There are three senior VPs on a project when there only needs to be one. A few attempts have been made to explain to the trio that there only needs to be one SVP on the project and the others can be primary stakeholders, but they are not buying it. The mindset is, "I'm not eating this entire lunch!"
Can I ask what you all would do in this scenario? 3 SVPs who do not want to be fully responsible for a project. By the way, they are driving the project team nuts. How do I reign them in? What is going on with the trio? What am I missing? This is one of those stakeholder issues where I feel like I don't have the past experience or expertise to handle. I'm ready to send them all to the corner for an extended timeout. Any feed back would be great. It's too early in the year for me to be pulling my hair out :-). Thanks for reading! Saving Changes...
Senior Projects Manager | Field & Marten AssociatesNew Westminster, British Columbia, Canada
Jan 07, 2020 2:22 PM
Replying to Steve Ratkaj
...
Good to see different perspectives and ways of doing things. Just curious as to how you would actually do a cost benefit analysis of executive oversight?
Steve
It is not on Executives oversight, it is on executives over allocation of hours.
If you have a project and your organization allocated two Senior Managers on the job then you do the following:
1- Calculate how many months the allocation is for: Let's say X-Months for Y $ (Cost is Established)
2- What are the responsibilities of those senior managers ?
From your experience, you then evaluate if it is worth having two or not and if not, then what do you suggest instead and why ?
You have to give a rationale that is politically correct. Reasons differ from one project to another and Ive seen some allocations happen for political or retention reasons as someone has been in the company for a long time and there aren't many projects going on so they try to allocate him on a job (While not needed). PM's usually raise these issues to us and we either approve it or not depending on why.
Sometimes organizations do over allocation for a good reason that goes beyond the project like retention of long term employees and this might be the case in Erikka's project, I can't exactly tell.
Hope this makes sense.
RK
...
2 replies by Peter Rapin and Steve Ratkaj
Jan 07, 2020 3:03 PM
Peter Rapin
...
Keep in mind that costs to the project may go beyond the direct costs of three SVPs. There is a concern with cost of inconsistencies in direction and conflicting objectives resulting in duplication of effort to satisfy three bosses. There may also be staffing issues resulting from "too much" oversight. On the positive side you could have easier access to senior management, faster turn-around on approvals to proceed, more experience and expertise to draw on, possible access to other departments for support. An analysis and discussion could help the three SVPs to focus on areas where they can contribute the most.
Jan 07, 2020 3:53 PM
Steve Ratkaj
...
This concept is so foreign to me, I'm not sure if I really understand what the purpose is of having senior managers allocated to projects unless there are clearly delineated roles, responsibilities, and accountabilities. I understand scenarios as described including indirect costs. Politics aside, how do you still manage to perform a qualitative cost benefit analysis?
Saving Changes...
Peter RapinSubject Matter Expect; Project Delivery| Independent ConsultantOntario, Canada
Jan 07, 2020 2:31 PM
Replying to Rami Kaibni
...
Steve
It is not on Executives oversight, it is on executives over allocation of hours.
If you have a project and your organization allocated two Senior Managers on the job then you do the following:
1- Calculate how many months the allocation is for: Let's say X-Months for Y $ (Cost is Established)
2- What are the responsibilities of those senior managers ?
From your experience, you then evaluate if it is worth having two or not and if not, then what do you suggest instead and why ?
You have to give a rationale that is politically correct. Reasons differ from one project to another and Ive seen some allocations happen for political or retention reasons as someone has been in the company for a long time and there aren't many projects going on so they try to allocate him on a job (While not needed). PM's usually raise these issues to us and we either approve it or not depending on why.
Sometimes organizations do over allocation for a good reason that goes beyond the project like retention of long term employees and this might be the case in Erikka's project, I can't exactly tell.
Hope this makes sense.
RK
Keep in mind that costs to the project may go beyond the direct costs of three SVPs. There is a concern with cost of inconsistencies in direction and conflicting objectives resulting in duplication of effort to satisfy three bosses. There may also be staffing issues resulting from "too much" oversight. On the positive side you could have easier access to senior management, faster turn-around on approvals to proceed, more experience and expertise to draw on, possible access to other departments for support. An analysis and discussion could help the three SVPs to focus on areas where they can contribute the most.
...
1 reply by Rami Kaibni
Jan 07, 2020 3:06 PM
Rami Kaibni
...
Peter
That is correct and this is why this is why I specifically mentioned that while those are under staffing budget, they are under the category of In-Direct Cost and part of it is exactly sue to what you've mentioned. It might sound complicated but in reality when there is system, it flow smoothly for the most part.
Senior Projects Manager | Field & Marten AssociatesNew Westminster, British Columbia, Canada
Jan 07, 2020 3:03 PM
Replying to Peter Rapin
...
Keep in mind that costs to the project may go beyond the direct costs of three SVPs. There is a concern with cost of inconsistencies in direction and conflicting objectives resulting in duplication of effort to satisfy three bosses. There may also be staffing issues resulting from "too much" oversight. On the positive side you could have easier access to senior management, faster turn-around on approvals to proceed, more experience and expertise to draw on, possible access to other departments for support. An analysis and discussion could help the three SVPs to focus on areas where they can contribute the most.
Peter
That is correct and this is why this is why I specifically mentioned that while those are under staffing budget, they are under the category of In-Direct Cost and part of it is exactly sue to what you've mentioned. It might sound complicated but in reality when there is system, it flow smoothly for the most part.
It is not on Executives oversight, it is on executives over allocation of hours.
If you have a project and your organization allocated two Senior Managers on the job then you do the following:
1- Calculate how many months the allocation is for: Let's say X-Months for Y $ (Cost is Established)
2- What are the responsibilities of those senior managers ?
From your experience, you then evaluate if it is worth having two or not and if not, then what do you suggest instead and why ?
You have to give a rationale that is politically correct. Reasons differ from one project to another and Ive seen some allocations happen for political or retention reasons as someone has been in the company for a long time and there aren't many projects going on so they try to allocate him on a job (While not needed). PM's usually raise these issues to us and we either approve it or not depending on why.
Sometimes organizations do over allocation for a good reason that goes beyond the project like retention of long term employees and this might be the case in Erikka's project, I can't exactly tell.
Hope this makes sense.
RK
This concept is so foreign to me, I'm not sure if I really understand what the purpose is of having senior managers allocated to projects unless there are clearly delineated roles, responsibilities, and accountabilities. I understand scenarios as described including indirect costs. Politics aside, how do you still manage to perform a qualitative cost benefit analysis?
...
1 reply by Rami Kaibni
Jan 07, 2020 3:56 PM
Rami Kaibni
...
Steve
I appreciate that it might be foreign to you but its there. It is tough to explain everything through a message and sometimes things can be lost in translation so I will give you a brief answer to your question:
You do you qualitative analysis based on your experience and project needs !
Senior Projects Manager | Field & Marten AssociatesNew Westminster, British Columbia, Canada
Jan 07, 2020 3:53 PM
Replying to Steve Ratkaj
...
This concept is so foreign to me, I'm not sure if I really understand what the purpose is of having senior managers allocated to projects unless there are clearly delineated roles, responsibilities, and accountabilities. I understand scenarios as described including indirect costs. Politics aside, how do you still manage to perform a qualitative cost benefit analysis?
Steve
I appreciate that it might be foreign to you but its there. It is tough to explain everything through a message and sometimes things can be lost in translation so I will give you a brief answer to your question:
You do you qualitative analysis based on your experience and project needs !
RK Saving Changes...
Anton OosthuizenSenior Business Analyst / Project Manager| Self EmployedPretoria, Gauteng, South Africa
Clearly the approach to 'solving' this would be influenced by the organizational structure hence I do not believe there is a silver bullet (or maybe 3).
But my personal experience with this type of thing is that it is a result of poor leadership. If you work for a company where SVPs get involved (no matter if it is 1 or 20) yet refuse to take ownership then I would consider moving on as it is indicative of poor leadership which means that if the boat hits the iceberg you will be put on the altar, there is no doubt in my mind.
I'm not clear if there is a project sponsor or if these 3 SVPs are supposed to fulfill this role and if so it is not the responsibility of the PM to make this appointment. The sponsor is assigned when the business case is approved and then the PM is appointed. I would kick it to the project board, on which these 3 individuals probably serve so not sure what the outcome will be. What I can tell you it that with weak 'leadership' like this it is probably in the company DNA and that is bad news. Saving Changes...
Thomas WalentaGlobal Project Economy ExpertHackenheim, Germany
Jan 07, 2020 2:06 PM
Replying to Rami Kaibni
...
Thomas
I never mentioned it is a standard in construction, I clearly indicated that this is my experience working with large and small organization who does Construction Management and Real Estate Development.
Currently, at the PM Consultancy I work for, that's exactly what we do in the same fashion I explained in my message earlier.
Reading your last comment, I think you and I are somehow on the same page, in a way. I do not disagree with your last statement, yet, every organizations establishes their own cost codes and cost allocation models. I've seen different ones too of which one of them is the one you are referring to.
RK
Well, Rami, you mentioned your 15 years of humble experience in the construction space, so I assume this is a kind of standard.
If the PM can challenge executives cost allocations, that seems like a fair process. In reality I observed that the egos of executives and habits established in the hierarchy do not result in opening up this fight. If the concept is build in, it rather results in a uncontrolled threat to the project manager and I have seen this happen.
...
1 reply by Rami Kaibni
Jan 09, 2020 1:38 PM
Rami Kaibni
...
Thomas
I am not sure why you are picking up on my words but anyways, yes, while I have 15 years of experience, I've witnessed different scenarios, not only one.
What is surprising to me is that your concentrating on: Challenge, Egos, Habits, Hierarchy, Fight, Threats !
What happened to: Team Work, Harmony, Support, Commitment, Trust, Respect ?
The executives and teams in most, but not all, of the organizations I worked for and with did: (Maybe I was lucky that way)
1) Complement each other, not competed with each other.
2) Respected each others opinion regardless of the hierarchy. Everyone's opinion is valued.
3) Everyone was committed to support one another, not challenge one another.
Construction is probably one of the most aggressive and high stress industries and I have seen conflicts when it comes to cost allocations but never seen it reach to a "Threat Stage" to the PM.
Long story short, we currently do what I tried to explain earlier with regards to cost allocations to executives and it works well for us.
I am not trying to challenge you here my friend, I am voicing my opinion (If I may) on what my experience has been. Your experience might have been different and I respect that.
RK
Saving Changes...
Stéphane ParentSelf Employed / Semi-retired| Leader MakerPrince Edward Island, Canada
I agree with Thomas: you may have a present in disguise!
...
1 reply by Rami Kaibni
Jan 09, 2020 12:47 PM
Rami Kaibni
...
Stephane
This could happen in all cases and in any structure or organization, regardless.
Is the Tendency of it happening in such situation higher ? YES
Did it happen before ? YES
Was it resolved ? YES
Senior Projects Manager | Field & Marten AssociatesNew Westminster, British Columbia, Canada
Jan 09, 2020 4:39 AM
Replying to Thomas Walenta
...
Well, Rami, you mentioned your 15 years of humble experience in the construction space, so I assume this is a kind of standard.
If the PM can challenge executives cost allocations, that seems like a fair process. In reality I observed that the egos of executives and habits established in the hierarchy do not result in opening up this fight. If the concept is build in, it rather results in a uncontrolled threat to the project manager and I have seen this happen.
Thomas
I am not sure why you are picking up on my words but anyways, yes, while I have 15 years of experience, I've witnessed different scenarios, not only one.
What is surprising to me is that your concentrating on: Challenge, Egos, Habits, Hierarchy, Fight, Threats !
What happened to: Team Work, Harmony, Support, Commitment, Trust, Respect ?
The executives and teams in most, but not all, of the organizations I worked for and with did: (Maybe I was lucky that way)
1) Complement each other, not competed with each other.
2) Respected each others opinion regardless of the hierarchy. Everyone's opinion is valued.
3) Everyone was committed to support one another, not challenge one another.
Construction is probably one of the most aggressive and high stress industries and I have seen conflicts when it comes to cost allocations but never seen it reach to a "Threat Stage" to the PM.
Long story short, we currently do what I tried to explain earlier with regards to cost allocations to executives and it works well for us.
I am not trying to challenge you here my friend, I am voicing my opinion (If I may) on what my experience has been. Your experience might have been different and I respect that.
Community Champion
