Skip to main content

Author: Angelo Baratta

Understanding the Chemistry and Physics of Change: Part 2 – The Chemistry

In Part 1, we presented the Three Laws of Organizational Change:

  1. Law of Persistence: A person or process continues its current behavior (won’t change) until an unbalanced force is applied.baratta nov13
  2. Law of Power: The force required to cause a change depends on two things: the mass of the object (how big the thing is that we’re trying to change), and how fast we need to get to the new state.
    1. Force = how big X how fast
    2. Work = force X how far
  3. Law of Reciprocity: To change something we have to interact with it. Every interaction produces an equal and opposite response.

 The key conclusion based on these laws is:

In order to effect a change, a force is always required.
Change doesn’t just happen.

This means that change will never take place without work (energy over time). So what and where is the source of this energy? To answer this question we need to understand the Chemistry of Change.

What is the Source of Energy/Force For Change?

To affect an organizational change, we need a force that is strong enough, and we need the energy to see the change through to completion. But where does that energy come from? And what kind of energy is required for organizational change to succeed?

There are three distinct kinds of energy:

  1. Mechanical
  2. Electromagnetic
  3. Emotional

In every case, regardless of the type, energy is generated by difference; the greater the difference, the greater the energy.

Think of a hydroelectric generating station. What do you picture? Do you picture a dam and a waterfall? The energy generated is a result of the difference in height from top to bottom. The purpose of a dam is to create that difference. Water, moving from high to low, supplies the energy that turns the turbines and creates electricity; the greater the distance between the top and the bottom, the greater the force and energy.

‘Difference’ is the source of energy; and energy is required to exert a force.

Electricity is measured as the potential difference between two points.

To make a choice and pursue a goal that is different from the status quo requires emotional energy. When we care about something we have more energy for it. When we don’t care (apathy), we have no energy for it. Emotional energy is the energy required to fuel organizational change.

Without emotion there is no motion.

Since we derive energy from difference, it is a perceived difference in personal future value that triggers our chemistry of emotion. When we perceive a difference between where we want to be, and where we are, and when that difference matters to us, then that sparks emotion, and that produces energy for action (motion).

To effect an organization change requires emotional energy which can only come from people. In order to generate emotional energy in an individual, three conditions must be met:

  1. They must be aware of the impact of the change
  2. They must care about how it affects them personally, either directly or indirectly
  3. They must be able to place a personal value on the impact.

Emotional Energy = function of (perceived value of a difference)

A single organizational change can create multiple stakeholder impacts. A new status quo can lead to stakeholders experiencing one or more of the following perceived and real consequences:

  1. They can be better off—more value.
  2. They can be worse off—less value.
  3. They can be unaffected—no change in value.

Evaluating the difference for each stakeholder is the key to determining if we have enough power and energy to effect the target changes. Accomplishing this is difficult for a number of reasons, in particular:

  1. It can be difficult to accurately quantify the direct impact of a change.
  2. Even when we can quantify the impact, we cannot easily and accurately determine how that impact will be valued by each stakeholder.

For example: a $1000 per year raise to someone earning $20,000 may have much more value than the same $1000 per year raise to someone earning $100,000. This makes intuitive sense. But what about a $1000 raise to ten people, each currently earning the same thing? Will each place the same value on the same $1000 increase? Not necessarily. Value perception is individual and circumstance and time specific. There is no formula to compute it, as of yet. That same raise a month from now may be valued very differently than today by the same person.

What all this means is that as difficult as it is to quantify the direct impact generated by a change, it can prove almost impossible to quantify the value of that impact to each stakeholder, even when interacting with the stakeholders themselves. And to make things more challenging, that value is subject to change without notice.

To reiterate, there are three potential responses to a change, based on each stakeholder’s perception of consequences and how they value them:

  1. Response to a perceived increase in value: support/assist
  2. Response to a perceived decrease in value: block/resist
  3. Response to no difference in value: apathy/ignore

A perceived decrease in value as the result of a change will elicit a resistance response. Therefore, if every project you’ve been on had resisters, then maybe it’s the changes that need to be reviewed. Perhaps most organizational changes tend to result in a reduction in certain stakeholders’ value propositions. If that’s the case, resistance is only natural.

Chemistry is about the emotions generated by the stakeholder question, “What difference will it make to me?” In order to generate a force for change, we need to turn on people’s emotions in the direction of the desired change.

People will react to a real or perceived change in their value outcomes. People are less concerned about the technicalities of the change and more interested in the value impact of the change to them, real or perceived. The greater the distance between their perception of current value and potential future value, the greater the emotional force and energy. The change itself is not the cause of how people feel about the change. The perceived impact is the cause. And that’s chemistry. Feelings generate energy and force. Apathy generates inaction.

In order to increase the support energy and decrease the resistance energy, we need a good understanding of the total stakeholder impacts. But how do we get that?

Understanding the Difference : The Stakeholder Value P & L

A program/project may produce numerous individual change impacts. Any one of these may contribute to project failure. Therefore, it is crucial to understand all the forces (support, resist, apathy) that will come into play on that project. A Stakeholder Value Profit and Loss (P & L) Statement is a tool that makes all the potential impacts overt. Think of it as a P & L for the project.

To develop a Stakeholder Value P & L, identify the following for each stakeholder:

  1. The change
  2. Real impacts
    1. The impact of that change
    2. The direction of the impact; this determines the direction of the force—assist, resist, ignore.
    3. How each stakeholder feels about the impact of the change? Quantify likely range of values each individual stakeholder will attribute to the impact—strength of force.
    4. How long will the feelings last? This is a measure of how much energy is likely to be spent by each stakeholder. A stakeholder may initially react with great resistance but quickly lose interestor change their feelings. That’s a strong force but minimal energy.
  3. Perceived impacts(repeat a. to d. above)

More projects run out of energy before they run out of money, than the other way around.

And, by the way, running out of money is really running out of investor energy. Understanding the real and perceived impact of each change to each stakeholder group and individual stakeholder is essential to success. This should be undertaken at the very beginning of a program as part of the selection process. Don’t start a program that does not have sufficient force and energy to complete. The following formula summarizes the concept:

Force for change: Assist force – Resist force > force required for change

It would be nice if we could simply plug in numbers into this formula and generate an answer. But we can’t. What we can do is use our Stakeholder Profit and Loss Statement to analyze our change and develop alternatives that generate more assist forces and fewer and weaker resist forces. We can minimize the risk of failure but we cannot guarantee success.

Perception is Reality

Perception is reality. Right?

Perception is not reality. However, people make decisions based on their perception of reality. That means that as change managers we always have two choices.

  1. We can make real changes to our project which will result in a real change in the future reality, thereby changing the forces and energy available.
  2. We can affect the perception of the reality, while leaving real consequences alone, thereby changing the forces and energy available.

We can alter the available force and energy by changing the real impact or by changing the perceived impact. As an ethical manager, I would support improving the real impact and working to bring the perception in line with the reality. As a program/project manager you must be able to detect the difference and you should work to maximize the real value and bring perceptions in line wth the real.

When Does Change Management Begin?

All projects introduce change. Therefore, all projects require force and energy to complete. Understanding how much force and how much energy will be required is something every project needs to understand. And it needs to understand this at the very start of a project. In fact, I would say that it’s a requirement for starting the project. That means that a change management assessment, using the Stakeholder Profit and Loss Statement or similar concept, should be undertaken as part of the decision to proceed, rather than as part of the subsequent project planning and execution. Once a project is started, people’s commitments tend to become fixed and jeopardy becomes attached to major changes or to cancellation. Changing the impact reality becomes much more difficult once the plane is off the ground (so to speak).


Progress requires change. Change requires effort (work and energy). People are the source of the emotional energy required for project work. That energy can be applied in support of the change or against the change. The strength of the force will be determined by the difference in perceived value created by the change. The direction depends on whether the value goes up or down for a particular stakeholder. The job of the project manager with regard to change is to fully understand all impacts and how they affect each stakeholder’s perception of value. The Stakeholder Profit and Loss profile is a good tool for achieving that.

The best case is when every single stakeholder sees real value as increasing for them as a result of the change. This is the holy grail of Change Management. It is the single scenario that requires the least energy to implement any given change because the resistance forces will be zero and the support forces will be at maximum. It is the only condition that generates a win-win-win…. scenario. The focus of Change Management should be to create such scenarios, not to manage people through win-lose initiatives, as is too often the case.

Don’t forget to leave your comments below.

Understanding the Chemistry and Physics of Change: Part 1 – The Physics

Change, what is it? What is its purpose?

Change is not some random event. Change is about status quo. It is the planned movement from the current status quo to some new status quo. Change, like a project, is transitional. It is the transition between two stable status quos, the current and the desired. Since change is not random, it is initiated by someone and affects others. A single change has multiple impacts. It’s not enough to understand just the nature of the change. We also need to understand the nature, target, and consequence of the stakeholder impacts.

There are three key conditions in Change Management that we need to understand and address:

  1. Single changes create multiple stakeholder impacts. A new status quo can lead to stakeholders experiencing one or more of the following consequences:
    1. They can be better off.
    2. They can be worse off.
    3. They can be unaffected.
  2. Stakeholder perception of the impact may be different from the reality. Each stakeholder will respond based on his perception of the project impact. Therefore, it’s critical for the change manager to understand each stakeholder’s perception versus reality.
  3. Stakeholder management and planning must take account of both the reality and the perception, for the change to succeed.

Change Management is a combination of art, practice, and science and it takes all three to get it right. In this first part, we’re going to explore the science aspect, in particular the physics of change. When a change happens, someone or something made it happen. The starting point for change is always the current state, which is subject to the Three Laws of Organization Change. I didn’t invent these laws. Sir Isaac Newton discovered and proved them. They are still valid today.

One of the first principles that came out of TRIZ research (theory of inventive problem solving) is that problems and solutions are repeated across industries and sciences. That means that quite often, a problem in one area has already been solved in a different area. That’s the case with “Change Management.” Sir Isaac Newton formulated and proved the Three Laws of Motion. But they could have been called the Three Laws of Change of Motion because they describe how change is made to happen. I’ve simply taken these three laws and repurposed them for organization change management. But they retain the same power and meaning as the original laws. Let’s review the original laws.

Newton’s Three Laws of “Change of” Motion are:

  1. First Law: A body in motion remains in motion. A body at rest remains at rest. Unless the body in acted on by an unbalanced force.
  2. Second Law: The unbalanced force required to move a body is defined by:
    • Force = Mass X acceleration (F = ma)
  3. Third Law: For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. In every interaction there is a pair of forces.

Newton was a scientist. A scientist seeks to understand “how” something behaves. A philosopher seeks to understand “why.” The “why” is not always available to us.

Three Laws or Organization Change

baratta nov13
Now, let’s restate the laws for our organizational change management world. They explain a lot.
  1. Law of Persistence: A person or process continues its current behaviour (won’t change) until an unbalanced force is applied.
  2. Law of Power: The force required to cause a change depends on two things: the mass of the object (how big the thing is that we’re trying to change), and how fast we need to get to the new state.
    1. Force = how big X how fast
    2. Work = force X how far
  3. Law of Reciprocity: To change something we have to interact with it. Every interaction produces an equal and opposite response.

Implications of the Laws of Change in our Business World

First Law: The Law of Persistence

The status quo is persistent. The first law says that nature favors the status quo. Why? It doesn’t matter why. But for those who can’t rest until they know why, here’s a plausible reason. Nature is efficient. Since the status quo is where we need to be most of the time, nature has made the status quo free. We don’t need to exert any force to stay the course. But, in order for the status quo to be free and sustainable, then change must require force and cost. We get one or the other for free, not both. Nature has made a wise choice.

The world we know would not be possible without this law. Take baseball, for example. When the pitcher throws the ball, he’s applying a force to the ball while the ball is in his hands. As his arm moves through the air with the ball in his hand, he’s accelerating the ball. At some point he let’s go of the ball, removing the force. The ball is now on its own. If the first law didn’t exist, the ball would immediately fall, since the force is gone. Instead the ball continues its motion, even though there is no longer any force acting on it. It continues its journey to the batter. The batter then wants to change the motion of the ball, so he needs to apply a force to it. He does this with his swinging bat. The ball accelerates in the direction of the force of the bat until it leaves the bat. Again, if the first law didn’t exist, the ball would fall to the ground as soon as the bat lost contact.

Same deal in football or any other sport. Once the football leaves the quarterback’s hand, there is no force. Yet the ball continues in flight. Without the first law, it would immediately fall to the ground. It’s the same in our business world. Once we’ve established a way of doing things through training and coaching, we can leave it alone and it should faithfully continue to operate in the same way. We can expect that people and processes will behave today as they did yesterday. That allows us to focus on the things we need to change. Our world is stable, predictable. Imagine someone came along and tried to get our people to change their ways and that the first law didn’t exist. That person would have an easy time changing the team’s behaviour. We’d have to spend all our time making sure that didn’t happen. Fortunately that’s not the case. Change requires force, time and energy, so it isn’t easy for anyone to change our team’s behaviour. Of course, that means that if we want to deploy a change, we have to revert to using a force as well. We can’t have stability for free and change for free. We have to pay for on, and that one is “the change”.

But how much force is required for a particular change? That depends. The second law explains.

Second Law: The Law of Power

If we want to move a 20 tons truck we need a bigger force than moving a tricycle. Why? The truck is bigger. It has more mass. The greater the mass, the greater the force required. That seems pretty intuitive. If we don’t have enough force (not strong enough), the second law says, “Don’t waste your time trying.” We’re simply going to waste our energy.

In addition to force, there is another consideration, “How far do we want to move the truck?” This is a second component to the second law. Even if we are strong enough to move it, can we move it all the way to where we want? Moving an object a certain distance is work. Work = force X distance (how far). Even if we’re strong enough to get it started, do we have enough energy to exert that force over the distance required? If we don’t, then we shouldn’t bother trying, especially if we’re moving the truck up an incline. As soon as we run out of energy and stop pushing, the truck will roll back down to its previous state. Sound familiar? In an organization all changes should be considered uphill. Many changes are not sustained for that reason.

What does this mean for our business projects? If we are introducing a change that impacts 100 people, we need a larger force than the same change to 10 people. A change that impacts 10 powerful people will require greater force than one impacting 10 not-so-powerful people. One hundred people represent a bigger mass than ten people. So we need a larger force. If our change is small, then that’s like pushing the truck a small distance. If the change is big, then that’s like pushing the truck a longer distance. Our project requires enough clout (force) to impact our mass, and enough resources (energy) to move that mass to the new desired status quo.

Third Law: The Law of Reciprocity

The first two laws say that people and processes don’t naturally resist, they persist. Imagine you’re wearing very slippery skates on an ice ring. Imagine to you walk up to someone from behind, so that they don’t see you and don’t have time to react. You push the other person, who is also on skates. Who will move? Of course, you will both move. But has the other person deliberately pushed you? No, they haven’t. The third law says that force is an interaction. Force always occurs in pairs. So when you apply a force to a body, then the other body unwittingly applies an equal force to you as well. That’s not resistance you’re feeling. That’s persistence.

Now imagine the other person was facing you and just as you push them, they dig their skate tip in the ice and push back. Now you’d be experiencing two forces; you pushing him, and him pushing back. That would be resistance.

When we try to change something, it will always reciprocate. That’s nature telling us that change is not free. The third implies that tiny changes may be easy while large changes will be difficult, regardless of any overt resistance that may be offered for other reasons. Resistance is not the third law. It is another unbalanced force coming from someone else trying to make a change of their own. When there is resistance, there are at least two forces coming from two different sources.

Why is change difficult? How difficult is it? It is difficult so that stability can be easy. The level of difficulty will depend on the mass we’re trying to impact and how quickly we’re trying to impact it.

People don’t naturally resist change. They persist in status quo behaviour according to the laws of nature. If you ask someone “Why do you do things that way?” and they respond, “Because that’s the way we’ve always done it,” don’t laugh, thinking that’s a poor reason. Not only is it a good reason, it’s the law.

Next Instalment
In our second instalment, we’ll examine the impact of the three laws on program and project management. We’ll explore the chemistry of change and where Change Management best fits in a project: who should be accountable for change, and how it relates to stakeholder value management?

Don’t forget to leave your comments below.

Measuring the Business Value of a Project

How do we measure project success? Do we measure budget and schedule or do we measure net value delivered to the organization? Today, we tend to measure the former. But it is the latter, delivered value, which is the truer measure. This is the way projects will be evaluated in the future. The current Triple Constraint focuses on the delivery portion of a project, rather than its business value. It focuses on a single project, and is primarily based on a cost view.

The Value Triple Constraint is an evolution of the Triple Constraint. It is a framework for measuring the on-going value delivered through projects and for bringing to light the “value left behind”. It is pictured below

Exhibit 1 – Value Triple Constraint

The Value Triple Constraint states:

Value delivered is a function of the Scope of the business opportunity and of our Capability to identify, decide and deliver to the opportunity.

From a business perspective, a project is aimed at taking an organization from one level of measured performance to a higher level of measured performance. To determine if we have achieved that objective we need good methods of measurement.

The Value Triple Constraint: Tracking Four Distinct Phases

The Value Triple Constraint (VTC) tracks an opportunity through each of four distinct phases as follows, from last to first:

  • Realization Phase. This is where we implement the output product or service and begin to harvest the results. Naturally, we want to deliver a positive value. In reality, this may be considered mostly outside the project, since it occurs after the project is complete.
  • Delivery Phase. This is our current focus of attention. It consumes most of the effort, attention and costs of the project. It is the phase where we apply the classical triple constraint. However, the conditions for business success are largely set before this phase, outside the actual project. Also, while the project is being delivered, the eventual benefits are being delayed and so speed of delivery is important.
  • Decision Phase. This is the phase where we select among the many to decide which projects will go forward and when. Although this phase doesn’t consume significant costs or effort, it does often consume significant calendar time. It focuses on cost-benefit, not value delivered.
  • Identification Phase. This is not a phase with which many organizations are even familiar. There is a point at which we recognize that there is an opportunity. However, that opportunity may have existed for many months or many years. Just because we didn’t see it until now, doesn’t mean it didn’t exist.

We tend to focus on the delivery phase. That’s where our budget lives. The decision and identification phases contain very little budget costs. But they represent significant opportunity costs. However, opportunity costs don’t show up on any P& L statements. There are no statements that present us with value that did not show up. The Value Triple ConstraintTM measures both value delivered, and value not delivered that could have been delivered. This is largely ignored, yet represents a significant opportunity. To understand how the VTC approaches measurement, we need to understand the major value components in the VTC and how they are related.

Project Value – Measuring the Outcome at the Project Level

The four major components that affect long term value delivery are:

  • Realized Value
  • Project Cost
  • Decision Opportunity Cost
  • Identification Opportunity Cost

Let us explore each of these in turn.

Realized Value. This is the actual benefit experienced after implementaion. The realized value is delivered, over time, across organizational boundaries. Because of this and other reasons, it is often not tracked for any meaningful period of time. And yet, it is the single most important measure that can tell us how well we are doing overall, across all projects. Why is it important to measure the value delivered across the entire benefit projection period? Business processes have a way of deteriorating. So we need to know, over the entire benefit projection period, what the value delivered was. It is not unlikely that organizations have a tendency to select a “sampling period” that is favorable rather than representative.

Project Cost. This is the familiar budget portion of any project. Under the Value Triple ConstraintTM, it is divided into two separate components:

  1. Delivery Cost. This is the usual cost component which is reflected in the budget. This represents money actually spent, whether capital or expense.
  2. Schedule Opportunity Cost. Under the Triple Constraint we track the schedule in terms of time. In the VTC, we track schedule in terms of its benefit equivalent. This is both new and different. To convert schedule time into schedule cost, we need a formula. It is calculated as:

Schedule Opportunity Cost = Monthly Net Benefit x Schedule Months

For example, a project with a projected monthly net benefit of $50,000 and expected schedule of 10 months, would have a Schedule Opportunity Cost of $500,000 ($50k x 10 months). The Schedule Opportunity Cost provides a better mechanism for choosing among alternative schedule options, because it reflects the time cost of delivery – time is money.

Decision Opportunity Cost. While an organization waits to decide, no benefits can be delivered. And so, there is a real cost to the time it takes to make a decision. The quicker we decide, the quicker we begin to realize benefits.

Identification Opportunity Cost. We may recognize that we have an opportunity today. However, an opportunity begins when the conditions that gave rise to it, came to be. So there is virtually always a gap between the time an opportunity arises and when someone in the organization acknowledges it. That gap has an opportunity cost

Identification and Decision Opportunity Costs reflect our capability with respect to those two functions. In many organizations a focus on those two would result in the delivery of much more value to the organization than would a focus on project delivery skills, which might already be quite high.

If project managers wish to be more successful, then the projects need to be more successful from a business perspective. They need to think outside the project because that’s where success begins. A project that will, in the end, deliver very little Realized Benefit is not going to be a business success. Such a project is born handicapped.

Some Uses of Value Triple Constraint

The VTC has these major uses:

  1. Quantify the business value of a project
  2. Select from alternative schedules.
  3. Look for opportunities to deliver more value through speed along the entire opportunity chain.

To reduce risk on a single project, we should continuously update the Value Profile, not just the costs. This would include:

  1. Projected Realized Value
  2. Projected Delivery Cost
  3. Projected Schedule Opportunity Cost

By tracking and projecting all three, we could detect some important things that we don’t currently manage. For example, if the projected Realized Value begins to decline and the Delivery Cost begins to increase, we know there is the risk that the project will be cancelled. And perhaps it should. Also, if the Realized Value after completion shows a tendency to be less than predicted then perhaps projects are being oversold.

On the other hand, when the projected Realized Value increases, then our projected Schedule Opportunity Cost will also increase. This should tell us to revisit the schedule because time has become more valuable.

What about scope management? When an increase in scope results in an increase in the schedule, we should take the additional Schedule Opportunity Cost into consideration. For example, an increase in scope may result in an increase in the Realized Value of $100,000, an increase in cost of only $30,000, and an additional two months of schedule.

Without looking at the schedule impact this seems like a simple decision. But it the benefit was $50,000 per month, then we would incur an additional $100,000 (2 months) of Schedule Opportunity Cost in addition to the $30,000 Delivery Cost. This changes the equation. The organization would be paying $130,000 of value to gain only $100,000. Suddenly it doesn’t make sense any more.

Another example is a change request which is in budget but does not increase the projected realized value. This should be declined because the net Value would decrease and should be declined. Today, the tendency is to accept a change which is in budget, even if it adds no value. Projects exist to capitalize on opportunities. Therefore, we need to measure lost opportunity just as much as measuring adherence to an estimate, which may not even be correct.

Enterprise Value – Measuring the Outcome at the Enterprise Level

How do we determine what the optimal sequence is for projects? Look at the following example. We have two projects requiring the same resources. So which do we do first?

Exhibit 2 – Comparing ROIs

From an ROI perspective, Project A appears more attractive and so we might be tempted to do it first. But, by including the schedule cost, we can compare the two alternatives.

The total Realized Value and the total Delivery Cost are the same regardless of order. However, the total Schedule Cost is different for each alternative.

If we do A first, then the Schedule Costs will be:

  • Schedule cost for A is 12 months at $50,000 per month or $600,000
  • Schedule cost for B is 12 months waiting for A to finish, plus 12 months to complete B for a total of 24 months. Each month is worth $75,000 (benefit from B) for a total of $1.8 million.
  • Total Schedule Cost for this alternative is $600,000 + $1.8million = $2.4 million

If we do B first, then the Schedule Costs will be:

  • Schedule cost for B is 12 months at $75,000 per month or $900,000
  • Schedule cost for A is 12 months waiting for B to finish, plus 12 months to complete A for a total of 24 months. Each month is worth $50,000 (benefit from A) for a total of $1.2 million.
  • Total Schedule Cost for this alternative is $900,000 + $1.2 million = $2.1 million

Clearly option B is has the least opportunity cost and, therefore, the highest value, which may not be the intuitive choice.

Program, Project, Portfolio and PMO

How do projects, programs and portfolios relate? First, we begin with a quantifiable business opportunity, and designate a program for it. Then, as we determine all the projects required to deliver to the business opportunity, they become part of the program. Beginning at the opportunity/program level provides us with a way to pull necessary projects into the measurable program, rather than trying to group projects after the fact. The VTC can be used to determine the best way to organize and schedule projects within the program and also helps determine sequencing for programs. Once we apply the VTC to a program, we can determine what criteria we wish to use to develop portfolios.

Exhibit 3 – How Projects. Programs and Portfolios Relate


The Value Triple Constraint moves the focus from the project manager to project

management as a whole. It requires the business to take responsibility for establishing and confirming the benefit and focuses attention on the opportunities of identification and decision in addition to delivery. It requires the quantification and validation of actual project benefits. This will discourage any practice of overstating benefits to get approval and then abandoning that metric. The proposed VTC model gives us a better way to evaluate project success. It also allows us to focus our attention on where the true opportunities lie. If most of the value lost is in the identification and selection, then there may be more opportunity in improving how we identify opportunities and how quickly we make decisions rather than improving our delivery capability.

Don’t forget to leave your comments below

Angelo Baratta, PMP, CMC is dedicated to significantly raising organizational capabilities. His ePPMTM framework goes beyond best practices. It is a scientifically engineered system for raising the effectiveness of project, process and requirements management – key competences for all organizations.
Web: Email: [email protected]
Tel: 905-270-7591

Value Triple ConstraintTM is a registered trademark