Unrealistic expectations are highly unlikely to be fulfilled. But, when a project fails to achieve the impossible it is branded a failure!
The Economist Intelligence Unit’s recent report ‘Proactive Response – How financial services firms deal with troubled projects’ highlights unrealistic goals as the most common cause of project failure in financial service firms, other causes of failure include poor alignment between project and organisational goals, the failure of the organisation to provide adequate resources and the project sponsor failing to get involved in the project sufficiently early, if at all.
15% of firms surveyed had no processes for dealing with troubled projects and 47% wait until the project has officially missed time and budget targets before taking any action despite 61% of the executives surveyed believing early action on troubled projects enables organisations to better use limited resources.
This survey reinforces many others over many years that clearly highlight executive governance failures as the primary cause of project failures. And this seems particularly true of large IT projects where a recent survey of 1500 large IT projects by the University of Oxford found one in six projects went over budget by an average of 200% or time by almost 70%. The Oxford conclusion was that many managers in charge of the projects did not have enough understanding of how to implement the technology, presumably leading to unrealistic expectations……
These findings support two conclusions; firstly, the program and portfolio management maturity levels in organisations are seriously deficient. A series of Portfolio, Program and Project Management Maturity Model (P3M3) audits of Australian government agencies with IT budgets of more than $20 million, showed scores averaging around 2 out of 5 with many lower and a trend towards portfolio management being the least effective area. These findings are similar to outcomes from OPM3 assessment I have undertaken in other types of organisation.
The second conclusion is that knowledge, insights and valuable information derived from project expertise is not being effectively communicated ‘up the ladder’ in a way that executives can understand and appreciate.
Projects are successful when the organisation realises the benefits it expected from undertaking the project. For more on the value chain see ‘Value is in the eye of the stakeholder’. To close this loop effectively, skilled project personnel including PMO staff, need to be able to communicate effectively with their organisations executives. The art of ‘advising upwards’ effectively requires skill and understanding (this is the focus of my latest book ‘Advising Upwards’), but it is also important for the whole project industry, at the association, organisation and individual levels to recognise that knowing what represents ‘good’ PPP management is only the beginning, the end game is most organisations, most of the time doing good PPP management; and this won’t happen unless the senior executive and ‘middle management’ levels of organisations understand both the processes and the benefits.
The surveys canvassed at the start of this blog suggest we still have a long way to go!
Posted in Stakeholder Management, Value
Tagged Benefits Realization, Communication, IT Project Management, Project, Project Controls, Project Governance, Project Management, Project Management Maturity Models, Project Management ROI, Project success, Stakeholder Management, Value Management, Value of Project Management
One of the founders of PMI, Eric Jenett, passed away in Houston last week at the age of 88. Eric was a true project management pioneer and a wonderful hoarder of ‘useful information’.
Eric’s generous assistance with documents and references when I was developing a series of papers on the development of modern project management and the history of scheduling was invaluable. Others remembered things; Eric usually had the documentation to substantiate the memories.
My papers were always intended to be a relatively accessible overview of our profession’s history; my hope is Eric’s legacy of source documentation is properly preserved for future academic use. I certainly appreciated his help, his library of papers and his assistance to (at the time) a perfect stranger from another country.
Eric’s contribution to these papers, that can be sourced from: http://www.mosaicprojects.com.au/Resources_Papers_050.html, isjust a minute part of the legacy left to us all by Eric.
We have started a monthly series of articles on the Project Manager website.
The focus of these posts will be the current state of scheduling, the emergence of planning and scheduling as a profession and ideas for enhancing the practice of scheduling.
The first article looks at the project scheduling conundrum and some of the initiatives underway to create/improve the profession. The project scheduling conundrum is simple: We know effective scheduling makes a significant difference to project success and we know what effective scheduling looks like but in most projects, the schedule is ignored, bad scheduling practice is the norm and most projects finish late.
To read the first article (and follow the series) see: http://projectmanager.com.au/author/pat-weaver
According to data collected from the supervisors of project managers in 11 different organizations around the world, effective project managers display a reasonably consistent set of personality characteristics. Whilst there is no single personality profile for an effective project manager, most effective project managers (from their supervisor’s point of view) are:
Conscientious – sticks to deadlines, completes jobs, perseveres with routine, and likes fixed schedules
Vigorous – thrives on activity, likes to keep busy, and enjoys having a lot to do
Controlling – takes charge, directs, manages, organizes, and supervises others
Socially confident – comfortable with strangers and likes to put others at ease
Evaluative – critically evaluates information, looks for potential limitations, and focuses upon errors
Persuasive – enjoys selling, changes opinions of others, convinces with arguments, and negotiates
Behavioural – analyses thoughts and action, psychologically minded, and likes to understand people
These traits that make a good project manager are quite different to the attributes of a competent planner and scheduler as defined in Mosaic’s core paper at: http://www.mosaicprojects.com.au/PDF/Attributes_of_a_Scheduler.pdf
There was considerably more consistency among the ratings for behavioural competencies than for personality characteristics. Competence is defined as a combination of knowledge, skills, experience, demonstrable performance and personal capability, which includes attitudes, motivation, behaviours and personality characteristics. For more on competency see: http://www.mosaicprojects.com.au/WhitePapers/WP1056_Competency.pdf
The most important behavioural competencies deemed essential to a superior-performing project manager were:
– Planning and Organizing
– Delivering Results and Meeting Customer Expectations
– Deciding and initiating action
– Leading and supervising
– Persuading and influencing
The behaviours expected of project managers included:
– Identifying and organizing resources needed to accomplish tasks
– Consistently achieving project goals
– Taking responsibility for actions, projects and goals
– Initiating and generating activity
– Delegating work appropriately and fairly
– Gaining clear agreement and commitment from others
The research this blog is based on was undertaken by Alicia Aitken and Lynn Crawford of Bond University, Australia. To see more, read their paper on PM Perspectives at: http://pmperspectives.org/article.php?view=full&aid=33
Our friend and colleague Dr. Jon Whitty’s latest paper builds on his thoughts on the evolution of project management based on the survival of the most popular or widely distributed ideas (memes) to embrace the existential concept that that meaning flows from existence (which may answer the question above).
The existential approach considers the creation of meaning and describes how meanings are derived, selected and then utilized by power entities such as governments, corporations, professional institutions, etc, to manipulate the behaviours of individuals for their own political advantage.
The evolutionary approach (discussed in Jon’s earlier work) considers how various concepts change under selection pressures driven by the preferences expressed by people in the social, cultural, and physical environment so that those that have a selection advantage, usually features that appear to provide benefits, prevail.
However, does treating or seeing projects as real things that have defined meaning help us understand what is involved in managing work as a project? To find out see Jon’s presentation at the recent IPMA congress in Brisbane on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/user/DrJonathanWhitty
Jon is also a Chapter Author in my latest book, Advising Upwards; as always Jon’s approach is thought provoking and challenges conventional assumptions.
An interesting paper in the September edition of the Project Management Journal co-authored by a colleague, Derek Walker contrasts the delivery of public projects in the Roman era with modern project management. The primary conclusion is that nothing much has changed; the Romans outsourced most of their major works to contractors, with both public accountability and a legal framework as key governance constraints.
What’s significantly different, is the consequences of failure! If a project went badly wrong in Roman times, the responsible public official would suffer a major career limiting event that could affect the prospects of his descendants for generations to come. Whilst the retribution applied to the contractor could be even more serious including death as well as retribution for generations to come.
Applying the Roman approach could give a whole new meaning to the ‘pain share’ bit of an Alliance contract…… as well as removing by execution many of the worst performing contractors. Rome was not built in a day but their empire did last for close to 1000 years.
This history contrasts with several recent studies that clearly demonstrate the ineffectiveness of penalty clauses as a mechanism for managing client risk two relevant papers are:
CIOB; Managing the Risk of Delayed Completion in the 21st Century
Blake Dawson; Scope of Improvement
It would seem the sanctions offered under today’s laws are insufficient to make penalties really effective (and in modern contracts they only work one way rather than the two-way effect of the Roman sanctions). Therefore the only option is proactive management.
The unacceptable alternative is to hope the problem goes away…… but burying your head in the sand leaves a very tempting target for someone’s boot.
If you are interested in the history of project management, my papers offer a good starting point, starting with The Origins of Modern Project Management at: http://www.mosaicprojects.com.au/Resources_Papers_050.html
For more in-depth coverage see: http://www.lessons-from-history.com and of course: Frontinus – A Project Manager from the Roman Empire Era by Walker & Dart (Project Management Journal Vol.42, No.5, 4-16)
There has been a lot written about ‘complex project management’ over the last few years much of which as confused projects with programs, complexity with big and complexity with complicated technology. For an overview of complexity theory see: A Simple View of ‘Complexity’ in Project Management.
A sentence in the paper ‘Translation and Convergence in Projects: An Organisational Perspective on Project Success’ (Project Management Journal, Sept.2011) triggered this post and sums up project complexity nicely: “The key difficulty with complex projects is that those managing them will often be ‘feeling their way’ towards a solution rather then following a reliable blueprint or project plan”.
Our view has consistently been that complexity is a function of complexity theory and it is a dimension of every project and program. This means every project has a degree of complexity in the same way that it has a defined size, a degree of technical difficulty and a degree of uncertainty, and all 4 dimensions interact and affect each other. These four dimensions are discussed in the Mosaic White Paper at: http://www.mosaicprojects.com.au/WhitePapers/WP1072_Project_Size.pdf.
What the thought from the paper above highlighted is the very close linkage between complexity which we see as being primarily a function of the project’s stakeholder community and the degree of uncertainty associated with the project outcome. Our blog post, Projects aren’t projects – Typology outlines one way of measuring uncertainty based on a model by Eddie Obeng.
I’m not sure how to measure this empirically yet, but I do have a feeling there is a need to define a measurement system that incorporates the type of uncertainty within the overall matrix of stakeholder engagement and supportiveness already embedded in the Stakeholder Circle® methodology – any thoughts will be appreciated.
See our earlier posts on Complexity.