As a project manager working in a Project Management Office (PMO), I am often the indicator, purveyor and motivator for change. The job of the project manager as change agent starts with the preliminary discussion with the project sponsor to vet the project scope. It continues to the kickoff meeting, critical to explaining (and winning over team members on) the needed change. The change agent role then progresses to execution, scope monitoring, project closure and post-project review.

And if it the project manager is the change agent for the project to with he/she is assigned then what is the PMO? The PMO is the chief barometer of change. Taken collectively the projects housed in the PMO reveal the strategic direction of the organization and the changes it thinks are necessary to get there.

The project manager and the PMO…purveyors of change.

Happy New Year!

This class got me thinking about the limitations of a project managers’ role in strategy formation and portfolio/project alignment. A project manager’s power of strategy alignment is limited by (1) a weak organizational strategy and (2) a maturity of the project management office (PMO) actively practicing portfolio alignment.

Weak Strategic Foundation

A weak strategic foundation is an unconvincing base on which to align a project. Take for example,a cupcake manufacturer with the vision is to be the number one cupcake manufacturer supplying the midwest United States. Let’s say that vision was authored 5 years ago. Let’s say annual strategies have been formulated on that vision for the last 5 years. When a project manager is assigned a construction project with the scope to build a muffin assembly line that will supply the west coast United States how can a project management champion that project for its alignment to company’s existing vision and strategy? They cannot. If the project is a ‘legitimate’ one with significant return on investment (ROI) and market gains for the company then the 5 year old vision (and hence it’s strategy) is in dire need of revision.

Project Review Process

Regardless if the strategy is solid, a layer of project/portfolio review is necessary to ensure proposed projects/portfolio match to the company’s strategy. Let’s return to our cupcake manufacturer. If the vision of being the top cupcake supplier to the Midwest is still valid and all the annual strategies still support the vision, then some Vice President’s pet muffin assembly line project will not pass portfolio review.

Note: In order to maintain the most up-to-date criteria for review the PMO must be privy to the latest information regarding vision and strategy revision and/or updates.

In short, without relevant, solid strategic foundation and a measured portfolio review process even the most strategic project manager will find himself or herself in an ocean of unaligned projects, unleveraged projects, unfocused teams and mediocre results.

I was reminded of the power of SMEs while listening to an episode of “The Stuff You Missed in History Class.” The episode was titled called “How the Titanic Worked.” One wonders if the SMEs failed during the design and construction of the Titanic and whether their failure necessarily led to its sinking.

Here are some key facts from the podcast:

• Safety equipment was removed to make the decks more “airy.”
• The number of lifeboats required by the Board of Trade was not adjusted to account for the unprecedented size of the ship. None of the Titanic’s SMEs moved to correct this oversight.
• Steel of inferior strength was used to save on construction costs.
• The ship’s rudder was smaller than a ship of that size needed.
• The communications technology was so new that other ships could not understand the distress calls (talk about stakeholder ignorance!).
• The ship was not tested before its maiden voyage. (an outrageous omission if ever there was one).
• The crew was not trained to understand the ship’s new features. Considering the unprecedented size of the ship, this was a huge oversight.

Which of these factors was the chief cause of the sinking of the Tiantic? You be the judge. In the meantime, take a moment to appreciate your most responsive and integrity-focused SMEs.

1. Time was of the essence
2. The penalties of failure or delay were significant
3. The power of pre-existing scenario planning was undeniable.

Let’s examine these three characteristics in detail.

1. Time Is of the Essence

It was critical for the projects to be completed within a certain time. For BP, this meant stopping the flow of oil as soon as possible. For the Chilean mine, that meant bringing the men above ground as quickly as possible.

2. Penalties of Failure

The consequences of failure were greater than increased costs or even any government fines. For BP, this meant negative publicity (some may argue that any opportunity for saves in that regard had long passed the moment the spill occurred) and increased payouts and increased payouts to those affected by the spill. For the Chilean mine, the penalty was the loss of 1 to 33 lives, the value of which cannot be determined in any currency.

3. Pre-Existing Scenario Planning

Both BP and the mine were accused of shoddy safety records and even worse scenario planning. Scenario planning before these disasters could have been beneficial. The benefits of planning for the inevitable (given the nature of the industries) scenarios would have positively impacted the scope of the projects.

Interestingly, the above characteristics can be mapped to the classic triple constraints model.

Although both news stories have faded from the spotlight (i.e., the scope has been fulfilled and time constraint is no longer a factor), the cost constraint lives on in the form of lawsuits and penalty payouts. Hopefully, there have been enough lessons learned that can be leveraged to assist in the scope definition and time save of future similar projects.

When the reporter discussed the project with Nandan Nilekani, the apparent project manager, questions of scope, time and cost were raised. But one question for me remains outstanding – the question of buy-in.

What are the ordinary Indian citizens’ opinion of the project? Will business use the identification numbers? What incentives will the government give to those businesses that find they will have to modify their computer systems (read: costs) to include use of the numbers?

As the most seasoned project manager knows, even the most well funded and scoped project can fail if buy-in and committmnet are nonexistent. Will this project due to a lack of buy-in, be quickly regulated to the annuals of failed government projects? In fact it is not clear from the interview if the assignment of an identification number is complusory or merely an early adaptors’s newest accessory. Listen to the interview – your opinion may differ.

I hired a handyman to secure railings on a staircase. The railings ran on both sides of the stairs and after years of use, had become unstble. Secure both railings. Simple job. Or so I thought.

I left the handyman to do his job as I completed chores. Upon my return, I discovered one secured railing and a handyman with a pleased look on his face. I naturally promoted him to complete the other side. He maintained that the price quoted was just for one side. I, in response, found solace in the argument that there is no reasonable person who would seek to secure one railing when both needed securing. This went back and forth. I was adamant. He relented. He sullenly commenced work to secure the neglected side.

What does this incident illustrate? That whenever a requirement on a project is ‘obviously clear’ and was ‘communicated well’, there will always be someone who interprets that requirement another way (often in a way no one else has thought about).

There is a not-so-tall-tale of the project manager who spent seemingly hours completing and updating templates. These template were deemed necessary for each project by the PMO Director. This project manager spent so much time with his templates he had very templates he had very little time to actually manage his projects. In short, he was a slave to his tools. This not-so-tall-tale actually plays itself out across PMOs daily. There are 5 templates characteristics to ensure that you are not the central character this tale. These are:

1. Simple

This recommendation seems almost run contrary to what project managers deal with every day. Our jobs are sure not as simple and certainly not easy. Why should our tools be? After all, doesn’t that give sponsors and team members the false impression that our jobs are in fact simple and easy? The answer is to encourage full participation of sponsors and team members to make their jobs as simple and easy even if you risk your own ego and empire building. Before adding a new template to your protocol library ask:

a)     What is the objective I am trying to achieve with this template?

b)     Can the template at least 80% of the type of projects only partially achieves the objective?

c)      Are any two elements within the template that asks the same question?

 2. Transparent

There is truth in the saying that if you have to explain a joke, it is not funny. The same holds for project templates. If you have to go to great efforts to explain or justify a templates’ objective to your sponsor and team members, then those template are not needed. Strive to remove the bloated, complicated and non-targeted templates from your library.

3. Flexible

Contemporary thought suggests that companies should have five or less layers of hierarchy, projects should be agile and true change response means having the ability to turn on a dime. The same thoughts need to be applied to your templates. Truly flexible templates should be the following traits:

Does existing templates achieve their objective? For those that only partially achieves their objectives, can those templates be modified?

Can the template be used in 80% of the projects as is? Does your sponsors, team members or project managers have any thoughts/actions around adjusting the templates to meet the other 20%?

Is feedback from sponsors/teams/project managers on the template discussed and weighted before deciding whether to incorporate the change?

4. Concise

Verbal communication is often richer than written communication. It is often easier to be told what to do than it is to read what to do, especially if that reading consist of blocks of text within in 8 point font. Your template should be targeted (use bullets where possible), allow “eye breathing” space (white space), delineate where information is needed (boxes, lines, check boxes) and save trees (does not say in two pages what can be said in one). Concise.

 5. Evolve

Like the theory of man, your template needs to learn, grow and stand on its own. A template created and maintained with evolution in mind displays the following traits:

a)    Has feedback on templates has been reviewed and incorporated, if applicable?

b)    Are you willing to admit the template is not working or modify its elements into another template or delete it entirely?

c)    Was the template fully vetted within the PMO or is it simply an inherited template from the last PMO best practice exercise?

The 5 traits presented above when taken together aim and ensure the templates used within a PMO are the best (effective, responsive, targeted) it can be. Avoid the central characteristic in the not-so-tall tale. Ensure your templates are simple, transparent, flexible, concise and evolve so you avoid being a slave to them