We are starting a project where an outside vendor is involved. That vendor will be installing the "system." As such, they are going to be providing a schedule, etc... for the project. It was agreed to, that our organization will also be providing a project manager that will work closely with that project manager, and coordinate the efforts of the organization to ensure everything is being done to make the implementation a success. I am going to be that person.
Has anyone dealt with a situation like this before?
Implicit in the article is the idea that one and only one project manager is in charge of the overall project. You need some clear accountability in my view.
I have also had business and technology project managers work together successfully. In those projects, we appointed one person to be the overall project manager. It was not necessarily the more senior person; it was usually the one with more experience running projects or the one with the greater portion of the work. Saving Changes...
Somewhat related to this post, I have a question. We often work on very large projects, anywhere from 15 to 40 team members. Is there an industry standard for calculating how MANY project managers should be allocated to the project? We often will break up the project into subproject and have strong technical leaders; however, at times it seems to be more work than one project manager can handle. These larger projects can be 15 - 24 months long and we experience some attrition and lots of movement with our resources that needs a lot of our attention keeping the project staffed and managed. I thought I read somewhere that 15% of the total project hours should be allocated to project management. Is that a fair statement? Saving Changes...
David SmithIT Manager Building and Safety Division| LA County DPWAlhambra, Ca, United States
Multiple project managers is not uncommon in projects here. There needs to be a table of organization that indicates who is responsible for what and indicates the boundaries of their authority. In the end there is one overall project manager for the customer and one for the system supplier (vendor or IT department). If it's an internal IT department then both project managers answer to a single senior manager. If its a vendor then it's the contract that controls and if the project turns sour its the attorneys. There may be managers that deal with the individual subject matter experts in each key area if its a big project. Those managers are responsible for their pieces of the puzzle. Saving Changes...
Susan asked a question about work-hours allocated to PM. This seems to be a never-ending question, and it is a very good one. I have seen estimates range from 5% up to about 15%, and my experience in software development supports that range.
One of the hardest issues in figuring out, "How many PMs do we need?" is deciding "What are the PMs' responsibility?" Also, "What other team leads, managers, or support personnel will provide leadership in addition to the project managers?"
I have worked in some software development environments where project managers do the full job of business analysis and significant parts of quality planning and test execution. In this case, the project manager might appear to account for a very large portion of the work-hours, but "project management" does not really account for such a large portion. Much of the work that the PM is doing is not "project management" in the sense that PMI defines it. Your employer might consider all these things "project management work", however.
In other environments, particularly large construction situations, the project management work is broken down into specialized roles. Full-time schedulers and estimators might be responsible for compiling estimates, processing status reports, monitoring costs, updating schedules, and so on. In these cases, the project manager might be a very small portion of the work hours, because he or she is only dealing with top-level leadership and business issues.
For a very large, long project (15 to 24 months, more than 15 team members), I strongly recommend having a hierarchy of team leads or project managers underneath the primary project manager. It might also be useful to have an assistant project manager or scheduler assigned to the PM at the top of the project org chart, to help keep up with the paperwork and reports.
I have found that it is difficult for individual leaders to manage a team of more than 8 people. Some may be comfortable up to 15, but most people cannot keep track of the individual work assignments, personalities, and issues of teams that large. I am not an organizational expert, but I hear that org charts are usually designed with a goal of somewhere between 3 and 7 direct reports to each manager. Higher numbers create "flatter" organizations, while lower numbers create more hierarchical organizations. You might use this guideline, add in some common sense based on your team dynamics, and figure out a good org chart for your team. The org chart will determine how many leaders you really need.
Sometimes specialized PMs are needed to oversee highly technical or specialized work. That can drive the number of PMs assigned higher as well. It is important to adapt these ideas to your particular team.
Good luck, and let us know what you come up with. Saving Changes...
Rob MartinConsulting (Contract)| Microsoft (Thailand)Lam Luk Ka, Pathum Thani, Thailand
This is a very common scenario and one the Accentures and Bearing Points of the world are well versed in.
In my experience the Client PM has the "Authority" for everything except the Consultant/External PM's own direct resourcing. Obviously everything is a negotiation and there will be a time when the lines have to be drawn firmly in the sand.
On a large software project there is very likely to be many Project Managers handling different aspects of the development. This is usually managed by a PMO, a Senior overall PM or a Project Director. A simple RACI chart usually makes sure that the roles and responsibilities for all parties are well understood. It's important to make all this clear up front.
A Large ERP Project can also demand many PM's, Team Leads, Architects and PMO Staff. All who have the thought in their minds that they are in charge or at least "something". It's important to set the ground rules before you start to avoid confusion and conflict.
A Project Manager should not feel any lesser of himself/herself if there are more Project Managers about. Just get on with the bits that are under your control and get the job done.
Cheers
Rob Saving Changes...
Rob MartinConsulting (Contract)| Microsoft (Thailand)Lam Luk Ka, Pathum Thani, Thailand
For Susan:-
{Somewhat related to this post, I have a question. We often work on very large projects, anywhere from 15 to 40 team members. }
This may vary from company to Company. My last two projects are 300 and 900 team members respectively. These are fairly large projects with enormous scope. Not easy to manage, resource or steer in the right direction!
{Is there an industry standard for calculating how MANY project managers should be allocated to the project? We often will break up the project into subproject and have strong technical leaders; however, at times it seems to be more work than one project manager can handle. }
There is no standard, but as Alex pointed out, more than 7 "Direct" reports can get overwhelming to the most organised person, especially of there is a significant overhead in employee appraisals and other churn that must be completed in a large corporate.
{These larger projects can be 15 - 24 months long and we experience some attrition and lots of movement with our resources that needs a lot of our attention keeping the project staffed and managed. I thought I read somewhere that 15% of the total project hours should be allocated to project management. Is that a fair statement?}
This is a rule of thumb I guess. But with rules, they can all be broken. Projects that cover more than one fiscal cycle or multiple years are at high risk of failure. I try to encourage, where possible, a program of projects that are a year or less in length that logically make up the larger project.
Saving Changes...
A project with 900 people; start to complete in less than one year? Hmmm, sounds like a non-government sector. I've never seen anything like that. Working on State government projects, with State formal deliverables, not to forget changes in policy, 12+ months, and $7M+ projects is not atypical in my industry.
My point is not about defending that these are large projects but was looking for some standards or criteria in the PM community for justifiying additional PMs on some of these projects. Our management has somehow determined the industry standard is for all projects only one PM is needed no more than 25% of his/her time. Saving Changes...
Mark HipwellSr. Project Manager| Jaguar Land RoverAshby De La Zouch, Leicestershire, United Kingdom
900 people? So that's almost half a million communication channels!! (n(n-1)/2 ). Assuming that a PM spends 90% of his time communicating, you could use the communication plan as the basis for estimating PM effort. Saving Changes...
For Mark: excellent point! Thanks. Saving Changes...
Rob MartinConsulting (Contract)| Microsoft (Thailand)Lam Luk Ka, Pathum Thani, Thailand
This is private sector for sure. To clarify a little, my preference is a 12 month deliverable, not that these large projects ever work to what I would prefer or what is practical.
Government Projects I avoid, which makes me wonder why I am in China trying to implement for a State owned entity.... It's a preference for Project Management Torture me thinks.
On my current project (that was 12 months initially), we have an abundance of Project Managers, from the client and the four major vendors, so we are drowning in management (this is a whole different thread!!).
On a project in excess of $1million, I am used to having full time PM skills on the ground. 25% of ones time sounds more like a Project Director to me.
