AOM 2010 has drawn to a close, but as I said yesterday there was one more session I hadn’t commented on. Its title was “Project Success” and as tired as I was, and as reluctant as I was to potentially go to a downer after the high of the last session, I felt I had to go.It was very poorly attended – which meant it was going to be hard to sneak out if  it was rubbish.  The first person I met was a senior staffer responsible for project delivery at the US Department of Defence – I understand why he’d be interested in success!  The others were the, by now,  familiar faces either interested in the subject or feeling they had the answer, and no one was listening.

Ok, lots of stats were shared… repeated the World Bank statistic that 25% of the global economy is now dependent on projects and 80% are considered failures – oh dear, stifling a yawn, why did I sit so close to the front?!!  Eyeing moments for escape.

And just then it happened!… The first new thought on the subject I have heard at the conference. (As excited as I was about the airline story it wasn’t strictly a story about projects – though I challenge anyone not to benefit from extrapolation.

There is some research on the types of projects (remember no one but us cares whether they are called projects or programs or portfolios – these people were studying and reporting on initiatives where organisations want a specific outcome).

I’ll cut right to it. They have discovered (yes, discovered) that there are actually different types of projects!  Well I’ll be!  Further, they have discovered that PM tools and methods do not work for most of the projects – (well I’d argue that they don’t work for any if you restrict the craft to the admin aspects and remove through governance any chance of a PM actually driving an outcome!)

It seems that of all projects, only 16% fit the description of delivering a unique outcome – which means, oh dear, I’ll have to think about it. The debate got very lively from this point and I forgot all plans to escape. It was actually fun to hear the cut and thrust of debate, and while I was astounded that there was ever any research to determine the difference it does at least give me something to think about on the long flight home.  What if only 16% of what are called projects are only projects? And what if we could call them something else—- Oh, I forgot that most of the big advances and important outcomes to orgs are dependent on those 16%.  Is there a chance we can rescue PM from its slide into irrelevance? Is there a chance we can abandon the 84% of ‘projects’ to the people who are chasing accreditation and failure and concentrate on regaining our reputation for delivering the hard stuff? 

Oh, the questions go on… and on…. and on, but I’m on the job.  I am seeing the Head of Microsoft Project in Seattle in a few days – think I’ll open up the subject with him and see what he thinks.

This isn’t  funny or even very informative,  but there is light at the end of the otherwise depressing tunnel of the state of the profession.  (Actually I am speaking at the PMAA event in Sydney on the 2^nd September and the topic is “Dinosaurs or Nanotechnology – Which will we be in 2020”…. Not only do I have some altered thoughts, I have a forum for sharing – life is good!

Well finally, back to the Black Swan.  Long, long ago in a land far away, there were swans. They cruised the rivers and had a feature in common that was easily observable – they were all white.  Seems reasonable.  So, when Swans were defined the definition included ‘white’.  Then, and this is why I like this story, Australia was discovered and we have BLACK SWANS! Apparently lots of them but I haven’t looked yet!  Why is it relevant to PM? Well most organisations think that their project failure is a one off and won’t be repeated – rare – but in fact there are lots of black swans – and they aren’t a surprise except if you only believe in white swans.  Well it appealed to me and there are books on the topic by Nassim Nicholas Taleb – I’ve got that book too but I haven’t read it yet so I am only going on what I heard at the conference.

Well that’s it for another year. It’s a privilege to have attended and such a shot in the arm to be able to spend time reflecting and soaking up other peoples’ thinking.  Glad you have enjoyed these updates.

I have a few more on specific topics related to PM which I am sending out internally but if you’d like copies of those too please let me know.  

Thanks for your comments and feedback, and…

 Keep smiling! … Diane

Ok, I promised I’d finish off the Southwest story. After James F. Parker finished there were several speakers who analysed Southwest and its success.  Again, at the risk of incompleteness I will summarise here: 

• Set up the system to serve employees first (there was acknowledgement that this doesn’t mean doing everything they want and nor does it mean that everyone is a good fit for the culture)
• Hire for attitude (once aptitude is confirmed – e.g. no point having a really jolly pilot who can’t land in a storm)
• Encourage staff at all levels to own the customer experience – there are no rules limiting what staff can do to help a passenger – assuming that the passenger is asking for something reasonable – remember form yesterday – Do The Right Thing.
• When the passenger is simply wrong, unreasonable, too demanding, a pain in the butt, be polite but don’t cave. Southwest Airlines staff do not have to be treated badly by anyone.
• Encourage staff to use their intuition, over any rules, when it comes to solving a problem.
• When there is a threat, be aware of response rigidity) a phrase I haven’t heard before but was described as when things look bad the most common reaction is to tighten the reigns, bring things back under central control, cut costs etc. There were several examples of where Southwest went against that and it paid off big time.
• Link actions with vision – if you want to be the most friendly airline, make sure everyone is friendly (when the CEO flies he hands out the nuts and smiles!). They also have a regular competition for the person with the biggest hole in their sock – can’t imagine plane full of Australians readily taking off their shoes to compare sock holes – but hey, its an image that does delight my mind.
• Chose to reward based on psychology rather than financial reward – this is a biggie and I think probably the core of the story. Southwest does not hire the most expensive people, nor does it pay the highest but its 401k plan is the best out there (I of course have to go on the word of these people).  In fact this whole subject could be an email on its own but suffice to say they are credited with having used personal psychology to reward people rather than shorter term higher financial rewards.
• Mistakes are fine – in favour of the client – but not to be habit forming.
• All staff are able to articulate their shared purpose (including their social purpose)
• All staff understand the whole of the operation of the airline – not in minutiae of course but to the extent they know how and why things work and where they fit in (I started to get really excited now as it’s the very way I do projects – but again I digress).
• Always invest in relationships with staff and customers
• (At this point it wandered off into some heavy academic stuff such as broadening role identity, social empowerment etc – but I think we’ve got the picture)

James came back to round out the session, doing a very good impression of humility, and gave a serve about the increasing governance, rules and scrutiny in business and said quite simply – you can’t legislate character.  He concluded with a repetition of his opening that it didn’t matter what secrets he gave away, we won’t adopt them because:

• There is a long tradition in business of thinking of yourself first
• There is a belief that financial rewards are the ones that drive good outcomes
• Business schools teach about control and monitoring
• People are simply too scared to try something different – even if its been proven to work! 

His final words were that he hopes we understand the “economic imperative of empowerment”.

As I said yesterday, I bought the book and I’m enjoying it – it really is worth a read (lots of copies have been ordered so please don’t hesitate to let me know if you’d like one).

Well this is a bit longer than I’d hoped it would be and there is still the final PM presentation to tell you about –and I’ve been reminded that I promised to tell you about the Black Swan.  So. I’ll stop now and do one more tomorrow.  Hoping that’s ok.

Best regards, Diane

The session was about Southwest Airlines and presented by its ex CEO James F Parker (I was in North America; you have to use the middle initial).  Now he is a one commanding speaker.  

He started by giving the facts and figures about Southwest Airlines. It’s big, it’s the most successful, passengers and staff love it, it has a cult following and it makes a profit (very, very rare in the airline industry).  It has a reputation for being cheap and cheerful (with emphasis on the cheerful), and loyalty to it is astounding.  Ok, I knew all that and clearly, so did the other few hundred people who turned up to listen, or we wouldn’t have been there. 

He started with a very simple statement, “I love Southwest and would never do anything to hurt it, but I am going to give you the secret to its success”. There was an intake of breath in the audience and then an anticipation-filled silence.  He continued. “You see, you won’t believe me and even if you do, you won’t do anything about it”.  Now that was a gutsy statement! 

And so the story unfolded, it was entertaining and informative and the key secret was Look After Your Staff First and the Rest Will Follow.

Now there was plenty of explanation about that and some guiding principles which he provided (these are the ones they actually use): 

• Do The Right Thing (no ifs and or buts)
• If you are going to make a mistake, make it in favour of the client

Yep, that’s it, the whole list.  He has written a book called Do The Right Thing – which I have now read and digested – if you’d like a copy please let me know as I am ordering a bunch.

To reinforce the above James told the moving story of 9/11 from his perspective as CEO. 

As soon as they knew that there was a crisis they also knew that people would become scared to fly – so they immediately issued a statement that all and every ticket would be completely refunded without question to anyone wanting that. This single decision could have taken the airline to the wall.  But instead of people chasing refunds, there were lots of people who sent in cheques(!),  saying that the airline had stood by them so they’d stand by it – wow!  Employees went the extra mile and there were myriad examples of employees driving stranded passengers in their own cars, providing care and assistance, etc.  There were lots and lots of stories but in the end Southwest made a profit, no staff were stood down or took a pay cut and not one single flight was cancelled once the US allowed commercial flights to resume.

Some time after 9/11,  James was speaking at a conference and was telling this story and a crusty old dude stood up and said, “This might all be bull sh*t, I notice there is a table of people from Southwest over there” .  “You”, he said pointing to a woman at the table, “What is it about Southwest that makes it successful?”.  She reportedly stood up and without missing a beat said, “Well, I love working for Southwest because it loves me back”.

I’ll stop there, but the session then went on with several people providing Southwest stories and analysing aspects of why it’s successful.  I paid full attention to every word – and there is a wealth of stuff there that I’ll bring to you in tomorrow’s final update of the conference.

Oh, this one wasn’t about PM but it was timed, I heard – something positive!

Best regards, Diane

As for the other days there were several presentations so I’ll only highlight here the consistent comments across them.  If you’d like more just call and I can draw from the copious notes I took.  (comments in italics are mine)

• Project management has evolved as a discipline that is a miss match to what orgs want (oh dear, here we go again)
• The most effective PMs are able to access and use memories of other places and times and amend what they are doing to fit the world they find themselves in (now we’re talking)
• Project managers seem to be blinded by their own training (heavy sigh)
• Getting PMs to manage and not do the domain work is a big challenge and seen as an obstacle to success – but the PM does need to be a quick learner of culture, language and drivers to succeed…(I’m good with that as it speaks to our main philosophy at RNC).
• Project Management is moving down from mid-level to lower level skill requirement –as it is being avoided for actual delivery and used for admin…..(sad but apparently true)
• Most success stories of projects had something in common, they chose not to match PMs to the domain of the project (now that’s interesting) and the PMs kind of ignored the PM rules…..  (There were lots of examples sited here and I sat on the edge of my chair soaking it up as it was music to me ears.)
• Project failure is sustainable in orgs reporting a determination to build PM experience and capability (no – sh*t – shows that effective PMs want and need variety – and they don’t seek the perceived safety of permanent employment)

 And so ended the day ………… tomorrow still remains and I’m starting with a session on Southwest Airlines – one of the most successful companies in the US…….. can’t wait! And then there is the session on positive deviance – no jokes please!!!

Oh, and remind me to tell you about Black Swans as well…….things are finally looking brighter.  (And to the people who have asked why I persist in reporting stuff that apparently goes against RNC’s business – the reality is I care less about the ‘profession’ of PM than I do about being part of the answer to achieving what people want achieved – you can snigger if you like, but its true).

Best wishes,  Diane.

• The outcomes they want – actually delivered
  • Without forensic defensibility being the main focus
• Updates and reports that mean something to the business
• PMs who are multi lingual
• PMs who lead teams not just chase tasks or update plans
• PMs with the soft skills to get along with people and work with the realities of business
• PMs who are ready, willing and able to work in and across the organisation
• PMs who can fit and blend in and continue to deliver
• PMs with critical and conceptual thinking ability
• PMs who work with the business not expect the business to work with them
• PMs who cost the same as the people doing BAU – apparently we haven’t done well enough to justify the prices we generally expect
• More heavy duty PMs (this is a phrase and subject that came up often and I’ll do a bit more looking into it and give you and update in a day or two)
• Help us understand consequences of what we are doing – retrospective predictability of failure is a waste of time and money and we don’t like the attitude. 

Ok, there is a pattern developing here so I’ve decided to paraphrase – they simply want people who can understand the strategy and the business and make the strategic outcomes happen. This means they need BAU people and people who can make stuff outside BAU happen (even while using BAU people). Oh, and they don’t want to pay much…Now, what could be easier than that!

 I listened to presentations from several universities and here is what they are doing:

• Adding psychologists to the faculty
• Insisting that all PM scholars are assessed by psychologists and ‘helped’ with their personal development when needed
• Insisting that every student does a real life project under supervision before they can graduate
• And one very forward thinking uni has set up with universities in other countries to run real projects across time, culture domain etc and the grades for the PM students and the students in other courses learning to work in projects are tied.  So, the PM doesn’t pass if the project fails and the team fails if the PM is useless.  Now that’s a radical idea and it seems to be working and reportedly it is a real job seeking edge to have completed this course (this course has been conceived and is being run by a woman).
• Note: not one mention anywhere of better or more methods or tools – it is all about making things happen through people!

Ok, that’s about it for today. 

Back tomorrow, Diane

A couple of statistics to start the day…..there were 9000 people at the conference and 1800 presentations, I attended 38 sessions (that’s only 2% – but trust me I was really working hard to get to so many – they were either 1.5 or 2 hours long – each!), of those I attended there were 6 female speakers (or 15%).  Of those 15% only two of the women presented full on papers, the others were there on panels or as discussants (a nice role that I don’t see at any other event).  Anyway, that means that substantive papers were presented by women only 5% of the time.  As I said, I attended as many as I could but it is possible that the sessions I chose were biased in some way – but still…

Ok, enough of that and back to the conference…

The bleating continued about projects and project managers and it seemed everyone had a story to tell about poor project and program management. (Remember these are management people not PMs and a couple of times I had to stop myself from thinking I’d somehow wandered into an alternate universe because as when I attend PM events there are all these PMs talking about how clever we are – and how successful)  How could there be such a huge gap?

I listened carefully and repeat here a summation of what was said – not by one or even two presenters but by lots of them:

• Project and program failure transcends culture, industry, language, geography, education and credentials
• Project management (as credentialed – I did not make up that word – by the PMI) assumes a disconnect between managing the project and achieving an outcome
• Project managers believe they are there to deliver the ‘what’ and that the ‘why ‘has nothing to do with them
• 25% of the world’s economy is now dependent on projects (and some countries are approaching 100%) again, not my figures.
• PM doesn’t work well for virtual teams, and there has been no advance on achieving the virtual PM
• PM’s are too focused on rules rather than delivery

If PM is to arrest its relentless slide into irrelevance (do I need to say again – I didn’t make this up) we need to:

•  Own and deliver outcomes – simple
• Get with the virtual world
• Get with the need for softer (people and psych) skills
• Take responsibility for outcomes – including the why of doing things
• Learn to live in the real world of people working on projects and BAU at the same time.
• Learn to focus on delivery rather than the tools and our trade
• Become multi- lingual
• Keep up to date – on business practices not just PM
• We need to join the business, not see ourselves as separate and special.
• Demonstrate value through delivery
• Stop the march towards credentials that don’t appear to contribute to delivery

Well needless to say I was even more down by now and a bit disappointed as well. It’s always the easiest job to criticise but there didn’t seem to be much going on here in the way of positive contribution to an improvement.

So, the next sessions I am focused on are about the latest and greatest in PM education – now that sounds like where I’ll get some positive stuff…  I’ll let you know how that goes tomorrow.

Until then, remember reading is optional and being a PM is optional too…

Best regards, Diane

SINGAPORE:    The trip started with meetings in Singapore where the conversations were all pretty much the same.  “Projects are in trouble, can’t afford to fix them, I’ll get the money to fix it when it fails”.  Of course I explored the why of failure and was surprised with the low level of regard held by executives towards project managers (not ours of course) but generally I’d say its true that project and program people are considered as expensive agents of failure – ouch!   (I could go on here but it gets a bit depressing so I’ll move on…)

LONDON:    On to London where I hoped the recent financial crisis might bring me more uplifting PM stories.  Alas, it was the same thing!!!  What’s happening here?  I’d be lying if I didn’t confess that I was a bit down by these conversations – down but at the same time curiously energized as I know we can make a difference and the only obstacle to that is ridding the world of poor PMs.  

(Well ok, I know that’s no small obstacle but I figure what we need to do is find a way to enable people to allow themselves to succeed and to do that we need to be able to explain why and how effective PMs contribute/are different etc – if they know the difference hopefully they’ll choose for it.)……

MONTREAL … AND AOM – THE CONFERENCE!:  And so I arrived in Montreal for the Academy of Management annual conference.  Over 9000 people attended the 5 day conference and there were over 1800 sessions to choose from (boy, was that hard).  They have a cool system where you can choose your preferred sessions before the conference and plan your days (there were sessions starting at 4.30am – I kid you not – and most evenings finished very late – this conference requires stamina, determination and commitment if you are to get the best out of it).

 Of course I planned to attend every session that discussed project, program or portfolio management as this is the place where these subjects are discussed in the context of overall management – as against the inward looking subjects often covered at project conferences.  And so at 8am on day one (I confess I did not make any sessions earlier than that) I turned up at a session called ‘Closing the Talent Gap in Project Management’.  Excitedly I took my seat and waited to have oceans of advanced thinking and good ideas wash over me.

 Well it was interesting but wasn’t what I was expecting.  It was more of an explanation of the ‘talent gap’ as viewed by executives and project/program people.  I’ve drawn a picture (attached as I am not good at drawing in outlook).  Before you look at it, the presenters were the PMI – development representative and three heads of PM education at Universities. (Whilst there was no executive representative, I got the feeling that their research was valid – and they are seriously looking to help).

 So please have a look at the attachment and then I’ll be back, tomorrow with the next instalment – but don’t worry I won’t give you a summary of EVERY session, this one just sets the tone…….

 Ok, I’ll get up and out to some meetings and hopefully will soon be able to report some positive stories about project/program management.

Please direct all questions to me, I have pages and pages and pages of notes and am delighted to share.   Best regards, Diane

Click here to view the attachment – “Project Management – The Talent Gap”: http://www.slideshare.net/rncglobal/talent-gap-aom-2010-192010

Effective project and program managers are always looking forward. Looking for potential hurdles, challenges, and obstacles; then moving or planning around them so they don’t impede progress. Such people have a good handle on whether and when success will be declared.

Ineffective project and program managers are always looking backwards. Telling you what’s gone wrong and where things were up to the last time they reported. Not helpful.

Unfortunately there are far more ineffective than effective project managers, and in an attempt to mitigate the impact of the ineffective, there’s been a significant increase in reporting requirements on projects and programs.   ‘Red, Amber, Green’ (RAG) reports have become a default standard but how often do they tell the true story? What’s the actual status?

Here’s a sample of a report I use to show what should be completed, by when, and where the investment should be against progress (each colour is a project within a program but it works just as well for projects on their own). 

I find this is well understood and accepted by senior management and boards. It really doesn’t allow for obfuscation and percentage driven indications – which are so often just wishful thinking. I call it binary reporting – it’s either done or it isn’t. Add to this a simple page listing assistance required and you are sure to get the actual picture.

Please feel free to use the format – just click on the link  to access the full size sample report:  http://www.slideshare.net/rncglobal/programme-timeline-sample-final-version-1072010

Better to have looked ahead and planned for a disaster that didn’t happen than to be blindsided by one that could have been foreseen.

To the question “How do we improve project and program outcomes”?, we answered, “Improve governance, dictate the procedure of methodology and increase the frequency, content and nature of reporting”. Clearly this was logical, but……

Have we succeeded?  Many people argue that in fact the ‘overhead’ hasn’t helped at all.  The PMO in many cases is seen as a reporting overhead staffed by ‘police’ who care more about the reports and the paperwork than outcomes.

Executives feel good about all the information, safe in the knowledge that there is sufficient overview of their projects and programs. PMOs have become a safety blanket…until it all goes wrong.

Why are projects and programs still failing? Have we in fact asked and answered the right question?  Have we lost sight of the real reason we are here and the real opportunity to add and realise value?

Unless we are perceived to add value we will become a passing fad – and we have too much to offer to let that happen.

It’s not too late. In fact, there is a simple question we can ask that will refocus our thinking and our approach and help PMOs be seen as really adding value.

PMOs can achieve relevance, respect and acknowledged contribution. Who wants to be consigned to history like the quality guys? And who remembers knowledge management?  Let’s fight for relevance through contribution – you don’t have to fail.

Aim of the project:  Transfer equity investments held for clients to a new entity

Constraints:  A data migration was not possible and the project had to close out of the market and then transfer the holdings to the new entity.

History:  The project was scheduled to take 10 months and was highly governed and reported.  Several external reviews were held and these relied on apparent compliance with governance structures, project practices and reporting.  All of these consistently showed green.

Review:   At the eight month mark the Board sought yet another independent review but this time from the perspective of actual readiness.

Findings: 

• The paper trail and meeting records were detailed and compliant in every respect
• The project manager was a nervous wreck and he tried to reconcile the picture available through compliance and what he ‘felt’ about the project.
• Escalation by the project manager was responded to with platitudes and assurance that it would all be ok.
• The processes allowed that the people involved would be able to be held blameless if anything went wrong
• There was a general nervousness at the worked level on the project and a frustration that those above them weren’t listening to the actual problems and risks
• The project team felt isolated by the governance and reporting
• There was a deal of ‘intellectual avoidance’ being applied where niggling questions and unresolved issues were not pursued.
• There was no tolerance for raising and exploring dissenting views
• There was a history of dissenters and people asking for additional resources to be removed from the project
• There was no evidence that testing was or would be adequate, escalation processes were not in place, there was inadequate highlighting of the extent of the risk and that there was no possible fall back position.
• Inadequate thought had gone into the reputational and market risk associated with the project and the people at the very top of the organisation were not at all aware of the risk that was being accepted. (There was no way to mitigate the risk but there was seriously inadequate effort applied to making sure decisions were being made by the people and at the level where responsibility was held)
• There were examples of decisions being taken at the technical level without visibility or involvement of the people whose decisions they would rightly be.
• It was not possible to assess that the actual project was under control – in spite of the governance and compliance being actively adhered to.

Remedy:

• Held a meeting with all project team members from top to bottom, including the sponsor and walked through what would happen from the time go/no go was called.  It became immediately apparent that there was a lot of work to do in a number of areas – not just the IT readiness.
• Appointed people who would each be responsible for the new operating model, training, customer interface, management expectation setting
• Went to daily war room meetings
• Involved the board and apprised them of the risks and explained the mitigation strategies as well as the potential actions required of them should risks be realised.
• Moved to a ‘truth in reporting’ model for within the project – external reporting to the PMO continued to be compliant with requirements (no one wanted the PMO to try to help out)

Outcomes:

This was a very successful project with the risks not realised and the go live running smoothly. However, it would have been a very different story if the project processes and reporting had remained as the only check point.  Project management had forgotten the paperwork isn’t the project – something had to be delivered.

When complications arise in the heady world of banking, especially the unpredictable business of planning out equity investment transfers, there’s no option but to calmly tackle the project from the ground up, look to those core issues to find solutions and disentangle the twists before they become knots.

 A key element in the success of this project was continual focus on delivering the required outcome, and of course this should always remain an outstanding PM’s manifesto.

Don’t forget to share your comments on this or any other related topics – I’d be interested in hearing from you!    … Diane