Skip to main content

Author: Drew Davison

Drew Davison is the owner and principal consultant at Davison Consulting and a former system development executive. He is the developer of Project Pre-Check, an innovative framework for launching projects and guiding successful project delivery, the author of Project Pre-Check - The Stakeholder Practice for Successful Business and Technology Change and Project Pre-Check FastPath - The Project Manager’s Guide to Stakeholder Management. He works with organizations that are undergoing major business and technology change to implement the empowered stakeholder groups critical to project success. Drew can be reached at [email protected].

From the Sponsor’s Desk – Strategic Planning Is Just another Project

Written by Drew Davison on . Posted in Articles. 5 Comments on From the Sponsor’s Desk – Strategic Planning Is Just another Project

Strategic planning. It’s that corporate activity that happens every four or five years, takes six months to complete and requires an annual renewal cycle to update the long-term projections.

Or, it may happen every six months at a company that’s in a fast changing market. Or, it’s a continuous process if you listen to some management gurus. We know it consumes considerable senior executive cycles. It can also require an abundance of support staff time to provide the data, test out the scenarios and do the forecasts. It’s a mystery to many.

Here’s one instance of a strategic planning effort that was mandated by the company’s parent and carried out over ten weeks under the CEO’s direction. With the aid of an experienced consultant and the participation and, ultimately, endorsement of the company’s senior executives, the resulting plan laid out fundamental changes in the company’s markets, relationships, organization, and culture.

Thanks to J.G. for his contributions to this post.

The Situation

This niche financial services organization had been taken over by a larger international firm. One of the demands from the parent company was a refreshed strategic plan that would foster increased growth in the company’s domestic markets and through the parent’s international exposure.

The company had produced strategic plans in the past, but they hadn’t really challenged their approach to the market or assumptions on their operating results. In fact, past plans had typically reaffirmed business as usual. The company’s CEO sought an outsider to lead the company’s executives through the strategic planning process in the hopes that the newcomer could shake things up a bit and address the parent company’s demands.

The Goal

The CEO’s goal was to contract with a seasoned consultant to work with senior management and facilitate the development of a corporate strategic plan that supported increased growth in domestic and international markets. The target date for completion was six weeks from the start of the consultant’s engagement.

The Project

The CEO, through a number of his contacts, found a consultant who looked like a great fit. The consultant was a former CEO and had been advising corporate boards and senior executives for a number of years with a specialization in strategic planning practices.

The consultant reviewed his ten step approach with the CEO. Given the immediate challenge, they agreed to complete the first seven steps within the six-week timeframe. The final three steps would focus on the development and implementation of the delivered plan and would be carried out after the strategic plan was finalized and consequently out of scope for the consultant.

 davisondec1

Given the CEO’s agreement to his method, the consultant proceeded to draft a contract for the CEO’s approval. The contract included the following information:

  • Engagement description
  • Assignment goals and metrics to assess achievement
  • Costs and benefits
  • Approach and scope
  • Stakeholders, roles and degree of commitment
  • Assumptions and risks
  • Change and issue management protocols
  • Completion criteria

The consultant’s draft contract was essentially a project charter. He produced a document that specified what was expected, how much it was going to cost, and the value it would deliver, how they were going to achieve the desired result, who needed to be involved, in what roles, committing how much time and effort and how all parties would confirm engagement completion. One essential principle was at the core of the contract: the strategic plan belonged to the executives. The consultant’s role was to guide them along the strategic planning path.

Related Article: 9 Steps to Project Success

With the CEO’s approval of the consultant’s contract, they proceeded to map out the timing for the introductory meeting, one on one meetings with each executive, follow-on group sessions and the final strategic plan review exercise. It became apparent that the six-week completion target was a significant challenge for the CEO, let alone the other executives. The CEO asked his executive assistant to contact the other stakeholders and book the planned meetings into their calendars. Of course, she ran into all kinds of schedule conflicts.

The consultant suggested scheduling the introductory meeting first and using that as a forum for the CEO to gain commitment and to persuade the other executives to structure their calendars appropriately. And so it went. The introductory meeting happened. The CEO reaffirmed his commitment to the planning process and asked the eight other executives in the room to fully commit to the effort. The consultant outlined the process they would follow and the suggested plan to achieve the CEO’s target. He asked them to think strategically, to be prepared to revisit, to iterate and test various scenarios. He also indicated that every possible course of action would be tested against four factors:

  1. Alignment with the company’s mission, vision, and culture and, of course, revisions if necessary.
  2. Contribution to the company’s present and future financial health.
  3. Value to present and future customers.
  4. Impact on the company’s current and future employees and systems – business and technology

The reaction from the executives was polite but resistant. The consultant described the timbre of the meeting as “throwing teacups at each other”. Ultimately, everyone acknowledged the need for the process and committed to participate fully. However, there was no question they knew change was in store, for the company and for them. That awareness came with resistance in all its guises, both overt and covert. The consultant proceeded accordingly.

The meetings were planned over ten weeks, the only way to get everyone actively participating. There were brilliant insights, retrenchment, and avoidance, but the thinking and direction started to coalesce. When the consultant brought the executives together for the final review meeting, there was electricity in the air. They were enlightened, committed and ready to get on with the work ahead.

The Results

The strategic plan was developed and documented in ten weeks, not the six weeks planned. Of course, the cost of the consultant’s time was also 40% over target. However, the CEO was delighted with the results, and the parent company blessed the plan with only minor changes to the international component. All senior executives were signatories to the document and committed to sharing with their staff over the following months. They were believers. As well, as the contract wound down, steps were already being taken to launch Step 8 in the consultant’s methodology – Develop a business portfolio, program and project plan.

The plan included seven significant changes for the company going forward:

  1. Think strategically: about all elements of the business, its customers, staff, partnerships and processes on an ongoing basis, not once in a while.
  2. Strategic goals: established to realize the company’s mission and vision and structured to complement overall performance
  3. Key success factors: to target, monitor and revise as needed on an ongoing basis
  4. Customer orientation: to foster an outside-in culture and enhance understanding of customer needs, challenges, and opportunities
  5. Structure by strategic business units: to effectively serve their unique, diverse and growing markets
  6. Cost focus: to better understand and manage costs and expenditures in the service of corporate priorities
  7. Put the right people in the right seats: to leverage available talent and maximize their contribution, in the short and long term.

There you have it! Strategic planning is just another project.

How a Great Leader Delivered

Often, trying to facilitate a strategic planning process is like herding cats – it disrupts the status quo, not everyone sees the need, and everyone has their own agenda. The consultant, in this case, had a number of assets that helped him succeed on behalf of his client.

  • He had experience. He had been a CEO. He had conducted strategic planning efforts with other organizations. He knew what to expect, how to relate, how to defuse resistance and capitalize on enthusiasm.
  • He had a method. His ten step process framed the work to be done and help establish the path going forward for all to see. He had used the process before to deliver successfully and knew how to adapt it to each unique circumstance.
  • He had a great sponsor. The CEO had the command from the parent company to satisfy. That was a recognized burning platform that the CEO and consultant used to motivate action in the other executives. The CEO owned the problem and fully supported his agent, the consultant, in the development of the strategic plan.
  • He managed expectations. The executives understood what was ahead of them from the outset. They knew the process they would go through, the tests that would be applied to each and every idea. They knew that they would have to revisit, iterate and rethink previous positions. They knew they would have to agree and act on the results.
  • He identified the owners at the outset. He made it clear from the beginning that the executives owned the results. That fact cemented their commitment to the endeavor and allowed him to do his job as facilitator. They made the decisions on the who, when, what, where and why questions. He made the calls on how. They were the sponsors and targets. He was the change agent.

These assets are exactly the kind of attributes and tools an experienced project manager uses to manage a project. With the exception of the experience factor, they can be applied by even the most junior manager. Appointment of a suitable mentor or supporting senior PM can be used to plug an experience gap. As I said, strategic planning is just another project.
So, if you find yourself leading a strategic planning initiative, or any kind of planning effort, where the deliverable is an action plan, put these points on your checklist of things to do in future endeavors so you too can be a Great Leader. And remember, use Project Pre-Check’s three building blocks covering the key stakeholder group, the decision management process and Decision Framework best practices right up front, so you don’t overlook these key success factors.

Finally, thanks to all you storytellers out there who share your experiences. Everyone benefits. First-time contributors get a copy of one of my books. Readers get insights they can apply to their own unique circumstances. So, if you have a project experience, good, bad and everything in between, send me the details, and we’ll chat. I’ll write it up and, when you’re happy with the results, Project Times will post it so others can learn from your experiences. Thanks

From the Sponsor’s Desk – The Lessons of Heroic Projects

Written by Drew Davison on . Posted in Articles. 4 Comments on From the Sponsor’s Desk – The Lessons of Heroic Projects

I expect most of us have had a project experience or two where considerable extra time and effort were required to deliver our change successfully – where we pulled an all-nighter, where teammates crashed on conference tables and chairs for a couple of much needed winks.

 On the occasional project, that extra time and effort is fine, even celebrated if things go well. But, there are organizations and situations where the expectation of that extra time and effort is the norm not the exception, where heroic efforts are commonplace, the only way to have any chance of success.

What causes this situation to arise? Is it always the most appropriate response? Is there any way to instill a more rational approach? Read on to learn what one contract Project Manager concluded from his experience in a deliver-atall-cost organization.

Thanks to G.D. for his contributions to this post.

The Situation

This national retailer had a number of critical projects in progress and in trouble. One project in particular, a web-based marketplace venture, was experiencing all kinds of difficulty. The various parties to the design couldn’t agree, the quality of the code delivered to date was terrible, the technology infrastructure acquired to support the service wasn’t performing acceptably and the Project Manager who had taken the initiative from inception to the current state resigned in disgust. He complained about lack of management support. He wasn’t able to get the needed human resources and facilities. The scope kept expanding and the sponsor was obsessed with an unachievable target date. 

The PMO Director was charged by the Marketing VP with finding another PM to address the problems and guide the project to a successful conclusion. The Marketing VP’s exact words: “Find someone to clean up this mess or heads will roll!”

The Goal

The PMO Director presented the PM candidates he interviewed with an unbiased assessment of the project’s current state. The original goal for the project had been to deliver the Marketplace service offering five hundred or more of its top products in fourteen months. That target was still in place, but with only seven months to go, and there were a number of issues that had to be cleared up before the project could progress.

The Project

The PMO Director managed to bring on a seasoned PM with great qualifications, an excellent track record and terrific references who had just completed a similar project with a major competitor. The PMO Director hoped that the new PM could work the necessary magic to deliver the project by the target date and get the Marketing VP off his back. He certainly paid a premium price to get the new PM on board.

The new PM jumped in with both feet and fourteen hour days six days a week for the first three weeks. His project was a quagmire, as advertised! He also checked with a number of fellow PM’s to get a read on the organization’s culture and practices. He found an alarming parallel to his own project. His key findings:

  • Under Resourced and Over Committed – Most teams were lacking adequate resources, missing key skill sets and averaging ten or more hours a day, often six and even seven days a week. His team was no exception. The staff had already been going hard for seven months. The wear was starting to show: quality issues, increased absenteeism, more conflict, declining morale and, he expected, lower productivity.
  • Minimal Key Stakeholder Involvement – In many of the projects, the key decision makers acted like judge and jury in their monthly steering committee “courts”, rather than the leaders and change owners who needed to be engaged and actively involved in the conduct of the change.
  • Lack of Fully Documented Business Cases – The approach to business cases was as varied as the executives involved. Some projects were blessed based on an undocumented conversation, others based on a couple of PowerPoint slides, still others on an email chain. Benefits were almost always unquantified (more sales, lower costs, better service, etc.), costs were usually “ballpark” numbers, almost never supported with explanatory details (and not tracked anyway) and risks were seldom included.
  • No Understanding of Enterprise Priorities – Projects were launched based on their sponsoring executive’s ability to make the sale. Once approved, they scrambled for resources and facilities in competition with other projects. There were no established enterprise priorities, no agreed to precedence, no understanding of potential conflicts and dependencies. It was a demolition derby.
  • Irrational Target Dates – In many of the projects, the target dates were completely arbitrary. It seemed they were a reflection of the size of the originator’s ego. The dictated target dates were seen by the executives as a way of controlling costs. However, there were seldom any sound business or technology reasons to justify their pursuit. Yet pursued they were, at the cost of individual and team health and organizational sanity.
  • No Clear Statement of Worth – Pork barreling was alive and well. Minimally involved managers and hangers on would add their own pet requirements. PM’s had limited ability to say no, to push back. There was no organizational effort to insure incremental value for money spent. Consequently, costs went up with little or no managed return. And, of course, the target dates never changed but were rarely met.
  • No Agreement on Quality Goals – In most of the projects he looked at, including his own, there was an almost complete absence of defined targets for key quality factors such as usability, continuity, scalability, flexibility, portability, security, service levels, etc. Yet, addressing these factors appropriately was a key requirement for project success.
  • Lack of Core Best Practices – A consistent and rigorous application of fundamental project management best practices was mostly absent. There was little in the way of effective change or issue management. Only time was tracked, not costs. Risk management was mostly reactive. There was no prototyping to prove new concepts or test new approaches.  Implementations were largely big bang. Phasing and staging were rarely used. The typical response to resourcing issues, human and other, was to work longer, to work harder, to put up with conflicts and contention and suffer the consequences.

The PM’s first priority was to meet with the Marketing VP, the project’s sponsor. Unfortunately, the meeting took two weeks to  arrange. The PM reviewed his preliminary findings and asked the sponsor to get more involved and help plug some of the critical gaps. The sponsor’s response: “I’m busy. You’re the PM. Fix it.” When the PM tried to explain why the sponsor’s active involvement was vital, the sponsor ended the meeting.

What to do? The PM realized the project would likely not achieve its target date even if all the gaps were addressed. Without the sponsor’s active involvement, the risks were significantly greater. The PM decided to try the surrogate sponsor route. He would make the decisions on all the non-business questions and seek consensus on business matters from the other business folks involved.

The PM imposed some standard best practices that his team would apply going forward. He formed a business operating group comprised of the product managers, the sales director, IT software manager and infrastructure director. He appointed one product manager as the team leader and challenged the group to address the outstanding business related issues. He attempted to schedule individual meetings with the steering committee members (Marketing, Product and Sales VP’s and the CIO) to keep them up to date but was rebuffed so he kept them posted by email.

In two weeks, the business operating group had drafted a business case and established quality goals for all the relevant factors. Unfortunately, key targets were still unquantified. At the PM’s request they had also developed a phasing strategy including prioritization of the service’s planned functions and features. His team put together a plan that would deliver the service incrementally using the operating group’s phasing strategy. The total plan would take twenty months but they would get a good chunk implemented by the fourteen month target. Things were looking up! Morale was up. His team and their business partners were getting enthused. Again he kept the steering committee members updated via email.

And then the steering committee happened. Six weeks after his start on the project, he reviewed the project’s progress at his first steering committee. The Marketing VP ripped him to shreds. He trashed the work done by the operating group. He insisted some requested changes rejected by the PM’s new change management process had to be included. And, of course, the entire project had to be implemented by the original date. The other steering committee members sat by mutely and let the Marketing VP continue his
tirade. When the PM responded that there was no way the project could be fully implemented in the six months remaining to the original target date, the Marketing VP gritted his teeth, reiterated his demand and left the meeting. The PM appealed to the remaining steering committee members, to no avail.

The Results

The PM informed the PMO Director of the results of the steering committee meeting. And then he handed in his resignation.  Under pressure from the Marketing VP, the PMO Director contracted with one of the big consulting firms to run the whole project.  The final release was implemented three years after the firm was brought in, more than two and a half years beyond the original target date. While the organization didn’t track the project costs to the point the consulting firm took over, those in the know suggested that the final cost was probably more than four times the phased in approach the contract PM proposed.

How a Great Leader Could Have Improved the Outcome

The contract PM knew the project was in trouble when it took two weeks to arrange a meeting with the sponsor. He knew he was in trouble when he looked at the state of his project and the organization’s project management culture. He knew he was in trouble when he realized his sponsor was a bully. Given these realizations, is there anything he could have done differently to achieve a more successful outcome?

I did a similar post a while back, You Can’t Always Get What You Want, about a project which ended in a similar fashion. In that post, I suggested the PM could have cultivated the stakeholder group more effectively over the course of the project and leveraged its power and influence when the sponsor proved incapable.

Unfortunately, in this case, the PM never really formed a stakeholder group. He reported to the sponsor, his team reported to him.   The other members of the steering committee were essentially bystanders. The business operating group included committed business folks but they weren’t at a high enough level in the organization to bring any kind of pressure on the sponsor. When the PM decided to play the “surrogate sponsor” role, the dye was cast. His goose was cooked!

When the PM initially sought a meeting with the sponsor, he should have also booked meetings with the Product and Sales VP’s and the CIO. They all had significant stakes in the project. He needed to find out what they thought about the progress to date, to discuss their concerns and expectations for the project and confirm their willingness to get involved to shape the planned change. That investment in relationship-building could have changed the project’s power balance in significant and positive ways.

Once in a while, a heroic project effort may be necessary, and even exhilarating. But when it becomes the norm rather than the rare exception, things have gone too far. So, if you find yourself in a similar situation, on a project, or in an organization, that requires unrelenting heroic performances to be successful, take a step back. Think about how you’re going to transform the culture to a rational, best practice based experience that will deliver successfully without laying waste to people’s lives and the company’s aspirations. Put these points on your checklist of things to do in future endeavours so you too can be a Great Leader. And remember, use Project Pre-Check’s three building blocks covering the key stakeholder group, the decision management process and Decision Framework best practices right up front so you don’t overlook these key success factors.

Finally, thanks to all you story tellers out there who share your experiences. Everyone benefits. First time contributors get a copy of one of my books. Readers get insights they can apply to their own unique circumstances. So, if you have a project experience, good, bad and everything in between, send me the details and we’ll chat. I’ll write it up and, when you’re happy with the results, Project Times will post it so others can learn from your insights. Thanks

From the Sponsor’s Desk – Even Project Managers Sing the Blues

Written by Drew Davison on . Posted in Articles. 4 Comments on From the Sponsor’s Desk – Even Project Managers Sing the Blues

Let’s be honest. A project manager’s authority typically revolves around how to deliver a planned changed to the sponsor’s who, when, what, where and why dictates. When a sponsor doesn’t make an essential call on a project issue, the PM can be left in limbo.

In this case, over a three-year period, the project in question went from a top corporate priority to an important project, to just one of the many things that had to get done. Sponsor passion for the endeavour went from sizzling hot to ice cold. The PM’s ability to get key decisions made followed the same pattern, from immediate to never. What could the PM have done differently? We’ll see.

Thanks to G.D. for the details on this case.

The Situation

This financial services organization was experiencing a decline in the rate of growth for a key product line. The products in question were administered with largely manual processes. They were slow, error prone, and costly. The company’s potential customers were turned off by the whole exercise. As well, some their competitors had solutions in place to capture, evaluate, and respond with a timely decision, in many cases in real time. With these other appealing options available, the company was losing business.

The VP of Administration (VPA) attributed much of the decline to the slow, cumbersome process of capturing the prospect’s information and the failure to provide a timely decision. With the executive committee’s support, the VPA launched a project to automate the evaluation and approval process.

Related Article: Best Practices Accelerate Value Delivery

The Goal

The VPA’s goal was to reduce costs, improve service, and increase sales through a streamlined capture, evaluation, and approval system. His initial target for real-time approval was 20% or more of the submitted applications. He wanted a solution implemented within twelve months with a target return on investment of 25%.

The Project

The VPA and the CIO discussed the project’s leadership needs and selected a contract PM that had worked for the organization before and had shown an ability to get things done on a number of different fronts. Given the urgency and tight timelines, the PM’s first challenge was to assess the available alternatives and select the best one to achieve their goals.
The target solution would affect the sales organization as well as the administrative staff so the PM called on the VPA, the project’s sponsor, to meet with the Sales VP to get his backing for the endeavour and provide the needed resources going forward. The Sales VP was familiar with the challenges the company was facing and fully supported the project. He promised to participate in the steering committee with the VPA and CIO and provide timely decisions as the need arose.

With the senior executives lined up and on side, the PM and his team proceeded to build the assessment criteria and identify and assess the available alternatives. The VPs had provided the requested subject matter experts. They were experienced, motivated and passionate about solving the problems they had lived with for far too long. In two weeks, they had an assessment criteria draft ready for review by the executives. It was turned around in two days with some minor adjustments. Two weeks later they had five possible alternatives identified including an in-house developed solution, one cloud solution, and three competitive software packages. After a half day review with the VPs, the list was cut to three options. The in-house solution was dropped along with two of the packaged software solutions.

The PM and his team went to work assessing the short list alternatives. One option rose to the top. It seemed to have the best functional and non-functional coverage and the greatest potential for early delivery. Again, the team reviewed their findings and recommendations with the executives in a half day session and emerged with a decision. They would acquire a software package that appeared to cover most of their needs, could be implemented in three stages (a couple of back end, administrative components and a web based front end), and had a good track record. The only challenge was the price. It was the most expensive.

The PM brought in the manager of Contracts in IT to negotiate the contract with the vendor. Because of the target 25% ROI, the Contracts Manager suggested a fixed price contract as a means of controlling potential cost escalation. The selected software vendor worked through a systems integrator (SI) so the discussions took longer than planned but in the end, a deal was reached. The contract was signed by the VPA and CIO and the real work began.

The Administration and Sales subject matter experts defined the new business processes, evaluated the chosen solution against those needs and documented the changes required. The turnaround from the SI was terrific, and the first back-end component was implemented successfully in six months. The same approach was used for the second back-end component. However, turnaround slowed dramatically. The SI maintained that the development budget had been consumed, and they were now restricted to the annual support amount specified in the contract. Of course, the PM had kept a close eye on costs and resources and was surprised by the SI’s claim. It turned out that the SI was adding a 25% overhead charge to the direct labour costs. The contract was not clear on the matter, and the SI refused to budge.

The PM approached the VPA for addition funding. His team had put together a business case that demonstrated the incremental funding for the second stage enhancements would still support the 25% ROI target. The sponsor indicated he’d review the plan and get back with a decision. Unfortunately, the sponsor was wrapped up in other priority initiatives and the reply didn’t come for six weeks. That put the twelve-month implementation target out of reach. The same challenges persisted with the third stage web front- end. Changes required by the business were prioritized and queued, and the SI nibbled away using the limited annual support budget. Appeals by the PM and affected management in the Administration organization were rebuffed or ignored outright. The sponsor had other priorities on his plate.

The Results

During the first stage work, the steering committee met monthly. The project progressed smoothly, and there was little need to engage with the executives beyond the monthly meetings. After the first stage implementation, the steering committee stopped meeting on a regular basis. When progress slowed because of lack of funding, the PM dealt with the sponsor. The CIO and Sales VP were essentially out of the loop.

The project took over three years to implement fully. Cost reduction, service improvement, and increased sales targets were mostly realized, but months or years later than planned. Even the realized ROI was close to target, at 21%. Timely decisions on the incremental funding required would have boosted the benefits significantly.
In the second year, the PM became totally frustrated with the drop in priority and lack of progress on funding approvals and resigned. Even project managers sing the blues, on occasion.

How a Great PM Could Have Improved the Outcome

The PM had a great financial case for additional funding, but he didn’t have the authority to make the decisions. Only the sponsor could bless the incremental expenditures. And the sponsor’s attention was directed elsewhere. It’s a difficult situation. But the PM had a couple of options:

  • Executives usually have overloaded plates and overbooked calendars. That can easily create an “out of sight, out of mind” condition. The challenge for this PM, for all PMs in fact, is to make sure your project always stays “top of mind”. That is the only way the organization to going to recoup those project expenditures. How do you do that? One way is to use a Decision Framework (use Project Pre-Check or create your own) and monitor key stakeholder satisfaction at a more granular level, on an ongoing basis. That cements continuing engagement.
  • Keep those steering committee meetings going. If attendance starts to drop off, change the content so the attendees will get value and provide value in return.
  • The PM could have worked with either or both the CIO and Sales VP to exert additional pressure on the VPA. The Sales VP especially had a vital interest in seeing the problems rectified. At the extreme end, if the CIO and Sales VP were on side but their entreaties ignored by the VPA, the PM could have encouraged them to engage the CEO. After all, the project was a corporate priority when it was launched.

Sponsor attention is vital but not always present, as in this case. So, if you find yourself in a similar situation, think about how you’re going to ensure ongoing commitment and engagement from your key stakeholders. Also, be sure to put these points on your checklist of things to do in future endeavors so you too can be a Great Leader. And remember, use Project Pre-Check’s three building blocks covering stakeholder, the decision management process and Decision Framework best practices right up front so you don’t overlook these key success factors.

Finally, if you have a project experience, either good or bad, past or present, that you’d like to have examined through the Project Pre-Check lens and published in this blog, don’t be shy! Send me the details and we’ll chat. I’ll write it up and, when you’re happy with the results, Project Times will post it so others can learn from your insights. Thanks

From the Sponsor’s Desk – A Great Project is Like Beautiful Music

Written by Drew Davison on . Posted in Articles. 3 Comments on From the Sponsor’s Desk – A Great Project is Like Beautiful Music

We often fail to see parallels in life that can provide valuable insights and meaningful direction. Sometimes, stepping outside the box of our usual personal and professional lives can provide that Ah-Ha moment that helps set a new and successful course. 

In this case, a project manager was experiencing a number of challenges on his project. He was also a drummer in a local rock band. He and his bandmates had an upcoming gig and were excited about the progress they were making on some new songs and a new set. For the PM, the excitement over the new musical opportunity helped diffuse some of the frustration he was feeling over the project difficulties. The music was a helpful distraction. He didn’t see the parallels that would have helped solve his project problems. He was treating the two as separate and distinct activities. Luckily, lunch with a colleague helped him gain some needed perspective from his music that he was able to apply successfully to his project.

Thanks to D.A. for the details on this case.

Related Article: Nine Steps to Project Success

The Situation

This project manager was running a $3 million, fourteen-month project to launch a new financial services product. The project was well into the development phase but experiencing some significant issues that were starting to impact the schedule and budget:

  • The sponsor was vacillating over some key design features and wasn’t making the timely decisions needed to keep the project on track. The PM met with the sponsor on numerous occasions regarding the need for some firm decisions on the design matters, but the situation persisted.
  • The users assigned to the project by the organization that would administer the product going forward kept changing the user interface requirements. The PM met with the users and their manager to resolve the problem, but they insisted that the requirements were evolving as the business processes were being developed. The interfaces would have to change accordingly.
  • The project was having problems with code quality that had come to light during unit and integration testing. His developers insisted the test conditions and cases were the problem. The business unit testers claimed the code was the problem.

Frustrated with the project’s progress, the project manager invited a colleague to lunch to discuss the situation. The colleague was a consultant who specialized in application and technology architecture practices. In his former lives, he had been a software developer, database analyst, and project manager.

The Goal

The PM’s intent was to mine his colleague’s extensive experience to get some clarity on the problems he was facing on his project and perhaps arrive at a course of action that would get the project back on track. He had also volunteered to pick up the lunch tab.

The Project (Lunch)

The Project Manager and his consultant colleague arrived at their lunch destination and managed to get a quiet, out of the way table. During the initial small talk, the consultant mentioned that he had gone to a rock concert the night before. Apparently, it was an awesome, ear-splitting experience.
The PM talked about his involvement in music and the upcoming shows his band had arranged at a local pub. He talked about the two original songs they were working on, one his own, and the covers they were doing, the give and take, the trial and error that was needed and the hours of practice they went through to ensure a polished performance. He also mentioned they had dropped the bass player recently, and that had caused some friction. He was a great guy but didn’t have the talent they needed. The friction soon dissipated when they found a terrifically talented bassist to replace him.

Finally, they got around to talking about the project and the challenges the PM was having:
• A sponsor who wouldn’t or couldn’t make up his mind
• Changing requirements
• Code and test quality issues

The consultant listened and asked a few questions but otherwise let the PM have the floor. When the PM had finished describing his project challenges, the consultant paused for a moment, took a sip on his glass of draft, and then offered an interesting comment. “Delivering a great project is just like creating beautiful music. It doesn’t matter whether you’re Beethoven, the Beatles or Beyoncé. If you want to create beautiful music or a great project, you need the right ingredients and the knowledge and commitment to using them well. Take a look at your band. Who is writing the new songs?”

“I’m writing one of them. Our lead guitarist is writing the other one” replied the PM. “Why do you ask?”

The consultant explained. “When you decided to write that song, you had an idea of what you wanted to do, what sentiment you wanted to get across, the subject you wanted to cover, the tempo, a run of notes, maybe some lyrics. So, how does the final version of your song compare to what you first envisioned?”

The PM thought a moment. “It’s quite different from my first attempts. Much more lyrical. A slower tempo. The same subject, though.”

“And how did the song evolve from your first attempts to the finished product?” the consultant asked.

The PM pondered the question. “Well, I played around with the melody a bit. Fit some lyrics to it. Tweaked the melody. Changed the lyrics. When I had a rough idea of how it would fit together, I tried it out on Ron, our lead guitarist. We bashed away at it until it sounded pretty good and then introduced it to the rest of the guys. Collectively we refined it until everyone was pretty satisfied with the results.”

“Did you have conflicts over the song?” asked the consultant.

“Oh ya” replied the PM. “There was a lot of debate over the chorus lyrics. Ron and I got into some heated arguments. The other guys helped us work out the issues. The new bass player was a great mediator. Offered some terrific suggestions that got us unstuck. So where are we going with this anyway? Can we get back to my project troubles?”

The consultant went on to explain the parallels between creating that new song and running a successful project.

  • Every song needs a composer who creates the initial idea. Similarly, every project needs an initiator, a sponsor, who develops the basic vision of the desired end result.
  • A song usually needs collaborators, lyricists and musicians who help refine the initial idea into the final product. Likewise, projects need contributions from other executives, subject matter experts, technologists, business process designers, user experience experts and others to deliver a final solution.
  • A song needs a conductor who organizes the other players and their notes into a cohesive whole. Projects also need a conductor, a project manager, to plan, organize, communicate and control project progress.
  • Of course, a song needs musicians who have the skills, capabilities and availability to perform a piece on the scheduled dates. Projects also need contributors with the talents and availability to deliver the desired solution on plan.
  • A song needs to be practiced by the artists who will perform the piece. That practice often includes revisions to the lyrics, music and tempo to suit the musicians and the intended audience. Project components also need to be practiced, or tested, to ensure they fulfill their intended purpose in the hands of the people who will be using them.
  • Every song needs an audience, the final test. Likewise, projects have users who rely on a delivered capability to achieve the desired result.

The consultant offered the following analysis: “It seems the problems you’re encountering with your sponsor are directly related to the lack of collaborators he has available to help him sort out the issues. You’re the conductor, the organizer. Instead of leaving him to his own devices, bring the sponsor and the collaborators together to resolve the design issues that are causing the project grief. The requirements changes you’re experiencing seem to be the result of your staff working independently rather than collectively. Again, you’re the conductor. Don’t keep them at arm’s length. Bring them together. Have them share responsibility for delivering the process designs and the resulting interfaces. Finally, the quality issues sound to me like a skill problem. Find out if your software developers have the necessary language, business, and technical skills. Find out if the testers have the skills and tools to develop and administer the test plan, develop robust test cases and interpret the results.”

The PM thanked the consultant for his help. With new insights on the problems and an action plan of sorts, the PM returned to his office with a new bounce in his step.

The Results

The PM met with the sponsor about the product design issues and got his agreement to involve the marketing and sales executives in a design workshop run by an independent facilitator. The session was a terrific success. Problem #1 solved.

The PM then turned his attention to the requirements changes. He worked with the software development and product administration managers to bring their teams together and collaborate on the process and interface designs. The software developers prototyped the interfaces but held off on the final code until they signed off jointly on each design. That effort almost eliminated the cycle of continuous changes and the need for rework. Problem #2 solved.

The PM brought the software development manager and the testing manager together to discuss the consultant’s suggestion that a skill gap was behind the test problems. The developers were experienced and highly rated. The testers were new staff the manager had hired recently. He acknowledged that they probably didn’t have the business or testing expertise to do the job competently and agreed to assign and experience test lead to oversee progress. Problem #3 solved.

The project was delivered well under budget and three months ahead of plan. A great project really is just like beautiful music!

How a Great Leader Delivered

The PM’s first good move was seeking input from his colleague. That’s a great move on any project – having an exchange of ideas with someone who can offer unfiltered insights on any issues or successes, you’re encountering. A Project Mentor, so to speak. Finally, he took advantage of the insights offered by his colleague and leveraged the multiplying power of collaboration to see his project delivered successfully.

So, if you find yourself in a similar situation, think about all those outside interests you share, including music, and how they may be able to help you get the job done. Also, be sure to put these points on your checklist of things to do in future endeavors so you too can be a Great Leader. And remember, use Project Pre-Check’s three building blocks covering stakeholder, the decision management process and Decision Framework best practices right up front, so you don’t overlook these key success factors.

Finally, if you have a project experience, either good or bad, past or present, that you’d like to have examined through the Project Pre-Check lens and published in this blog, don’t be shy! Send me the details and we’ll chat. I’ll write it up and, when you’re happy with the results, Project Times will post it so others can learn from your insights. Thanks

From the Sponsor’s Desk – Success in the Cloud

Written by Drew Davison on . Posted in Articles. 3 Comments on From the Sponsor’s Desk – Success in the Cloud

Making sure key business processes and technologies are aligned to an organization’s strategic directions is almost a pre-requisite for survival these days. When upgrading those core services, a cloud solution is often in the mix. But a move to the cloud has been a risky and disruptive experience for some.

In this case, we’ll see how a CFO and her Controller managed a transition to a cloud service to transform the business and supporting operations. The project was a resounding success on all fronts. How did they achieve that result? With the help of some tried and true best practices.

Thanks to D.M. for the insights on this story.

The Situation 

This medium size international consulting organization had outgrown its key back office processes and technologies. The ERP/financial application was out of support and upgrading to current levels was problematic. The CRM software was not well integrated with other systems and was little used. In addition, there were many manual processes, reporting and analysis capabilities were severely limited and business needs had outgrown the existing functionality.

The CFO was frustrated by the limitations imposed by the existing processes and technologies. She knew the CEO and other senior managers echoed her concerns. The organization had acquired a number of companies to expand its reach and add additional services. It would continue to do so. It needed streamlined business processes supported by an adaptive and expandable technology infrastructure to match its growing demands.

So the CFO, with the CEO’s support, launched a project to design, build and deliver the processes and technologies the organization would need to support its strategic plans going forward, including:

  • Revenue growth
  • Profitability growth
  • Geographic expansion
  • Improved productivity
  • Improved cash management
  • Improved forecasting ability
  • Improved innovation
  • Scalability

The Goal

To deliver business processes and supporting technologies that supported the organization’s strategies and provided the following capabilities:

  • Seamless integration of CRM and financial information
  • Process automation
  • Flexible reporting
  • Dashboards for the CEO, CFO, senior managers and customers
  • Simple acquisition integration
  • Enhanced security
  • Remote access
  • Multi-currency and multi-language support

The CFO targeted a 30 month transformation project, to be delivered in six month stages based on business process priorities and assessed risks. Total costs were not to exceed $2.4 million. That would provide a 25% return on their investment with some very significant intangibles enabling the company’s growth strategies.

The Project

The CFO’s first move was to appoint her Controller as the Project Director (PD) for the duration of the undertaking. He knew the challenges and the opportunities and had prior experience managing transformational initiatives with other organizations. The CFO also formed a steering committee with herself as chair and project sponsor and including IT and the business owners. Their primary role was to advise the CFO and the PD. They were also to act as a decision-making body for any issues that could not be resolved independently.
With input from the company’s executives, the PD pulled together a project charter that presented the project’s goals, identified the key decision-makers and their accountabilities, specified the processes, functionality and technologies and the related needs that had to be addressed in support of the organization’s strategies. He also established project priorities, risks and mitigation plans and included a high level phasing plan that responded to the scope, priorities and risks within the budget and time constraints dictated by the CFO. The charter was fully blessed by the steering committee.

The PD recognized that the technology selected would be a catalyst and enabler for the reengineering of the targeted end to end processes and so planned for a first release that included the technology assessment, acquisition and implementation with one priority business process.

The PD conducted interviews with each of the key stakeholders to determine their organization’s needs going forward. From those interviews a fifty-four factor decision framework was developed. The framework focused on the total cost of ownership and addressed four categories: operations, security, strategy, and financial. An RFP went out to two current vendors, one additional vendor of in-house managed software and two cloud based SaaS vendors. Each vendor’s submission was assessed numerically based on the decision framework. The winning vendor offered a cloud solution that was being used by a sizeable number of organizations, all with nothing but good reviews for the SaaS solution and its vendor.

With a vendor and a solution selected, process reengineering proceeded according to plan. Implementation is the key to any system’s successful life cycle. In this case, the implementations were actively monitored and upgraded in order to maximize its effectiveness. Business owners were held accountable for maintaining their areas of the system. The Helpdesk process was put in place from day one, with escalation through to the vendor. Finance and IT met monthly to review issues and requests from users. Adding and revising functionality was ongoing. Finance and IT representatives also met monthly with the vendor consultants to ensure they were all aligned.

Perhaps the most important project directive was to use the core application functionality unless it violated company standards or the law of the land or impeded strategic initiatives. That streamlined and accelerated the decision-making process around requested changes. It also kept their implementation very close to the standard offering, making it much easier to accommodate future solution upgrades, whether to fix bugs, improve security or functionality or add new features.

The Results

The project was closed after three and a half years, 40 percent longer than the 30 month target. The additional time was authorized to take advantage of additional functionality offered by the cloud solution that was not originally included in scope. The decision to extend the project was fully endorsed by all key stakeholders and yielded substantial incremental savings. The project cost was well below the $2.4 million target, coming in at $1.75 million. Ten releases were used to deliver the full functionality, averaging 3 to 5 months each. The shorter releases were enabled by the extensive functionality and flexibility of the chosen solution. The shorter, more frequent releases also helped build the organization’s ability to engage affected staff and instill a continuous improvement mindset. Release quality from inception was outstanding. Return on investment was a sterling 43%. Needless to say, the key stakeholders were thrilled with the results.

How Great Leaders Delivered Superior Results

The foundation for success was built by the CFO, starting with strategy and executive endorsement and establishing clear goals and boundaries. While there was significant technology involved, she made it clear from the start that this was a business project. The PD leveraged that foundation, entrenched the decision-making accountabilities of the key stakeholders and focused on technology as the enabler. The best practices that contributed to the project’s success:

  • This was a business project. The key stakeholders were actively involved in the process designs affecting their areas and in the technology assessment and selection. They also played a more holistic role through steering committee membership.
  • Evaluation criteria were established in collaboration with the CFO, IT lead and business owners to ensure a comprehensive solution assessment process. It also helped entrench key stakeholder buy-in.
  • The CFO was adamant about acquiring the right people with the necessary knowledge, skills and experience, starting with the PD.
  • They were smart about leveraging the technology and the in-place team to deliver incremental value. Sure, the project lasted 40% longer than planned but they used that time and talent to deliver greater returns from opportunities that weren’t obvious when the project started.
  • Processes were adapted to the technology platform whenever possible to reduce costs and increase flexibility and responsiveness.
  • A phased implementation was used to reduce risks and accelerate value delivery. Data conversion (scrubbing, formatting, loading, sequencing), integrating and interfacing with other systems and development of custom functionality were staged as needed to support release content.
  • Clear guidelines were established for the approval of change requests and the addition of functionality to the cloud solution.
  • The use of automation was maximized, including inputting data once at the earliest point.
  • Change management was a significant focus to overcome resistance. Multi-way and multi-form communications and executive acknowledgement and support played an integral role.
  • All users affected by the change were involved in the change. They were called upon to help design and test the new processes and technology interfaces, and so they became part of the solution, not part of a problem.
  • Scheduled training was offered as close to Go-Live as possible and was a pre-requisite to get access to the system.

The CFO and PD chose a smart and responsive approach to supporting the organization’s strategic aspirations. It delivered value in the short term and provided an enabling legacy for the long term. What more could one want? So, please, put these points on your checklist of things to do in future endeavours so you too can be a Great Leader. And remember, use Project Pre-Check’s three building blocks covering stakeholder, the engagement and collaboration process and decision area best practices right up front so you don’t overlook these key success factors.

Finally, if you have a project experience, either good or bad, past or present, that you’d like to have examined through the Project Pre-Check lens and published in this blog, don’t be shy! Send me the details and we’ll chat. I’ll write it up and, when you’re happy with the results, Project Times will post it so others can learn from your insights. Thanks