The process is regularly repeated in large as well as small businesses – an idea is generated from a middle or senior manager, a project proposal, project charter or other initiation document is created; it is evaluated, approved and a project is started. Although this may appear to be a reasonable process in the spirit of PMBoK or PRINCE2, in most cases it is a nearly useless foregone conclusion. Yes, in some cases creating project proposal deliverables do provide a useful documented overview of the project and its business objectives. However, the other primary purpose of the initiation documentation is to evaluate whether the project idea is a sound one that should be pursued. But if a senior manager instructs the initiation document to be created, and then the same senior manager provides signoff on the proposal, isn’t the idea of an objective review of a potential project thrown out the window?

Theoretically, a set of project review criteria or portfolio management processes would address the lack of objectivity discussed above. Unfortunately, most organisations do not have that type of rigor in place. So what is a diligent project manager to do?

In the true spirit of acting with intelligent disobedience…propose your own criteria. It is not suggested that the criteria be created in response to a given project proposal; that would probably not be received well by senior management. Propose the project viability criteria when there is not a project in the proposal stage; that way the discussion will be more objective. What to include in such criteria? Focus on the financial items typically discussed in your organisation; cost to benefit ratios, resource requirements (dollars and people), payback period and profit margins are typical items.

Do this well, and you can weed out some projects that distract from the success of the business and your personal productivity as well.

Do you understand what criteria would be used to filter out projects in your organisation? How would you go about proposing a set of validation criteria in your organisation?

Note: If you or your organisation requires assistance with project evaluation and portfolio management check out our project governance and portfolio management offerings at www.mindavation.com or www.mindavation.com.au, or e-mail us at info@mindavation.com and we can arrange a presentation for you and your team on how to increase your efficiency and improve your resource utilization through governance and portfolio management.

Whether you call them key stakeholders, primary stakeholders or some other term, it is likely that every project manager labels at least one person as ‘the person to please’ when delivering a project. During the life-cycle of a project, stakeholders come and go, however the ’person to please’ is ever-present. By default, it is the sponsor. As the sponsor is footing the bill and (theoretically) is the primary beneficiary of project delivery, this is reasonable. But should the project manager always behave as if the sponsor is the primary stakeholder? Depending on the project and the mindset of the sponsor, that might not be the optimal way to  accomplish the project.

A frequent circumstance of today’s business climate is that skills are critically short, and the skilled business experts and technical team members have a tremendous number of demands placed upon them. Your project is just one more on the stack. Treating these vital resources in the best possible manner can be crucial to successful project delivery. Sometimes, these vital resources should be treated as your primary stakeholder(s).

This is not a suggestion that you ignore the sponsor; he should always be front of mind. However, when the sponsor is content and fulfilling their role appropriately, it may be time to consider other primary stakeholders for the project manager’s everyday attention.

Are you treating the right person(s) as the primary stakeholder, or are you treating the sponsor as the primary stakeholder by default? Could you improve your project status by shifting your attention to different ‘primary stakeholders?’

Note: If you or your organisation requires assistance with improving stakeholder management (via traditional or non-traditional methods) check out our consulting and education offerings at www.mindavation.com or www.mindavation.com.au, or e-mail us at  info@mindavation.com and we can arrange a presentation for you and your team to discuss this perception enhancing management technique.

Contingency elements – typically in the form of extra dollars or time – are a fundamental part of the way leaders manage risk in their projects. Reasonable approach, right? Unexpected things happen and items that were considered in risk management plans sometimes do come to fruition and must be handled. Having contingencies in your budget and/or schedule can be applied to minimize the impact of the risks. But does the publicly known presence of contingency items cause improper behavior?

In his book What the Dog Saw and Other Adventures author Malcolm Gladwell discusses the results of an experiment in Germany conducted with taxicab drivers. A set of taxis were equipped with antilock breaking systems and another set of taxis were left unmodified. One would think the ABS breaking system would result in better driving results…in fact the opposite happened! The additional safety and capability the ABS breaks provided caused the taxi drivers to be more aggressive and reckless. The “contingency” of knowing they have the additional safety element available negatively changed their driving habits.

This surfaces the question…does publishing contingency elements in our project schedules and other deliverables cause bad behavior? Do our excessively multi-taking project team members see contingency as a relief valve that gives them a chance to miss deadlines? Should project managers HIDE the contingency available to them?

We have run across project leaders who do just that; they hide the contingency or they publish two schedules…one for team members without contingency and another for management that shows the contingency available. Although potentially useful, we do not believe this is an example of intelligent disobedience. The risk of losing trust from your team members outweighs the risk of having to manage “contingency consuming behaviors”. Better to publish one set of documentation, with contingency elements evident and use open and honest communication to avert potential behaviors that are undesirable.

Note: If you or your organisation want assistance with improving your performance through the use of Intelligent Disobedience, you can check out our Intelligent Disobedience workshop at  http://www.mindavation.com/classes/id_pm.htm or drop us a line at info@Mindavation.com and we can arrange a presentation for you and your team to discuss this performance enhancing approach.

Critical path and schedule analysis are drummed into every project manager who endures formal project management education. But, is only using this approach to scheduling a project the best way to maximize project success? We don’t think so – in fact relying solely on managing the critical path of a project may provide a significant “pathway” – straight to project failure!

The critical path specifically highlights the series of predecessor-successor tasks that start from project initiation and bring the project to a close. It provides the most direct way to get from the project idea to the coveted successful closure of a project, with all deliverables completed and put to use by the project’s customer. That may not be what a customer wants, even though they will profess that is what they want. Given time pressures and an increasing desire to show results “tomorrow versus the next day”, delivering “early wins” on a project may be the only way a project survives to deliver all of the requested deliverables. This is where the “victory path” comes into play.

The victory path is that series of predecessor-successor tasks that lead from the present state to the production and delivery of an interim deliverable that will “give faith” and/or early business value to sponsor(s) and key stakeholders of the project. This may significantly overlap the critical path, however in many instances it diverges. Managing the “victory path(s)” as you would the critical path may be the key to being “victorious” in the delivery of a project to its full potential. Yes, it means you may not be producing the set of overall project deliverables in the most efficient way. However if the stakeholders are kept happy and business value is derived from interim deliverables, that often overshadows the inefficiencies introduced by utilising a victory path approach.

Are you relying entirely on the critical path for your projects, or do you understand the desires and objectives of your stakeholders enough to realise that a “victory path” might be in order for your project?

Note: If you or your organisation want assistance with understanding, establishing and managing victory paths, you can check out our Recovering Troubled Projects workshop at http://mindavation.com.au/?page_id=262 or drop us a line at info@Mindavation.com and we can arrange a presentation for you and your team to discuss this management approach.

Projects benefit from a sound and comprehensive governance structure consisting of an engaged sponsor and a steering committee of stakeholders that have a vested interest and influence over the project results. Assembling this body of stakeholders is not particularly complex, especially when an engaged project manager partners with business analysts to ensure stakeholders are encouraged to participate. Setting up an appropriate stage gate and decision making schedule is also not difficult as examples of best practice in this area are abundant.

So why are there so many issues with project governance? What is the trick with making project governance work properly? The difference between success and failure in this area involves ensuring the members of the steering committee are prepared to participate and make the decisions they have to make to steer the project properly. Often this means educating senior leaders who do not believe they need educating.

The critical elements that lead to good governance are the information that is weighed by the committee members and their ability to understand the decisions they will be asked to make. The project manager who focuses on preparing the steering committee members approaches them in advance with pivotal questions:

• What information will you require to make decision X about the project?
• Do you have other information that should be considered for the decisions that are likely to be needed?

These questions educate the stakeholders relative to their role as a steering committee member and the issues they may face. If information is not forthcoming about the information they will need to make a decision, the project manager and business analyst can “fill in the blanks.” Suggestions as to what data can be provided, and a guide to the “multiple choice questions” the project manager can bring forward can proactively prepare and educate the steering committee members for their role.

Is your project governance structure well formed AND prepared to make the decisions they need to make? What information can you provide to them to proactively prepare them for the decisions they need to make?

Note: If you or your organisation want assistance with training your sponsors and governance teams, check out our one day Project Governance and Sponsorship workshop at http://mindavation.com.au/?page_id=746

Many organisations struggle with the concept of portfolio management and its core process, a project prioritisation scheme. Why prioritisation schemes become such a major production, requiring every senior manager, administrative assistant, two security guards and four programmers to make happen is astounding. The process should not involve calculus, and in fact, nothing more than simple arithmetic should be applied. It should be started with a simple premise, be tested with a set of projects and used as a starting point to prioritise projects in the portfolio. Adjustments can then be made as the prioritisation tool is used, and it can be made to reflect more of the holistic business thinking that a portfolio manager would use in the environment.

As a good friend Roy Becker once shared, “you don’t have to be perfect to start, but you have to start to be perfect.” Establish a few key parameters, combine them in an easy point system to create a prioritisation score, and START. As you review more projects, if there are differences in the score versus what is believed to be the “true” prioritisation, make changes to the scoring scheme to reflect your newly identified or revised criteria.

What elements should you use for this simple scoring scheme? Common components are; project costs, project benefit, a simple high-medium-low risk rating, and a strategic value rating from 1-10. It is that simple. Making it more complex is certainly something you will want to do over time, as you test and adjust the model.

Are you or your organisation avoiding starting the prioritisation of projects because you are trying to make the prioritisation scheme perfect before you start? What is stopping you from creating a simple approach and using it in a pilot environment and adjusting it as you go along?

Remember, when it comes to the prioritisation approach, you don’t have to be perfect to start, but you have to start to be perfect. Start the process, use it as a data point and adjust as appropriate. Before long you will have an elaborate prioritisation algorithm that will serve you well for years to come.

The Mindavation team has frequently seen situations where projects are clearly in trouble but nobody can seem to find a red pen. Amber or yellow projects abound in the portfolio, yet the dreaded “help from above” prevents the project and PMO management from whipping out the red marker of truth. Why is this so pervasive? In most cases, it is because the “help” that comes when a project is labelled as troubled is no help at all.

What usually happens when the red status of truth “escapes” is that management or the PMO swoop in with more reporting requirements, in an attempt to right the sinking ship. The additional reporting typically doesn’t improve the project; in fact it usually makes it worse.

In a large number of cases, the issue with the project is not the project manager’s lack of reporting; it is a lack of true sponsorship or major stakeholders that cannot come to agreement on the purpose and direction for the project. Additional administrivia won’t fix the problem; supporting the project manager to work with the stakeholders with more conviction and courage will.

More support, less paperwork.

In the instances where the project is languishing because the project manager has not managed his responsibilities well; more paperwork won’t help here either. They have not successfully utilised project management processes already in place; adding more tools and processes to the plate of the project manager will likely make things worse. Mentoring, coaching and support should help.

More support, less paperwork.

Are you avoiding the red pen in your organisation? So, what does your organisation have a tendency to do when projects go bad? What steps can you take today to reveal more truth (yes, use the red pen) and add more support to the project manager and team, rather than additional futile administrative work?

Project and program management, business analysis and business change professionals around the world sing the praises of appropriate risk planning. Many even attempt to do risk management, beyond the typical document that is created at the beginning of a project but is destined to become lonely sitting in the bottom drawer of one’s desk. We applaud that effort, as it is the first and most significant step in creating a “risk management culture.” We need to go way beyond that however, if we are to see a significant change in the statistics for failed and woefully over budget initiatives. What is the step we need to take? We need to create “shared risk” management plans.

The typical risk management plan we see addresses the risks as perceived by the technical project team – and at times, some higher level risks associated with business change. Unfortunately, the mitigation or response plans for those risks are typically limited to things the technical team will do, or address time or financial contingencies. Rarely do we see a risk response plan that proposes actions to be taken by both the customer organisation and the service organisation that provides project solutions. This one way street is typically not effective, does not reflect the business partnership that is required for successful initiatives, and is short sighted. It is fixable however, if we utilise our project management relationships, leverage our business analysts to the fullest and make a commitment to a premise: there are no technical projects! All projects are business projects; and many have a technical component. Our risk management plans need to reflect this reality, and be driven from the business perspective.

Are your risk plans truly shared risk plans? Does the risk analysis being performed consider business risks and response planning? Can you name (and address!) the top three risks you have on your current projects with shared risk response plans?

Many lessons will undoubtedly be learned from Australia’s recent natural disasters. Incredible flooding, followed by one of the largest cyclones in recent memory have caused havoc across Australia, particularly in Queensland. The chaos of natural disasters places a premium on good communication. In this situation, many leaders defer to the “experts” to communicate to the public at large. In the case of Queensland, Premier Anna Bligh has taught us all a lesson in how to communicate effectively in difficult times. We aren’t making a political endorsement here, just pointing out that in this instance, the Premier has taught us all some valuable communication lessons. Here is a summary of our observations:

• She has demonstrated her leadership by taking on the communications herself
• Via thorough briefings and by having experts at her side during press conferences, she demonstrated she was directing the effort to address the chaos and start the cleanup process
• Her communications were frequent – coming multiple times a day. (How often have you been at an airport, experienced a flight delay, and just wanted to know the status?)
• She has demonstrated compassion, however expressing emotion was not the highlight of her press conferences. She remained focused on facts, conveying status and what the population should be doing.
• She has been motivational to a battered public, saying things such as “(the floods) may have broken our hearts, but they won’t break our spirit.”
• When she didn’t know something, she directly said so, and followed up with subsequent press conferences.

So, where is the intelligent disobedience here? There are times NOT to defer to the experts. The Premier is not an expert in disaster management, yet, it is the visible leadership that is needed and wanted by the public. She is filling that leadership and communication role, and is not delegating it.  In addition, this type of communication behaviour is something we often don’t see from leaders. Direct communication, handling and accepting accountability, and expressing both fact and compassion in a difficult situation is critical for leaders. How do you perform when you have to communicate to a team while under pressure? Could you take a lesson from the points above? If so, what will be your first step to improve your communications?

This Intelligent Disobedience blog entry was contributed by Marjolein Towler. Thanks MT!

Have you ever been faced with a decision to do something that is in your best interest, and is not directly hurting anyone, but is not entirely above board either? Ever been in that position?

Recently we had to deal with a client who put us in the unenviable position of having to witness what we considered unethical behaviour. We were contracted to deliver a feasibility study for a program of work. A lot of work and thought and research went into it. The program under scrutiny had many great features, but there were issues of sustainability. We sent our client regular updates and slowly but certainly he started to change the document and the proposed direction for the program. We produced a Feasibility Study for internal use and our client changed it into a Business Case for external use, essentially making it a sales document. Our concern was that the resulting document was selling something that we did not believe would be successful in its proposed form. We knew that from our research. It was a classic case of “you are not telling me what I want to hear.”  We had a contract to produce a deliverable, and we did so. However, there was no contract stipulation restricting our client from altering the deliverable after we presented it to him. Our solution? We satisfied our contract. We also have made a decision not to ever do business with this client again.

We undoubtedly are suffering a financial impact because of this decision. However, we strive to follow our moral compass; it is as relevant in business as in any other part of life. Not having one (or ignoring the compass you have) might give you short term advantages, but in the long run, it will cost you dearly through the loss of respect and credibility.

Whether you work for someone or run your own business, ultimately it is your own moral compass that needs to guide you. There will be times where you are placed in a situation you are unable to change or influence sufficiently at the time. However, being aware of what is happening and seeing it for what it truly is – behaviour you cannot condone – will be essential for business or project decisions you will make in the future.

Are you “tolerating” behaviours you should address on your projects? In your business environment? In your personal life?