) the project manager assess the risk and either escalate up to project sponsor or client for a decision on a particular course of action or the project manager makes a decision on behalf of the client acting in their best interest. For example if there are two alternative approaches to a project e.g. build a tunnel or build a bridge to cross a body of water, the client employs a project team made up of many experts in various fields in order to solve the problem. The client may decide based on cost, environmental issues, time to completion or planning permission but in most circumstances the client will go with what the project manager will advise them as they ultimately are the experts in managing project and not the client. Decision by consensus do not really happen in the real world on large scale projects. There is always one person depending on seniority who makes the decisions.
Daire
Dear Peter,
My experience of the decision making process is either 1. Person with Seniority with all available information makes a decision 2. Person with seniority in conjunction with a board of directors vote on the decision with the chairman having the casting vote. 3. A mid level manager, or project manager in consultation with the project team decides on the best course of action and makes a decision. Is there any other approaches to making a decision?
Daire
...
1 reply by Luis Branco
Jan 12, 2020 5:07 AM
Luis Branco
...
Dear Peter
Thank you for your opinion
When you (as a project manager) have to communicate the decision, are there any aspects you consider?
How do you track if your decision is being implemented and what are the results of your decision?
I would have to disagree with you entirely on this point. A team collaborates in the decision making process by gathering relevant information, alternatives, risks, pros/cons and all the other elements already defined by others in the decision making process but ultimately (and that's what they get paid for) the project manager assess the risk and either escalate up to project sponsor or client for a decision on a particular course of action or the project manager makes a decision on behalf of the client acting in their best interest. For example if there are two alternative approaches to a project e.g. build a tunnel or build a bridge to cross a body of water, the client employs a project team made up of many experts in various fields in order to solve the problem. The client may decide based on cost, environmental issues, time to completion or planning permission but in most circumstances the client will go with what the project manager will advise them as they ultimately are the experts in managing project and not the client. Decision by consensus do not really happen in the real world on large scale projects. There is always one person depending on seniority who makes the decisions.
Daire
Dear Luis,
I would see decision by consensus happening more in SCRUM methodology environment than in Agile environment because the Scrum master is not a project manager and does not impose the authority, hierarchy and organisational structure that you would see in an Agile project management office. I think decision by consensus should be kept to decision about what pub to go to at the weekend and decision which are more complex than that should be left alone.
Daire
...
1 reply by Luis Branco
Jan 12, 2020 5:10 AM
Luis Branco
...
Dear Peter
Thank you for your opinion
I asked two questions (in another answer I gave you) that I would love to hear from you
Saving Changes...
Peter RapinSubject Matter Expect; Project Delivery| Independent ConsultantOntario, Canada
I think you have to recognize the need to have the people at the front line making decisions. The preference is to have decision made at the lowest possible level where the requirement, knowledge and consequence is the most obvious. Micro-managing - that is unnecessarily raising the decisions to a higher level than is required - can be very costly both in terms of time and money. - Let the man on the shovel use the shovel, let the carpenter drive the nails. Train them as required then authorize them to make those decisions that immediately affect them then hold them accountable.
In response to your question, the decision maker must:
1) be knowledgeable in the area of the decision
2) be authorized to make the decision and implement
3) be accountable
That applies to the Chairman of the Board, the Executive Officer, managers at all levels and the worker at the face of the work.
...
1 reply by Luis Branco
Jan 12, 2020 5:14 AM
Luis Branco
...
Dear Peter
Thank you for your opinion
Do you have a process (in the solution you shared) to verify the results that are being achieved?
Dear Adrian
Even if it is the project manager who decides (which is unlikely) he would have, as he said, to consult the experts
Dear Luis,
I don't agree with the word consultation, even if it may be correct in this context. For me consultation is when you are able to make a decision on your own but you ask for someone to express his opinion about it. After you heard the opinion of the person you consulted you may or may NOT take it into consideration.
When the PM does not have the knowledge to make the decision he is FORCED to accept whatever the experts say he does not have the option to not take into consideration the experts "opinion".
The only thing the non-technical PM cares about is the cost of the work that would be performed based on the SMEs decision. This is needed in order for the PM to estimate the budget and report it to the sponsor.
If the budget is too small then the PM would not allow the team to do the work and the only thing he can do is to ask for a bigger budget or work with the relevant stakeholders to remove some things from the scope.
When someone does not have the knowledge to make a decision and claims that he makes the decision consulting the experts for me it feels like that person tried to take credit for someone's else work (decisions).
...
2 replies by Daire Guiney and Thomas Walenta
Jan 09, 2020 6:45 AM
Daire Guiney
...
Dear Adrian,
The knowledge gap between a technical project manager and a non technical project manager is not as great as you may realise. Just because a project manager is not a SME about a specific topic does not mean that the project manager does not have the technical capability to understand the problem and see if the proposed solution is warranted and capable of being implemented. Anyone from a background in the the STEM subjects can use their knowledge from one of the sciences and apply it in a completely different field of knowledge even if its not their area of expertise. Also a project manager can use a host of other people skills to draw out the best solution to the problem even without any technical knowledge of the problem. As a project manager it is inevitable that you will come up against a situation that you have no prior knowledge and experience of and you must use all of your depth of skills to navigate the problem using all of the resources you have at hand.
Daire
Jan 09, 2020 6:59 AM
Thomas Walenta
...
Hi Adrian,
as a PM I was never FORCED to follow a SME.
There is always a strategy at hand to divide and conquer, or check and balance, e.g. let QA make an assessment, ask for a 2nd view from someone outside, ask for a consilium etc.
The best way is if you established trust within the team and the SMEs love you, so much they go an extra mile not to hurt you.
And on top of this, it is the responsibility of the PM to integrate all aspects of a project (see PMBoK Chapter 3). One SME will probably not understand the full picture. For the technical integration I normally employ an architect. Political integration is up to me.
I don't agree with the word consultation, even if it may be correct in this context. For me consultation is when you are able to make a decision on your own but you ask for someone to express his opinion about it. After you heard the opinion of the person you consulted you may or may NOT take it into consideration.
When the PM does not have the knowledge to make the decision he is FORCED to accept whatever the experts say he does not have the option to not take into consideration the experts "opinion".
The only thing the non-technical PM cares about is the cost of the work that would be performed based on the SMEs decision. This is needed in order for the PM to estimate the budget and report it to the sponsor.
If the budget is too small then the PM would not allow the team to do the work and the only thing he can do is to ask for a bigger budget or work with the relevant stakeholders to remove some things from the scope.
When someone does not have the knowledge to make a decision and claims that he makes the decision consulting the experts for me it feels like that person tried to take credit for someone's else work (decisions).
Dear Adrian,
The knowledge gap between a technical project manager and a non technical project manager is not as great as you may realise. Just because a project manager is not a SME about a specific topic does not mean that the project manager does not have the technical capability to understand the problem and see if the proposed solution is warranted and capable of being implemented. Anyone from a background in the the STEM subjects can use their knowledge from one of the sciences and apply it in a completely different field of knowledge even if its not their area of expertise. Also a project manager can use a host of other people skills to draw out the best solution to the problem even without any technical knowledge of the problem. As a project manager it is inevitable that you will come up against a situation that you have no prior knowledge and experience of and you must use all of your depth of skills to navigate the problem using all of the resources you have at hand.
Daire Saving Changes...
Thomas WalentaGlobal Project Economy ExpertHackenheim, Germany
Jan 09, 2020 1:42 AM
Replying to Adrian Carlogea
...
Dear Luis,
I don't agree with the word consultation, even if it may be correct in this context. For me consultation is when you are able to make a decision on your own but you ask for someone to express his opinion about it. After you heard the opinion of the person you consulted you may or may NOT take it into consideration.
When the PM does not have the knowledge to make the decision he is FORCED to accept whatever the experts say he does not have the option to not take into consideration the experts "opinion".
The only thing the non-technical PM cares about is the cost of the work that would be performed based on the SMEs decision. This is needed in order for the PM to estimate the budget and report it to the sponsor.
If the budget is too small then the PM would not allow the team to do the work and the only thing he can do is to ask for a bigger budget or work with the relevant stakeholders to remove some things from the scope.
When someone does not have the knowledge to make a decision and claims that he makes the decision consulting the experts for me it feels like that person tried to take credit for someone's else work (decisions).
Hi Adrian,
as a PM I was never FORCED to follow a SME.
There is always a strategy at hand to divide and conquer, or check and balance, e.g. let QA make an assessment, ask for a 2nd view from someone outside, ask for a consilium etc.
The best way is if you established trust within the team and the SMEs love you, so much they go an extra mile not to hurt you.
And on top of this, it is the responsibility of the PM to integrate all aspects of a project (see PMBoK Chapter 3). One SME will probably not understand the full picture. For the technical integration I normally employ an architect. Political integration is up to me.
...
1 reply by Adrian Carlogea
Jan 10, 2020 12:27 AM
Adrian Carlogea
...
"as a PM I was never FORCED to follow a SME. "
Imagine an IT project where you have a Solution or Technical Architect or a Senior Technical Expert with many years of experience on that type of work.
If that SME, by using his knowledge and experience, decides what has to be done to fulfill the project's requirements how can you NOT follow his decisions when you don't have his knowledge and experience?
I have been working on IT projects for years and I have never seen cases in which the decisions of technical experts to be questioned or not followed by people that don't have their knowledge.
"And on top of this, it is the responsibility of the PM to integrate all aspects of a project (see PMBoK Chapter 3). One SME will probably not understand the full picture. For the technical integration I normally employ an architect. Political integration is up to me. "
I agree, each project stakeholder only cares about his own interest in the project and usually he does care about the big picture, not even the project sponsor who sets the project's direction but usually does not get involved too much in execution.
As a PM indeed you integrate but you don't make decisions in the area of responsibility of each stakeholder and you can't not follow the decisions made by stakeholders.
You can make decisions only if someone delegates you the power to do so, for instance the sponsor allows you to make some decisions on his behalf or you are also and SME and you can make technical work related decisions. If none of this is true then you don't make decisions but instead you facilitate the decision making process.
There is always a strategy at hand to divide and conquer, or check and balance, e.g. let QA make an assessment, ask for a 2nd view from someone outside, ask for a consilium etc.
The best way is if you established trust within the team and the SMEs love you, so much they go an extra mile not to hurt you.
And on top of this, it is the responsibility of the PM to integrate all aspects of a project (see PMBoK Chapter 3). One SME will probably not understand the full picture. For the technical integration I normally employ an architect. Political integration is up to me.
"as a PM I was never FORCED to follow a SME. "
Imagine an IT project where you have a Solution or Technical Architect or a Senior Technical Expert with many years of experience on that type of work.
If that SME, by using his knowledge and experience, decides what has to be done to fulfill the project's requirements how can you NOT follow his decisions when you don't have his knowledge and experience?
I have been working on IT projects for years and I have never seen cases in which the decisions of technical experts to be questioned or not followed by people that don't have their knowledge.
"And on top of this, it is the responsibility of the PM to integrate all aspects of a project (see PMBoK Chapter 3). One SME will probably not understand the full picture. For the technical integration I normally employ an architect. Political integration is up to me. "
I agree, each project stakeholder only cares about his own interest in the project and usually he does care about the big picture, not even the project sponsor who sets the project's direction but usually does not get involved too much in execution.
As a PM indeed you integrate but you don't make decisions in the area of responsibility of each stakeholder and you can't not follow the decisions made by stakeholders.
You can make decisions only if someone delegates you the power to do so, for instance the sponsor allows you to make some decisions on his behalf or you are also and SME and you can make technical work related decisions. If none of this is true then you don't make decisions but instead you facilitate the decision making process.
...
1 reply by George Freeman
Jan 10, 2020 7:25 AM
George Freeman
...
Adrian,
Your statement, “You can make decisions only if someone delegates you the power to do so,” is right on target, and for the “Accountable PM,” those project-executive powers are granted through the charter.
As we have discussed before, there are countless variations of project structures; however, from a PM role perspective, let’s say there are only the following two (for purposes of this conversation):
- The “Accountable PM” or maybe better stated as the “Project-Executive PM” - The “Non-Accountable PM” or maybe better stated as the “Administrative Coordinator PM”
From the Accountable PM perspective, the following is normally true: - Once the charter is signed, the PM officially receives his/her “delegated powers” and then forms the teams needed to accomplish the objectives of the project. The PM (i.e., the project-executive) then delegates responsibilities to their leads and/or supporting PM’s. However, it should be noted that the accountable PM has the full right to NOT delegate, but that would normally be an irresponsible action on part of the PM. Under this structure, the PM holds the veto card on all decisions made within the operational constraints of the charter.
The non-accountable PM appears to fit the structures that you often describe in your postings, and both approaches are fine. It all depends on the culture of the organization and its governance apparatus to what gets implemented structurally.
Saving Changes...
George FreemanThought Leader | Author | Architect| Florida, United States
Jan 10, 2020 12:27 AM
Replying to Adrian Carlogea
...
"as a PM I was never FORCED to follow a SME. "
Imagine an IT project where you have a Solution or Technical Architect or a Senior Technical Expert with many years of experience on that type of work.
If that SME, by using his knowledge and experience, decides what has to be done to fulfill the project's requirements how can you NOT follow his decisions when you don't have his knowledge and experience?
I have been working on IT projects for years and I have never seen cases in which the decisions of technical experts to be questioned or not followed by people that don't have their knowledge.
"And on top of this, it is the responsibility of the PM to integrate all aspects of a project (see PMBoK Chapter 3). One SME will probably not understand the full picture. For the technical integration I normally employ an architect. Political integration is up to me. "
I agree, each project stakeholder only cares about his own interest in the project and usually he does care about the big picture, not even the project sponsor who sets the project's direction but usually does not get involved too much in execution.
As a PM indeed you integrate but you don't make decisions in the area of responsibility of each stakeholder and you can't not follow the decisions made by stakeholders.
You can make decisions only if someone delegates you the power to do so, for instance the sponsor allows you to make some decisions on his behalf or you are also and SME and you can make technical work related decisions. If none of this is true then you don't make decisions but instead you facilitate the decision making process.
Adrian,
Your statement, “You can make decisions only if someone delegates you the power to do so,” is right on target, and for the “Accountable PM,” those project-executive powers are granted through the charter.
As we have discussed before, there are countless variations of project structures; however, from a PM role perspective, let’s say there are only the following two (for purposes of this conversation):
- The “Accountable PM” or maybe better stated as the “Project-Executive PM” - The “Non-Accountable PM” or maybe better stated as the “Administrative Coordinator PM”
From the Accountable PM perspective, the following is normally true: - Once the charter is signed, the PM officially receives his/her “delegated powers” and then forms the teams needed to accomplish the objectives of the project. The PM (i.e., the project-executive) then delegates responsibilities to their leads and/or supporting PM’s. However, it should be noted that the accountable PM has the full right to NOT delegate, but that would normally be an irresponsible action on part of the PM. Under this structure, the PM holds the veto card on all decisions made within the operational constraints of the charter.
The non-accountable PM appears to fit the structures that you often describe in your postings, and both approaches are fine. It all depends on the culture of the organization and its governance apparatus to what gets implemented structurally.
...
1 reply by Adrian Carlogea
Jan 10, 2020 8:42 AM
Adrian Carlogea
...
Hi George,
I think the so called accountable PM is actually a Project Director. Project Directors usually exist in large projects in which the majority of the team members are contractors or consultants or temporary employees hired just for the project. In these cases usually the organization does not have enough people to do the project and many times not even the expertise. For instance think of a large IT project delivered to a non-IT organization. The sponsor does not have expertise in IT and that's why he hires a Project Director who in turn hires contractors or consultancies to do the actual work.
When Project Directors are hired usually the project also has a project manager that is hired by the director and who is to a large extent an Administrative PM. If the PM is also a SME then he can be delegated actual decision power over the team if not he would act just as a facilitator.
No matter if a Project Director is employed or not if the organization has people to do the work then the power of the Project Director/Manager would be severely limited as he would have no control over the team members who continue to report to their functional managers. The functional managers would then become key project stakeholder.
But despite all of these the decision regarding the solution to be used for the project would be made by the SMEs. There is no delegation involved here as you can't delegate what you can't do yourself. If the Sponsor, Project Director and Project Manager do not have the knowledge to define the solution then they can't make any decision on this aspect and are FORCED to let the SME decide.
Not letting a SME to decide requires you to come up with an alternative solution which you can't if you lack the domain knowledge and the experience. Management makes the strategic, high level decisions and lets the experts decide on the actual work related items. This is at least in my world. :)
