Forward Momentum: Delivering Results

By Vicki Wrona, PMP

Have you ever had someone who just wouldn’t respond to your messages, no matter how much you tried to reach them? There are a myriad of reasons why this occurs. Regardless of that, how do interpret the silence? What do you do about it?

I just read a thought-provoking article with many comments and very good suggestions on this very subject. It’s a common problem that we all experience. What I struggle with is achieving the balance of showing the client or customer that I am diligent and follow-up on commitments and promises vs. appearing desperate or annoying and hounding the person.

Some people are quick to say that the commitment to provide a response or not is generational. When I think back to specific examples, I would have to disagree with that assessment. I have experienced both good and bad follow-up from all age groups. I agree that we are all busy and sometimes overwhelmed with our responsibilities and commitments, but does that mean it’s OK to leave people hanging? People will interpret silence in many ways, most often in a very negative or insecure way, making up reasons for the silence. Rarely is the real reason the scenario they choose to fixate on in their minds.

Not only will people make up the message behind the silence, but, to many people, it also sends a strong signal about the silent person’s professionalism or work mode. That is why I try very hard to keep up with emails and provide a response, even if the response is, ‘I got your message and will address it by Friday’. This gives them an idea of what I am like to work with. Plus I treat people the way I would like them to treat me, hoping that what goes around does come around.

One way to avoid this problem is to set groundrules early in working with a person or team. As soon as possible, determine the best way to communicate from that point forward. Common groundrules include deciding if email or phone call is preferred, how often we will meet, or the definition of a high priority or urgent request and how will that be differentiated from other messages. In addition, determining rules for email subject, to and cc lines can be outlined.

So what do you do when someone stops responding, or ‘goes dark’ as we have sometimes called it? Share your ideas here on what we can do to avoid this in our futures.

Here is the article: http://blogs.hbr.org/bregman/2010/01/when-your-voicemails-and-email.html

By Brian Egan, PMP

Getting Past No – Negotiations in Difficult Situations by William Ury, Bantom Books, 2007, is the sequel to Getting to Yes (Fisher and Ury, 1981).

First published in 1991, ten years after Getting to Yes, this book continues the argument in favor of principled negotiations by addressing roadblocks to principled negotiations that have been encountered over the years.

Like its predecessor, Getting Past No remains a best seller, many years after it was first published. It is one of the rare gems of management literature. The book is short, easy to read and packed with helpful ideas.

Read it second

While Getting Past No can be read on its own, I would recommend reading it after Getting to Yes (see Getting to Yes). Past No assumes that the reader is firmly grounded in the terminology and perspectives outlined in To Yes and then takes the reader further into the techniques needed to overcome obstacles.

Principled negotiations – good in principle

In Getting to Yes the authors introduced principled negotiations in which the standard positional style of negotiation is abandoned in favor of a more problem solving style.

However it is easier said than done. Negotiating with reasonable people is easy. It is unreasonable people that are tricky to deal with. Wanting everyone to be problem solvers will not make them so.

How can people whose experience is rooted in traditional, adversarial style of negotiations be convinced to negotiate on the basis of principles? That is the question answered by Getting Past No. And it is a long answer.

Attack the issues not the people

Getting Past No focuses on how to deal with unreasonable people. It explains how to circumvent everyone’s natural tendency towards becoming emotional, narrow minded and combative.

In short the message is to not give up. Even in the face of unreasonable, narrow minded behavior don’t fall into the same trap yourself. Insist on principles. Be reasonable while standing firm to your ideals. The other side can either give in or give up.

Easy Read

The book is short, well written and has lots of examples. While not quite as universally applicable as Getting to Yes, Getting Past No will have resonance for anyone who understands the need to preserve relationships at the same time that you negotiate price.

By Bruce Beer, PMP

Have you ever thought of a great improvement to content, process, design, product etc., and respectfully suggested this to your manager? What was his or her response? It could well have been something like “Great idea, I love it. I will see if I can introduce it into the next release”. You wait with baited breath, then a new release comes out, and guess what, none of your ideas have been included. How does this make you feel – motivated? Enthusiastic about making more suggestions for improvement? Happy that your contribution has been ignored? Probably not!

OK, so let us flip this around – you are now the manager. You have released a product (say a new software tool) that will be used by several Team Leads and their staff. Following introduction of this new product one of your experienced Team Leads sends you an email containing suggestions from him and his team for improvements and/or corrections. What do you do?

Scenario 1 – You recognize the efforts of the Team Lead and thank him and his team for their time and interest. However, you don’t really want to update your product. You have been working on its development for some time now and you don’t think there is much (if any) room for improvement. You  don’t think there is much that can improve what you have already done. You file the suggestions in the round filing cabinet and move on to other things.

Result – The Team Lead hears a deafening silence after the initial recognition of his suggestions. He waits expectantly for the next release of the product, then eagerly looks to see which of his suggestions have been incorporated. He sees that nothing he and his team suggested has been used. They all feel pretty de-motivated, and although they continue to use the product, neither he nor his team bother to try any further efforts at improvement. They are frustrated because they can see potential improvements that would make the product better, but the product stays static.

Scenario 2 – You recognize the efforts of the Team Lead and his team and realize that they have taken their time, effort and experience to create suggestions for improvement. You realize that as much as you feel you are as close to perfect as you can get, it is worth considering all suggestions for improvement – some of them may actually be valid! So you compare the Team Lead’s suggestions with the existing product and realize that some of the suggestions do, in fact, enhance the product and may introduce improvements. You keep an open mind, and although you do not consider that every suggestion should be incorporated in the product, you do incorporate those with merit. You then write to the Team Lead thanking him and his team, saying which suggestions have been used and which ones have not, with an explanation, and thank them for helping to make a better product.

Result – Team Lead and his team are proud that some of their suggestions have been incorporated and feel a sense of “ownership” in the updated and improved product. They feel motivated to help with future continuous improvement efforts on this and other products, recognizing that not everything will be used but at least they are contributing to better products by continuous improvement.

What sort of manager do you think is eventually going to be more successful with better products? The one who ignores suggestions from his team or the one that uses suggestion as continuous improvement and lessons learned as useful tools? Who do you think has the better motivated and more innovative teams? Which type of manager do you think will have better prospects for advancement? Ummmm, let me think about this!

Which manager are you?

By Darrell G. Stiffler, PMP

When battling through a project, the Project Manager’s (PM’s) closest ally should be the Project Sponsor (PS).  However, there is confusion when talking to different people in exactly what the responsibilities are for the PS. When the PM turns to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK), the confusion just gets worse. We forget that the PMBOK is a GUIDE to Project Management. It is neither an all-encompassing document nor an instruction manual. It is, at best, a suggestion on how to manage a project. However, since many PMs have to pass the Project Management Professional (PMP) examination and the PMBOK is the source for MOST of the answers, we tend to assume that the PMBOK is more of a cookbook than what it turns out to be. For example, when looking for the answer on what the PS is responsible for in the PMBOK 4^th edition, go to page 25, and you find:

“Sponsor. A sponsor is the person or group that provides the financial resources, in cash or in kind, for the project. When a project is first conceived, the sponsor champions the project. This includes serving as spokesperson to higher levels of management to gather support throughout the organization and promote the benefits that the project will bring. The sponsor leads the project through the engagement or selection process until formally authorized, and plays a significant role in the development of the initial scope and charter.

For issues that are beyond the control of the project manager, the sponsor serves as an escalation path. The sponsor may also be involved in other important issues such as authorizing changes in scope, phase-end reviews, and go/no-go decisions when risks are particularly high.”

1) My first surprise is that the sponsor can be a group as well as a person. OK, I can understand that a little.

2)  Next is “provides the financial resources, in cash or in kind”.  Now I’m not sure what “kind” is. I don’t think it means “being nice and generous”. One of the dictionary definitions is “a: goods or commodities as distinguished from money <payment in kind> b: the equivalent of what has been offered or received”. I’m getting confused now. Does that mean the PS is wheeling and dealing, like “ I’ll trade you two wooden desks for a DBA service for two weeks” or “I’ll trade you my executive parking spot for a month for use of a server of a month”? J This all sounds too much like bartering.

3) Serving as a spokesperson to the higher levels of management to gather support sounds reasonable. So does the PS lead the group in spiritual séances when it gets into trouble as well?

4) I have always interpreted the statement “For issues that are beyond the control of the project manager, the sponsor serves as an escalation path” to mean that when the PM is having difficulty getting cooperation from Functional Managers that the PS steps in and gets the Functional Manager in line. However, I have seen test questions that state that if the PM is having difficulty getting resources from Functional Managers that the PM goes to Senior Management. Therefore, this leaves me confused.

Another quote from the PMBOK confuses me on page 74, which reads:

“Projects are authorized by someone external to the project such as a sponsor, PMO, or portfolio steering committee. The project initiator or sponsor should be at a level that is appropriate to funding the project. They will either create the project charter or delegate that duty to the project manager. The initiator’s signature on the charter authorizes the project. “

1) The line “sponsor should be at a level that is appropriate to funding the project”, confuses me. Does that mean if this is a major project and requires approval by the CEO or CFO of the organization that they will be the PS? If this is true then on a small project that requires little funding that a junior programmer could be the sponsor.

Another quote from the PMBOK on page 75 states:

• “The statement of work (SOW) is a narrative description of products or services to be delivered by the project. For internal projects, the project initiator or sponsor provides the statement of work based on business needs,……….
• Name and authority of the sponsor or other person(s) authorizing the project charter.”

1) The statement “authority of the sponsor or other person(s) authorizing the project” would allude that there are others authorized to initiate a project and sign the Project Charter. 

On page 125 the PMPOK states:

“Deliverables that meet the acceptance criteria are formally signed off and approved by the customer or sponsor. Formal documentation received from the customer or sponsor acknowledging formal stakeholder acceptance of the project’s deliverables is forwarded to the Close Project or Phase process.”

1) The PS signs off on approval of the deliverables.

Page 215 of the PMBOK states:

“The project management team is a subset of the project team and is responsible for the project management and leadership activities such as initiating, planning, executing, monitoring, controlling, and closing the various project phases. This group can also be referred to as the core, executive, or leadership team. For smaller projects, the project management responsibilities can be shared by the entire team or administered solely by the project manager. The project sponsor works with the project management team, typically assisting with matters such as project funding, clarifying scope, monitoring progress, and influencing others in order to benefit the project.”

1) I like this statement, it let’s me know that the PS is the go-to-person when you need guidance.

The wording in the PMBOK on what the PS is really supposed to do still confuses me. One thing I know for sure; if you have any question what the PS is responsible for, ask them and they can clear up exactly what they think their responsibilities are.