Forward Momentum: Delivering Results

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 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.

By Kathy Martucci, PMP

I think you would whole-heartedly agree that Matrix Management is a well-established, well-recognized foundation of project management methodology.   Therefore, it must be in keeping with all the other basic truths of PM and just plain old good management– or is it?

If one of our goals is to KISS (Keep it Simple, Stupid!), does Matrix Management align with that goal?  It SOUNDS simple: all the people with similar skills regardless of their direct line of supervision are pooled and supervised by a person responsible to the project.  Simple.

So what gets complicated?  What about conflicting loyalties and priorities?  Those of us with both project and operations duties often hear that “Production is King” or “Operations is Priority Number One”.  But when a project deadline is looming, whose work takes precedence?  Two managers must now negotiate to answer that question.

Where are Matrix Management resources located, and how much independence and autonomy do they have?  As often encountered in truly virtual teams, not seeing someone face-to-face on a regular basis can have its complications.  Diligent oversight by both the direct supervisor and the project manager is imperative to execute and track work effectively.

So, what’s a KISS advocate to do?  First, take full advantage of the opportunity to foster the specialization that comes with matrix management and offer your staff the corresponding professional development it can provide.  Second, encourage the communication channels that are created as all the subject matter experts in one area are under your supervision.

And, Keep it Simple!

By Craig Covello, PMP

You’ve probably heard the acronym “KISS”, which stands for “keep it simple, stupid”.  I must admit, I was never a fan of any phrase that assumes the audience has diminished capacity.  And in this case, there is definitely nothing “stupid” about the benefits of keeping things simple, particularly when it applies to project management.

If you have spent any time studying project management courses or preparing for the Project Management Institute’s PMP exam, then you know that there is a good deal of complexity and abstract thought associated with generally accepted project management principles.  The number of concepts can be overwhelming.  They include a good understanding of organizational structures, project scope, time management, cost containment, quality metrics, human resource management, communication plans, risk mitigation and even procurement.  The number of tools and techniques associated with project initiation, control, monitoring and closure can number into the hundreds.  Some might even argue they number into the thousands.  Yet, as with all things, we soon learn to prioritize and select the tools and techniques which suit our project management style as well as the scope and duration of the efforts we undertake.

A case could be made that you could count on your fingers the essential components of a good project management plan.  In my world, these would include:

1. A statement of business requirements to be addressed.
2. Project charters, which include information identifying project sponsors, the project manager, a project ID and the anticipated duration of the effort.
3. A definitive statement of project goals and criteria for measuring project success.
4. Specific definitions regarding what is within scope and beyond the scope of the project.
5. Risk assessments, including an appropriate level of contingency planning.
6. A stakeholder list with subsets identifying active project participants, roles, specific responsibilities and contact information.
7. A definitive list of project deliverables.
8. The project budget.
9. The communication plan and meeting schedule.
10. Executive level status reports designed to summarize past expenditures, provide fiscal projections and identify issues requiring escalation.
11. Meeting minutes, action items and issues logs, which I consolidate into something called “project notes”.
12. Detailed project tasks, assignments and associated schedules.

Okay, I admit I don’t have 12 fingers, but I’m sure you get the idea.  Having small set of project definitions, controls and reporting mechanisms is one way to keep things relatively simple so that everyone has the opportunity to maintain the big picture during the life of the project.  Methodologies, forms and formal procedures can be beneficial until they reach a point of critical mass.  When that happens, they may actually impede progress, hinder communication and obfuscate status.  The confusion and associated slow response to the tragic oil spill in the Gulf comes to mind.  Please forgive my armchair quarterback analysis, but the situation might have been significantly better if some very basic questions had been answered before attempting to address the myriad of details.  Specifically,

• Who’s in charge?
• What are the immediate and long term objectives?
• What is the anticipated duration?
• How much money is available?
• Who is available to help?
• What is the communication plan?
• What contingencies will be executed on a specific date if “Plan A” is unsuccessful?

If you can get your head around those questions without referring to reams of documentation, then you have a much better chance for project success.

Less is sometimes more.