“Research conducted by the Project Management Institute (PMI) found that ineffective communication was the main contributor to project failure one-third of the time, and had a negative impact on project success more than half the time.” - PMI
With this said, it has also been found that developing an in depth communication plan is done less than 50% of the time. I would dare to say that a large reason that may be is that far too many PMs don’t find the true value in a Com plan, or that they don’t correctly answer “why” to their team and/or stakeholders (dare we call them investors?). How can this be when the companies and industries of which these projects are supported by are continuing to foot the bill? Could it be true that Sr levels of management know and are okay with a certain amount of failure (because it is so common)? Or, do they just not have the hope of it being any other way?
What’s your thoughts? Saving Changes...
Sort By:
Sergio Luis ConteHelping to create solutions for everyone| Worldwide based OrganizationsBuenos Aires, Argentina
Communication jeopardize everything not only projects execution. On the other side, a plan is always in place, formally or non formally stated for everything we do. The key is put in place, for the very beginning, the ground rules about how all components in a project will interact to achieve the objective. And that can be called as the organization like or best fit for achieving the objective. Saving Changes...
While a communication plan can certainly help to reduce the incidence of project failure due to communication issues, these go well beyond what is covered in a plan. If the folks working on the project lack communication skills that can also contribute to failure regardless of how solid the plan is.
Kiron Saving Changes...
Peter RapinSubject Matter Expect; Project Delivery| Independent ConsultantOntario, Canada
Many project people do not see the connection between plans and execution. Plans take time and effort at the start of a project when most stakeholders are more interested in getting the execution on the way - "why waste effort and money on plans when we could be producing "real" work?". A misunderstanding of 'Lean" project delivery encourages people to see plans as superfluous, not necessary - "let's do the work, not talk about it".
That's why I like to start with the Risk Management and Project Enhancement Plan where the value of various project plans can be considered and discussed. The value of plans, or lack thereof, can quickly be recognized.
First risk event - failure to communicate
Consequence/impact - ineffective project delivery, missed objectives.
Mitigation - prepare and implement a communications plan. Saving Changes...
Thomas WalentaGlobal Project Economy ExpertHackenheim, Germany
It is not the responsibility of senior management to micromanage communication in and out of the project.
But they should select a PM capable to communicate, with or without a communication plan. If they are good, with. Unluckily PMs are often selected based primarily on technical or business skills.
Communication is not only writing reports and presentations to the steering board, but includes building and improving the human relationships. I would agree that some lack of communication is the root cause of most if not all project challenges. Saving Changes...
George FreemanThought Leader | Author | Architect| Florida, United States
Stephen,
If an accountable-PM is operating under a methodologic charter, then whether or not they have a formally stated communication-plan is (in my opinion) of minor consequence, as “accountable practices” necessitate structured communications. Yes, we should have a communication plan/approach; but the issue of “failure related to ineffective communication” is often a larger question beyond what a project manager can impact via effective communication planning and execution.
Stated differently: A project manager can have an effective communication plan and pristine execution, but still have tangible failure related to communication. Why is that?
Consider the following, only slightly exaggerated:
Communication is supposed to be a two-way street; however, in many enterprises, you have exclusive one-way thoroughfares built and named after their sponsors, whom, during projects not of their making, then turn their one-way streets into tollways. So, besides having one-directional communication, there is now a price to be paid to get any communication at all. Interestingly enough, all the billboards on their thoroughfare have statements supporting said initiatives.
Epistemic subterfuge: This represents the idea that there are individuals and currents within an organization that rationally justify passive-aggressive behaviors to covertly achieve a contra goal to the one they are seemingly presenting themselves in “alignment with.”
Although stated with a little tongue-in-cheek, the point is this; projects implement change, and change for some is difficult to accept. Hence, there is “pushback” that goes beyond an effective communication plan and good execution, but yet gets ascribed to communication nonetheless.
In these situations, other strategies may need to be deployed as communication planning and management may come up short.
...
1 reply by Thomas Walenta
Sep 29, 2020 1:59 AM
Thomas Walenta
...
George
yes, the situation you describe exist. It often is an effect of lacking portfolio management and politics.
A mere communication plan then is not enough to be successful. The project manager could engage in politics and acquire power, isolate the project and use change management techniques to succeed anyhow.
Saving Changes...
Thomas WalentaGlobal Project Economy ExpertHackenheim, Germany
Sep 28, 2020 10:48 PM
Replying to George Freeman
...
Stephen,
If an accountable-PM is operating under a methodologic charter, then whether or not they have a formally stated communication-plan is (in my opinion) of minor consequence, as “accountable practices” necessitate structured communications. Yes, we should have a communication plan/approach; but the issue of “failure related to ineffective communication” is often a larger question beyond what a project manager can impact via effective communication planning and execution.
Stated differently: A project manager can have an effective communication plan and pristine execution, but still have tangible failure related to communication. Why is that?
Consider the following, only slightly exaggerated:
Communication is supposed to be a two-way street; however, in many enterprises, you have exclusive one-way thoroughfares built and named after their sponsors, whom, during projects not of their making, then turn their one-way streets into tollways. So, besides having one-directional communication, there is now a price to be paid to get any communication at all. Interestingly enough, all the billboards on their thoroughfare have statements supporting said initiatives.
Epistemic subterfuge: This represents the idea that there are individuals and currents within an organization that rationally justify passive-aggressive behaviors to covertly achieve a contra goal to the one they are seemingly presenting themselves in “alignment with.”
Although stated with a little tongue-in-cheek, the point is this; projects implement change, and change for some is difficult to accept. Hence, there is “pushback” that goes beyond an effective communication plan and good execution, but yet gets ascribed to communication nonetheless.
In these situations, other strategies may need to be deployed as communication planning and management may come up short.
George
yes, the situation you describe exist. It often is an effect of lacking portfolio management and politics.
A mere communication plan then is not enough to be successful. The project manager could engage in politics and acquire power, isolate the project and use change management techniques to succeed anyhow.
...
1 reply by George Freeman
Sep 29, 2020 9:07 AM
George Freeman
...
Hi Thomas, I agree.
A couple more thoughts:
- Getting and/or confirming “strategic alignment” during project initiation is “project-101”; having demonstrable strategic alignment during project execution is an entirely different matter.
- Unfortunately, acquiring power through politics and having the knowledge, skills, and wherewithal to wield it, is not taught and often frowned upon as a subject-area in our profession.
George
Saving Changes...
Marcus UdokangProject Manager| Aivaz ConsultingCalgary, Alberta, Canada
Any project is 70% planning. Some may resist an effective communication plan. You need that handshake which, if it turns to tension, can navigate the waters to turn the tide. An effective communication plan can help to realign the project path more efficiently, if it goes off course, thereby reducing project failure. Saving Changes...
George FreemanThought Leader | Author | Architect| Florida, United States
Sep 29, 2020 1:59 AM
Replying to Thomas Walenta
...
George
yes, the situation you describe exist. It often is an effect of lacking portfolio management and politics.
A mere communication plan then is not enough to be successful. The project manager could engage in politics and acquire power, isolate the project and use change management techniques to succeed anyhow.
Hi Thomas, I agree.
A couple more thoughts:
- Getting and/or confirming “strategic alignment” during project initiation is “project-101”; having demonstrable strategic alignment during project execution is an entirely different matter.
- Unfortunately, acquiring power through politics and having the knowledge, skills, and wherewithal to wield it, is not taught and often frowned upon as a subject-area in our profession.
