Date post: | 28-Nov-2014 |
Category: |
Business |
Upload: | warwick-business-school |
View: | 947 times |
Download: | 1 times |
Warwick Business School 12 September, 2012
Warwick Business School
Assuming the Basics are in Place:
The organisation has a suitable and effective strategy in place
Projects are aligned with organisational strategy
Appropriate PM methodologies are in place for significant projects
12 September, 2012
Warwick Business School
Six Common Ways to Sabotage Success
1. Initiate and try to deliver more projects than can reasonably be resourced
2. Insist on single estimates of cost, benefit and schedule from day one
3. Resist attempts to freeze appropriate levels of scope definition as projects progress
4. Make it clear that risk management is solely the responsibility of the PM and project team
12 September, 2012
Warwick Business School
Six Common Ways to Sabotage Success (continued)
5. Demand simple measures of project progress as the main approach to monitoring and controlling
6. Ignore the importance and value of effective and rigorous post project appraisals
12 September, 2012
Warwick Business School
1. Initiate and try to deliver more projects than can reasonably be resourced (causes)
Invalid paradigms:
The more projects we do, the more will succeed
If a project has potential value, it should be done
Cancelling a project implies poor management
Methodology gaps:
Lack of business case (particularly benefit) rigour
Failure to include resource implications in cases
Lack of resource-based portfolio management
12 September, 2012
Warwick Business School
1. Initiate and try to deliver more projects than can reasonably be resourced (strategies)
Include requirements for resource estimation, and resource commitment in project approval processes
Review resource estimates and resource usage during key stages
Be prepared to delay or cancel projects if resource cannot be committed
Develop more flexible project (and operational) resourcing solutions
12 September, 2012
Warwick Business School
2. Insist on single estimates of cost, benefit and schedule from day one (causes)
Range estimates (“the project is likely to generate
between 5% and 15% more sales, beginning in either Q3 or Q4, at a cost of £2 million +/- 30%”) are inconvenient, difficult to compare and appear to reduce PM accountability
Management performance targets are much easier to present plans for using single estimates
12 September, 2012
Warwick Business School
2. Insist on single estimates of cost, benefit and schedule from day one (strategies)
Include evaluation of levels of project uncertainty in evaluating new projects (i.e. Obeng’s classification1 or Glenday’s sieve2)
Provide guidance on expected estimate ranges at project stages
Develop probability models to assist in portfolio management, PM accountability and management performance planning
12 September, 2012
Warwick Business School
3. Resist attempts to freeze appropriate levels of scope definition as projects progress (causes)
Progress and schedule confidence are more
intuitive and visible measures than scope clarity and confidence
Discipline and integration are lacking in stakeholder management
Scope control CAN reduce flexibility
Management and customers do not understand (or support) the need for change control
Impacts of poor control are not visible/measured 12 September, 2012
Warwick Business School
3. Resist attempts to freeze appropriate levels of scope definition as projects progress (strategies)
Provide guidance on expected (and incremental) scope freeze points at project stages
Ensure communication and negotiation of scope decisions across key stakeholders
Require appropriate (and incremental) change control processes within project stages
Visibly review – and be prepared to deliver consequences for – late scope changes
12 September, 2012
Warwick Business School
4. Make clear that risk management is solely the responsibility of the PM/project team (causes)
Escalation of decisions on risks to more senior
or functional management is seen as ‘passing the buck’ or lack of PM competence
Functional staff (or suppliers / consultants) can be resistant to providing clear information or recommendations that may question project viability
Functional staff (or suppliers / consultants) may not be comfortable with decision uncertainty
12 September, 2012
Warwick Business School
4. Make clear that risk management is solely the responsibility of the PM/project team (strategies)
Acknowledge the presence of significant or emerging uncertainty in many projects and reward transparent integrated discussion
Build escalation levels into risk classification tools (i.e. Probability / Impact grids)
Provide clear guidance on the processes to follow when risk information is required from outside the ‘project team’.
12 September, 2012
Warwick Business School
5.Demand simple measures of project progress as the approach to monitoring/controlling (causes)
‘% Complete’ is simple to understand (?)
Typically, PM software uses simple measures
Simple measures appear to provide consistent comparisons between project performance
The negative impacts of such measures are rarely clearly visible
More complex measurement often generates reporting which acknowledges uncertainty
12 September, 2012
Warwick Business School
5.Demand simple measures of project progress as the approach to monitoring/controlling (strategies)
Provide clear and consistent guidance on how measures such as ‘% complete’ should be derived
Use Earned Value (where appropriate) to separate schedule from cost impacts
Concentrate progress reporting on the probability and requirements of meeting agreed scope & benefits as well as time & cost
12 September, 2012
Warwick Business School
6. Ignore the importance and value of effective and rigorous post project appraisals (causes)
Making progress on existing projects is seen as
far more valuable than reviewing old ones
Resource pressure prevents availability of staff time for activities that are not ‘urgent’
The value of estimate vs actual data, identifying and sharing best practice / poor performance factors isn’t understood or appreciated
Reviews tend to be a search for who to blame
12 September, 2012
Warwick Business School
6. Ignore the importance and value of effective and rigorous post project appraisals (strategies)
Sample some finished key projects to identify the size of the potential rewards for effective appraisals
Visit ‘good practice’ organisations to understand the value and usage of data and learnings
Require the dates and resources for TWO post project appraisals (PPA1 & PPA2) to be agreed as part of execution closeout approvals
12 September, 2012
Warwick Business School
References
1. Obeng, Eddie. All Change! The Project Leader's Secret Handbook (1995) Financial Times Pearson Publishing
2. Glenday, Ian. Breaking Through to Flow: Banish Fire Fighting and Produce to Customer Demand (2005) Lean Enterprise Academy Ltd
12 September, 2012