Skip to main content

Author: Elizabeth Larson

Elizabeth Larson, PMP, CBAP, CSM, PMI-PBA is a consultant and advisor for Watermark Learning/Project Management Academy, and has over 35 years of experience in project management and business analysis. Elizabeth’s speaking history includes keynotes and presentations for national and international conferences on five continents. Elizabeth has co-authored five books and chapters published in four additional books, as well as articles that appear regularly in BA Times and Project Times. Elizabeth was a lead author/expert reviewer on all editions of the BABOK® Guide, as well as several of the PMI standards. Elizabeth enjoys traveling, hiking, reading, theater, and spending time with her 6 grandsons and 1 granddaughter.

Managing Small Projects; The Critical Steps

Co-written by Richard Larson

Small projects have unique challenges over larger ones. Because they’re small, it’s tempting to skip the planning process and start executing the work. This phenomenon is especially true if projects perform tasks similar to previous work, which in turn leads to a natural tendency to skip planning and to start doing the work. Then, essential steps are sometimes omitted, done out of order, or done later than desired. Likewise, costly mistakes can occur when risks are missed by executing too soon. A small project that isn’t planned enough can also ignore critical stakeholders, causing both resentment and rework.

Complicating the issue are project management methodologies and frameworks designed for large projects. Using such frameworks for small efforts is cumbersome and unnecessary. What is needed is a method that focuses on the essential steps and doesn’t waste time on overkill.

Related Article: The Greatest Challenges When Managing a Project

The following outlines the essential ingredients to managing small projects and how to successfully deliver project results every time. Our proven framework, and the critical steps for managing small projects combines years of practical experience with the core processes of the Project Management Institute’s Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK®Guide).

In this article we present several issues related to managing small projects, as well as the framework. Several practical project templates for managing small projects are introduced and explained as to how they work with the critical steps of the framework. The intent is to help people deliver project results more quickly, better achieve desired objectives, and do so with less stress.

The major challenges we’ve seen in managing small projects are:

  1. Being able to recognize work that is really a project – and conversely to distinguish other kinds of work from project work, and manage it accordingly
  2. The lack of time taken to plan small projects when they are recognized as such, and to do an appropriate amount of planning (as opposed to the level needed for larger ones),
  3. Having the will or determination to follow a plan once it’s created for small projects, and
  4. Being disciplined enough to control and to track the project – and to see it through to completion.

Recognizing Small Projects

With the rush of day-to-day business in any sized company, it’s often difficult to separate project work from daily operations or regular, ongoing work. But projects or potential projects exist in all areas of a small or large business, and project work will suffer unless it’s identified and prioritized. Several issues surround the need for recognizing small projects:

  • Lack of time to think and plan. When work that is project work in nature gets executed as a collection of tasks without proper planning, there are several consequences. Organizations incur higher costs, deadlines get missed, staff and management get frustrated, and other predictable ill effects.
  • Unrealistic deadlines exist for all projects, but it seems especially so for small ones. Managers or internal customers frequently say “just do this” or “just do that” and don’t think through the consequences. People may not realize that the word “just” is a 4-letter word, and is a sign that a project is being instigated.
  • Communication neglect. Small projects usually have less communication in them and fewer status updates than their larger brethren. What often results is that sponsors then frequently forget they requested an initiative, which in turn results in wasted effort because the work goes for naught.
  • Sponsor disengagement. Sponsors quickly disengage on smaller projects if the efforts are not managed. Both neglecting communication and not engaging the sponsor are death sentences for small projects. According to recent research (see Standish Group report, 2001), the top factors for project success are executive support and user involvement, which applies equally to large and small projects alike.
  • Mixing operational and project work. People also have a tendency to meld project work with ongoing support or maintenance. Project work usually suffers because it is less urgent than operational work. In a related fashion, projects then never seem to end. Not closing projects has several consequences, including a) the work to maintain a product gets confused with project work that built it, b) missing capturing important lessons learned, and c) lack of team-building opportunities. Project closeout is just as important for small projects as larger ones.

Two small project examples will help illustrate some of the issues addressed here.

  • Internet Service Provider Project

An example of not recognizing an endeavor for a project was our company’s need to obtain a new Internet Service Provider (ISP). Our previous one had gone bankrupt, and informed us that they would be terminating service in a month. This was not welcome news, of course, and sent our operations manager into “react mode,” quickly thinking of what to do and then doing it. She is the type of person who thrives on chaos, and this was just another chaotic event. As her boss, I urged her to act quickly to get us another ISP. I had visions of our web access disappearing along with all our emails. We had to act quickly!

What’s wrong with this approach? Several things, actually. We did not recognize this effort was a project. The tight, externally-imposed deadline put us into a reactive mode, short-circuiting our planning. The reduced planning caused us several surprises along the way, such as being without email for a weekend, and one of our domain names didn’t accept emails for a week. It turned out that the old ISP shut down earlier than promised, a risk we had not addressed because of our haste. Plus, it was stressful on the whole company, and costly due to overtime by our network technician and potential loss of business. I’m sure every organization has had “projects” like this.

  • Bank Transfer Project

An example of successfully recognizing work as a project involved transferring our company’s bank accounts to a new bank and setting up a new deposit service. It helped that we were able to set an internal deadline, which gave us adequate took the time to plan properly. The planning we did allowed us to analyze risks and to anticipate problems with transferring the bank accounts. We set up risk mitigation plans which we fortunately never had to use, and the project ended smoothly and quietly, with no disruptions in service.

Lessons Learned

What did we learn from these two projects?

Not Recognizing a Project

 
Recognizing a Project

 
■ No identified PM or sponsor meant unclear roles and responsibilities, leading to crucial steps skipped

 
■ Had a formal PM and a project plan, which led to complete planning of tasks

 
■ Time “saved” by not planning actually led to greater work and costly delays in service

 
■ Time spent planning was not burdensome and uncovered requirements and tasks

 
■ Risks were missed that were costly

 
■ Identified major risks and planned for them, adding steps that ensured success

 
■ Being surprised and doing rework was stressful and felt “hard”

 
■ Lack of surprises and executing the plan made it seem “easy”

 

Exhibit 1: Summary of lessons learned from recognizing and not recognizing small projects

Processes vs. Projects vs. Products

 

Organizations get work done through projects or processes. Both efforts work at initially building a product, in the case of projects, or recreating them, done through processes. Exhibit 2 shows the relationship between these key elements.

 

managingsmallprojects1
Exhibit 2: The productivity triangle: projects, processes and products

 
  • Business processes or procedures are pre-defined sets of steps to accomplish some business purpose. The components tend to be repetitive and repeatable between performers. And they have certain goals that “drive” them, like efficiency and accuracy.
  • Products, the second corner of the triangle, are things that are “built.” They are the output or deliverable of a company, or how an organization provides value. Products might be tangible, (as in manufactured products) or intangible (e.g., services or software). Inventing or creating products tends to be a one-time event (a project). Whereas the ongoing production or re-creating of a product is a process.
  • Projects, according to the PMBOK® Guide, are unique undertakings with a discrete beginning and end, that produce something new and valuable, and need adequate resources to succeed. Projects can and should be managed using a generic project management methodology separate from the product management methodology.

So, what does this all have to do with managing small projects?

 

First, a critical and not trivial issue in managing work effectively as small projects is simply to recognize them. One common reason for this phenomenon is that small project work is often intermingled with and mistaken for ongoing operational processes. The ISP example above illustrates this problem. The need to select a new ISP (the project) was mistaken for just another aspect of maintaining a web site and email access (the process).

 

This phenomenon also leads to a common complaint about small projects going on and on and on. If projects are not identified and separated from ongoing work, it is no accident that they appear to never end. And, when project work is identified for building of new products, the product management processes often take over, and a formal project management methodology is frequently ignored or intermingled with the product management one.

Roles and Responsibilities

 

Once a project effort is identified and before planning starts, a critical step in effectively managing small projects is to formally assign roles and responsibilities for them. That is sometimes hard, since people who are not used to being project managers are often reluctant to take on that role or are already overly busy with their normal operational or other work. But, the benefits heavily outweigh the disadvantages. Exhibit 3 summarizes the key roles for typical small projects.

Role Major Functions Typically Performed by
     
Sponsor Funding, direction Officers
    Directors
    Managers
     
Project Manager Manage project, Anyone
  Do project tasks  
     
Team Members Do project tasks Internal Staff
    Contractors
    Interns
     
Key Customers Provide requirements Internal staff

Exhibit 3: Roles/Responsibilities on Small Projects

The key roles, as with any project, are the sponsor and project manager. As stated previously, executive support and user involvement are the major contributors towards project success according to one study. The same study also cited an experienced project manager as another critical factor. (see Standish Report, 2001):

“Lack of executive support has replaced user involvement as the number one cause of project failure. Without a staunch project champion with a solid business vision, projects can drift into a technological or political abyss. Project stakeholders must create business value by improving customer service, communicating a clear business plan and delivering a competitive advantage.”

It would stand to reason, then, that the mere act of formally designating a project sponsor and project manager to a small project would contribute to its success. Yet, much project work gets completed without a formal PM which can often cause projects to be delayed or cancelled. The same Standish Group study found that for all “successful” projects, 97% of them had a formal project manager. Of the so-called “challenged” projects in the study, only 79% had Project Managers assigned. (see Standish Report, 2001).

  • Example: our company recently completed a major redesign to our web site. It was a substantial undertaking, and we gave what we thought was good visibility and support. However, due to budgetary constraints, we had to use a part-time project manager. When our first project manager got a new job and couldn’t continue, we changed project managers, and again had one part-time. As sponsors, the authors were also busy and were not exactly “engaged” in the project. It was no wonder the project stalled out, lost momentum, and was slowly withering away. Finally, we realized the trouble, and engaged ourselves again. We showed more interest and support for the project, held the project manager accountable for the project results, and the project got back on track.

Dr. Paul Dorsey writing in the InterNETalia Forum (see Dorsey article, 2003) in his article called “Top 10 Reasons Why Systems Projects Fail,” says “There do seem to be three factors that all successful projects have in common. Each of these factors is key to any project’s success. Each project can be viewed as a tripod. All three legs must be in place for the tripod to stand sturdily. In a systems project, these legs or critical success factors consist of the following:

  • Top management support,
  • A sound methodology,
  • Solid technical leadership by someone who has successfully completed a similar project.

Without each of these solidly in place, the tripod will topple and the project will fail.” (Dorsey, 2003)

It is obvious, then, that defining clear roles for small projects is as important on small projects as larger ones. What about other issues that differentiate small and larger projects?

Small vs. Large Projects

If work endeavors are recognized as projects, what differentiates small projects from larger ones? Here is a summary of some of the ways in which large and small projects differ.

Size Dimension Medium-Large Small
Time Number of hours example1: ≥ 1000 hours
example2: > 9 months
< 1000 hours
< 9 months
Budget Dollars example1: ≥ $100,000
example2: ≥ $20,000
< $100,000
< $20,000
Risks Number or type example1: “sizable” risks
example2: any risks
“low-moderate” risks
no risks
Stakeholders Number or type example1: > 2
example2: Director level or above
1 or 2
manager level or below
Visibility Level Typically high Often indistinguishable from ongoing work
Formality Level Sponsor, PM, team Named sponsor, PM, team Absent/informal sponsor/PM/team
1 person project teams

Exhibit 4: Dimensions used to Differentiate Small Projects from Larger Ones

When is Formal Planning Not Appropriate for Small Efforts?

So far we have dealt with the need for formalizing project planning for small projects. To summarize the major points, research and experience show that formal planning and control is most appropriate in these cases:

  1. For work that requires stakeholder requirements,
  2. Unique undertakings (which usually involves stakeholder requirements), and
  3. Work that puts an organization at some risk and for which planning would help mitigate that risk.

One can conclude that if the risks aren’t high enough or have enough impact, then the time and expense of formal planning isn’t worth the benefits. Or, project management is not needed if requirements are not needed, and the work can be performed according to previously gathered requirements.

  • Example: if an organization is audited by its Worker’s Compensation insurance agency, the risks inherent in performing the audit aren’t high. The risks born of setting up contractors, hiring employees, etc. have already been expended. So, by the time of the audit, the risks should be minimal and it’s not worth the effort setting up a project plan. The organization should appropriately respond to the audit and provide the information called for, but a formal project plan and execution are not appropriate.

A Project is Needed, Now What?

Once the need for formal project management on a small project is recognized and desired, the important next step is to begin formal planning. As stated earlier, though, project management frameworks designed for large projects are often cumbersome and counter-productive. A small project can be planned, executed and controlled with an appropriate level of process that focuses on the essential steps that add value.

Our own company has made considerable progress in employing a suitable small project framework. After numerous struggles, like the ISP example cited earlier, we made a concerted effort to adopt a project management approach of our own. We started with clarifying our corporate vision and strategy. It helped us immensely to prioritize projects, which is just as important in a small company as in a larger one.

Now when we decide to take on new projects, we work to link them to the strategic vision. And, if we have trouble doing that, then the project isn’t a good fit. On the other hand, potential projects may be a stretch for us and not what we normally do, But, if it fits our vision, we are more likely to try it, such as responding to customer requests for new products.

Framework for Managing Small Projects

Now let’s look at a practical approach, grounded in a Project Management Institute (PMI®) -based framework, for planning and executing small projects. Adopting this method for managing small projects was an important ingredient in our evolution to becoming a “projectized” organization.

Starting a few years ago, our company began using a formal project planning template that has helped us significantly to plan and manage our projects. After we clarified our vision and mission, and decided to become a “projectized” organization (and not just how to teach others how to do that!), a formal planning process and various templates were natural outgrowths. Both were based on several elements from PMI’s PMBOK® Guide.

We adapted PMI’s framework to this life cycle and supporting documents, with the intention of using it for all projects of approximately 25-250 hours. Many of our small projects are in the 40-80 hour range. For projects longer than 200-300 hours, we use a more formal planning process.

A big advantage of our templates for small projects is that they are short and stay focused on the major aspects of project management. We constructed them to be simple, both to minimize training and increase likelihood of people adopting it.

Another huge advantage of using our templates is that they work. The projects we or our clients have done using it – like the Bank Transfer project related earlier – have been much more successful than those without it – like the ISP project.

Steps

Once you’ve identified work that should be managed as a project, now it’s time to start planning and executing the project. Our method for managing small projects involves five basic steps. It’s derived from our own experience and based on the A Guide to the Project Management Institute’s Body of Knowledge, called the PMBOK® Guide for short. The five steps are project:

  1. Sanctioning.
  2. Scope Definition.
  3. Scheduling and Estimating.
  4. Status Reporting/Executing.
  5. Success – Closing the project.

1. Project Sanctioning

To be successful, all projects need to be sponsored and supported. The project sponsor owns it, and must approve its deliverables. Without this formal sanctioning of a project, it may be doomed to failure. The number one contributor to project success, according to a recent Standish Group Report (2001), is executive support. User involvement, experienced project managers, clear business objectives, and minimized scope are close behind as factors of successful projects.

Executive support for a project is documented through a project charter. A charter sanctions the project, and outlines what the sponsor expects the project to produce. It’s meant to be a business document, not a technical one, and is designed to be short. Ideally, the sponsor should create it, but, minimally, they should sign off on it.

As frequent project sponsors ourselves, we have found that slowing down long enough to create a charter forces executives to think through the need and vision for a project. Additionally, it often stops many a “good idea” from being delegated as a small project and forces the sponsor to justify the business need for the project. The graveyard of abandoned projects often comes from those good ideas that weren’t thought through well enough, and the instigator has gone on to the next “big idea.”

2. Scope Definition

The next step in managing a small project, and a natural follow-on to sanctioning it, is defining the scope. The scope statement defines the project’s:

  • business issues and their impact,
  • objectives (what the project should accomplish for the business), and
  • deliverables (including features in and out of scope).

In other words, it defines what is “in scope” for the project. The sponsor signs off on this document, too, and commits to it. Sponsors are responsible for and need to make the decisions about the extent of the project, while project managers are responsible for planning the project and reporting against the plan. It’s a distinction the authors as project managers have learned the hard way: it’s easy for sponsors to abdicate and make project managers responsible for scope decisions, and then blame the PM for expanding the scope and missing deadlines.

Another way to think about the scope is to think about it as the project manager’s answer to the sponsor’s charter. The scope statement interprets the business need and how the project will solve it. If it’s it done right, the sponsor can use it to verify if and how their vision will be carried out through the project. We use a simple template for the scope statement and combine it with the rest of the project plan for simplicity.

3. Scheduling and Estimating

Before starting a project, you also need to estimate how long it will take to accomplish the project objectives. For small projects, we suggest taking each deliverable and breaking it down to determine the tasks needed to produce each one. The resulting list of tasks is called a Work Breakdown Structure (WBS). The WBS helps you plan all the necessary work, and only the necessary work needed to meet the project objectives. It’s an essential tool for any size project. Breaking projects into smaller tasks makes it easier to estimate the time needed to perform the work, and it can be rolled up into an overall project estimate.

The project schedule guides the flow of work, to ensure things are done in the right order. Tasks for the schedule come from the WBS, and allow sequencing work so that:

  • Tasks will be done in the right sequence, reducing delays,
  • Tasks with no dependencies can be done in parallel with other project work, shortening the schedule
  • The longest sequence of tasks (called the “critical path”) will dictate how long the project will take.

Tools like Microsoft Project® provide valuable assistance in estimating and scheduling projects and in calculating the critical path. For projects without many dependencies, simple tools like Microsoft Excel® and Microsoft Word® do a decent job of recording a schedule.

4. Status Reporting/Executing

This step is finally where project work begins. By now you’ve scoped out the project, divided it into deliverables, broken it into tasks, and created a schedule. It’s time to work the plan.

On larger projects, experts say 90% of a project manager’s time is spent communicating. For smaller projects, especially when the project manager is doing some or all of the work, the communication time is obviously much less. But, it is essential to communicate project status as it is executing. We suggest weekly status reports to the sponsor, describing:

  • What has been accomplished since the last report,
  • How much time and money have been spent,
  • Variations from the budget or schedule
  • Any project issues that have arisen.

5. Success – Closing the Project

As each deliverable from the scope statement gets completed, take the opportunity to celebrate success. Of course, the sponsor should approve each deliverable first. After all deliverables have been approved, the project can be closed out. This step is important because it gives you one last chance to celebrate, and feel good about what the project has accomplished. It’s a great morale boost that beats being rewarded by more work immediately!

Equally important, closing out a project is the time to do a Lessons Learned session with the project team. A Lessons Learned meeting recaps what went well on the project and what could be improved for the next one. Both are valuable for capturing knowledge acquired during the project that can be built on in the future. The lessons learned can be listed on a close report, which is also useful for summarizing project time, cost, and variances from the budget and schedule.

Putting it All Together

At first, going through the steps feels a little awkward and unnatural. After one or two efforts, though, people usually start seeing the benefits and the awkwardness disappears. Then, a scary thing starts to happen. People hold off starting on work until they get a project charter. Or, team members look forward to lessons learned sessions and celebrating the end of a successful phase or project closeout. Then, you know you’re on your way to “tech success” and can stop playing that hero role so much. You get more sleep and get to see your kids more that way, too.

References

The Standish Group, (© 2001) “Extreme Chaos Report,” p. 1. https://www.projecttimes.com/wp-content/uploads/attachments/extreme_chaos.pdf
Dorsey, Dr. Paul (3/25/2003), “Top 10 Reasons Why Systems Projects Fail,” http://www.datainformationservices.com/DIS/Forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=17

Don’t forget to leave your comments below


Elizabeth Larson, PMP, CBAP and Richard Larson, PMP, CBAP, are Principals of Watermark Learning, Inc. Watermark Learning helps improve project success with outstanding project management and business analysis training and mentoring. We foster results through our unique blend of industry best practices, a practical approach, and an engaging delivery. We convey retainable real-world skills, to motivate and enhance staff performance, adding up to enduring results. With our academic partner, Auburn University, Watermark Learning provides Masters Certificate Programs to help organizations be more productive, and assist individuals in their professional growth. Watermark is a PMI Global Registered Education Provider, and an IIBA Endorsed Education Provider. Contact us at 800-646-9362 or at www.watermarklearning.com.

For a copy of any of the documents mentioned in this article, send an email to the authors. They can be reached at [email protected] or [email protected]. 10/21/09

7 Trends in Business Analysis and Project Management to Watch for in 2012

Graph_PresentationThe close of one year tends to make one reflect on what has occurred in the past year related to and ponder the future. Here we ponder some trends in the Project Management and Business Analysis fields for 2012. Here are our top seven predictions for business analysts (BAs) and project managers (PMs) in 2012.

Divergence of the PM and BA Role. In 2009 we predicted that as the economy tightened, organizations would decrease their project budgets and combine the role of PM and BA. For 2012 we believe that organizations will see the need for both roles, particularly on strategic projects, and move away from a combined role. There are several factors for this trend:

    Business analysis is maturing as a profession. As the IIBA has gained traction, more organizations have become aware of the BA role and its importance. From 2010 to 2011 the number of IIBA members increased about 50%.

    • Organizations have found that even with successful project management, many projects fail because of dissatisfaction with the end product. Having business analysts helps ensure that the product is a solution that works and is one the organization needs.
    • PMI has recognized the importance of the business analyst role. In 2010 they undertook a study to determine areas of overlap, handoffs, and how the two roles could collaborate.
    • Combined Agile methods. We predict that Agile methods will continue to change and merge as organizations take advantage of the benefits of Agile. In our 2009 Trends blog we stated that “Integrating Agile methods into project management and business analysis is a trend that will continue in 2009. Currently, the industry has a wide, varied, and inconsistent use of Agile techniques. This trend is likely to continue.”

      In the two years since we wrote that article, Agile methods have continued to evolve. Although organizations have widely adopted Scrum as the predominant Agile method, they still struggle with its implementation. We think that organizations will continue to adopt Agile methods, but that these methods will continue to evolve. Combined techniques, such as Scrum-ban (which combines Scrum with the Lean technique Kanban) or Scrumerfall (a combination of Scrum and Waterfall) will be adopted for different kinds of projects.

    • PM and BA on Agile projects. We predict that the role of the BA and PM on Agile projects will solidify. When Agile started to be adopted, some organizations thought that the roles of PM and BA were obsolete. However, more and more organizations have recognized that the need for both roles, even if the titles are new. The Scrum Master role is best filled by someone with the expertise to coordinate the initiating, planning, executing, monitoring, & controlling, and closing each iteration and release. In other words, the work typically done by a PM. The designations of Certified Scrum Master (CSM) from the Scrum Alliance and Agile Certified Professional (ACP) from PMI have solidified this role.

      The role of the BA on an Agile project has not solidified. BAs are used in a variety of ways or not at all on Agile projects. There have been heated discussions on LinkedIn discussion groups and at conferences about this role. While many organizations use BAs in the product owner role, the fundamental issue of the product owner having to make business decisions makes this problematic. Going against most of the current thinking, we predict that organizations will realize in the next few years that business analysis is essential to Agile projects. Agile projects still have requirements, and there is a need to go from high-level user stories to the detail needed to develop the needed functionality. Organizations will realize that this in-depth analysis cannot be completed during an iteration, that it has to happen just prior to development. This is called grooming the product backlog and is the perfect role for the business analyst.

    • The BA as management consultant. We predict that in 2012 BAs will actually function as described in the BABOK® Guide, version 2.0. That is, more BAs will “recommend solutions that help the organization achieve its goals.” They will do that in a variety of ways:
      1. Business cases. More organizations will recognize that the BA is in the best position to develop business cases. Although often performed by PMs, this function happens prior to the initiation of a project and is input to project initiation (PMBOK® Guide – Fourth Edition). The PMBOK recognizes that the performing organization (business owner) is accountable for the business case, but it is the BA who is in the best position of developing it.
      2. Ability to Influence without Authority. We are seeing more organizations tell us that they want their BAs to move away from taking customer orders and start using their expertise to recommend solutions. This need correlates to the enthusiasm we have seen around the need to influence without authority.
      3. In her keynote at the BBC conference in Ft. Lauderdale last year, Kathleen Barrett, CEO of IIBA mentioned that one of the key competencies of the enterprise BA is management consulting.
    • BAs as change agents.We think that BAs will be more involved in change management. At the BBC conference in Ft. Lauderdale last year Kathleen Barret announced a new tag line for IIBA—that business analysis was about changing how organizations change. In other words, BAs will be more involved in change management. Changes might include changes in business processes, job descriptions, reporting structures, software, and more. Here are some of the ways we see this happening:
      1. Enterprise analysis. Before projects are initiated, BAs determine the business need across the enterprise and recommend solutions, which need to include the ways in which organizations will need to change when these solutions are implemented.
      2. Project work. While the identified at the enterprise level are by necessity high-level, the changes resulting from each project will be specific in nature. We predict that BAs will develop better tools for assessing whether or not the organization is ready for the change. We think that they will act as management consultants once the project has been defined to ease the pain associated with implementing the changes associated as with implementing the solution.
      3. Post-project follow-up. We believe that BAs will be called on to monitor the post-implementation changes and continue to consult with the organization on the best way to make the solution work, even when there is some organizational resistance to it.
    • The virtual environment.Now that it is here, the virtual environment will continue to flourish, even if the economy improves. There are a variety of reasons why organizations will continue to rely on the virtual environment for completing projects, for training, and for webinars to replace live conferences.
      1. Travel budgets. Spurred by a sluggish world economy, many organizations have reduced travel budgets for team meetings, training, and international conferences, relying instead on the virtual environment. Although colocation of teams is ideal and preferred, it is not always possible. More teams communicate and collaborate virtually, more virtual training will occur, and more webinars will take the place of live conferences.
      2. Globalization has made travel impractical. Although face-to-face time, particularly during project initiation, is helpful in building trust, respect, and relationships, it is not possible to be together for all project meetings and/or requirements elicitation interviews and workshops when the team is located across the county or world.
      3. Collaboration tools have made the virtual environment not only possible, but practical. Net meetings, as well as more robust training and webinar tools have supported virtual teams, so that real work can be accomplished. In addition, teams have learned how to build relationships and trust in the virtual environment. Building relationships and trust in a virtual environment is easier and quicker once people accept and feel comfortable with the virtual tools available.
    •  “The economy, stupid,” a past political slogan said. During a slumping economy, organizations look of ways to maximize efficiencies. Focus turns to business processes and how to improve and manage them. During more prosperous times, interest in business process management tends to wane. We predict that business process management, with an emphasis on eliminating waste in organizations, will continue throughout 2012, even as the economy (hopefully) shows signs of improvement. We also predict that there will be no dominant tools for managing processes and recommend that project professionals doing business process work focus on core concepts and skills and be flexible when it comes to using BPM tools. 

     Don’t forget to leave your comments below.


    About the Authors

    Elizabeth Larson, PMP, CBAP, CSM, PMI-PBA is Co-Principal and CEO of Watermark Learning and has over 30 years of experience in project management and business analysis. Elizabeth’s speaking history includes repeat presentations for national and international conferences on five continents.

    Elizabeth has co-authored five books on business analysis and certification preparation. She has also co-authored chapters published in four separate books. Elizabeth was a lead author on several standards including the PMBOK® Guide, BABOK® Guide, and PMI’s Business Analysis for Practitioners – A Practice Guide.

    Richard Larson, PMP, CBAP, PMI-PBA, President and Founder of Watermark Learning, is a successful entrepreneur with over 30 years of experience in business analysis, project management, training, and consulting. He has presented workshops and seminars on business analysis and project management topics to over 10,000 participants on five different continents.

    Rich loves to combine industry best practices with a practical approach and has contributed to those practices through numerous speaking sessions around the world. He has also worked on the BA Body of Knowledge versions 1.6-3.0, the PMI BA Practice Guide, and the PM Body of Knowledge, 4th edition. He and his wife Elizabeth Larson have co-authored five books on business analysis and certification preparation.

    Three Tips for Solving the Communications Dilemma

    Oct12_FeatureRecently I talked to a colleague with a communications dilemma. She wondered how she should communicate with her various stakeholder groups. Thinking out loud she pondered, “When I’m with business people, I always try to use business language, including their acronyms, which I’ve gone out of my way to learn. But what about when I’m talking to the technical experts? Should I talk techie to them?” She went on to say, “I write a lot of proposals. I have some stakeholders who let me know right away about typos or if my grammar is not exactly right. I have other stakeholders who have told me that my writing style is too formal and that I shouldn’t use such correct grammar. They feel it’s intimidating and unfriendly.”
    As BAs and PMs we know we’re supposed to be good communicators, but what exactly does that mean? We are trained to be aware of others’ communication style. We use our intuition, empathy, and awareness of body language to “read” others. But is that enough? And does that apply equally to our written and our verbal communication? What about the language we use? I have always loved the quote from the poet William Butler Yeats, “Think like a wise [person] but communicate in the language of the people.” Does that mean, however, that when we are talking to someone who misuses the language, that we should match our language to theirs? I don’t think so. Matching the communication style does not necessarily mean mimicking their language. However, we do want a communication style that makes our stakeholders comfortable.

    How can we solve this communications dilemma? Here are three tips for both written and verbal communications that can help.

    1. Take the time to keep it simple. We are all aware of the wisdom of keeping it simple, but simple doesn’t mean easy. Simple doesn’t mean careless. It is often harder to keep it simple, because keeping it simple requires thought, precision, and a good command of the language. I find that it takes a great deal of thought to write concisely and say everything I want to in language that all stakeholders will understand.

    That same principle of simplicity applies when we paraphrase, or restate what was said in different words while keeping the nature of what was said intact. I think paraphrasing is one of the most difficult skills to master. It requires the ability to     take in a lot of information, to synthesize it, to concentrate on what is being said, and at the same time to rework the ideas to make them understandable. It’s tough work!

    1. Be correct without being pretentious. When we use incorrect grammar or when we don’t bother to check our work, we run the risk of being judged poorly, of reducing our credibility, and of not being taken seriously. On the other hand, when we use ornate language and complex sentence structure, we run the risk of losing our audience. I remember taking a multiple choice test in high school where the correct answer was “It is I who am going shopping.” Wow. And of course there’s the famous line from Churchill. Apparently his editors rewrote a sentence to make it grammatically correct, and apparently he responded with the famous line, “This is the sort of bloody nonsense up with which I will not put,” pointing out the ridiculous nature of obscure grammatical rules. In a nutshell, I think we should strive for communications that are both intelligent and clear.
    2. Use language that both technical and business people understand. I have found that when I use technical language with business people, they have a harder time understanding me than if I use business language with technical people. Using business language, then, tends to be more easily understood by all stakeholders. As a project manager working on software development projects, I always encouraged the developers to use business terms, even when the subject was technical in nature. For example, instead of saying DB17, I encouraged the team to talk, even among themselves, about the Price Change database.

    Another example I use is that when we need to find out about data business rules, we might walk into a requirements workshop and ask about the cardinality and optionality, but we’d probably get some blank stares. However, we can translate those concepts into questions our SMEs can understand and answer. For example, we might ask if end-users can set up customers who don’t have any accounts. Or what information the end-users need to enter before they can leave the web page. I have always believed that translating technical concepts into business English, while annoying to some team members and technical whizzes, has always been worthwhile. It encourages us to focus on the business need rather than the technical solution.

    Finally, let’s look at the intent of the communications. If we all understand each other and what we’re trying to say, then I believe we are communicating effectively, even if our grammar isn’t perfect or we don’t use the right words. And I believe that most stakeholders get that and won’t judge us harshly. However, for those stakeholders who want each “i” dotted, let’s proof our work. It will help build our credibility. The key is to know our stakeholders, but that’s a topic for a different day.

    Don’t forget to leave your comments below.

    Lessons from the King’s Speech – How to Influence Without Authority

    March9_LarsonI recently saw the “The King’s Speech,” a movie about the relationship between the stammering King George VI of England and his speech therapist, Lionel Logue. The movie begins when the future king is still the Duke of York, Albert. At first the relationship is a rocky one. Although he eventually becomes the king’s trusted advisor, Mr. Logue doesn’t begin the relationship as such. He has little to recommend him, since neither his credentials nor his social status grant him instant credibility. The disparity in their births, culture (Logue was Australian), and breeding is daunting. So how is this commoner able to help the monarch and become his life-long friend? He is a master at influencing with absolutely no authority.

    There are some lessons here for those of us business analysts and project managers whose jobs depend on our ability to influence without authority. I’ve chosen three that can help us with our projects.

    Lesson #1. To influence without authority we need to establish trust.

    Logue says at the beginning of the movie, when the future George VI is still Albert, the Duke of York, that the duke that he needs to trust him. But of course trust cannot be dictated. It has to be built. And it doesn’t happen right away either in the movie or in real life. Two key components of trust, courage and competence, have to be established. In the movie, Mr. Logue has to demonstrate his courage and prove his competency by getting results.

    An example of Logue’s courage occurs towards the beginning of the movie. When the therapy begins, Mr. Logue insists on equality during the therapy sessions. Albert has to agree to the therapy at Logue’s home, not at one of the royal palaces. Surprisingly, the Duke agrees, although not without loud and vociferous protestations. In another example, Logue insists on calling the Duke “Bertie” and in turn being called Lionel, a familiarity unheard of. Logue knows that unless they are partners during the therapy, it will not be successful, and a true partnership requires equality.

    Our projects require us to be courageous. In some organizations it takes a great deal of courage to be the bearer of bad news, as when we need to provide accurate project status or when we point out risks. It takes courage to recommend the right thing for the organization, like a new direction, a new process, or a long-range solution when the organization wants short-term fixes. What gives us courage, of course, is knowing what we’re talking about. It’s having the facts and the statistic to back up our recommendations. It’s being prepared. It’s also the ability to articulate and sell our recommendations. When our recommendations turn out to help our organizations, we gain credibility and build trust.

    Lesson #2. To influence without authority we need to support the decision-makers with our advice.

    Although Logue insists on parameters, the decision whether or not to continue the therapy always lies with the king. The therapist recommends, the king decides. From time to time the king decides not to continue the therapy. He simply walks away. However, Logue’s techniques prove successful, so the separation is not permanent. It is clear throughout that Logue’s advice is always given unselfishly and always for the good of the king and country, not his own ego or pocketbook, which I believe is a key factor in the successful outcome.

    We, too, need to advise the decision-makers and make recommendations that will help the organization achieve its goals. When we recommend the right thing, without promoting our personal goals, those very goals may well be fulfilled. Years ago I was a manager in the unenviable position of having to eliminate an entire department. The department supervisor remained positive throughout, recommending shut-down and transfer processes. Somehow he communicated the business need for the shut-down and his own optimism to the staff. In the end he was promoted and none of the staff lost their jobs.

    Lesson #3. Respect, authenticity, and empathy help us to influence without authority.

    In real life Lionel Logue was said to be successful because of his “superhuman sympathy.” In the movie Logue  treats the king and his disability with total dignity, his empathy and concern apparent throughout. Showing neither embarrassment nor condescension as the king stutters through practice readings, Logue listens intently and offers workarounds to help the king through trouble spots. He does unseemly vocal exercise with the king, as though these are the most natural activities for a king and commoner to engage in.

     In our organizations we have a greater chance of influencing when our approach is respectful, authentic, and empathetic. Expertise alone does not create competency. Most people do not relate well to “know-it-alls,” and trying to showcase our expertise rarely builds credibility. We are most successful when we use our expertise to support the organization, rather than for personal gain or visibility.

    There are, of course, many more ways to influence without authority. I have chosen three important ones: establish trust, advise and recommend solutions that help our organizations reach their goals, and use empathy and respect in our relationships.

    Don’t forget to leave your comments below.

    Kicking the Hornet’s Nest

    ElizabethLarson_Dec28-29_CroppedOK, you Stieg Larson fans, I’m not Lisbeth Salander, the heroine of the best-selling trilogy. I have neither her wits nor her strength. But I have kicked a few hornet’s nests in my career. Some of these nests were full of angry hornets and some full of non-aggressive bumblebees. However, every instance reinforced the importance of doing the right thing for the organization, even if it meant getting stung.

    The Nest Full of Angry Hornets

    In one organization I was acting as both a PM and a BA. My manager asked me to put together a project request for a business director in an area completely outside of my expertise. I met with the person I had assumed would be the sponsor, but who didn’t seem to understand why I was there. I asked lots of questions and didn’t got a cozy feeling that the business problem had been defined or that this person would be an engaged sponsor. I wrote up my findings recommended that we not pursue the project until we defined the business need and a business case and had gotten a sponsor on board. When I presented these findings to my manager, I was brusquely told me that this was not what he was looking for and that I should put together a project request.

    I then decided to kick a little harder. I went back to the business director and asked more questions and talked him through the information needed for a project request. So far so good. But when I asked him to sign it, he refused. I explained why his signature was important and asked if there was someone else that should sponsor the project. When he asked why I couldn’t sign it, I discussed the relationship between signing the request and owning the project. I kicked a bit harder and said I’ be happy to manage the project but not own it. I returned to my manager and explained the situation. I’m not sure what happened, but the project just sort of disappeared. It wasn’t given to another PM, nor put on the list of active, future, or deferred projects. It just disappeared. It seemed to me that convincing management not to proceed with the project was a major success. I was delighted with the outcome, because had we gone ahead without a real business need and sponsor, it would have been a nasty project indeed.

    I remember another instance when I kicked the nest with a less positive outcome. I had just joined a company with about two dozen project managers who were expected to do both project management and business analysis work. Each week we met to discuss our projects and issues. I remember that the first meeting I attended seemed to drag on endlessly. I was bored and impatient and wanted to move to a more interesting topic. I offered what I thought was a solution to the problem they were discussing. The conversation stopped. All eyes turned in my direction. I started to justify my approach, but then all eyes turned away and other voices rose over mine. The issue continued to be addressed, but when I tried to speak, two dozen hornets buzzed angrily around me. Later, one of the PMs pulled me aside and told me that the organizational culture required that new members didn’t speak up until they had been there several months. I broke the rules. I guess I was perceived as trying to usurp the queen bee’s place, and the nest would never allow that to happen. I learned what I should have known-listen and understand before speaking. A great lesson, but one that’s difficult for hornet nest kickers like me.

    The Non-Aggressive Beehive

    I once kicked at what I thought was a hornet’s nest. The project had an unusually ridiculous deadline. We were developing software and every time we turned around, it seemed, we experienced technical difficulties that slowed us down. The staff became frustrated. I had verbally told our management and the sponsor that the project might be delayed. The VP in charge of all the application software was displeased. “I don’t want to hear any excuses,” he said.

    Were technical delays excuses, I wondered. Surely anything beyond my control was easily explained and a reason to delay the project completion. Or so I argued with myself. What to do-what to do? I went through a period of mental hand-wringing before deciding to go back to my management consulting roots. I asked the team to keep track of the amount of down time caused by technical delays. After initial grousing and grumbling, the staff complied. Once I had gathered enough statistics, I analyzed them and put together my findings and a recommendation. With fear and trepidation I set up a meeting to present the findings and recommendation to Management, who much to my surprise were enthusiastic in their praise of the approach and who actually agreed to extend the deadline.

    I do believe that one of the great attributes of trust is courage. If we always act in what we believe to be the best interest of the organization, as risky as it sometimes seems, we will need to kick a few hornet’s nests, but that’s OK. It will likely earn respect. Sure we’ll get a few bites, but hopefully we’ll develop immunity to the sting and continue to recommend the right things.

    Don’t forget to leave your comments below.