Tweet

- How Do We Get More Done With Less?
        – How do we share resources and use them strategically?
                – How do we execute the strategy with less?

Recently I posed these questions and more in my presentation at CHI’s 9th Annual Strategic Resource Management Conference, held in Philadelphia in early November. I was equipped with some answers too, and you can check out my presentation slides to find out more.

Tweet

And so it’s the final day. The conference hasn’t been as good as usual (in fact I might reconsider next year). It’s a pity. I’ve lain awake wondering what the difference is and finally arrived at an explanation that works for me (apart from the ear infection which I accept changed my experience a tad).

In all the years past, the spirit of the conference has been about contributing. People speak freely, are happy to share (another American term that has totally crept into the lexicon) and there has been an upbeat energy. This year, two things are different. The focus has been on what people can get; there seems to be a lot of talk about managing being mistreated (whether by organisations or individuals), and how to get advantage (power – so very much talk about power); and the energy has been much more subdued, perhaps even verging on resentful. Is it a function of the times where economies, organisations and individuals are feeling threatened, unsure and looking to protect themselves?

Whatever the explanation, it simply hasn’t been as good and as Day 5 closes I haven’t heard the ‘thing’ that makes it all worthwhile.

But in case you are wondering what made me reflect so heavily and uncharacteristically….

Well the last day (and again I find myself wondering if my choices of sessions are all wrong), I’m sitting in a session about autocratic leadership. I’ve sat as far at the back as possible – because to be honest I’m tired and am not committed to seeing this through. Thank goodness for the veritable bucket of coffee I am nursing and sipping (had to move on from the iced tea of the start of the conference as the schedule has worn me down).

So, to autocratic leadership. To quote an advert from a few years ago, ‘tis good’. Yes, it’s official, it seems people believe in, and are starting to employ, autocratic leadership (again). Seems it has many benefits over the perceived inclusive approaches adopted over recent years. I don’t know whether to laugh or cry but the main reason for this employment of autocratic leadership is… wait for it… fewer power struggles… and the power struggles that do happen are of lower intensity, shorter duration and have a limited scope of impact. Well I never.

I hope you don’t mind, but with that pearl of wisdom – and I did stay for the whole session hoping for more – I’ve decided to call it a day on AoM 2011.

However, it is true that I’ve long believed that benevolent dictatorship is the way to get things done in projects so perhaps the rest of the world is finally catching up with me… sorry, dropped off in the fantasy there. Ooops… head shake for clarity and I’m back in the real world.

Love to hear your thoughts and see what you think about any and all of my observations across the conference. And of course if you fancy drinking from the fire hose of management thought mark your diary for next year – and maybe you can send me the updates and I’ll take a break? Can’t blame a girl for trying.

Hope you are well and looking forward to seeing you soon, best regards, Diane

Tweet

Hi,
Sorry about the interruption to sending my updates – a middle ear infection got between me and most everything I wanted to do. I got to the sessions though, and my thoughts follow.
Well Day Two proved to be interesting and not about projects at all – unless of course we’re talking about the people side of projects (actually, that really is what projects are all about….)… but I digress.

Session 1 opened with a quote from John Adams – “No man who has ever held the office of President of these United States of America (DD comment – why do the Americans never shorten reference to their country to the US, they always say it in full?) would congratulate a friend on obtaining it”.

It was followed by a lengthy description of the curse of power and some research that powerful people are less happy than everyone else. There was no assessment of which comes first – the desire for power in sad people or power making people sad….and in any case the argument doesn’t elicit much sympathy from me. But it does raise a curious ill feeling when I think that maybe only sad people come to power? No, I simply can’t buy that. It’s too depressing.

There was also commentary on whether the role determines behaviour. (Did the Wall Street behaviour happen because of the positions in which people found themselves or did the people who would behave that way seek the positions in which they could behave that way?) My head is spinning and I’m not sure I’m following the logic…. at this point I realise my head is literally spinning and it turns out to be the onset of the damned ear infection.

Ok, I’m back. The rest of the sessions also reflected on power with observations such as: “power allows for influence by control” whereas competence “allows power because other people follow the person’s abilities and capabilities”. And, “the further up the ladder a person is, the less likely they are to retain power longer term because elevated roles allow little time for thought and reflection”.

Also seems that the more power you have, the less likely you are to get honest feedback, and group discussion and brainstorming sessions are constrained when one person is perceived to have significantly more power than anyone else.

There were lots of case studies and examples drawn from news stories but pretty much I concluded that if you’ve managed to survive in the work world for even a few years you know this implicitly, if not explicitly.

The only thing I found useful and it was described through the backward focus of Wall Street etc, is that there are two perspectives from which people take, own, and use power.

1. The first is socialised power, where the people are concerned with the success of those around them and are seen as successful and powerful for the benefits they bring to others (regardless of whether they have power associated with any position;
2. The second is personalised power, where people are concerned with the status and prestige associated with occupying powerful positions, and are seen as powerful because of how they use the power – usually through a desire to win out over others and by coercion, restriction of freedom and fear.

There were case studies and assessments of people perceived to have both styles of power and how well they have done (short and long term) – I’ll leave it to you to think about who you know and how they operate.

BUT, and yes I’m bring it back to project management, more and more PM’s are required to use socialised power, as PM positions aren’t seen as powerful in their own right. It’s becoming less and less effective to use personalised power, as few people are allocated totally to one project. We have to develop socialised power in order to work in and across organisations effectively. (I reckon it’s the hardest and sets the best apart from the rest).

Something to think about.

Anyway, I’ll be back with an update on Day 3 that is hopefully more fun to read and more informative. I’m still looking for another case study to equal the Rocky Flats or South West Airlines accounts of past years – studies that are worth getting excited about and compelling enough to share.

Keep smiling, Diane

Tweet

Hi,
Each year I make a pilgrimage to the Academy of Management (AoM) conference. It’s the largest global gathering of people interested in all things management and this year it’s in San Antonio and has attracted over 9000 people. It’s hot (the weather).

People ask me why I go, and the answer is really simple. I want, and need, to stay up to date with the thoughts and activities and requirements of the people who hire us. To do that I need to listen and learn to what they are saying. What they see are the biggest issues facing them; what they hear is changing and what is being done to address current and future threats and opportunities.Projects, programs and portfolios are usually high on the list of things they are interested in so I try to get to a cross section of sessions – some directly relating to PM and others to more general management stuff.

This year the theme of the conference is West meets East and there are way more sessions that interest me than I can possibly fit into the schedule – is there a law that says all the good sessions will be concurrent?

Day 1 and I have my schedule all worked out, and leap into the fray with enthusiasm, dedication and commitment. Session 1 promises to be fabulous and I feel all bright eyed and shiny. It’s about action research – or as I’ve come to know it, research that happens along side the event rather than observations made afterwards. I’m particularly interested because in projects and programs there is precious little research carried out throughout the life of an endeavour. There are lots of reasons for this and I’ve deduced the three main ones:

• It’s easier and better for researchers to adopt the published body of knowledge about project and program success and judge projects against them retrospectively and determine that failures in application of tools, processes etc are the root cause (you know, those formulaic health checks with tick boxes and recommendations to do the paperwork and method better – I often joke that I could produce one for any given project without even meeting people or looking at anything and it would be as right and useful as any of the others, oh, and the same goes for post implementation reviews);
• While some orgs may agree to being watched during a project, when they near failure the standard response is to cancel the research and withdraw the rights to report on it; and
• Both, the people who want the outcomes and, the people charged with delivering them know that most likely they will fail and don’t want people along for the ride.

The problem with both these is they aren’t helping actually point out what works. The last great piece of research on a successful project was Rocky Flats and that’s now 4 years old. And while the project/program and its leaders won acclaim; and the action research conducted during the life of the project pointed to a whole lot of things that lead to success (other than the body of knowledge or methods) people seem to have arrived at a collectively unconscious position of ignoring the evidence and continuing to do what doesn’t work.

Why? Well I think it’s simply easier to follow the pack and do what everyone else is doing. Sure they might fail, but so does everyone else so it’s ok.

I think I’m getting a big jaded and want to stand up and yell that there has to be a way – but I don’t. Instead I am turning my mind to how to get the message across but lyrics to the song, “…they’re not listening, they’re not listening still; perhaps they never will” are on a loop in my head.

Perhaps the next session will provide some clues.

Wow, this session is interesting, it’s on the correlation between portfolio management offices and the success of projects, programs, portfolios and enterprises. Wait for it – it’s negative. Oh dear. A lovely sound bite though in summary “compared to it’s diffusion in practice, evidence of benefit is very small”.  “A dubious consensus of the benefit to organisations is widely accepted”

I did get a definition of a PMO though that I think is useful in that it makes no claim of increasing the success of initiatives or the organisations that hire them. Blichfeldt and Eskerod (2008) define Project Portfolio Management as “managerial activities that relate to the initial screening, selection and prioritization of project proposals, the concurrent reprioritizations of projects in the portfolio, and the allocation and reallocation of resources according to priority”.  I can live with that – it makes no claim whatsoever that PPM/PMO actually contribute to improved performance (deck chairs? Titanic?).  I conclude after listening a bit longer that the message is, PMO’s are admin functions providing lots of information about where things across the portfolio are up to…  So, who is making things succeed?  Or in reality, not succeed?

Another definition I like – “Project portfolio is a group of projects that compete for scarce resources and are conducted under the sponsorship or management of a particular organisation or area within an organisation”.  I’ll keep this one for reference.

This email is getting too long so I’ll finish with a few lines from the day’s remaining sessions:

“It’s increasingly common to move staff off succeeding projects to help out failing ones. And like a virus this results in the succeeding one being infected with failure”

“As staff switch back and forth between projects and tasks productivity gradually decreases and overall performance becomes increasingly degraded”

“There is no empirical evidence regarding the effect/benefit of portfolio management”

“The root cause of failure is over allocated staff – this made me laugh out loud, it’s not the allocation; it’s the planning, the PM skills and expectation management, um, isn’t that supposed to be project management? Meaning that the real root cause of project failure is a failure of project management.

And my favourite of the day – “there is evidence that organisations with higher project success have a higher portfolio performance” Meaning where more projects go well the better the organisational outcome. Right.

Ok, back tomorrow, best regards, Diane

Tweet

CHI and the BioPharma Strategy Series’ Ninth Annual Strategic Resource Management Conference will be held later this year in Philadelphia. The Sixth Annual Portfolio Management Conference is also included in the 3 day event. The conferences will feature presentations from industry thought leaders on the latest innovations in resource management, commercial strategies, R&D and portfolio management.

RNC is delighted to be a corporate sponsor, and is also pleased to announce that Diane will be speaking.  If you’re interested, check out the link below for full details.

Diane is presenting on Day 1 (Nov 8th)  -  and if your resource strategies are causing you to wonder: “the question is how?”,  you’ll be excited to know that she will be offering answers to this complex question, and indeed, you might soon be wondering: “the answer is…. Why didn’t I think of that before?”

Keep watching for news on the event plus Diane’s day by day perspectives on the speakers and presentations.

 Click here for further conference details.

I thought it would be a good idea to present some insight and overview on the conferences I attended last week.  

I chose to attend the first –  the International Conference of Global Studies -because it focused on global management – overall management not just related to projects.  I was invited to speak, but I wanted to give you a bit of a brief on what I heard and learned.

This conference had my total attention because, according to the organizers, the second biggest challenge facing organisations globally is project management.  Good news – I think.  

I listened attentively and the following are my take-aways:

Virtual is reality and we have to find ways of making things happen without physical face to face (this was a repeating theme and there are some really smart people out there working on it)

Creativity, innovation and problem solving are greatest in unregulated environments – people need the freedom to think (in direct conflict with the current increase in governance, control and reporting across organisations).

There is evidence the ‘cost’ of accurate information is becoming greater than the benefits – we are starting to behave as though information is the output rather than the deliverables.  (We’ve all seen that)

There is no evidence better tracking information gets better results. (but it does support forensic defensibility of failure – DD editorial)

The documentation provided by project managers is not an indication of competence. (Ouch – but I guess we knew that)

The most effective, cheapest, quickest method of causing change is compliance enforcement with consequences – (parents already knew that one)!

Trust improves outcomes (well I’ll be).

The leader is the best prospective indicator of success – including a project leader.

The co- creation method is a good idea that will work when everyone plays nicely – really?  But to reduce the impact of failure in the interim the only shortcut is extremely clear delineation of roles and responsibilities. (do you hear the music playing to my ears?)

Project managers need to be able to ‘boundary span’. – if that sentence doesn’t make sense ask me and I’ll explain.

Projects that start with a fuzzy front end will end with a fuzzy back end – and the problem will be the project manager will think it was successful.

Entrenched beliefs aren’t always right – and some PM beliefs could stand some scrutiny.

The best way to get a project done is to command the outcome, then disperse decision making and empower delivery (based on the theory of 4th)

Democratization – and yes I had to research that too but basically it’s about determining the outcome and then supporting the org at all levels to make it happen by self direction at all levels.

The characteristics most likely to be found in people who succeed in organisations (projects and line) are:

Curiosity,

Creativity,

A sense of adventure,

Ambition, ingenuity and problem solving skills

The ability to connect the dots, and

See both the trees and the forest

Being insightful and impactful

They tend to be boundary spanners

 Ok, so some of this is out there – suggesting less governance and paperwork?  Focussing on outcomes?  Rating the ability of the leader above technical ability and knowledge?  But, these are the people who are looking at how to improve outcomes of organisations – not just projects – so perhaps we should listen?

The observation I am left with is that what we are doing to achieve project outcomes is only respected as far as the paperwork but we are not connected to outcomes.  That’s a bummer!

So the questions are:

 Is PM about delivery?

 If yes, can we reclaim the reputation for achieving?

 If no – get me outta here!

 More tomorrow and this time from a Project Management conference.

Keep smiling, Diane

Tweet

Hi again,
I know I promised this yesterday but instead I spent the time debating with myself about what to say.  You see, in recent times I haven’t been going to project management conferences, preferring instead to go to the conferences where the people who ‘use’ project managers hang out.  (And just for clarity please note that my use of the terms project and program, manager and director are interchangeable for these purposes – the people other people look to, to get things done).

However, I agreed to speak at the PMI Pharmaceutical project management conference in the US last week and was hopeful that things had changed.  That perhaps the conversation would be around delivery rather than process and outcomes rather than tracking, reporting and analysis? The first thing I became aware of was, each session was to have a limited number of chairs (about 80 by my count) – I queried this and it was explained that it caused people to get there early if they wanted a seat at the session of their choice and was ‘fairer’ to all speakers as all streams would have the same number of people.  Gob smackingly stupid but there you have it!  Nevertheless I fronted up and took a seat (I’ve learned my lesson at conferences and now always take a seat at the end of a row far enough back that I can get out if snoring is likely to become a problem).

 Almost immediately I had to check that I was in the right conference.  Had I wandered into an accounting conference?   No, this is the right one…  but why are they talking about accounting principles and triple bottom line?  Perhaps it’s the jet lag?  I’m pretty sure I dozed off right after “we are the process police” said proudly and with determination with a slightly upturned and jutting chin (it was almost too much – if I was closer that chin could have taken a bopping, but I snoozed).

 The next session was a bit better, talking about leadership as being the only thing that really matters in order to deliver outcomes – I’m sitting up now – outcomes is something I am interested in.  This speaker even went as far as to list the attributes of successful PMs:

• Strategic and business acumen
• Ability to lead
• Analytical thinking
• Ability to energize people
• Organised
• Not totally reliant on evidence based decision making.

Well now, I am thinking to myself – this is starting to align with the thinking of the management conference I just went to – perhaps there is some convergence?  But the presentation ended there – a great description but no real help.

Next session (there is a theme here I got to the ones that looked promising and avoided the ones on tool use). This speaker also had a list of attributes of the ‘good’ project manager:

• Flexible and willing to accommodate changing needs.
• Able to utilize financial, organisational and risk information
• Ability to adjust approach to suit environment
• Aligns project focus with company goals
• Able to assign, prioritize and monitor activity and progress.

So, moving right along……………..

I then went to a few sessions on the pharmaceutical industry – they were interesting. Hearing about the pressures on the industry, the changes that are taking place, the move towards personalized medicine and the increasing use of outsourced research organisations.

Then it was back to a project focussed session and the highlight, ‘for me’, was my first sighting of PMI’s new triangle of constraints – well it’s no longer a triangle because it now has six sides and in addition to cost, time and quality, now includes risk, scope and something else but I can’t read my notes.

I’m going to stop the session by session report here – my blood pressure is starting to rise.  But I will comment on one more session which was a case study of the project of merging two really big pharmas.  Loved it.  All about leadership and it did actually provide some clues on how to check yourself to see if you are leading or managing – actually a really good presentation.

But overall, I came away a little down.  How is it that I am part of a profession so inwardly focussed that we don’t even acknowledge that the people who want stuff done have a different view of us than we do?

After some consideration I decided that I’ve changed tribes – I am much more business outcome aligned than project aligned – in fact I think it was always so, but project management was also aligned that way – before we became the ‘process police’.

So, my mission from now on is no longer to report the negatives about what people think about us, or what I think of the profession, but to focus on what has to happen to achieve business outcomes regardless of who does it and what they are called.  I will seek the answers and report progressively.

Thanks for reading this far, please watch out for incoming on the positives of what can be done, who’s doing it and how we can help our clients, stakeholders and ourselves.

Best regards, Diane

View my presentation below:

Portfolios Programs Projects – simply making them happen

On Monday 28th February I presented a paper at the 2011 International Conference of the Association of Global Management Studies, which has just concluded in Las Vegas. The conference provided opportunities for networking and collaboration amongst scholars from academia, industry and government, and encouraged papers on any aspect of management and business.My presentation was entitled, “Project Management – Contemporary Issues – Contemporary Answers – Generation Y”, and I explored why there is a credibility gap, proposed two approaches to address the gap and finally, focused on the opportunity presented by Generations Y and Z for updating project management, moving it to the forefront of importance within organisations.

On the strength of my presentation I’ve been invited to ‘swing by’ Washington on my way home to talk to the Faculty of Business at Mary Washington University, so I’m looking forward to presenting my case study material and my views on the reality of PM. But before that, I’ll be in Durham, North Carolina speaking at a Pharmaceutical conference – more about that later.

In the meantime, the following links will take you to the full version of my paper, my powerpoint presentation and also the AGMS website.

• Full version of my presentation
• AGMS Powerpoint document
• AGMS website

It’s an interactive workshop and I’ll be one of the guest speakers, so mark it in your diary. It should be fun!

To register for this event, or for further information:

Email:  wipmevents@sydney.pmi.org.au.

Tweet

Doltone House, located on the Darling Harbour Wharf in Sydney, was the venue for the PMAA’s NSW Chapter Day Forum 2010. The forum focused on the future – the year 2020 to be precise.  

I was delighted to take part, and as one of the afternoon’s key speakers, my presentation was entitled, “Dinosaurs Or Nanotechnology – Which One Will We Be In 2020?”.  Of course the future is naturally difficult to predict, but it was interesting to be given the opportunity to present my thoughts on what direction our industry might be heading in, based on our industry’s track record in general.  

My key topics were:

• Does extinction loom or are we part of the very fabric of the future?
• There is no question that projects are part of the future but what of those of us who ply the trade?
• Will we adapt and thrive or be taken over by better adapted technology and people?

In other words – How we see ourselves, How others see us, Our value, and Our path to criticality of the future.

Below is a summary of some of my main topic points, which you might find thought provoking. 

We Have Confused Our Brand

• And as anyone with a brand or working in the field of brand management will tell you confusing your brand is bad.
• We think and say we are one thing, people who pay for us think and say we are something else
• Accepted reality is that what we say, and what we do are not aligned.

 We are perceived as not adding real value

• We have taken ourselves off the critical path to success
• We are often seen in the same category as accounts (not finance), procurement, HR
• Interesting and required but not on the front line
• Projects are the very definition of front line – we are doing things that make a difference to tomorrow in organisations.
• We have allowed a significant disconnect between what we do and are proud of and what the people who pay for our services want.
• And trust me, another round of telling people how good and important we are will not work – we have to demonstrate it.

Nature abhors a vacuum

• In the vacuum we left, sponsors and business owners have taken up the space.  (increasingly full time)
• While we are focussing on structure, models, tools, artefacts and methods – they are owning delivery, they are doing our jobs.
• Organisations haven’t seen the benefits and have replaced us – we just didn’t notice
• Sponsors and business owners are now doing the work that used to be our domain  – and we are doing more admin.
• But there is an opportunity arising – some researchers have concluded that only 16% of what we now call projects actually fit the definition of being unique – the rest could be undertaken by changes in BAU.

So we have a choice

• Continue on the path and proudly own our passive reporting, planning and scheduling space – with the inevitable slide in perceived value and amounts people are willing to pay for our services  – mention conference a few years ago – $60K PA
• Or take stock and own the active elements of delivery
• Or a hybrid.

If we want passive

• We don’t have to do anything
• We can settle back and there will be work – lower level work, we won’t be in steering committees, our salaries will be lower (its ok but we won’t be part of the front line team – we’ll be the support crew)
• There will always be a role, just not one I want.

If we want active

• We need to distinguish projects not US.
• Major, minor, etc  (what we call ourselves does not matter now)
• We each need to decide what types of projects WE do.  Not every one of us can deliver every size of project.
• We need to get other people to do our paperwork – it isn’t going away but surgeons aren’t counting the instruments and sterilizing the rooms while they are conducting surgery.
• We need to study what is working  – report it and replicate it
• Stop doing paper based health checks – success isn’t an accident!! Look for what went right!
• Spread the stories of success….speak highly of each other!
• Seek and recruit heavy duty PMs. The people who can deliver the hardest, gnarliest projects regardless of domain – they probably won’t have accreditation until we come up with something meaningful (meaning can be relied on for a base line of capability)
•  And most importantly?    FOCUS ON OUTCOMES!!

For more information about the AIPM’s chapter events check out their website: www.aipm.com.au