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...
Thomas WalentaGlobal Project Economy ExpertHackenheim, Germany
Jan 07, 2020 3:19 AM
Replying to Rami Kaibni
...
Erikka
There is great amount of feedback here. I suggest you do cost benefit analysis and present it to them:
Budget and Cost of having 3 SVP’s vs Added Value
RK
Rami,
think this is a dangerous approach.
Normally SVPs do not charge hours to a project budget, so their participation is for free for the project.
Having an opinion on the organization's ROI is no business of a project manager and I would regard it as overstepping and pretension.
...
1 reply by Rami Kaibni
Jan 07, 2020 1:17 PM
Rami Kaibni
...
Thomas
I might have to disagree with you on this. SVP's serve as part of an organization and in most cases, there serve more than one project and their allocation of time and effort is normally clearly mentioned in the RACI, RAM and Budget.
In our company, for each project, we do have a staff budget as part of the overall budget and we call this Indirect Cost. One of the categories under the staff budget is Executives were the budget allocated for Senior Management involvement is allocated there in $ and then this is reflected in the RAM and RACI in terms of responsibilities. If the PM figures there is a lot of allocation of Sr. Management hours on this project, he has every right to question and argue this. It is not considered overstepping or pretension.
I worked with huge international organizations and with small consultancy companies, we always do the same. If we feel there is over allocation, we do a Cost Benefit Analysis showing the value vs. cost.
It might be that in the industry you work for or line of business, things are different but in Project Management for Real Estate Developments and Construction Management, this is how it is done, or at least this is what I've witnessed during my 15 Years of humble experience.
RK
Saving Changes...
George FreemanThought Leader | Author | Architect| Florida, United States
Erikka,
There appear to be multiple “political currents” active in your project.
Projects are political by their nature as they are the mechanism executives use to implement change. They are stated in the positive when the change is for the pure benefit of the organization and as a negative when the change is a front to accomplish something else (e.g., for personal benefit, or other alternative motives). A project manager needs to understand these currents, as there are times when you want to steer your project-ship into one, as the current will efficiently direct your ship to your objective. However, there are other times when you want to steer your ship clear of a given current as you recognize that its final destination is the Bermuda Triangle.
Here are some thoughts to consider:
- If you have issues in requirements and/or your objectives are not clear, is it possible that there has been “Knowledge Rationing”? In other words, there is someone (or a group) who does NOT want the project to meet its objectives; therefore, knowledge is being rationed in an attempt to make the project less than successful.
- Are the trio of executives in place “as a check” against each other? In other words, is there a historical mistrust between their groups?
- Have projects in the past disrupted or depowered the domains of these executives? Have projects in the past been used as weapons for one executive to exert control/change over another?
I know there is conventional wisdom that a project manager should steer clear of corporate politics, but I believe there are times that we should engage at a political level for the benefit of our project. For instance, do you know or does someone in your management chain know a different executive who has a degree of leverage over the domains of your three? If so, then you or your management can engage that executive asking for his/her assistance, etc.
I’m not sure how your project governance is structured, but if you truly feel and can represent that the project is on the path of “imminent failure” (i.e. falling short of meeting strategic objectives), then that big Red “project reset” button has political leverage that you can use in your current situation, and if the leverage doesn’t help, then pressing the button is an option (as a last resort).
Sounds like you need a project charter and TORs. This is where project governance comes into play. Organizations need to start with the fundamentals. With no ground rules, it will be a bumpy ride to say the least. Saving Changes...
Do you understand why they are unwilling to be fully responsible? It might help to resolve the issue if you understand what is the root cause for the reluctance.
The solution will be quite different if it is a capacity issue for all three of them vs. a reluctance to take accountability for the project's success or failure.
Dear Erikka:
Here in Portugal there is a practice.
"When you want to resolve a situation, appoint a guardian.
When you want a situation to be postponed, appoint a committee "
What happens if something in the project goes wrong?
The 3 VP will spend time in the "push game" responsibility.
What happens to the project manager?
When the sea hits the rock ...
Put another way (In my opinion)
Do not proceed with the project until you have the project charter with the perfectly identified sponsor
Luis, I love this! Thank you.
"When you want to resolve a situation, appoint a guardian.
When you want a situation to be postponed, appoint a committee " Saving Changes...
Senior Projects Manager | Field & Marten AssociatesNew Westminster, British Columbia, Canada
Jan 07, 2020 8:07 AM
Replying to Thomas Walenta
...
Rami,
think this is a dangerous approach.
Normally SVPs do not charge hours to a project budget, so their participation is for free for the project.
Having an opinion on the organization's ROI is no business of a project manager and I would regard it as overstepping and pretension.
Thomas
I might have to disagree with you on this. SVP's serve as part of an organization and in most cases, there serve more than one project and their allocation of time and effort is normally clearly mentioned in the RACI, RAM and Budget.
In our company, for each project, we do have a staff budget as part of the overall budget and we call this Indirect Cost. One of the categories under the staff budget is Executives were the budget allocated for Senior Management involvement is allocated there in $ and then this is reflected in the RAM and RACI in terms of responsibilities. If the PM figures there is a lot of allocation of Sr. Management hours on this project, he has every right to question and argue this. It is not considered overstepping or pretension.
I worked with huge international organizations and with small consultancy companies, we always do the same. If we feel there is over allocation, we do a Cost Benefit Analysis showing the value vs. cost.
It might be that in the industry you work for or line of business, things are different but in Project Management for Real Estate Developments and Construction Management, this is how it is done, or at least this is what I've witnessed during my 15 Years of humble experience.
RK
...
2 replies by Steve Ratkaj and Thomas Walenta
Jan 07, 2020 1:42 PM
Thomas Walenta
...
Hi Rami,
if that is so, you are right.
In my career I never saw executives costed in a project budget, except for mgmt consulting. I learned from you this is standard in construction.
In management consulting I saw it several times that executives (partners) charge to a project to reach their personal utilization targets. Many times they do not even show up for this and take no interest in the project itself, so at least there is no harm done. It leaves the project manager though with the task to recover their cost somehow. There is no use to show them a ROI, they would certainly retaliate.
Jan 07, 2020 2:22 PM
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?
Saving Changes...
Peter RapinSubject Matter Expect; Project Delivery| Independent ConsultantOntario, Canada
I would suggest a risk/benefit analysis and then sell the SVPs on the result. If that doesn't work, put mitigation measures in place to address the risks should they occur. Saving Changes...
Thomas WalentaGlobal Project Economy ExpertHackenheim, Germany
Jan 07, 2020 1:17 PM
Replying to Rami Kaibni
...
Thomas
I might have to disagree with you on this. SVP's serve as part of an organization and in most cases, there serve more than one project and their allocation of time and effort is normally clearly mentioned in the RACI, RAM and Budget.
In our company, for each project, we do have a staff budget as part of the overall budget and we call this Indirect Cost. One of the categories under the staff budget is Executives were the budget allocated for Senior Management involvement is allocated there in $ and then this is reflected in the RAM and RACI in terms of responsibilities. If the PM figures there is a lot of allocation of Sr. Management hours on this project, he has every right to question and argue this. It is not considered overstepping or pretension.
I worked with huge international organizations and with small consultancy companies, we always do the same. If we feel there is over allocation, we do a Cost Benefit Analysis showing the value vs. cost.
It might be that in the industry you work for or line of business, things are different but in Project Management for Real Estate Developments and Construction Management, this is how it is done, or at least this is what I've witnessed during my 15 Years of humble experience.
RK
Hi Rami,
if that is so, you are right.
In my career I never saw executives costed in a project budget, except for mgmt consulting. I learned from you this is standard in construction.
In management consulting I saw it several times that executives (partners) charge to a project to reach their personal utilization targets. Many times they do not even show up for this and take no interest in the project itself, so at least there is no harm done. It leaves the project manager though with the task to recover their cost somehow. There is no use to show them a ROI, they would certainly retaliate.
...
1 reply by Rami Kaibni
Jan 07, 2020 2:06 PM
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.
Senior Projects Manager | Field & Marten AssociatesNew Westminster, British Columbia, Canada
Jan 07, 2020 1:42 PM
Replying to Thomas Walenta
...
Hi Rami,
if that is so, you are right.
In my career I never saw executives costed in a project budget, except for mgmt consulting. I learned from you this is standard in construction.
In management consulting I saw it several times that executives (partners) charge to a project to reach their personal utilization targets. Many times they do not even show up for this and take no interest in the project itself, so at least there is no harm done. It leaves the project manager though with the task to recover their cost somehow. There is no use to show them a ROI, they would certainly retaliate.
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
...
1 reply by Thomas Walenta
Jan 09, 2020 4:39 AM
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.
I might have to disagree with you on this. SVP's serve as part of an organization and in most cases, there serve more than one project and their allocation of time and effort is normally clearly mentioned in the RACI, RAM and Budget.
In our company, for each project, we do have a staff budget as part of the overall budget and we call this Indirect Cost. One of the categories under the staff budget is Executives were the budget allocated for Senior Management involvement is allocated there in $ and then this is reflected in the RAM and RACI in terms of responsibilities. If the PM figures there is a lot of allocation of Sr. Management hours on this project, he has every right to question and argue this. It is not considered overstepping or pretension.
I worked with huge international organizations and with small consultancy companies, we always do the same. If we feel there is over allocation, we do a Cost Benefit Analysis showing the value vs. cost.
It might be that in the industry you work for or line of business, things are different but in Project Management for Real Estate Developments and Construction Management, this is how it is done, or at least this is what I've witnessed during my 15 Years of humble experience.
RK
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?
...
1 reply by Rami Kaibni
Jan 07, 2020 2:31 PM
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.
Community Champion
