Classical PM certifications and training focuses on methods that primarily orientates projects around Time, Quality and Budget measures and as a result projects are viewed as successful dependent based on the goals set across these dimensions.
What isn't said and what isn't taught is that there are many more dimensions in the project space that really determine whether a project is successful or not. So my view [and what I have proved] is you can deliver on TQ&B and still fail. The additional dimensions such as team, knowledge transfer, mobilising the business case, stakeholder management [influencing troublesome execs etc] this is what really determines success. These dimensions are no less important than TQ&B.
My approach is that you should open all engagements by betting somewhere between 20%-50% of your consulting fees based on the success of these other dimensions. If you were to do this then what dimensions would be important?
How would you measure the Future State Vision of these fuzzier dimensions, and how would you assess progress?
I have a set of supporting tools and methods that support this approach and I have 100% billing based on betting my fees on the success of my approach. But rather than leading the witness, what are your thoughts?
Regards
The Dislander
Saving Changes...
Sort By:
Mark Price PerryBusiness Driven PMO Evangelist| BOT InternationalOrlando, Fl, United States
Padraig, no doubt some in the traditional PM community will find your post bordering on heresy, but many others will find it not only refreshing but overdue. Much in line with your thinking, I recently wrote a book Business Driven PMO Setup; Practical Insights, Techniques and Case Examples for Ensuring Success that was largely the result of numerous like minded servant-leaders warning that there is too much "theory" in today's approaches to project management and not enough tempered reality. Count me in your camp..! Saving Changes...
Paul NaybourFounder and Director| Parallel Project TrainingNailsworth, United Kingdom
Padraig
You describe a high added value client / consultant relationship which has to be ultimate goal of any account management. Sharing the benefit and risk of project implies a high level of trust between the two parties. Other clients however want a purely transactional relationship and if they combine this with competitive tendering then it can be very hard to build the level of trust early on and in responding to an ITT then you will not know how realistic benefits are so would you share the risk?
The key element of any account management is to move a relationship from transactional towards the high added value / high trust relationship you describe, and this required trust, which is built up by delivering what you promise. Hence the T/C/Q stuff is still important......
It has taken me years of effort to build you these sorts of relationship with major clients; I would be interested in anything that can help me to get there faster.
Paul Naybour
www.projectacellerator.co.uk
Saving Changes...
Hans RobbersSenior Director| SalesforceVlissingen, Netherlands
Padraig
Thanks for yoru post, interesting to read.
In pm 2.0 a blog on this site Dave Garret started a discussion from triple constraint to the 5 point star which has similar thoughts back in 2008. see references below
.
http://www.gantthead.com/blog/Project-Mana...gement-2.0/917/-2.0/917/' target='_blank'>http://www.gantthead.com/blog/Project-Management-2.0/917/
Basing the fee on this is only possible when there are clear objectives and most of the ones you mention tend not to be measurable. This might lead to arguments if the objectives have been met and if the fee should be paid. More important it is in the end the result which counts and during the ride there can eb some bumps. Curieus to see how you measure progress on stakeholder management in an objective way for instance
I do agree projects should not be managed on the triple constraint alone since that will never result in success
PMBOK is an internationally recognized standard that deals with the application of knowledge, skills, tools & techniques to meet the project requirements.
A project manager is the person accountable for accomplishing the project objectives. Key project management responsibilities include creating clear and attainable project objectives, building the project requirements, and managing the triple constraint for projects, which is cost, time, and scope.
A project manager is often a client representative and has to determine and implement the exact needs of the client, based on knowledge of the firm they are representing. The ability to adapt to the various internal procedures of the contracting party, and to form close links with the nominated representatives, is essential in ensuring that the key issues of cost, time, quality and above all, client satisfaction, can be realized.
Knowledge transfer is covered under Project Closure!
Business case is covered under Project Selection Methods (cost benefit analysis)!
Team is covered under HR!
Stake holder management under Project Communication!
PMBOK contains everything, the problem is no one reads it completely and understand it completely!
PMI has done extensive research for over 25 years and comeup with PMBOK. PMI is also working on upgrading/adding new stuffs to PMBOK in various editions.
If anyone personally feel that PMBOK is not covering something, you can always give your feedback to PMI!! By that way the entire community will benefit.
Thank you all for your responses some very interesting points and references. I will try to address some of the points below to move the conversation on.
(1) PMBOK and others have the capacity to handle this. While there is some truth in this I think PMs need simple guidelines in terms of how to design engagements [independently of pm methodology]. The lack of engagement design principles to me explains a lot of why certain PMs are more effective than others, obviously you need the ability to influence.
(2) Betting fees is that not more of a consulting position, some customers just want a transactional relationship. I understand what you are saying here but every time you can shift your relationship into one which adds value for your customer is one which will add value to you. Betting the fees is a statement of quality and belief in yourself and your methods. Again I would stress the capability to influence others and the use of engagement design to deliver projects in a low risk manner.
So an interesting question for us all is, why cant we bet 50% of our fees on every engagement? If our PM methods are really working or adding value surely this should be possible? So what is missing on top of our pm methods?
Is it the ability to really influence people[customers and team] i.e. shift habits?
One other point I forgot to make is that IT PMs tend to get hung up on elements of the project that can be measured using quantitative measures. This is very limiting as the people based dimensions of projects wont conform to this.
What I have found to work for me is to leverage some learning from cultural change. Look at the people based based domains do a future state vision of where we want to be at the end of the project and then figure out how we assess this month on month. These assessments are qualitiative not quantitative.
I have always said "I don't manage projects, I manage people". As far as I am concerned "project management" is something of a misnomer. So I think communication (up/down/sideways/internal & external) and co-ordination are fundamental to the delivery of a successful project.
I also did a Prince2 course to familiasrise my self with this latest silver bullet and found that if all you do is a Prince2 course there is no way you can manage a successful project. It even states it does not cover all the tools and techniques needed to manage a project.
It did have some gems in it though. As Padraig said you can deliver to TQ&B and still fail. One thing that Prince2 highlighted was to keep re-visiting the business case to make sure that for every change/issue the benefits were still being delivered.
There is no point in completing a project if the benefits are either not there or no longer needed because the business has moved on. I agree with most methodologies that the project manager cannot be responsible for benefits realisation, but they have to be responsible for ensuring that there are benefits at the end of the project that can be realised otherwise why continue with the project?
Just one more dimension for us to manage! Saving Changes...
> this I think PMs need simple guidelines in terms of how to design
> engagements [independently of pm methodology]. The lack of
> engagement design principles to me explains a lot of why certain
> PMs are more effective than others, obviously you need the ability
> to influence.
Engagement is outside the scope of PM. Engagement models are discussed and decided when 2 organization decide to work together and sign the confidential agreement. PM will never know about this! Why should a PM know about the engagement, when PMs challenge is to deliver the project successfully!
> So an interesting question for us all is, why cant we bet 50% of our
> fees on every engagement? If our PM methods are really working
> or adding value surely this should be possible? So what is missing
> on top of our pm methods?
I just wanted to mention 3 well know business/engagement models - fixed cost, time and material and cost plus fixed fee (These are fixed cost models). Ofcourse there are other complex engagement models (variable pricing) like outcome based pricing, royalty based, transaction based, functionality based, pay per usage (SaaS).
If you want to bet 50% of the fee, it actually depends upon the engagement model. One cannot bet 50% for a fixed cost project! Also it is meaningless to bet 50% for time and material based project!!
IF you do a budgeting for a project, let us say 30% goes to the organization as ROI! 20% as contingency budget (for unknown risks).
Rest of the budget will be used for new resource procurement, direct and indirect cost of employees (this is same as the cost of work product)! Then how can you bet 50%?
Also there are costs like indirect cost (overhead cost) which will vary from organization to organization and PM does not have any control on this!! To list some of the indirect costs - rental of the office building, electricity cost, facilities/administration staffs who provide their service to the employees engaged in the project etc..
Best Regards,
Vivekanandan M Saving Changes...
Craig WilkinsProgram & Project Management Consultant| Workgroup ManagementBerowra, Nsw, Australia
Almoast a full year after your post I have an answer for you and a potential solution.
I have asked the same question you did more times than you can imagine, and I have received many fantastic comments and have hypothesized until the cows came home....still no results.
There are two core reaons we practice PM (other than it pays the way) and these are gathering Leassons Learned towards continuous improvement and Benefits Realisation. Everything else is How to meet these objectives.
You are absolutely correct in your line of questioning, however these concerns are not part of generic project management and the responsibility usually falls further up the management tree.
Therefore, borne out of my frustration, I built a Business Benefits Realisation template which is based on a full Benefits life cycle.
If you are still puzzled as to how you can tackle this problem, feel free to contact me.
