George FreemanThought Leader | Author | Architect| Florida, United States
There are countless articles on the top-n reasons why projects fail (in-part or in whole), most of which are remedied through adherence to a formal methodology and experienced leadership. However, there are also the project gotchas (i.e., gremlins of the project world) that sneak up on you and cause havoc, putting aspects of our projects in jeopardy.
These gremlins have no respect for our methods, skills, and leadership prowess, and even when we place contingencies into place to deal with their past patterns of mischievousness, they seem to surprise us again, and again, and again.
Although I’m having a bit of fun with the question, what have you found to be the less-publicized “disruptors to objective-success?” Saving Changes...
Alexandre CostaScrum Master| Integer Consulting - Pictet technologiesLoures, Portugal
George,
Several annoying aspects can cause the fail of a project or at least slip in cost, time or quality that sometimes are spurned by the project leaders or project managers.
High turnover of team members is not always caused by poor working conditions, but by the low attractiveness of the technology used, which is not a challenge for workers.
This gremlin is sometimes a stone in the shoe of project managers.
Alexandre
...
1 reply by George Freeman
Feb 07, 2021 11:30 AM
George Freeman
...
That’s a good one, Alexandre!
The absence of “bleeding edge” technology or “new-new” development has created the majority of uncontrolled turnover in my experience. It’s something that requires constant focus and negotiation. For instance, it’s not unusual to have to bargain with a resource, e.g., if you take on this less than desirable project, I have some around the corner that you might appreciate, etc.
The “stone in the shoe” is a good metaphor, as it is painful for us and typically something that no one else knows about.
You mean other than feeding them after midnight :-) ?
Almost anything we consider an unknown-unknown which creates a significant negative impact would fall into this category.
Here are two others which should fall into the known-unknown category but tend to be pretty resistant to our countermeasures:
- Sources of delay from external partners whom we have little control or influence over.
- Unexpected shifts in strategic direction many levels above us which result in reduction in funding or staffing for our projects.
Kiron
...
1 reply by George Freeman
Feb 07, 2021 12:24 PM
George Freeman
...
Hi Kiron,
The “unexpected shifts in strategic direction many levels above…” is an interesting one and begs the following unfortunate question:
- Is this truly a strategic change for the benefit of the organization, or is this epistemic-subterfuge purposed for the benefit of the executive? In other words, is the executive using a passive-aggressive tactic to undermine the outcomes of the project to protect their domain?
Do you believe this is an appropriate question for a project manager to ask themselves based on the evidence? If so, what options does the PM have?
Saving Changes...
Peter RapinSubject Matter Expect; Project Delivery| Independent ConsultantOntario, Canada
The two 'grimlins' that seem to show up in any project regardless of methodology, experience or committment are: 1) the forever optimist, The "nothing will go wrong" or "it'll be okay" team member that feels a 'higher authority' will deliver the day guy, and .
2) his counterpart the unrelenting pessimist.the "why bother" or "nothing we can do", "its is someone elses hands" - frequently takes on the 'devel's advocate' role.
Essential, neither of these team members see any point in applying effort and try and convince others of the same. Its easier to deal with when their attitudes are obvious however when the attitudes are hidding under the surface it can be a challenge.
Not looking for solutions, just adding to the discussion.
...
1 reply by George Freeman
Feb 07, 2021 1:06 PM
George Freeman
...
I haven’t come across a “forever optimist” (as you described it), but the “unrelenting pessimist” occasionally crosses the project threshold and quickly finds the nature and purpose of the revolving door I had installed during the projects initiation phase.
In my experience, a “pessimism epidemic” is a challenging problem for a PM, as it is rarely resolved through motivational means (e.g., a speech). Instead, it requires “strategic micro wins,” that is, breakthroughs in areas of concern for the team. Hence, there are times when I will call all-hands-on-deck and use challenge-based leadership principles to focus the team on solving a particular problem and then sharing the win.
Saving Changes...
George FreemanThought Leader | Author | Architect| Florida, United States
Feb 07, 2021 6:34 AM
Replying to Alexandre Costa
...
George,
Several annoying aspects can cause the fail of a project or at least slip in cost, time or quality that sometimes are spurned by the project leaders or project managers.
High turnover of team members is not always caused by poor working conditions, but by the low attractiveness of the technology used, which is not a challenge for workers.
This gremlin is sometimes a stone in the shoe of project managers.
Alexandre
That’s a good one, Alexandre!
The absence of “bleeding edge” technology or “new-new” development has created the majority of uncontrolled turnover in my experience. It’s something that requires constant focus and negotiation. For instance, it’s not unusual to have to bargain with a resource, e.g., if you take on this less than desirable project, I have some around the corner that you might appreciate, etc.
The “stone in the shoe” is a good metaphor, as it is painful for us and typically something that no one else knows about. Saving Changes...
George FreemanThought Leader | Author | Architect| Florida, United States
Feb 07, 2021 9:21 AM
Replying to Kiron Bondale
...
George -
You mean other than feeding them after midnight :-) ?
Almost anything we consider an unknown-unknown which creates a significant negative impact would fall into this category.
Here are two others which should fall into the known-unknown category but tend to be pretty resistant to our countermeasures:
- Sources of delay from external partners whom we have little control or influence over.
- Unexpected shifts in strategic direction many levels above us which result in reduction in funding or staffing for our projects.
Kiron
Hi Kiron,
The “unexpected shifts in strategic direction many levels above…” is an interesting one and begs the following unfortunate question:
- Is this truly a strategic change for the benefit of the organization, or is this epistemic-subterfuge purposed for the benefit of the executive? In other words, is the executive using a passive-aggressive tactic to undermine the outcomes of the project to protect their domain?
Do you believe this is an appropriate question for a project manager to ask themselves based on the evidence? If so, what options does the PM have?
...
1 reply by Kiron Bondale
Feb 07, 2021 5:25 PM
Kiron Bondale
...
Great question - some times the changes are legitimate and in the best interests of the company, in which case, affected projects are collateral damage. However, as you've noted, some times the impact is to further the agenda of a VIP and in such cases, a PM should escalate rather than acquiesce quietly...
Kiron
Saving Changes...
George FreemanThought Leader | Author | Architect| Florida, United States
Feb 07, 2021 9:36 AM
Replying to Peter Rapin
...
The two 'grimlins' that seem to show up in any project regardless of methodology, experience or committment are: 1) the forever optimist, The "nothing will go wrong" or "it'll be okay" team member that feels a 'higher authority' will deliver the day guy, and .
2) his counterpart the unrelenting pessimist.the "why bother" or "nothing we can do", "its is someone elses hands" - frequently takes on the 'devel's advocate' role.
Essential, neither of these team members see any point in applying effort and try and convince others of the same. Its easier to deal with when their attitudes are obvious however when the attitudes are hidding under the surface it can be a challenge.
Not looking for solutions, just adding to the discussion.
I haven’t come across a “forever optimist” (as you described it), but the “unrelenting pessimist” occasionally crosses the project threshold and quickly finds the nature and purpose of the revolving door I had installed during the projects initiation phase.
In my experience, a “pessimism epidemic” is a challenging problem for a PM, as it is rarely resolved through motivational means (e.g., a speech). Instead, it requires “strategic micro wins,” that is, breakthroughs in areas of concern for the team. Hence, there are times when I will call all-hands-on-deck and use challenge-based leadership principles to focus the team on solving a particular problem and then sharing the win. Saving Changes...
Luis BrancoCEO| Business Insight, Consultores de Gestão, LdªCarcavelos, Lisboa, Portugal
Dear George
Do middle managers usually "Piping the leg to the frog"
...
1 reply by George Freeman
Feb 07, 2021 1:40 PM
George Freeman
...
Luis,
You got me on that one. I have no clue to what that phrase means, and Mr. Google did something I have never seen before, it said, “whaaat?”
Saving Changes...
Thomas WalentaGlobal Project Economy ExpertHackenheim, Germany
One situation which hit me hard was that the sponsor (my boss and also his bosses) had different goals as the client.
I may happen quite often, without being recognized. It may happen easily when your sponsor is incentivised on an annual or even quarterly base, but the project's duration is 2+ years. Or your sponsor changes.
While primary loyalty is to your employer (and sponsor), as a project manager you want to make the client happy and expect support from the sponsor in doing so. It is not necessarily an ethical dilemma though, just different business targets from both sides.
...
2 replies by George Freeman
Feb 07, 2021 2:08 PM
George Freeman
...
High Thomas,
I agree it’s not necessarily an ethical dilemma, but if your acting in the role of an “accountable project manager” (i.e., holding the reigns of the project and responsible for its success or failure) then I believe there are at least two variants of “different business targets” a PM should consider:
- No ethical dilemma: Different, but related/compatible business targets. - Likely an ethical dilemma: Different, but competing/contrasting business targets.
I say “likely” as I don’t believe there is a dilemma if the PM brings the competing/contrasting targets into the light, and brings resolution to the concern. However, they may have unforeseen circumstances if they are aware of the contention and take no action.
Feb 07, 2021 2:08 PM
George Freeman
...
-- Double Posting
Saving Changes...
George FreemanThought Leader | Author | Architect| Florida, United States
Feb 07, 2021 1:32 PM
Replying to Luis Branco
...
Dear George
Do middle managers usually "Piping the leg to the frog"
Luis,
You got me on that one. I have no clue to what that phrase means, and Mr. Google did something I have never seen before, it said, “whaaat?” Saving Changes...
George FreemanThought Leader | Author | Architect| Florida, United States
Feb 07, 2021 1:36 PM
Replying to Thomas Walenta
...
One situation which hit me hard was that the sponsor (my boss and also his bosses) had different goals as the client.
I may happen quite often, without being recognized. It may happen easily when your sponsor is incentivised on an annual or even quarterly base, but the project's duration is 2+ years. Or your sponsor changes.
While primary loyalty is to your employer (and sponsor), as a project manager you want to make the client happy and expect support from the sponsor in doing so. It is not necessarily an ethical dilemma though, just different business targets from both sides.
High Thomas,
I agree it’s not necessarily an ethical dilemma, but if your acting in the role of an “accountable project manager” (i.e., holding the reigns of the project and responsible for its success or failure) then I believe there are at least two variants of “different business targets” a PM should consider:
- No ethical dilemma: Different, but related/compatible business targets. - Likely an ethical dilemma: Different, but competing/contrasting business targets.
I say “likely” as I don’t believe there is a dilemma if the PM brings the competing/contrasting targets into the light, and brings resolution to the concern. However, they may have unforeseen circumstances if they are aware of the contention and take no action.
...
1 reply by Thomas Walenta
Feb 07, 2021 2:18 PM
Thomas Walenta
...
Hi George,
in that particular case I indeed brought the conflict to light (wrote a CYA email) and was reminded to whom I am accountable. My employer. Later this saved me from being fired.
Have seen cases where the employer brought in a new PM to a running project with the order to kill it (which is the rare case where a new Charter is issued mid-project). Competing targets. Ethical dilemma. And not every dilemma is solved to the benefit of all.
Again, sponsor and client having different targets can kill a project and has to be addressed by the PM.
