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 – Transitioning to the Next Project

Written by Drew Davison on . Posted in Articles. 5 Comments on From the Sponsor’s Desk – Transitioning to the Next Project

“All you need in this life is ignorance and confidence, and then success is sure.” – Mark Twain

Priya Pai is a medical doctor by profession. She was born and raised in India but decided to emigrate to pursue new opportunities and a better quality of life. When I first talked to her, she had been in Canada for just four months. She wouldn’t be able to practice medicine until she was able to fulfill Canadian qualifications, a process that would take years, as the field is regulated. So, she threw herself into a multi-faceted approach to live her new life to the fullest. I found her approach to managing her new circumstances awe-inspiring. As we were chatting, it occurred to me that her experiences transitioning from her past life in India to a new life in Canada were similar to the journey all project and change managers make, in fact all project focussed professions make, when they wrap up one project and move on to the next. She was transitioning to the next project!

Here are the twenty things Priya is pursuing to help her transition, in no particular order. I think it is good advice for anyone going through a sizeable personal change.

  1. Be flexible, resilient – Entering new circumstances necessitates an openness to new or changing opportunities and an ability to bounce back when things don’t go as planned.
  2. Play it forward – When someone helps you out, return the favour and extend it to others. Good intent and good deeds contribute to good karma and future happiness.
  3. Share knowledge and experience – Helping others learn and grow will help you learn and grow in turn. One way Priya is supporting others is as a moderator on WhatsApp forums for new immigrants.
  4. Build your network, connect with people – Take an interest in others, in their lives, careers, interests and beliefs, in how they can help you grow and adapt and how you can help them in turn. Exchange business cards, Linkedin contacts, Facebook friends. Work to keep the relationships alive.
  5. Focus on customers – Regardless of what position you hold or what role you are playing, always keep the customer’s needs front and center.
  6. Listen actively – Really listen when others communicate – verbally, facial expressions, body language. Show concern for and attention to other people.
  7. Don’t be desperate – Show a balanced interest in opportunities and the associated issues and risks. Make your interests and aspirations clear. Don’t just accept whatever is available.
  8. Deliver your elevator pitch – Develop a concise description of you, your capabilities or your ideas that will fit in one sentence you can deliver in a 30 second elevator ride. Use it frequently. It’s a great way to get the right kind of attention.
  9. Work on soft skills – The hard skills are necessary but often not sufficient to get that ideal position or opportunity. Soft skills, like communication, leadership, self-motivation, attitude and teamwork are vital as well.
  10. Be trustworthy – Those who are honest, informed and objective are a most valued commodity.
  11. Take advantage of courses and available information – Information is power. Priya is taking courses offered by all levels of government, colleges and universities, non-profits and encouraging others to do so.
  12. Do research – Before and after arrival, in the new country or the new job, find out as much as you can about the new environment, the players, the common practices and the pitfalls.
  13. Seek out expertise – Find people who are willing to share their knowledge and experience. Most people love sharing their insights with others. Just ask.
  14. Grow – Get out of your comfort zone. Recognize that new experiences will be challenging at times. Be prepared to make mistakes, acknowledge them and learn from them.
  15. Be prepared to make sacrifices – Setting your priorities and committing time, effort and energy to them is essential. Priya’s much loved grandmother passed away shortly after she left India but she wasn’t able to return for the funeral because of other commitments.
  16. Have goals – As Yogi Berra, the New York Yankee catcher once said, “If you don’t know where you are going, you’ll end up someplace else.” Priya’s goals are to found a cardiac center along the lines of the Peter Munk Cardiac Center in Toronto, to launch a restaurant chain serving healthy, appetizing food and to start a gym to help people get and stay in shape. I look forward to attending the ribbon cutting ceremonies.
  17. Be patient – This is a journey, to a new place, a new job or new assignment. Recognize that it will take some time.
  18. Learn – The journey will need building and honing of skills and capabilities, insights and aptitudes. Continuously. The world never stops. Learning shouldn’t either.
  19. Work hard – Success seldom comes without intense, sustained effort. No pain, no gain.
  20. Take action – Make decisions and carry them out. Learn from your mistakes. Achieve results that will take you in the direction you want to go, towards the goals you want to achieve.
Advertisement
[widget id=”custom_html-68″]

Those are Priya’s twenty points. However, the magnitude of a project manager’s transition can vary dramatically, from moving to a new project within the same organization to changing countries, industries, organizations, stakeholders, practices and technologies. So, judge your approach accordingly. Use Priya’s points as a checklist. Consider which items are most important to your move and focus on those. Don’t hesitate to revisit the list regularly to ensure you’re covering all the bases. If you discover additional areas you need to address, add those to the list. If you want to subdivide some of the points, feel free. In Priya’s case, like many others who move to other countries looking for new opportunities and new challenges and move out of their comfort zone, I expect her transition will be time consuming and challenging. She’ll probably be adding more points as her journey progresses. We wish her well. Most importantly, Priya’s twenty points will help anyone make the transition to a new state more effectively.

Finally, thanks to everyone who has willingly shared their experiences for presentation in this blog. 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, a favorite best practice, or an interesting insight that can make a PM’s life easier, 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 – Dealing with Problem Project Staff

Written by Drew Davison on . Posted in Articles. 2 Comments on From the Sponsor’s Desk – Dealing with Problem Project Staff

“It is our choices that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities.”
– J. K Rowling

Great people and great teams are the foundation for successful projects. Yet, all too often, greatness can be situational. That’s why a project manager’s most important responsibilities include helping individuals thrive and teams perform. One essential aspect of those responsibilities is to identify and deal with problem project staff expeditiously.

Greatness is dependent on a combination of factors, from skills and capabilities, attitudes, relationships, the environment – mother nature as well as the organizational kind – in addition to context and circumstances. Someone who was a great performer in one situation may struggle in another. Or, as sometimes happens, as in the following case, an individual who hasn’t managed to find their greatness opportunity and gets pushed from project to project will continue to struggle as they go.

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

The Situation

Susan was assigned as the project manager to a process reengineering initiative for a midsize retail organization. The project had a budget of $1.8 million and a delivery target ten months out. The sponsor was knowledgeable, personable and committed. The organizations affected by the planned change appeared to be enthusiastic supporters, ready and willing to work with her team to deliver a new, streamlined, end-to-end process with a brand new and engaging technology solution. She also had three other unrelated projects on her plate.

The Goal

To deliver a reengineered process, the related applications and the supporting technology infrastructure, on budget and schedule with the required quality, ease of use, flexibility and performance. The project was targeted to deliver annual benefits of $1.1 million from productivity gains and cost reductions.

The Project

Susan proceeded to assemble her team. The IT organization had resource managers organized by broad skill set (software development, business analysis, technology infrastructure, etc.) who would look after filling resource requests. Susan discussed her project and her anticipated skill needs with each of the resource managers, asking initially for a senior staff member to help develop the plan and get more specific about additional needs. She also met with the managers of the business units affected by the project to get the required SME’s assigned and acquired a process designer from HR.

When her senior team was assembled, Susan led them through a number of planning sessions to get an actionable plan in place. As the plan took shape, it became clear that the timeframe of ten months would be tight. She reviewed the team’s concerns with the sponsor but he was adamant – do whatever they had to do to get the project delivered on time, including adding more staff and cutting function. The target date was the priority.

With her senior team and a solid plan in place, Susan again approached the resource managers and business managers to address her additional skill needs – two business analysts, six software developers, two infrastructure technicians, two testers and assorted part time staff from business SME’s and for data base work, process design and integration activities.

As the full team came together, Susan assigned the new staff to priority tasks and the work commenced. It wasn’t long before she noticed one of her new software developers, let’s call him Earl, had missed his target and was forecasting another two weeks to complete. Susan asked her software developer lead to check on Earl and find out what the problem was. When the lead reported back on Earl’s progress, the news wasn’t good – Earl’s grasp of the assignment was weak, the code that existed was poorly written and addressed only part of the functionality, Earl’s relationship with the business SME was not good and Earl was very defensive re the lead’s queries.

When Susan asked the lead to work with Earl and the business SME to get the task completed, the lead pointed out that that would impact his own work. Susan persisted and eventually the task was completed. What Susan didn’t know was the lead and business SME essentially had to shadow Earl every step of the way. Earl resented it. The business SME resented it. The lead resented it. And other tasks fell behind as a result.

Earl continued to struggle with tasks assigned to him. He alienated the other team members who had to work with him. He was a negative and disruptive influence in team meetings. His sick days started to accumulate. He often showed up late for work and departed early, mumbling some excuse about a family emergency.

About two months into the project, Susan had finally had enough of Earl, his excuses and his disruptive behaviour and asked his resource manager for a replacement. The resource manager asked Susan for a review of Earl’s performance to date and some specifics about Earl’s shortcomings. Susan suggested the resource manager talk to her software development lead for the details and demanded an immediate replacement. Then she went back to her other duties and her other projects, without a replacement. Of course, the resource manager didn’t act because he was waiting for a call from Susan’s software development lead. And the software development lead wasn’t aware that he was expected to call the resource manager. So Earl continued on the project, missing dates, producing poor quality code, alienating his teammates and being a drag on overall progress.

About four months in, exasperated with the lack of progress on the “Earl” problem, Susan called the resource manager again to ask for an immediate replacement. The resource manager restated his needs. So Susan called her contact in Human Resources and suggested they needed to terminate Earl immediately.

The Human Resource staff explained the company procedure for such situations and sent Susan a twenty page booklet for her to fill out and present to the IT resource manager.

Susan had a conniption! She didn’t have any more time to spend on this “loser”. So she decided to marginalize his negative impact as best she could by assigning him less critical tasks that didn’t require contact with the business. Of course, the tasks she did assign him were still required for the project to succeed and still required quality code that Earl didn’t have the capability to deliver. And so the project continued.

The Results

The project was delivered four months late and 40% over budget, largely due to quality and application performance issues and the extra costs incurred to resolve those challenges. A team satisfaction survey conducted as part of the post completion audit by the PMO yielded an overall rating of “Somewhat Dissatisfied” due, for the most part, to the negative influence of one software developer. A similar outcome resulted from the survey of the business leaders and staff involved with the project although their concerns were the missed date, excess costs and cut functionality. It was the “Earl Affect”! And Earl continued to work in IT, ready for another assignment.

Advertisement
[widget id=”custom_html-68″]

How a Great Leader Could Have Delivered

There’s no question Susan was left holding the bag. In my view the resource manager should have taken Earl off that project and taken responsibility for driving the improvement process through to its conclusion, absorbing whatever costs that entailed. However, the fact that that didn’t happen didn’t take Susan of the hook. She had the ultimate responsibility. She had a project to get done, she had resources assigned, a budget and a target date. It was the old “Pay me now or pay me later” dilemma. Here are some things Susan could have done differently.

  1. Have a conversation – Actually, have a string of conversations. That can include a thirty second encounter in the elevator, a chat in the hallway, meetings with the team, one on one sessions. You want to know as much about your staff as they do about you – happenings with family and friends, turn ons and turn offs, goals and aspirations, expectations around work/life balance, job satisfaction, skills and capabilities, hobbies and avocations, etc. It builds camaraderie and it can yield insights that could help improve performance.
    At the core however are the expectations of the job, responsibilities to the team, the relationship with the larger organization, actual performance results and areas for improvement, growth and excellence. Be objective, friendly and supportive. But also be absolutely firm on the need for improvement. And be very clear that the responsibility lies with the individual. Susan was distant, uninvolved and uninterested.
  2. Build a support alliance – You’ve no doubt heard the saying “It takes a village to raise a child”. Well, that’s also true for an individual practitioner. The culture and core values of an organization and a team can have an amplifying effect on an individual’s performance. Or a deleterious effect. When someone is experiencing a performance challenge, the overseeing manager needs to build an improvement alliance, the workplace “village” if you will..
    That alliance should include, at a minimum, the individual in question as well as the work manager, resource manager, someone from Human Resources with knowledge of the organization’s processes and practices and one or more senior subject matter experts as needed to review, teach, mentor and otherwise guide the individual on their improvement journey. The alliance exists to help the individual succeed. Its existence can also temper any accusations later on that the individual wasn’t given a chance. Susan was just looking to pass the buck, first to the resource manager, then to Human Resources. When she got no takers, she dumped the problem off her senior team members. In fact, I think the team would have done better if Susan had just put Earl on the bench and proceeded without his negative influence.
  3. Plan the work – This is where the plan of action is developed to help the individual improve their performance, be it a question of skill level, attitude adjustment, cultural accommodation, whatever. The assignments should be real work, typical of the tasks assigned to others at a similar level and stage of development. As well, clearly specified acceptable completion criteria are a must.
    In the case of a software developer, the criteria can include time and cost to complete, degree of reliance on outside assistance, code that passes a defined unit or integration test, that performs to target, that follows department standards, that is maintainable, etc. If training is required, include testing of the retention and application of the skills taught. Include checkpoints to assess progress, or lack thereof, usually weekly or biweekly.
    The initial plan should cover a period that’s sufficient for the individual to demonstrate progress. In the case of a software developer, six to eight weeks should be ample. The individual should also be involved in its creation and agree to the final product. Unfortunately, neither Susan nor Earl had a plan.
  4. Work the plan – In this phase, the individual takes on the assigned tasks and delivers the product for assessment. Keep track of the information necessary to assess the results in the next stage based on the agreed upon metrics. Don’t hesitate to drop by on an occasional basis and see how the individual is feeling about the assignment. If there’s need for assistance, go ahead and arrange for the necessary support but keep track of the external help needed. It should decline over time. Susan’s approach was to ignore the problem. When she was reminded by her senior technical lead that the individual was still struggling, she looked to others to solve her problem.
  5. Appraise the results – The support alliance needs to meet on a weekly or biweekly basis to review results from the last work period and the cumulative trends. I prefer to have the individual whose work is being examined own this stage and lead the discussion because it reinforces their ownership of the performance improvement plan. In this case, there was no alliance, no alliance meetings and no formal assessment of progress or conclusions reached.
  6. Act on the findings – Often work managers overlook the fact that staff who are struggling aren’t having a lot of fun. Look at the individual in this case – defensiveness, anger towards team member criticism, more sick time, arriving late for work, leaving early, negative and destructive behaviour in team meetings.
    It’s in everybody’s best interests to give staff every opportunity to succeed. Sometimes that doesn’t work out. It’s then in everybody’s best interests to help them find something that does give them satisfaction and fulfillment.
    If the results over the plan period are not acceptable, it’s time to start focusing on a career or job change. In many cases, the individual will acknowledge the need for a change. It’s then time to work through the organization’s human resource practices to realize the job change or termination.
    If the results are positive, the affect can be quite liberating, for the individual and the team. The challenge is then to sustain and build on that improvement. But please, don’t abandon the effort until a satisfactory resolution is achieved.

Unfortunately, all too often, as was the case here, managers don’t pursue performance problems to a satisfactory conclusion. Yes, it takes time, effort and energy away from the things they’d rather do. Yes, the effort can be contentious and confrontational. Yes, it’s often a difficult learning experience for everyone involved. Yes, the support and expertise that should be available from the Human Resources organization or the resource managers are often missing in action. And yes, there’s often the implied or real threat of legal action if the individual is terminated. Tough!

On the positive side, you’re giving the individual a chance to be successful, either within your organization or somewhere else. As well, you’re helping your organization avoid future costs of hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars by resolving an individual’s performance problems and alleviating the future drag on organizational, team and managerial performance. Dealing with problem project staff – that’s a win-win!

So, put these points on your checklist of things to consider if you are confronted by an individual with performance challenges. Then you too can be a Great Leader. Also remember, use Project Pre-Check’s three building blocks covering the key stakeholder group, the decision management process and the Decision Framework (including resource management best practices) right up front so you don’t overlook these key success factors.

Finally, thanks to everyone who has willingly shared their experiences for presentation on this blog. 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 – Managing Key Stakeholder Change

Written by Drew Davison on . Posted in Articles. 5 Comments on From the Sponsor’s Desk – Managing Key Stakeholder Change

As project managers, we often tend to think and act like we own the projects we manage. In reality, we don’t. Usually, a number of players have an ownership stake, with the sponsor having the final say.

All those players, in John Kotter’s words, form the “guiding coalition”. The more focused and organized that group is, the greater the chance of project success.

However, change to the key stakeholders, the decision-makers in the guiding coalition, can derail the most well-run project. Here’s a case where the project manager did a masterful job of managing a number of key stakeholder changes to keep the guiding coalition functioning at peak efficiency and deliver a successful outcome.

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

The Situation

This wholesale building materials company had operated successfully for decades using a variety of mostly homegrown legacy applications, built with legacy tools and running on disparate legacy technologies. But, the times they were a-changin.

More and more, their retail customers were looking for tighter technology tie-ins, on inventory, ordering, billing, delivery status, and customer service. The privately held company was also getting pressure from its owners to increase profitability. The returns and growth have been consistently excellent over decades but the owners thought more was possible, especially given the old technologies the company was using. Finally, there had been a steady increase in turnover in their IT organizations, from programmers who wanted to work with something more than Cobol and Visual Basic, from the Computer Operations staff who wanted exposure to something more than IBM mainframes and Windows 7 machines and from the PMO and project management staff who wanted bigger, more challenging projects.

The CEO got the message. Things had to change. So, he formed an internal triumvirate to help him figure out what they needed to do and how to get it done without blowing up the company in the process. The triumvirate included the VP of Business Operations, the CFO and the CIO. To that group, he added an external consultant and long-time friend who had been his sounding board and confidant for many years. He called the group the Fab Five.

The Fab Five took a number of days over a three month period to figure out how best to tackle the challenge and map out a strategy that would see the business transform over time in a high return low-risk manner. They established the following goal.

The Goal

To transform the capabilities of our people, operations, and technologies, working together to address the needs of our customers and suppliers while delivering a foundation for future growth and prosperity. We expect to spend up to $3 million over five years and achieve a 25% return on investment within the following boundaries:

  • The specific scope and priorities will be established as the initiative progresses.
  • We will seek to minimize operational change while maximizing value.
  • We expect implementations to take place at least every six months to manage risk, gain experience and deliver value progressively.
  • The key to our success will be the skills and talents of the people involved, including those who are with us today and those who will join us to help us on our journey.

The Project

Through discussions with the consultant, the Big Five agreed on a Project Director to lead the transformation program. He had extensive project experience in the ERP field, a stellar track record, and superb, bullet-proof references. We’ll call him Michael.

The first order of business when Michael arrived on the scene was to determine who the key stakeholders were and what roles they were playing. Michael’s first take on the program’s guiding coalition had the CEO as sponsor, the VP of Business Operations, the CFO and CIO as targets and the consultant as a change agent. Michael’s own role was as a change agent as well. With Michael’s arrival, the Fab Five became the Big Six.

Michael recognized some gaps in the decision-making group and suggested adding the Sales VP to the Big Six in a target role. The recommendation was approved and the Big Six then became the Super Seven, the group that would drive the transformation program through to completion.

Michael also recognized the importance of the company’s customers and suppliers going forward and so, with the approval and involvement of the other Super Seven members, he formed customer and supplier groups. That was a challenge because individual companies didn’t always want to share, so he also established key contacts with vital suppliers and customers to provide advice and feedback. Both the groups and key contacts would function in a target role.

As the guiding coalition was taking shape, Michael also started to form his transformation team. It included two architects, one an external contractor he had worked with previously and the senior architect from the company’s IT organization. He also added two senior software developers, one external and one internal, a process manager from HR, a senior Operations manager, SME’s from the core business operations and a senior member of the Internal Audit staff. Michael always liked to have the Internal Audit group engaged from the start.

With the core team in place, Michael launched a three-pronged analysis phase covering organization, procedures, people and technology perspectives:

  • A process and functional strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT) review
  • A SWOT review from the customers’ standpoint
  • A SWOT review from the suppliers’ standpoint

As the SWOT reviews were being wrapped up, the transformation team developed a scope and priorities draft using a MUSCOW categorization (Must, Should, Could and Would) and reviewed it with the Super Seven. As a result of that review, a number of changes were made to the scope and priorities. The Super Seven members reviewed the resulting material with their teams with facilitation assistance from the transformation team members. Feedback out of that process was incorporated into the baseline scope and priorities and approved by the Super Seven for program launch.

Advertisement
[widget id=”custom_html-68″]

After three months, the organization had agreed to the program’s scope and priorities and so set about considering alternative solutions. A key decision that emerged from the scope and priority deliberations was the question of buy versus build. The deliberations concluded that the end to end performance of the core business processes, not customization, was the most significant driver in maximizing value and positioning for the future. Therefore the decision was made to buy the software and/or technology services rather than to build in-house. That decision was reinforced by the realization that buying could deliver the required capabilities much more quickly and at less cost and risk.

The dialogue with the company’s customers and suppliers had identified three potential ERP software/service vendors. A review of the company’s competition and the market players added one more candidate to the list.

An RFQ was issued to the four vendor candidates based on the scope and priority work. Three of the four vendors responded to the RFQ and within six weeks of the RFQ being issued, a vendor was selected and approved.

A project manager from the selected vendor was added to the Super Seven and the group was renamed the Great Eight. Michael and his team worked with the selected vendor to ensure they fully understood the scope and priorities, to build the release plan and assemble the team to deliver the project. The fact that the project was recognized as a corporate priority throughout the organization and actively lead by the CEO and the senior management team made getting the right resources (people, facilities, funding) a walk in the park.

As the work got underway on the first release, disaster struck. The CEO, the program’s leader, and sponsor died from a massive heart attack. As the company mourned his loss, the VP of Business Operations filled in as acting CEO and project sponsor and work on the project continued.

After three months, a new CEO was appointed. He was an outsider with no experience in the building materials space. Michael managed to arrange an early appointment with the new CEO to brief him on the project and his vital role as sponsor. The new CEO didn’t buy it. He stated “I’m not the project manager. That’s your job. Get on with it”. Michael was taken aback.

Over the following six weeks, with the relentless support of the other Great Eight members, Michael explained what the sponsor role involved and why the CEO was the only one who could fill that role. He relied on a tool he had used many times before called Are You Ready to be a Sponsor. Michael explained the significance of the program to the current and future viability of the organization. He also reminded the new CEO of the owners’ desire to get a greater return from their investment as a significant reason for the CEO to lead the change. He pointed to decisions that had been made to date that were only the CEO’s to make. He identified future decisions that would need to be made and asked the CEO who else should make those decisions. The CEO usually acknowledged, often after some debate, that they were his to make.

Initially, Michael struggled to get even 30 minutes of the new CEO’s time. However, after each meeting discussing the CEO’s role and the progress of the project, the new CEO was a little more interested, a bit more informed and somewhat more inclined to be involved. Finally, the new CEO acknowledged his responsibility for the initiative and agreed to fill the sponsor role. The Great Eight was back to eight members.

Work progressed on the first release under the guidance of the Great Eight until its implementation seven months after the program launch. The delivery was a bit late and a tad over budget but the affected customers were thrilled with the incremental functionality, performance, and quality. Internal polling of the company’s staff revealed a high degree of support and satisfaction as well. So the Great Eight were thrilled too.

The second and third releases were delivered over the next nine months, mostly on plan and estimate, with rave reviews from all involved. As the fourth release was midway through its plan, disaster struck again. The owners had sold the company to a venture capital firm. In short order, the new CEO was replaced as was the CFO. The Great Eight was now down to six members and without a sponsor.

Michael and the remaining coalition members sought an early meeting with the new owners. In the meantime, they kept the fourth release going in the hopes that it would be a worthwhile investment. They recognized that suspending the work would not necessarily yield significant savings in the short term and would impede their ability to restart the work if they did ultimately receive approval to continue.

Fortunately, Michael and his colleagues did get an early hearing. Also, fortunately, they had a roadmap to follow for how to bring new key stakeholders up to speed quickly and effectively using the approach that had worked with the previously new CEO a couple of years prior. And fortunately, the new owners liked what they heard and gave their blessing for the project to continue as planned. Michael and his colleagues used the same approach to bring the new CEO and CFO up to speed and get them fully engaged. In less than a month, the Great Eight was back!

The Results

The fourth release and two subsequent releases were completed successfully to finalize the planned transformation. The total cost was $3.7 million, somewhat in excess of the budget but fully managed by the Great Eight. Actual ROI was 32% versus the 25% target. Staff turnover in IT declined to near zero from the time the program was introduced. It seems the company’s software developers, IT Operations staff and project managers were excited by the new direction.

Surveys of the company’s customers and suppliers found they were almost universally positive about the changes and the part they played. The company became a highly valued reference account for the vendor. And Michael, the Project Director, went on to manage a number of similar programs for the company’s new owners, the venture capital firm. They were obviously duly impressed with the job he had done and the results he had achieved.

How a Great Leader Delivered

Michael did a lot of things right on this initiative but the dominant theme here is the masterful job he did in managing the changes to the key stakeholder group. In fact, three lessons stand out:

  1. Know your key stakeholders – know and articulate the roles of all key decision-makers involved in your project and make sure the key roles – sponsor, target and change agent – are filled appropriately. If there’s someone who can play the role of champion, all the better. On the other hand, we’ve all seen a “steering committee” with assorted players who are unsure of their roles and responsibilities. Its function too often evolves to being a critic and shooting the messenger, usually the project manager. We know what damage that can do to an individual’s health and welfare and to overall project performance.
    In this case, the membership in the guiding coalition was explicit and well communicated. The CEO started the process with his Fab Five. Michael continued to guide the evolution of the group to the final Great Eight. It was a “Goldilocks” group – not too big, not too small, just right! That significantly amplified their effectiveness.
    If anybody tries to push their way into the guiding coalition without having a decision-making need to be involved or a formal role to play, keep them out of that body. More doesn’t always make merrier. For more on this, see Managing Project Interlopers
  2. Use best practices to create and direct the guiding coalition – Michael used a typical change management organization model – sponsor, target, change agent. Everyone in the guiding coalition knew the model and everyone’s role in the program which enhanced communication and decision-making effectiveness. He also used the “Are You Ready to be a Sponsor” template to help new additions to the guiding coalition to make the leap to full, effective membership.
    There are others models available. Select one that works for your project and organization. But, make sure you pick one that includes the target role. A target is a manager (decision-maker) who directs the individuals or groups who must actually change the way they think and work for a change to be successful. A target’s sole responsibility is to ensure that his or her organization will operate successfully after a change is implemented. It’s an essential and powerful foil to the sponsor’s demands and is as vital to a change’s success prospects as the sponsor and change agent roles.
    Targets can also include managers who are external to the organization initiating the change, such as customers, vendors, partners, and distributors. Michael did form customer and suppliers groups and identified key customer and supplier contacts but he didn’t give them a spot at the guiding coalition’s table. Instead, their interests were looked after by specific Great Eight members.
    For more on the stakeholder model, see A Great Project Manager – the Sponsor’s Best Friend. I’d add a target’s best friend as well.
  3. Actively engage new key stakeholders – if your project has a change in key stakeholders, the decision-makers, do whatever you can to get the new player(s) identified and engaged as quickly as possible. They need to be brought up to speed on the decisions that have been made, the rationale for those decisions and the decisions yet to come. Otherwise, that knowledge gap will be a drag on the guiding coalition, on the new stakeholder’s commitment and performance and on the project as a whole.
    In this case, Michael managed to bring the Sales VP, the vendor’s project manager, a new CFO and two new CEO’s up to speed quickly and minimize the impact of those changes on the program’s progress. Also, while this case focused on the key stakeholders, the same urgency for building currency applies to all those affected by the change. For more on this, see Coping with Stakeholder Change.

Having an effective guiding coalition for a project is THE key success factor. It drives every decision that follows. So, put these points on your checklist of things to consider so your project can have a great guiding coalition and you too can be a Great Leader. Also 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 everyone who has willingly shared their experiences for presentation on this blog. 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 – The Journey from Problem to Solution

Written by Drew Davison on . Posted in Articles. 5 Comments on From the Sponsor’s Desk – The Journey from Problem to Solution

How does stuff happen? Who decides that a specific problem or challenge needs attention?

Who identifies it as a problem in the first place? Who decides what direction to take to solve the problem? Who guides the effort through a variety of options to achieve the desired result? Who establishes the target end result? And how are all the questions addressed and the work carried out? I call this the journey from problem to solution.

In this post, we’ll look at an organization that decided to tackle a problem that has been around for as long as humans have existed. Hunger. We’ll see how they explored the opportunities for their attention and talents. We’ll review the approaches they took to understand the challenge, the people and organizations they relied on for help and the practices they applied and are still using to reach their goals.

Why is this relevant to you, a project or change manager, a business analyst, a technologist, a business manager or leader? Because the approach this organization took to realize its dream is a template for success applicable to any project or change. Take a critical look at the project or change you’re working on now. Does it tick all the boxes? If not, there’s an opportunity to learn from the best.

The Situation

Stephan Clarke has had a successful, decades-long career as a sales and marketing executive, speaker, author, business strategist, consultant, coach, and mentor, both domestically and abroad. Over those years he has helped identify problem areas, consider alternatives, develops remedies to solve those problems and deliver solutions effectively. He has used his entrepreneurial talents to explore uncharted waters.

In 2015, with the formation of the RTG Group Inc., Stephen turned his attention to the elimination of hunger in the world. That’s right. The elimination of hunger!

Stephen and his team were looking to give back to humanity. They considered taking on the elimination of poverty but found that massively daunting and well beyond their span of control. But eliminating hunger? That just might be doable.

They looked at forming a charity to achieve that goal, relying on donations from well-meaning individuals and organizations to provide the funding. However, on investigation, they found that most charitable giving was coming from or controlled by people age 50 and over. Where were the millennials, roughly a quarter of the population?

On investigating that question, they found that millennials were less trusting of traditional charities and less inclined to contribute because of a perceived lack of transparency, with funds often going to high executive compensation and fundraising efforts rather than good deeds.

So, Stephen and his team decided to change the model, to structure a program that would appeal to everyone – over 50’s, millennials and everyone in between – to tackle world hunger. RTG Group was born. What, you might ask, does ‘RTG’ stand for? Receiving Through Giving. It was one of Stephen’s mother’s favorite messages. She would often say ‘if you want something Stephen, you have to be prepared to give first’.

The Goal

To eliminate hunger in the developed world through the formation of a for-profit social enterprise that collaborates transparently with organizations and individuals worldwide.

The Project

The first thing the RTG team did was to fully understand the nature of the problem they were focused on solving. In 2013, the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) estimated that 842 million people were undernourished (12% of the global population). UNICEF estimated 300 million children go to bed hungry each night and 8000 children under the age of 5 are estimated to die of malnutrition every day.

RTG also found that there were thousands of organizations focused on studying and addressing the problem of hunger, locally and internationally, with varying degrees of success. There was a myriad of factors contributing to the problem including lack of resources to purchase and prepare food, cost, distribution, nutritional content, spoilage and waste, war and civil unrest.

They talked to the hungry. They talked to the people and organizations who were trying to feed the hungry including hostels, food banks, and meal preparation and distribution organizations. They also talked to charity givers and those that weren’t currently giving, like many millennials. They talked to many charities to understand the challenges. They talked to fund-raisers.

They talked to nutritionists to understand what would be required to provide a nutritious and appetizing meal. They talked to food manufacturing organizations to understand their supply chains and manufacturing, packaging, storage, and distribution processes and the options available to support the RTG project.

Advertisement
[widget id=”custom_html-68″]

With this information in hand, they started to develop various approaches for solving the problem. For example:

  • Affordability – ensure the food is prepaid
  • Preparation – ensure the food is consumable out of the package
  • Nutrition – design meals to provide the required nutritional content
  • Cost – work with food manufacturing companies to provide maximum nutrition at the lowest cost
  • Spoilage – package meals to minimize special storage needs
  • Distribution – leverage existing service organizations to reach the hungry

Out of this exercise, the “Give & Gain” (G&G) program was born. The G&G program had four key components: the food itself, the funding sources, the manufacturing and warehousing, and the distribution to those in need.

  1. The food – The RTG team worked with nutritionists and food manufacturing companies to design five affordable, dry packaged meals that required no special storage or refrigeration and could be eaten as is. Each meal provides about 650 calories plus fiber and minerals to deliver a daily minimum sustainable level of nutrition. All five varieties are certified organic and non-GMO and are nutritionally equivalent.
  2. The funding sources – Instead of adopting the standard charity model, RTG opted for a for-profit model with a targeted 20% profit margin, half of which is turned back into good works. Subscribers (organizations and individuals) pay C$38.70 per month to purchase one meal a day for 30 days for the intended recipients. In return, the subscribers receive a federal tax receipt for the full amount of the contribution. Subscribers also get access to the RTG app that features promotions and discounts from hundreds of leading Canadian companies.
  3. Manufacturing and warehousing – To minimize RTG’s costs and ensure the food gets to the intended recipients as quickly and efficiently as possible, the organizations that distribute the food order the meals directly from the manufacturer. The manufacturer ships directly to the requesting organization. The meals have already been paid for by the subscribers’ contributions.
  4. Meal distribution – RTG reviews and selects the organizations that distribute the meals based on their ability to reach and serve the hungry. RTG staff conduct regular audits including assessing the satisfaction of the meal recipients. Feedback is used to enhance the meals and the processes and practices that get the meals into the hands of the hungry.

With the G&G program in place, RTG started to add subscribers and to line up distributing organizations. Businesses and non-profits were approached about participating, engaging with their staff to give back to their communities and enjoy the perks offered. Millennials have embraced the program because of the transparency and the perks. The program started slowly and grew organically. It’s still growing. The world awaits!

The Results

To date, over 100,000 meals are being delivered to the hungry every day of the year across the country. Those subscribers, in addition to the good feelings they get from helping their fellow man, are enjoying the benefits offered through the RTG app as well as a tax receipt for the full amount of their giving. The organizations focused on helping the hungry now have access to prepaid, healthy meals to give to their clients. The organizations and staff who have supported the program are giving back to their communities. And remember, RTG is a for-profit organization. Half of those profits go back into good works. That’s a win, win, win, win, win, win!

In addition, RTG Group USA Inc. has officially launched in the U.S.A. with it’s first Office in New York City. As well, discussions are being held on numerous fronts exploring new and exciting collaborative Programs. One such is with 300 of the top Youtube performers to bring the program to their 720 million followers. Stephen expects to grow the program to a multi-billion dollar business that can be run with as few as 30 staff. It makes for exciting times at RTG. And for the hungry!

How a Great Leader Succeeded

The RTG Team has implemented a successful program that is delivering on the vision now and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future.

How did they do it? Certainly, they have had lots of experience identifying core challenges, formulating appropriate solutions and delivering change to fill the need. No doubt his experience has been instrumental in the success to date. However, I thought it would be interesting to use John Kotter’s 8 Step Change Model and examine the approach RTG used to deliver the G&G program in that context. Let’s take a look.

davison 09052018 1Step 1 – Create a sense of urgency: RTG created a sense of urgency with their global and local views. The worldview showed the size of the problem. The dialogue with the hungry and homeless in RTG’s backyard and ongoing collaboration with service organizations cemented and sustained that urgency.
Step 2 – Build a guiding coalition: Look at all the parties RTG involved in their initial deliberations and who are still actively involved in delivering the G&G program. The guiding coalition is alive and well.
Step 3 – Form a strategic vision and initiatives: The strategic vision? Eliminate hunger. Check. The initiatives? For-profit RTG. G&G. Others in progress. Check.
Step 4 – Enlist a volunteer army: Organizational and individual subscribers, food manufacturers, service organizations, food banks, shelters, the hungry. Perhaps not all are volunteers, but all are certainly voluntary.
Step 5 – Enable action by removing obstacles: The approach RTG took to achieve their vision addressed a number of obstacles including affordability, preparation, nutrition, cost, spoilage, and distribution. It appears they are determined to remove any roadblocks that get in their way.
Step 6 – Generate short-term wins: RTG is enrolling one organization, one subscriber, one delivery partner at a time, providing one meal at a time and celebrating each hungry person who is a little less hungry because of the collective efforts of all involved.
Step 7 – Sustain acceleration: That’s the current stage, continuing the rollout in Canada, expanding to the U.S., building a program with the top Youtube performers. Tomorrow the world.
Step 8 – Institute change: That’s RTG’s plan for the future, to eliminate hunger. They’re not there yet but here’s hoping.

Interesting eh? RTG’s successful change efforts effectively mirror the steps in Kotter’s change model. John Kotter wouldn’t be surprised. You shouldn’t be either. It’s a great framework to help manage the journey from problem to solution.

So, put these points on your checklist of things to consider so you too can be a Great Leader. Also 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 everyone who has willingly shared their experiences for presentation on this blog. 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 – The Calm before the Storm, Project Style

Written by Drew Davison on . Posted in Articles. 7 Comments on From the Sponsor’s Desk – The Calm before the Storm, Project Style

Most projects start out blissfully don’t they? They have their sponsors, their charters, their teams. The scope looks reasonable.

The plan looks doable. The budget appears manageable. The sponsors seem committed and energized. The team has the right number and mix of skills. I like to call this initial period the calm before the storm, project style.

In this case, we’ll follow the journey a systems integrator took from the beginning of a fourteen-month project, through an initial six week honeymoon period, into a painful realization that all was not well and enduring a series of traumatic battles. We’ll also learn what it took to turn the situation around and deliver a successful outcome for all involved.

Thanks to John Cognata for the details on this case.

The Situation

John Cognata is responsible for business development at SOFTEL Communications, a system integrator with expertise in voice recognition, voice biometric and VoIP enabled contact center services, unified communications and mobility applications and technologies.

John was approached by a large telecom company to deliver a key component of a solution the telecom company was proposing to one of its clients. The telecom company had developed the specifications for the component and reviewed them with John and his team at Softel.

Based on that review, the Softel staff developed a plan with an estimate and presented it to the telecom company. The plan was accepted and Softel was awarded the contract.

The Goal

To deliver the component according to the specifications provided by the telecom company within the plan and estimate provided by Softel. The project was to be completed within fourteen months on a fixed price contract.

The Project

Softel assembled a team to take on the project. It included fourteen people, with a project manager, software development staff and telecom engineers. The team got right to work, using the specs developed by the telecom company to build the new component. Progress was excellent, for about six weeks. And then the change orders started coming.

The management structure for the overall project included a steering committee that met bi-weekly. That committee included representatives from the telecom company, their client andSoftel. But the Softel representatives were not being notified of the meetings and so were not in attendance. Further, the change orders that were being approved at the steering committee were not being reviewed with Softel beforehand.

Of course, Softel treated the change orders as add-ons to the original specs, above and beyond the fixed price contract. The client argued that the changes were actually corrections to the original specs and would not cover any extra costs. The client also had a very talented project manager who was skilled at working the telecom company against Softel.

Matters were further complicated by the relationships between the three parties. Softel was the telecom company’s supplier. They had no formal working relationships or communication channels with the telecom company’s client. All communication between the client and Softel had to go through the telecom company. To make things worse, the director at the telecom company who was responsible for the engagement was a “take no prisoners” manager. He was belligerent, bellicose and a bully. Disputes over the disposition of change orders turned into one way shouting matches with Softel staff on the receiving end.

In addition to the escalating change orders and the relationship and communication challenges, Softel discovered that the telecom company’s component design included adding additional features to a switch from a hardware vendor that were not standard practice. That hardware vendor was not actively engaged in the project, other than as a hardware supplier.

As the change orders mounted, conflict escalated and progress stumbled. While John was not actively involved in the project, he could see the impact the struggles were having on the Softel team. They were also threatening the targeted profit margins for Softel. John knew that the status quo was not a viable option for any of the parties. So he started a dialogue, initially with the telecom company’s director. John was yelled at, threatened, harangued and dismissed on more than one occasion. But he persisted, always focusing on the need for a successful outcome and the good names of the involved parties. Eventually, he wore the director down and the director agreed to a meeting with the client’s change sponsor and project manager. Tellingly, the sponsor and PM were also becoming increasingly dissatisfied with the course of the project. The request for the meeting was quickly accepted.

Advertisement
[widget id=”custom_html-68″]

John’s approach in these engagements was always to address the WIIFM (What’s In It For Me) perspectives of the parties involved. That got the players talking openly about their frustrations and the remedies they thought would provide solutions. Common proposals were quickly adopted. Opposing positions were broken down further to find elements of common ground. Eventually, a consensus was achieved on the way forward. It involved:

  • Bringing in the hardware vendor as an active member of the team to provide advice on the most effective ways to leverage their technologies.
  • Restructuring the steering committee to include representatives from all four parties, meeting weekly until the project was back on track and requiring unanimous decisions on all change matters.
  • Reviewing all change requests with the respective teams before submitting the recommendations to the steering committee for approval.
  • Reviewing the change orders to date and resetting the contract and baseline to reflect included specs and incremental work.
  • Revising the plan to include a limited pilot and three releases instead of the one “big bang” implementation. That would provide shorter term goals to focus inter-company collaboration and create opportunities for quick wins and to manage risks.
  • Communicating the changes and ongoing progress with all team members and the client’s affected operating staff.

And so, the work progressed with a renewed sense of optimism and cooperation.

The Results

The initial pilot was implemented with some initial hiccups quickly addressed. The learnings were incorporated into the three subsequent releases. Those releases went off without a hitch but extended the project out to sixteen months. Regardless, all parties were supremely pleased with the results. Softel also met its profit targets and now has three new referenceable accounts.

How a Great Leader Succeeded

John and his team at Softel have some bruises to show for the experience. But, they also learned some valuable and sustainable lessons:

  1. Stakeholder Engagement – Ensure that every party whose involvement is essential for a project’s success is actively engaged by focusing on WIIFM. This project wasn’t about implementing a proven turnkey solution. It was focused on creating and delivering a custom crafted creation for the client. It required hundreds if not thousands of decisions along the way. Every party needed to be involved in that decision-making process.
  2. Governance Structure – Make sure that the governance structure and processes reflect the stakeholder population. Whatever you call it – steering committee, guiding coalition, oversight body – its makeup and operating practices need to be embraced by and executed consistently by its members.
  3. Incremental Delivery – Having one big implementation after fourteen months of effort is a risky, tedious exercise. There’s less opportunity to learn and adapt. There’s less opportunity to deliver value incrementally, to innovate, to celebrate successes, to recognize contributions. Make sure your project delivers something of value every six months or less.
  4. Realistic and relevant project baseline – Having a realistic and accepted project baseline is vital for effective project guidance and decision-making. As those disputed change orders and design issues escalated without resolution, the usefulness of the original baseline diminished and the ability of the players to managed time, cost and functionality dissipated proportionately. That baseline must be established and maintained throughout the course of the project.
  5. Standard Practices – Every project will have to deal with issues, changes, assumptions, risks and communication needs. Leveraging industry standards and ensuring all parties understand and agree on the practices, adapting as necessary, will go a long way towards ensuring effective and efficient project conduct. In this case, having a change control practice that excluded the developer from the decision-making process, no apparent issue management method and flawed communications was a recipe for disaster.
  6. Communication that binds – Communication practices that engage, inform and facilitate collaboration and consensus among all parties are a project management key success factor. In this instance, there was no vehicle initially for Softel to communication with the client, and vice versa. The hardware vendor wasn’t involved at all other than to provide the hardware. The communication structures put in place to correct those initial deficiencies were a big contributor to the project’s ultimate achievements.

John’s redirection of the project to a successful outcome was rooted in his initial and ultimately successful efforts to engage all the key players. No doubt those initial encounters with the telecom company’s director were painful. But his perseverance paid off handsomely for all involved.

So, be a Great Leader. Put these points on your checklist of things to consider so you too can be a Great Leader. Also 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 everyone who has willingly shared their experiences for presentation in this blog. 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

John’s approach in these engagements was always to address the WIIFM (What’s In It For Me) perspectives of the parties involved. That got the players talking openly about their frustrations and the remedies they thought would provide solutions. Common proposals were quickly adopted. Opposing positions were broken down further to find elements of common ground. Eventually a consensus was achieved on the way forward. It involved:
• Bringing in the hardware vendor as an active member of the team to provide advice on the most effective ways to leverage their technologies.
• Restructuring the steering committee to include representatives from all four parties, meeting weekly until the project was back on track and requiring unanimous decisions on all change matters.
• Reviewing all change requests with the respective teams before submitting the recommendations to the steering committee for approval.
• Reviewing the change orders to date and resetting the contract and baseline to reflect included specs and incremental work.
• Revising the plan to include a limited pilot and three releases instead of the one “big bang” implementation. That would provide shorter term goals to focus inter-company collaboration and create opportunities for quick wins and to manage risks.
• Communicating the changes and ongoing progress with all team members and the client’s affected operating staff.

And so, the work progressed with a renewed sense of optimism and cooperation.
The Results
The initial pilot was implemented with some initial hiccups quickly addressed. The learnings were incorporated into the three subsequent releases. Those releases went off without a hitch but extended the project out to sixteen months. Regardless, all parties were supremely pleased with the results. Softel also met its profit targets and now has three new referenceable accounts.
How a Great Leader Succeeded
John and his team at Softel have some bruises to show for the experience. But, they also learned some valuable and sustainable lessons:
1. Stakeholder Engagement – Ensure that every party whose involvement is essential for a project’s success is actively engaged by focusing on WIIFM. This project wasn’t about implementing a proven turnkey solution. It was focused on creating and delivering a custom crafted creation for the client. It required hundreds if not thousands of decisions along the way. Every party needed to be involved in that decision-making process.
2. Governance Structure – Make sure that the governance structure and processes reflect the stakeholder population. Whatever you call it – steering committee, guiding coalition, oversight body – its makeup and operating practices need to be embraced by and executed consistently by its members.
3. Incremental Delivery – Having one big implementation after fourteen months of effort is a risky, tedious exercise. There’s less opportunity to learn and adapt. There’s less opportunity to deliver value incrementally, to innovate, to celebrate successes, to recognize contributions. Make sure your project delivers something of value every six months or less.
4. Realistic and relevant project baseline – Having a realistic and accepted project baseline is vital for effective project guidance and decision-making. As those disputed change orders and design issues escalated without resolution, the usefulness of the original baseline diminished and the ability of the players to managed time, cost and functionality dissipated proportionately. That baseline must be established and maintained throughout the course of the project.
5. Standard Practices – Every project will have to deal with issues, changes, assumptions, risks and communication needs. Leveraging industry standards and ensuring all parties understand and agree on the practices, adapting as necessary, will go a long way towards ensuring effective and efficient project conduct. In this case, having a change control practice that excluded the developer from the decision-making process, no apparent issue management method and flawed communications was a recipe for disaster.
6. Communication that binds – Communication practices that engage, inform and facilitate collaboration and consensus among all parties are a project management key success factor. In this instance, there was no vehicle initially for Softel to communication with the client, and vice versa. The hardware vendor wasn’t involved at all other than to provide the hardware. The communication structures put in place to correct those initial deficiencies were a big contributor to the project’s ultimate achievements.
John’s redirection of the project to a successful outcome was rooted in his initial and ultimately successful efforts to engage all the key players. No doubt those initial encounters with the telecom company’s director were painful. But his perseverance paid off handsomely for all involved.
So, be a Great Leader. Put these points on your checklist of things to consider so you too can be a Great Leader. Also 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 everyone who has willingly shared their experiences for presentation in this blog. 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