Forward Momentum: Delivering Results

By Vicki Wrona, PMP

Why do organizations constantly rely on their PMs to also perform key technical work on a project? Several reasons. One is reality. We are doing more with less now, and the reality is that we may not have the personnel available to assign different people to those roles. Another reason is that most projects are small enough that working within both roles is not a problem. Still another reason is because often the PM is assigned because they are a strong team member and one of the higher performing employees. Their reward is being given the opportunity of managing a new effort. During that effort, the organization cannot afford to have this superior performer NOT working on what they do best — the  technical work of the project.

The trouble occurs when the project is large or complex. In this case, balancing both the management aspect (PM) and performing key SME work can be overwhelming and tough to balance, often resulting in neither being done well. Few people can be actively involved in their technical focus, or SME activity, when needed and then be able to step back and see the big picture from an unbiased management perspective.

This is true both from a time as well as a viewpoint perspective. Most people allow their SME time to overtake management time until there is a crisis, at which time they go into reactionary or fire-fighting mode to deal with the issue (often later than they should) and survive. From the viewpoint perspective, it is difficult for someone who has been deeply engrossed in one aspect of the project, such as their area of technical expertise, to step back and address issues and concerns from all areas objectively. Mere mortals cannot always do this. Yes, we have all been asked to do this and some have done it fairly well, but the larger and more complex the project, the more difficult and unrealistic the expectation.

Add to this the fact that when PMs are assigned both roles, planning takes a back seat. When this happens, there often isn’t clear understanding or definition of scope, schedule, roles, expectations, constraints, etc., compounding the number and kinds of potential problems experienced later. Without an initial definition of those various aspects of the project, it is harder to get agreement on the possible fix to allow the team to move the project forward.

Projects may be completed in this structure, but at what cost? Are team members burned out? Were there more crises than necessary? What superhuman, or brute force, effort did it take to get the effort done? Was it worth it? These are valuable questions to ask, and even better if asked first when assigning roles.

By Craig Covello, PMP

This month, the articles appearing on Forward Momentum focus on a discussion regarding the use and abuse of best practices in project management. It’s fair to assume that there are a large number of opinions on this matter, as are the number of anecdotal examples that could be given. That said, here are two examples of abuse that immediately come to mind.

Abuse #1 – Best practice does not imply a “paint by numbers” methodology.

Project managers should not consider “best practices” as simply a series of rote activities applicable to every project regardless of subject, size and scope. They are not intended to promote a “paint by numbers” approach where the project manager has little substantive understanding of what is being undertaken and the associated risks. No, some better definitions can be found with a quick search on the Internet. Here are three separate, but similar explanations of the term.

First definition: “Best practices can be defined as the most efficient (least amount of effort) and effective (best results) way of accomplishing a task, based on repeatable procedures that have proven themselves over time for large numbers of people. A given best practice is only applicable to particular condition or circumstance and may have to be modified or adapted for similar circumstances. In addition, a “best” practice can evolve to become better as improvements are discovered.”

Second definition: “Methods and techniques that have consistently shown results superior than those achieved with other means, and which are used as benchmarks to strive for. There is, however, no practice that is best for everyone or in every situation, and no best practice remains best for very long as people keep on finding better ways of doing things.”

Third definition: “a practice which is most appropriate under the circumstances, esp. as considered acceptable or regulated in business; a technique or methodology that, through experience and research, has reliably led to a desired or optimum result.”

Notice that the common thread between all three definitions is the need for adaptation. In the realm of project management, one size definitely does not fit all. We occasionally, however, may encounter project managers who confuse the relatively mechanical exercises of schedule monitoring or meeting facilitation with robust project leadership. The Project Management Institute’s Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK) takes almost 400 pages to describe five basic process groups and nine knowledge areas, all designed around the concept of “best practices”. A significant portion of the material discusses techniques for avoiding potential issues related to human interaction and perception. Anyone who’s taken the PMP exam knows that some of the questions can be rather ambiguous and subject to interpretation. There is simply no instruction manual for every situation, which implies that the project manager needs to have a fundamental understanding of the project at hand and may be required to drill down and become a subject matter expert in order to resolve particular issues. Project management is not an administrative role and the PMBOK is definitely not a cookbook. It is a set of best practice tools designed to help the project manager lead participants on a journey that hopefully will create something of value for the organization.

Abuse #2 – Best practice does not confuse the over-arching project leadership with task ownership.

You are the project manager, which means that you have a responsibility to lead and delegate. You are not a resource for taking on tasks that others prefer to bounce back in your direction. Following “best practices” requires clear communication of all responsibilities before the plan is executed. This is important since there may be a tendency for some personality types to define for themselves a very narrow scope of work if they perceive any ambiguity. It can lead to unintended finger pointing, confusion and in some cases, hostility.

Case in point: I was recently in an awkward meeting with a design engineer and the end-user. The engineer was responsible for figuring out the impact to the IT infrastructure in order to implement a new messaging system. It was obvious that he needed to do some more investigative work before a design could be drafted, so I asked him to contact the building engineer. He refused and then issued a rather smug proclamation that communication between team members was “the project manager’s responsibility.” It would have been better if I had aligned my expectations with the engineer before the meeting with the end-user, but I made an assumption that the engineer was capable of engaging others by picking up the phone. Apparently, I was wrong.

Make no mistake. Following best practices means that you should perform due diligence as a project manager in order to facilitate communication to stakeholders, both from within and outside of the project team. But it does not mean you are responsible for brokering interactions between team members. If someone on your project is not receptive to communicating and coordinating within the scope of their task assignments, then it may be wise to have a frank discussion in order to level-set expectations. If they still prefer to define their own boundaries, then it may be appropriate to find another resource. You will have enough to do in providing planning, leadership, tracking, decision-making and status. Don’t take on the work of others late in the game for fear of project failure. Negotiate expectations up front.

By Rob Zell

As a learning professional, I am no stranger to having the business units that I support approach me with issues that require solutions. In most cases, they come looking for training solutions when the bottom line results aren’t appearing as expected. Their approach reminds me of one of my favorite Saturday Night Live skits.

During the Saturday Night Live Weekend Update, Kenan Thompson portrays a very concerned financial expert whose solution to the recent financial crisis is that someone should “Fix it!” In his humorous tirade, he outlines several steps that “someone” needs to do to fix the problem:

1. Identify the problem
2. Fix it
3. Identify another problem
4. Fix it
5. Repeat as necessary until it’s all fixed!

I’m sure many of you can relate to this.

Typically, the next step is to start problem-solving, asking tough questions about the environment, prior performance, management, obstacles, motivation, prior knowledge and a multitude of factors that likely impact performance. Unfortunately, the business didn’t come to you for questions; they came for answers. They might even feel frustrated because they perceive your line of questioning as an indictment of their own research into the issue!

Learning organizations are under huge pressure to generate ROI for training so they can’t run out training solutions for every issue that arises especially if the problem is unrelated to training. If they don’t respond they may be seen as uncooperative, and so the business unit takes matters into its own hands. Neither is a high quality outcome.

You need to do a thorough analysis of the problem, so look for ways to collaborate with the business owner to find the root causes. Engage them to help you explore the aspects of performance that you know are most relevant but that they may not have thought about.

The challenge is to be perceived as the team that helps the organization reach its goals in the best manner possible. By focusing on the desired behavior, we can usually offer our clients and stakeholders solutions that meet the need and get results by giving them the choice of options and showing them the ROI.

1. Always provide a good / better / best menu of choices with price points. Even the staunchest client has the good of the organization in mind. Faced with having to diminish results based on training cost, they will often choose the solution that makes the most sense.
2. Stay focused on the desired behavior. Clients love to talk about all the things they believe learners should know to do the job. Unfortunately, all that extra knowledge might be getting in the way. Document the desired behavior, run the task analysis and return with sound data to make your case for the simplest solution.
3. Get outside your own comfort zone. The best solution might be a simple communication piece or policy update that the learning organization is typically not responsible for creating. Look at that as an opportunity to collaborate across the organization and influence others to think about performance. This might also be a great opportunity to leverage some informal learning strategies like wikis or peer coaching rather than developing a full-blown training intervention.

Sometimes in order to “fix it,” training is not required. If based on your analysis you think there are better ways to solve the problem, offer up those solutions not as a trainer but as a performance consultant. Utilize what you know of visual media and learning to make communication tools and job aids easier to read and absorb. Make recommendations to the business regarding process or task changes. The simplicity of the solution may earn you more influence and credibility in the end and make an even bigger impact to the bottom line.

By Vicki Wrona, PMP

Project Managers are notorious for it. On top of business jargon we add our own unique language and terms. Writers on Star Trek call it technobabble, we can call ours PM-speak. We have our own language and acronyms, just as every organization has their favorite sayings and acronyms. Wouldn’t it be nice if we were all issued a universal translator or babble fish when we walk into an organization? But we aren’t, and we have to figure it out as we go along. We have to make an effort to be clear when we speak to others while also making sure that we understand those using lingo on us.

Why are they using that lingo? Does everyone understand the message the same way? Often, the answer is no, even when we are trying. But everyone does not always try, which makes it worse.

I am sure we can all think of a person who is notorious difficult to understand. Some people do this to demonstrate membership in a special club, like some inside joke or story. Some people do it to purposely remain vague and keep people guessing. They like the control and/or think it gives them flexibility. Some do it to show their knowledge without realizing that others aren’t impressed because they are too occupied in their minds trying to figure out what is being said. Others are vague and speak in jargon without realizing they are doing it and without realizing the impact of their strange language. Speaking in terms that not everyone understands clearly allows for different interpretations at best and confusion, frustration and rework at worst. This often leads to decreased morale and late deliverables.

How can we avoid falling into this trap? Here are some tricks I have used:

1. Cliches and acronyms: I have found that when teaching classes, I make more of an effort when I know I have an audience new to the topic or when the audience is made up of non-native English speakers. This helps me catch clichés and acronyms. I didn’t realize how often I used clichés until making this effort. At first, I would struggle to make my point without using a favored cliché. With practice, it gets better.
2. Local terminology: Make an effort to watch local or geographic terminology as well as proper names. To catch other technical or project management-specific terms, watch for glimpses of confusion or too-quick agreement from the other party. Also, think back to when you were just out of school and beginning your first professional job. How did it feel to listen to those around you discuss things that you did not fully understand? Make yourself aware of industry-specific or company-specific terms that you may be using. You have probably been using them for so long you don’t even think about it anymore. If your audience consists of people outside your organization or new to your organization, they will not be familiar with your organization’s culture, pet phrases, stories, history, and possibly organization chart. They may not know very simple things like division or document names. Something as simple as that can confuse people. When a term or name is thrown out that the other person is not familiar with, they will switch their focus from listening to you to internally trying to figure out what you meant. They will then fall further behind in comprehending the conversation, creating a spiral that may be difficult to break without some (or much) back-tracking.
3. Organize and rehearse: Carefully think through your message and how you will convey it before you speak. Mentally rehearse key or tricky discussion points ahead of time where necessary. It will make a difference.
4. Watch the body language: Most of the message received during communications is non-verbal, which includes your body language. When you are speaking to someone in person or using video conferencing, remember that body language will override your words if the two are not aligned. Don’t let the rolling of your eyes or sarcastic tone discourage the other party from speaking up if communications are not clear. Try to be empathetic and remain open-minded.

What techniques have you used to avoid misunderstandings? If we all share a tip, together we can get better.