George FreemanThought Leader | Author | Architect| Florida, United States
When evaluating the impact of disruptive technologies, mindsets generally fixate on functional perspectives that pertain to efficiencies. This default view is understandable and more comfortable to “challenge out” in public discourse. However, what about the less comfortable soft-spectrum perspectives of impacts? Do they not deserve equal consideration?
Consider the following Setup:
[A] Project-based communications are no longer “pushed out” by a project manager.
[B] Instead, stakeholders interrogate the generative AI interface for project updates and concerns, negating the need for regular meetings associated with status and accountability.
[C] All herald this streamlining as a breakthrough in project administration, as project knowledge is seemingly available on demand, and those pesky meetings are fewer and far between.
[D] Eventually, through its ubiquitous use, the AI interface logs show stakeholders asking the provocative question, “Who again is the project manager on this initiative?”
Although a brief setup, consider soft-spectrum questions such as:
[1] What are the psychosocial impacts on the project manager, teams, stakeholders, etc.?
[2] What are the impacts in the corporate-political realm on the project and the PM?
[3] Have the opportunities for “objective success” increased or decreased?
[4] Others...
Saving Changes...
I'd argue that the model you are proposing is possible without AI by the use of pull-based information radiators such as bespoke dashboards available from a variety of EPM/PPM tools.
So long as PMs are effectively engaging with their stakeholders (above and beyond keeping them informed of project status) and are applying PM practices in a disciplined, right-sized manner, they shouldn't feel insecure about their roles.
If anything, the increased efficiencies should provide a PM with more capacity to demonstrate their value add.
Kiron
...
1 reply by George Freeman
Jan 29, 2024 7:00 PM
George Freeman
...
Hi Kiron,
I knew the pragmatist in you would take you in that direction :-)
The hyperbolic fascination-based enthusiasm regarding generative AI will drive service providers to expedited (unheard-of) generational delivery cycles to take their “leading edge” to the “bleeding edge” and “beyond” to maintain or gain market share. They have no choice but to capitalize on the frenzy or be left behind.
These so-called advancements have few places to go, but to solve the loose (and false) narrative in many enterprises (and industries) that the human "executive" element of traditional project management (i.e., the project manager) is the problem to be solved.
Although we can counter this perspective through reasoned arguments as project professionals, it won’t stop the fact that “generative and other forms of AI” provide the “ultimate weapons platform” for those who wish to see our profession diminish.
You stated in your last sentence, “If anything, the increased efficiencies should provide a PM with more capacity to demonstrate their value add.” The pragmatist in me agrees with you, but the corporate-political tool I am as a project professional recognizes that the “efficiency -> value added opportunities” argument leads to eliminating roles and positions. At least, that has been my experience for more decades than I want to remember.
Overstated? Maybe, but it deserves some consideration.
Saving Changes...
George FreemanThought Leader | Author | Architect| Florida, United States
Jan 29, 2024 5:08 PM
Replying to Kiron Bondale
...
George -
I'd argue that the model you are proposing is possible without AI by the use of pull-based information radiators such as bespoke dashboards available from a variety of EPM/PPM tools.
So long as PMs are effectively engaging with their stakeholders (above and beyond keeping them informed of project status) and are applying PM practices in a disciplined, right-sized manner, they shouldn't feel insecure about their roles.
If anything, the increased efficiencies should provide a PM with more capacity to demonstrate their value add.
Kiron
Hi Kiron,
I knew the pragmatist in you would take you in that direction :-)
The hyperbolic fascination-based enthusiasm regarding generative AI will drive service providers to expedited (unheard-of) generational delivery cycles to take their “leading edge” to the “bleeding edge” and “beyond” to maintain or gain market share. They have no choice but to capitalize on the frenzy or be left behind.
These so-called advancements have few places to go, but to solve the loose (and false) narrative in many enterprises (and industries) that the human "executive" element of traditional project management (i.e., the project manager) is the problem to be solved.
Although we can counter this perspective through reasoned arguments as project professionals, it won’t stop the fact that “generative and other forms of AI” provide the “ultimate weapons platform” for those who wish to see our profession diminish.
You stated in your last sentence, “If anything, the increased efficiencies should provide a PM with more capacity to demonstrate their value add.” The pragmatist in me agrees with you, but the corporate-political tool I am as a project professional recognizes that the “efficiency -> value added opportunities” argument leads to eliminating roles and positions. At least, that has been my experience for more decades than I want to remember.
Overstated? Maybe, but it deserves some consideration.
...
1 reply by Kiron Bondale
Jan 30, 2024 8:23 AM
Kiron Bondale
...
Agreed George -
I'd suspect a high degree of inverse correlation between the likelihood of PMs being unfairly impacted by Gen AI and organizational PM maturity.
No speculation is required. Wanting to get all the information off a screen without having to talk to anyone has played out enough to qualify for a Dilbert cartoon or scene in Office Space.
How the story plays out: A large business unit picks a new tool for visibility of all project dashboard information. A senior executive is excited that they can know all there is to know without every talking to people close to the situation. They start poking around and some things don't make sense without context. Rather than the PM, they go to their generals who assign it to 3 senior managers to figure out.
Those people get about 30 other people involved to try and explain the situation before it gets back to the PM. What would take a 1 minute phone call, now requires 4-8 hours for the PM to write the perfect email back to a senior VP and 5 layers of management now involved as to what the actual situation is ensuring that all information is current, all the misconceptions are resolved, and all of it summarized in 2 paragraphs.
While extremely annoying, if the PM has strong leaders of their own, it can point out that letting the PM do their job rather than circumventing them through a dashboard without context and a long chain of command can avoid very high visibility and costly fire drills.
...
1 reply by George Freeman
Jan 30, 2024 9:59 AM
George Freeman
...
Hi Keith,
Here are some reasons why “many an executive” prefer not to engage a project manager personally and, thus, would choose a “conversational interface” over the human PM.
- They don’t respect the PM due to their lack of business domain knowledge or the PM belonging to a non-business domain (e.g., an IT PM). - Project managers in the past have implemented changes within the executive’s domain that the executive did not want but had no choice but to accept. - The executive feels they should have been the project manager on current or past projects or had a project oversight role (e.g., steering committee). - Executive believes that past projects the project management organization delivered have been less than successful. - The executive’s business unit makes an explicit budget contribution toward the project management organization, affecting ratios of personal concern (e.g., those related to their bonus structure).
Bottom line: project managers are NOT always appreciated and/or liked, as we are the “face of change,” and change is not always welcome.
I knew the pragmatist in you would take you in that direction :-)
The hyperbolic fascination-based enthusiasm regarding generative AI will drive service providers to expedited (unheard-of) generational delivery cycles to take their “leading edge” to the “bleeding edge” and “beyond” to maintain or gain market share. They have no choice but to capitalize on the frenzy or be left behind.
These so-called advancements have few places to go, but to solve the loose (and false) narrative in many enterprises (and industries) that the human "executive" element of traditional project management (i.e., the project manager) is the problem to be solved.
Although we can counter this perspective through reasoned arguments as project professionals, it won’t stop the fact that “generative and other forms of AI” provide the “ultimate weapons platform” for those who wish to see our profession diminish.
You stated in your last sentence, “If anything, the increased efficiencies should provide a PM with more capacity to demonstrate their value add.” The pragmatist in me agrees with you, but the corporate-political tool I am as a project professional recognizes that the “efficiency -> value added opportunities” argument leads to eliminating roles and positions. At least, that has been my experience for more decades than I want to remember.
Overstated? Maybe, but it deserves some consideration.
Agreed George -
I'd suspect a high degree of inverse correlation between the likelihood of PMs being unfairly impacted by Gen AI and organizational PM maturity.
Kiron Saving Changes...
George FreemanThought Leader | Author | Architect| Florida, United States
Jan 29, 2024 9:57 PM
Replying to Keith Novak
...
No speculation is required. Wanting to get all the information off a screen without having to talk to anyone has played out enough to qualify for a Dilbert cartoon or scene in Office Space.
How the story plays out: A large business unit picks a new tool for visibility of all project dashboard information. A senior executive is excited that they can know all there is to know without every talking to people close to the situation. They start poking around and some things don't make sense without context. Rather than the PM, they go to their generals who assign it to 3 senior managers to figure out.
Those people get about 30 other people involved to try and explain the situation before it gets back to the PM. What would take a 1 minute phone call, now requires 4-8 hours for the PM to write the perfect email back to a senior VP and 5 layers of management now involved as to what the actual situation is ensuring that all information is current, all the misconceptions are resolved, and all of it summarized in 2 paragraphs.
While extremely annoying, if the PM has strong leaders of their own, it can point out that letting the PM do their job rather than circumventing them through a dashboard without context and a long chain of command can avoid very high visibility and costly fire drills.
Hi Keith,
Here are some reasons why “many an executive” prefer not to engage a project manager personally and, thus, would choose a “conversational interface” over the human PM.
- They don’t respect the PM due to their lack of business domain knowledge or the PM belonging to a non-business domain (e.g., an IT PM). - Project managers in the past have implemented changes within the executive’s domain that the executive did not want but had no choice but to accept. - The executive feels they should have been the project manager on current or past projects or had a project oversight role (e.g., steering committee). - Executive believes that past projects the project management organization delivered have been less than successful. - The executive’s business unit makes an explicit budget contribution toward the project management organization, affecting ratios of personal concern (e.g., those related to their bonus structure).
Bottom line: project managers are NOT always appreciated and/or liked, as we are the “face of change,” and change is not always welcome.
...
1 reply by Keith Novak
Jan 31, 2024 11:25 AM
Keith Novak
...
George, I think executives avoiding direct contact with PMs is often more a factor of traditional office culture with a very rigid and stratified class hierarchy rather than that we are the face of change, although that is sometimes the case.
Weak matrix organizations can often result from management who doesn't want oversight or guidance from outside their own branch of the org. Not only are we not part of many organizational fiefdoms who contribute to our projects, but we're not even functional managers with direct reports yet we frequently operate at senior management levels. We steer decisions towards what is best for the project as a whole, which isn't always preferred by some senior management.
Where executives believe in essentially a system of lords and serfs, serfs don't talk to lords and they certainly don't go above their heads. Information travels exclusively up and down the chain of command, and PMs don't fit in that traditional model. It is especially noticeable when people come from cultures with very rigid social stratification since the business culture is even more rigid than the more informal social culture.br type="_moz"
Here are some reasons why “many an executive” prefer not to engage a project manager personally and, thus, would choose a “conversational interface” over the human PM.
- They don’t respect the PM due to their lack of business domain knowledge or the PM belonging to a non-business domain (e.g., an IT PM). - Project managers in the past have implemented changes within the executive’s domain that the executive did not want but had no choice but to accept. - The executive feels they should have been the project manager on current or past projects or had a project oversight role (e.g., steering committee). - Executive believes that past projects the project management organization delivered have been less than successful. - The executive’s business unit makes an explicit budget contribution toward the project management organization, affecting ratios of personal concern (e.g., those related to their bonus structure).
Bottom line: project managers are NOT always appreciated and/or liked, as we are the “face of change,” and change is not always welcome.
George, I think executives avoiding direct contact with PMs is often more a factor of traditional office culture with a very rigid and stratified class hierarchy rather than that we are the face of change, although that is sometimes the case.
Weak matrix organizations can often result from management who doesn't want oversight or guidance from outside their own branch of the org. Not only are we not part of many organizational fiefdoms who contribute to our projects, but we're not even functional managers with direct reports yet we frequently operate at senior management levels. We steer decisions towards what is best for the project as a whole, which isn't always preferred by some senior management.
Where executives believe in essentially a system of lords and serfs, serfs don't talk to lords and they certainly don't go above their heads. Information travels exclusively up and down the chain of command, and PMs don't fit in that traditional model. It is especially noticeable when people come from cultures with very rigid social stratification since the business culture is even more rigid than the more informal social culture.br type="_moz"
...
1 reply by George Freeman
Jan 31, 2024 9:08 PM
George Freeman
...
Keith,
I’ve managed projects in weak, balanced, and strong matrix forms and have found metathesiophobia (the fear of change) a common ailment amongst the lords, as they fear the representative of the king (the project manager) is there to manage a hostile takeover, or even worse, find waste in their “feudal aid” process.
As you portrayed, project managers (in many organizations) don’t fit into the traditional chain of command, which is by design and, in part, the reason why many executives would prefer the passive approach offered by an AI-enabled conversational interface that provides a layer of abstraction between accountability and their ability to operate in subterfuge. :)
Or am I the only project manager sent on a crusade, held before a divisional inquisition, and returned to tell the story?
Saving Changes...
George FreemanThought Leader | Author | Architect| Florida, United States
Jan 31, 2024 11:25 AM
Replying to Keith Novak
...
George, I think executives avoiding direct contact with PMs is often more a factor of traditional office culture with a very rigid and stratified class hierarchy rather than that we are the face of change, although that is sometimes the case.
Weak matrix organizations can often result from management who doesn't want oversight or guidance from outside their own branch of the org. Not only are we not part of many organizational fiefdoms who contribute to our projects, but we're not even functional managers with direct reports yet we frequently operate at senior management levels. We steer decisions towards what is best for the project as a whole, which isn't always preferred by some senior management.
Where executives believe in essentially a system of lords and serfs, serfs don't talk to lords and they certainly don't go above their heads. Information travels exclusively up and down the chain of command, and PMs don't fit in that traditional model. It is especially noticeable when people come from cultures with very rigid social stratification since the business culture is even more rigid than the more informal social culture.br type="_moz"
Keith,
I’ve managed projects in weak, balanced, and strong matrix forms and have found metathesiophobia (the fear of change) a common ailment amongst the lords, as they fear the representative of the king (the project manager) is there to manage a hostile takeover, or even worse, find waste in their “feudal aid” process.
As you portrayed, project managers (in many organizations) don’t fit into the traditional chain of command, which is by design and, in part, the reason why many executives would prefer the passive approach offered by an AI-enabled conversational interface that provides a layer of abstraction between accountability and their ability to operate in subterfuge. :)
Or am I the only project manager sent on a crusade, held before a divisional inquisition, and returned to tell the story? Saving Changes...
