RNC Global Projects

PROJECT MANAGEMENT TRAINING FOR A NEW AGE

Hi,

In my last post I talked about how the job of project management has evolved into one that requires project managers to use their influencing and persuasion skills to obtain resources for their projects. And with this change comes a requirement for training to provide managers with those additional skills.

When I think about this problem I visualise two different kinds of project managers: a campaign project manager and an administrative project manager. And when I visualise the battle for resources I think of it as being like a political campaign, where the campaign project manager is like the sponsor’s chief of staff, ensuring the sponsor achieves their goal – in our case, rather than an election victory, that goal would be the acquisition of resources for a successful project. And the administrative project manager is the person who keeps score – who runs the charts, musters the resources and measures the project’s progress. The only problem I see with this way of thinking is that the administrative project manager – despite their job being as critical as any other – may resent the title “administrator” being attached to them.

Up until now it has been adequate to teach administrative project management and assess managers’ competence using paper evidence, without the project manager being exposed to actual project management scenarios. This needs to change. The demands on project managers today require a higher order of skills than those taught for administrative project management. Project management is one of the few professional disciplines that needs to weave through the organisation and develop its own connections and leverage points. A period of internship – of professional placement alongside an experienced campaign project manager – would allow new project managers to experience a variety of working cultures and practice the soft skills required to function effectively in the role. We can look to law, medicine, accounting, engineering and architecture for models of how to achieve this.

Administrative project managers and campaign project managers are not usually the same types of people. People traditionally attracted to project management have been detail orientated with a high regard for process, administration and order. They typically reject ambiguity and try to produce plans with little need for change throughout the project. These skills and attitudes are excellent when focussed on following the project and keeping the records straight but not useful in front-line negotiation roles.

 For campaign project management we need to attract and recruit people who are willing – and able – to live with ambiguity, invest time in developing relationships and communicate in a way that inspires credibility. They need to become ambassadors for the sponsor and gain the trust and cooperation of both resources and the people to whom those resources report. These tasks are difficult but they are needed, and success brings real opportunity. At the moment, these types of people end-up on a path towards senior management, entrepreneurship, or frustration in roles to which they are unsuited. We have the opportunity to open a new career path for these types of people and support it with appropriate training and education.

As the pace of change within organisations accelerates the discipline of project management needs to adapt to keep pace. As influential practitioners in our field we need to acknowledge the changing face of projects and create demand for, provide resources to and participate in, teaching new skill sets to our peers, and those who will come after us. So I put the challenge out there to educators to recognise this need and address it.

Your comments please.

Projects and programs: we don’t mess around, we just make them happen.

ARE YOU “OUTSIDE THE UNIVERSE”?

Hi,

One of the biggest takeaways I brought back from the AGMS was the concept that there are people who are ‘outside the universe’. These are usually people who choose to work long term on contracts; or employees who think it is solely their employer’s obligation to provide their development. They don’t engage with their own career; and miss the fact that the world moves on without them. They are still employed but each contract gets harder to find, their rate (both in real and perceived terms) reduces and their bewilderment increases. It’s sad to see these people grasping at diminishing opportunities; opportunities that diminish further as they try to do things the old way, relying on the approaches, skills and methods that used to work.

Thankfully, it takes just a few simple changes to come back from the ‘outside’. For a start, keep learning and keep current. Try to see things as they are, not as they should be (that’s a tough one).  Be flexible. And don’t forget, it’s important to keep up.

If you are reading this you are someone who I think keeps up, someone who adds value, someone who invests in their own career. The best thing you can ever do is to invest in your own career. I can’t say it any plainer than that.  I’ve been saying it for ages and now there is clear evidence that remuneration is closely aligned to how we keep our skills, attitudes and value current. If you need help working out your next step in maintaining currency please call me – we both want you contributing, providing value and earning as much as possible in the years ahead.

Keep smiling, Diane

Some people want it to happen, some wish it would happen, others make it happen.

DEFINING PRINCIPLES

Hi,

There’s a theme developing here – and it’s interesting (to me) that deans of the biggest management/business schools are concerned with this stuff. Interesting in a good way. 

The Dean of the Haas School of Business at Berkeley, Richard Lyons, described how they have changed their recruitment criteria at the school in recent years. They have gone from looking for the best and brightest and edgiest etc., to looking for people who: 

• question in a positive way – there has to be a better way to do it/this… and then go about suggesting/trying
• have confidence without attitude- the quietly and competently confident – a big move from the high energy, edgy, more showy people      sought in the past
• are always learning… people who may finish school but who never finish learning…. this is something I have long subscribed to
• believe and act in ways that support the belief that they have a responsibility beyond the immediate, people who can forgo immediate for  the longer term good.

He described these people as ‘Path Benders’. They don’t break things but they push. They don’t get thrown out because of poor cultural fit, but they use the edges. In my mind I see these people are being at the edge of a river. A river changes by degree and it’s the water at the edge that makes the change. 

Effective project managers are like that as well. We can work with the culture, but don’t become part of the centre of the river.

There is a lot of food for thought here.

Enjoy, Diane

Some people want it to happen, some wish it would happen, others make it happen. 

WHY PROJECT MANAGEMENT ISN’T EASY ANYMORE

Tweet

I remember when project management was easy! Not easy to deliver the project – that has always been hard work, and will continue to be so – it was easy because the project was all you had to focus on. The project manager had inputs, deliverables, some time and a set of resources. Project management was about managing those elements to produce the desired result, or finding a solution if those resources were insufficient.

In short, in the old days we had:

•   Control over the resources on our projects
•   Projects that were locked-down early in the planning in order to facilitate clear deliverables
•   Projects that had the standing within the organisation to command resource allocation
•   Project sponsors with the power and the will to clear the path for the project
•   A clear organisational desire for the project to proceed

This model worked throughout the 1980s and 1990s and even into the early 2000s. Projects were envisaged, planned, resourced and operated outside business-as-usual activities. They were temporary organisations within the business and had clear, unambiguous interfaces with the rest of the organisation. Resources would be allocated to our projects and return back into the organisation when the project was completed.

As the projects neared completion a buzz would develop, delivery dates were anticipated, training began and the “new” thing would be introduced to the organisation and become the new business-as-usual.

Project management tools, processes and procedures – the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK) as the Project Management Institute (PMI) calls it – developed against this background. From there, the PMI accreditation system evolved to demonstrate a candidate’s ability to operate in that sort of environment. Candidates would document inputs and outputs and record their hours operating an appropriate process to convert those inputs into outputs.

But times have changed.

During the last decade there has been a shift in the organisations we work for. I suspect this comes from the pressure on organisations to be leaner and to account more for every cent spent, meaning that there are no longer resources available to pull onto projects without impacting elsewhere. It also reflects the pace of technological change which requires the organisations to make more changes than ever before, and faster. This means that there are more projects running. They often have a wider scope than before – touching more of the organisation – and are not as clearly defined as they used to be, either because of fast-tracking (designing the deliverables as the project progresses) or ignorance about the technology making it difficult to properly scope the project because the project’s first deliverable is an understanding of the technology. The result is that organisations try to concurrently use the same resources to deliver business as usual and projects. People very often are working on two or more things at the same time.

So now, the people who used to be available to work on projects are already deployed. They have day jobs. And projects no longer stand-alone, but are tasks that must be achieved alongside business-as-usual and using the same resources.

Now, project managers:

• Do not have control over the resources for the project
• Need to negotiate for resources when they are required
• Must be able to estimate project time based on partial involvement of resources
• Understand that their resources are working on a number of different tasks at the same time
• Must manage a project knowing that it has the same, or lower, standing than other business activities
• Must work to a scope that is likely to change through the life of the project
• Are still expected to deliver clear, unambiguous certainty about outcomes and delivery
• Cannot rely on sponsors as they may not be empowered, may be ambivalent about their role and may have external reasons for wanting the project to under-perform – leading to them not fighting for the project manager

This means that the project manager has evolved from someone who manages a simple equation of inputs, deliverables, resources and time to an entrepreneurial politician who must negotiate with the organisation about each element of that equation.

This has been acknowledged by the PMBOK, which now includes a tenth area of knowledge called stakeholder management. I have also acknowledged it in my own practice by choosing to only work with project managers who have a very flexible approach to the tracking, recording and ordering role (scheduling, tracking, reporting, etc) and who are also skilled at the campaign side of project management – influencing across all levels of the organisation to get people to willingly, and at the right time, do what the project requires to move it towards success.

Unfortunately very few project managers are highly skilled at the campaign side of project management. This is due to a selection bias, in the past, favouring project managers who were good at tracking, recording and ordering; and training that has not yet evolved to teach the campaign side of project management.

I have some ideas about this which I will outline in my next post. Until then, please comment on what you have observed, or what you think the solution may be.

Projects and programs: we don’t mess around, we just make them happen.

THE LATEST ON PMBOK

Tweet

PMBOK 5th Edition is out. You know I’m a PM tragic (and I hope you are too as it’s important to keep up and on top of what we are doing and the expert field in which we operate). I’d like to think that you were waiting for the Jan release of PMBOK, but I suspect you’ve had other things on your mind. I still think it’s a good idea to get a copy though – I can’t tell you how important I think it is to keep up to date.

However, I live in the real world so I’ve taken the liberty of reading it (yes – while I was on leave and it’s in the category of being at the front of the field) and decided to send you a few snippets. At least you’ll be able to talk about it knowledgeably if anyone asks.

Basically, the book is a lot thicker (an indication that either there is a lot more to say; there was a lot of clarification needed following the last edition; or they’ve found a way to complicate stuff and that always takes up more space to write).

On reading, there isn’t much to worry about, the basics are all there and any changes are mostly minor ones.

The most noticeable change is the addition of a 10th knowledge area. For those of you who are interested, the 9th knowledge area – ‘integration’ – was an Australian inclusion which I can tell you about if you are interested. Now ‘stakeholder management’ has been included. I confess I rolled my eyes because if projects aren’t about stakeholder management the rest is just admin. Anyway, I digress.

The new section, Chapter 13, does what all the chapters do. It describes the knowledge area, breaks it down into components, suggests inputs and outputs and basically provides a framework which isn’t bad.

I found a few things interesting (when you read it you may well find more or different things interesting).

1. It includes four (4) versions of stakeholder identification models….. well it lists them and gives a generic example of one. The models are all good but there is no guidance as to how to slot stakeholders into each model..I found that frustrating and went googling for more detail but it is sparse – I’ve started to work some of that out and will send it through as I get there.

(a) one of the models (salience) sounded very interesting but (and perhaps I’m not very bright) I found the explanations and diagrams I could find on the web a little less than clear – so I am starting again and will share that with you as well.

2. There is a further section in the engagement levels of the stakeholders – they provide 5 but I think there needs to be a sixth…… more on that soon too.

3. My favourite which I arrived at with enthusiasm is the new section 13.2.2.2 (yes it’s very heavy on subbing the paras) Interpersonal skills. There are four dot points explaining why you need them…. to

(a) build trust
(b) resolve conflict
(c) active listening
(d) overcome resistance to change
(perhaps you can spot the problem with the list – but I digress).

That’s it! no explanation, guidance etc. Perhaps….. oh dear, nope, I’ve got nothing.

4. Then there is the section that suggests the value of monitoring stakeholder engagement – a worthy suggestion – addressed with the further suggestion of adjusting your strategies…… sigh…… for a fleeting moment I had hoped for a ‘how to’.

I went away from my reading a bit despondent – I needed more. Then I hit on the idea that the PMBOK is like a filing cabinet with all the folders in place (though for mine I’d move stakeholder stuff to the front not just add it at the end, but no matter) and space for the content (would have been better with some hints about where to get the content but we are smart and will work it out).

I’ll be back soon with some of my interpretations of what is suggested and with some meat on them so you can put them in the folder and actually use them.

In the meantime, and as a teaser, when you are considering stakeholders think about the following elements:

Power: does the person have the power to influence the project deliverables or the organization (legitimate or personal)
Legitimacy: do they have the right by position or influence to impact the project.
Urgency: do they have the ability through whatever means to change the priorities of the project or other stakeholders?

As I said just a teaser.

Enjoy, Diane

Projects and programs: we don’t mess around, we just make them happen.

98% OF OUR CLIENTS GET A CAREER LIFT

Tweet

Hi,
Of all the projects and programs we have delivered (and remediated), 98% of the people we worked for ended up with a promotion, or bigger job.

How do I know this? We’ve kept very good records of our clients and kept in touch so we know where they’ve gone and when. In looking over the past 13 (and a bit) years we can track the effect of successful projects and programs.

Perhaps even more interesting is that for the people originally responsible for delivering a project we later remediated over 80% have gone backwards. Ouch.

And even more interesting again, people responsible for two projects/programs needing remediation are no longer in roles (or employment) where they are in charge of projects and programs (in other words they’ve gone to the wilderness).
Just thought I’d share this information – makes me feel good to realise that we are career boosters!

Enjoy your day, Diane

Portfolios Programs Projects – simply making them happen

HAPPY BIRTHDAY RNC!

Tweet

Good morning,
13 years ago today I got dressed and headed in to work to talk to my boss about coming back after a period of sick leave. You’ve probably heard me talk about the two meetings that took place that day. I walked away, came home and started RNC.

13 years. Wow, it seems both so recent and so long ago. read more

HAPPY 2012!

A busy year approached its end, Santa visited (via an inflatable boat, as you might have noticed), and clocks around the world ticked over to 2012 amidst a glorious global display of fireworks and 24 hour party celebrations.  I hope you found time to rest, relax and re-energise, as I did.  I also enjoyed searching for some thoughts and ideas to inspire you.

And here’s something I found…
From Colin Gautrey, it’s not only interesting reading, but as we return to our  workplaces it is, quite simply, some sensible, straightforward advice to begin the year with.

read more

THE ABRACADABRA RISK MANAGEMENT MANUAL

Tweet

Some time ago, let’s say it was about 2066 years ago, give or take a few months, a certain well known Roman emperor needed to transport his army of 40,000 men, horses and project managers (outsourced PMs, of course) – from Gaul, across the Rhine River, and into Germania to have a look around. “And I want to get there in a hurry!!”, he demanded. But how? Well, perhaps the first thing his PM team did was provide a risk assessment, a mitigation plan, and ensure an effective strategy was in place, in the event of realisation of those risks.
Or maybe not. read more

PROJECT MANAGEMENT – TOP DOWN or BOTTOM UP?

Tweet

Peter Reefman loves his job – and he loves a challenge. He’s been a Project Manager for over ten years, and says that it’s precisely the satisfaction gained from overcoming challenges that makes being a PM such a great career.

Challenges such as resistance to change… Or being expected to manage a project with no control of finances nor any management of the vendor… Technology issues that could not be adequately addressed by a vendor but being told to use it anyway… Or even trying to deliver an effective solution when the solution had been picked before the requirements had been defined… Do these sound familiar to you?

Meeting such challenges and resolving conflicts have gained Peter many accolades from happy, indeed grateful customers. Part of the key to success is in achieving the right equilibrium between senior management and their vision, and the team members and their efficiencies, and Peter’s experiences in the world of PM have enabled him to shed new light on the often debated ‘Top Down v Bottom Up’ approaches.

Recently, Peter’s article, “Project Management – Top Down or Bottom Up” appeared in AIPM’s Project Manager magazine. In it, Peter presented some thoughts on these approaches to planning from a Project Manager’s perspective, and provided ideas and strategies that have helped create a better balance for all those involved.

Read a plain text PDF version of Peter’s article.

Click here to read the PDF version of the original article as it appeared in ‘Project Manager’  (The article was first published in the December/January 2011 issue of Project Manager, magazine of the AIPM (www.aipm.com.au).

In the meantime, Peter continues to love his job.

And his advice to others?