Skip to main content

Author: George Pitagorsky

George Pitagorsky, integrates core disciplines and applies people centric systems and process thinking to achieve sustainable optimal performance. He is a coach, teacher and consultant. George authored The Zen Approach to Project Management, Managing Conflict and Managing Expectations and IIL’s PM Fundamentals™. He taught meditation at NY Insight Meditation Center for twenty-plus years and created the Conscious Living/Conscious Working and Wisdom in Relationships courses. Until recently, he worked as a CIO at the NYC Department of Education.

Top-down or Bottom-up – Either-or or Both

Written by George Pitagorsky on . Posted in Articles. 4 Comments on Top-down or Bottom-up – Either-or or Both

Whether the context is planning, requirements definition, or design, the issue of whether to take a top down or bottom up approach and which to take first is relevant.

Different People Think Differently

The question is about how people think and perceive the world and how they go about analyzing the world they perceive. While there is no one right way, there are arguments for taking a top-down approach first and then selectively going down into the details.

On a recent project, working with the definition of program and project scope, one influential stake holder took the position that for the sake of time, the team not spend time on defining the big picture but instead to start with one very important part and work outward from there to ultimately define the full system.

An alternative position was to take some effort to describe the system as a whole and then, once the major components and their relationships were known, to choose what to focus on next in terms of detail. 

Some look at things from a top-down perspective, naturally seeing the big picture and how it works. Details are not necessarily their ‘thing’ but they must acknowledge the value and critical importance of details.

Others take a purely bottom-up approach, focusing only on the immediately relevant parts and either devaluing the big picture perspective or seeing it as something that comes out of the knowledge of the details.

Need for Both

There is need for both top-down and bottom-up perspectives and for people to flex their thinking to apply each in keeping with the need.  

The big picture person who doesn’t value the effort required to address the details and the detail oriented person who fails to see the importance of the big picture are both detriments to optimal performance.

What is the proper balance?  How much time and effort is needed to describe the big picture?  What is the value proposition?

For one thing, a top-down perspective defines the context within which a project or system exists. Here we’ll define the word ‘system’ as a bounded collection of inter-operating objects and processes. Anything can be described as a system.

Practically speaking, every system exists within a higher order system and interacts with other systems.   For example, an activity exists within a project, a project within an organization; an IT application exists within a business process and within a technology environment.

Small Investment for a Big Pay-off

That is why it is important to see the big picture before diving into the details or leaping into action. Without a clear sense of the big picture one runs a risk of unnecessarily disrupting the higher order system. Without a sense of the big picture one is likely to miss opportunities to plan or design optimally.  Risks may be overlooked. Opportunities to build in flexibility and enable future expansion may be missed. Decisions are likely to be made with insufficient knowledge of their results.

Happily, a big picture perspective can be obtained in a relatively short time if it is done correctly. Correctly means visualizing the whole and breaking it down into a relatively small number (3 – 5 or so) of parts (activities, objects, components, etc.) that completely include all aspects of the system. Usually a breakdown of these into a second level of detail is needed to validate the top level and get enough definition to engage the detail oriented people and enable effective analysis.

Once this is done, risk analysis, estimating, high-level design and communication with senior level management can be accomplished before diving into next levels of detail, selectively based on priorities.

Avoid Unnecessary Conflict

It is important to avoid unnecessary conflict between big picture and detail oriented people. Often detail oriented people think that it is necessary to describe all the details in order to understand the whole. While there is some validity to that idea, one can get a sufficient understanding of the whole without knowing all the details. The big picture thinkers must be open to adjusting their ‘model’ of the system as details are defined that raise issues regarding the validity of the model. They must acknowledge that the system is not fully known until the details are defined.

With this in mind, a team can embark on a project or program that progressively elaborates the plan and the definition of the product over the course of project life. They can be careful to avoid wasting time by doing too much top down planning or by not doing enough and thereby discovering issues and risks randomly along the way.

Don’t forget to leave your comments below.

Avoid Failure – Facilitate Effective Communications

Written by George Pitagorsky on . Posted in Articles. 3 Comments on Avoid Failure – Facilitate Effective Communications

Effective Communication

Over the years I have become convinced that communication is the key to optimal performance whenever there is more than one person involved in an endeavor.  Last month we addressed mindfulness as a foundation for effective communication.  Mindfulness is the base.  Building on that base, add facilitation skills.

Facilitation

Facilitation is not just for communication professionals and academics. As a project manager, supervisor or functional manager, parent, friend, etc., you can make use of facilitation skills to keep communication open, avoid reactive behavior and stay on topic, at the right level of detail.  While professional facilitators generally stand apart from the group and do not take part in content discussions, you can and should be both a facilitator and a party to communication.  Professional facilitators (good ones, that is) make it a point to enable groups to be self facilitating.  That means everyone takes on some responsibility to facilitate.

Facilitation is making things (in this case the exchange of information) easy by setting people at ease and applying skillful practices to enable effective communication.  It is used to design and hold successful meetings as well as to manage conflict and generally make sure there is a healthy flow of information, ideas, facts and so forth in and around projects and organizations.

Facilitators make sure the parties have a clear sense of what they are communicating about, that the right parties are involved, that each has the opportunity to share his or her thoughts and feelings.  Facilitators keep the conversation on track and at the right level of detail.  They help the parties to establish and comply with “rules” of behavior like being respectful and civil.  Perhaps most importantly they cultivate rapport

Rapport

Rapport is a relationship in which people are in-synch or feel comfortable with one another because they feel similar or relate well to one another.  There is mutual trust, emotional affinity, similarity, and common interests.  When there is rapport, people are more likely to be open and to communicate with clarity.

In my forthcoming book Managing Conflict in Projects:
Applying Mindfulness and Analysis for Optimal Results I identify six facilitation techniques, which are used to create rapport

  1. Active listening—taking the effort to hear and understand what others are saying and to show them that you have understood it as they have meant it to be understood;
  2. Questioning—enabling active listening by digging into the other parties communication and making sure your understanding is accurate;
  3. Matching and mirroring—creating a sense of trust and comfort by recognizing the way other people speak, appear or behave and replicating it in your speech, appearance and behavior
  4. Using body language—recognizing the tacit, non-verbal part of communication to go beyond the words to get the real meaning of what is being communicated.  Body language becomes an integral part of mirroring when you realize that the way you behave (how you stand, dress, speak, etc.) has a subtle impact on the way you are perceived by the others and that you can control the way you behave to manage the impact
  5. Making eye contact—maintaining trust and comfort while not over doing it with staring
  6. Moderating the communication process—managing the flow of communication to make sure everyone has an opportunity to speak, that one person isn’t taking over the communication inappropriately, that people stay on topic and at the right level of detail, etc.

Mindful Communication

As facilitation and mindfulness come together we get mindful communication.  The guidelines are simple:

  • Talk about what’s really important.  Stay on topic.  Stay at the “right  level of detail”
  • Really listen to each other. See how thoroughly you can understand each other’s views and experience.
  • Say what’s true for you without making everyone else wrong.  Bring facts to the surface and recognize the difference between fact and belief or opinion.
  • See what you can learn together by exploring, particularly when there is disagreement.
  • Avoid monopolizing the conversation. Make sure everyone has a chance to speak.
  • Avoid emotionally driven behavior and speech.

Don’t forget to leave your comments below!

Communication and Mindfulness

Written by George Pitagorsky on . Posted in Articles. 6 Comments on Communication and Mindfulness

Foundations for Effective Communication

Last month’s blog highlighted the need to speak up at the right time in project life to avoid problems and minimize the impact of those that are not avoided. In an earlier blog I discussed Improving Communication: Controlling Your Body Language and Tone.

This month we’ll explore communication techniques that can be used to make speaking up easier and more effective and enable the control needed to moderate behavior and speech.

Effective communication relies on mindfulness, emotional intelligence, right intention, basic facilitation skills, the right vocabulary and courage. Over the next few months we’ll explore these in the context of project work.

Mindfulness

Let’s start with mindfulness, the ability to be consciously aware of what is happening in and around you. It implies clear, objective observation. Mindfulness is the foundation for effective communication. It enables emotional intelligence and the ability to facilitate. It enables you to choose the right words and behavior for each situation.  Increased mindfulness has also been shown to promote good health, better memory, concentration and enhanced performance in general.

Mindfulness is cultivated by mindfulness meditation. It is a very simple practice, just comfortably observing things like your own breath, feelings, thoughts and mental constructs (models, beliefs, opinions, etc.). These are objects of mindfulness. Additional objects of mindfulness are the way other people behave, what they say and how they say it. In effect anything that occurs in or around you can be an object of mindfulness.  By observing these phenomena as objects the mind is trained to become more objective.  Objectivity leads to better decision making and that leads to better performance.

For an instruction on how to do mindfulness meditation go to http://www.pitagorskyconsulting.com/articles/article/6339267/106485.htm.

Why Mindfulness is Important

Mindfulness is a key to communication because it makes it possible to be responsive rather that reactive. If when faced with a stressful situation a person can feel his or her feelings before reacting to them, then there is the possibility of choosing what to say and how to say it. 

The ability to see and feel the reactions of others to what one says and does makes it possible to shift behavior, body language, tone and the content of communication to get the kind of response one is looking for. 

When faced with a challenging situation in which the desire to speak up about a sensitive topic is being blocked by fear or lethargy, it is mindfulness that enables clear thinking to arrive at the optimal course of action.  It does so because it enables a “step back” that separates oneself from her feelings and provides the “space” to decide. 

Typically, people are so identified with their feelings and emotions that they do not have, or even think they can have, the ability to decide. Anger results in scowling or yelling; fear in withdrawal and avoidance.  One becomes stuck in his or her conditioning.

Mindfulness meditation gives the practitioner the ability to see experientially that there is choice; the ability to break old habits and respond creatively and appropriately in every situation. Anger is felt as anger, fear as fear, but these emotions are not immediately converted into unskillful behavior.

Don’t forget to leave your comments below.

Why Projects Fail: A Root Cause

Written by George Pitagorsky on . Posted in Articles. 3 Comments on Why Projects Fail: A Root Cause

FEATUREDec21stWhat is one of the root causes of project failure?

Last month we explored how much project management was enough.  It is generally accepted that just the right amount is needed based on the situation.  It is usually when the project is over or under managed that we have failures.  Common project management causes of failure are:

 

  • “Wishful” Planning – Planning that is based on the desire to have something done by a deadline and within a budget limit without regard to the reality of the situation.
  • Lack of portfolio management – initiating projects without regard to whether they are justified based on sound business reasons
  • Poor project control communication – Hiding the reality of project trouble until it is too late to do anything but bemoan a horrible outcome
  • Lack of accountability – Allowing project stakeholders to fail to deliver what is expected of them without accountability.
  • Absentee sponsors – Sponsors failing to perform their functions to provide direction and leverage.

Each of these causes is worthy of an article if not a book.  But, in this article, let’s look for a common root cause. 

In a recent webinar, Joseph Grenny hypothesized that the root cause underlying these and other problems in projects is failure to effectively hold crucial conversations.  It is the Abilene Paradox in action, where silence or avoiding difficult confrontations robs the project team and its organization of the ability to either avoid the causes of failures or to catch the causes early in their life to turn the project around or end it when that is appropriate.

What is the Abilene Paradox, you might be wondering?  It is the phenomena where a group of people collectively decide to do something that is counter to the preferences of everyone in the group and counter to the benefits of the organization or group as a whole.  It involves a breakdown in communications.  Each member of the group avoids saying what they think because they think it would be counter to what the group or its leadership prefers.  As a result valuable information is withheld and the group is not able to make effective decisions.

For example, an individual feels that a project plan is overly aggressive but fails to speak up because he or she is afraid that saying anything about it would have negative consequences.  As a result the “wishful” plan becomes the baseline plan and sets expectations for the project.  This leads to the inevitable overruns and the rushing, corner cutting and such that, in turn, causes poor quality product to be delivered late and over budget.

If, fact, this failure to speak up and hold the crucial conversation in a respectful and candid way is a root cause of these causes of project failure, what can we do about it?

If we are in a position of influence we can create a safe environment in which people do not feel threatened for saying what they think, even if it is not what everyone wants to hear.   If we are a less influential (everyone has some influence, usually more than they think they have) player, we can muster up the courage to “tell it as we see it” and learn the skills of how to confront directly and firmly with appropriate diplomacy.

Don’t forget to leave your comments below.

Scheduling 101: Remember the Basics

Written by George Pitagorsky on . Posted in Articles. 4 Comments on Scheduling 101: Remember the Basics

Unquestionably scheduling is a challenge in just about any project. It becomes an even greater challenge when requirements change and resources are shared amongst multiple projects and between projects and operational activities.

My first project management job was on the Polaris project. A huge program but one in which most of the resources were dedicated full time and priorities and scope were stable.  The hardest part of scheduling in that project was effort estimating and accounting for risk.

Since then I have found myself involved with projects in which resources are shared, there is little or no multi-project resource management and in which clients and users are up to their necks with day to day work so getting them to take part in requirements definition, decision making, testing and roll-out activities involves prayer, threats and the like.
So how do we schedule under those adverse conditions? 

Well, one choice is to not schedule at all. Just do the work and finish when you’re finished.  In this mode, frustration and escalation as well as diligence and commitment are the drivers for getting the job done.  Sometimes projects never get done at all, staying on the back burner forever.

This is not my first choice. Like many who find themselves managing projects I want a bit more control. Clients and executives want to know when the results will be ready.

I have pretty much given up on certainty (uncertainty and impermanence are the only certainties). No amount of the best scheduling is going to provide a guaranteed end date. But, some reasonably accurate sense of “when” is needed and possible. That’s the message we need to get across to stakeholders and ourselves.

The key is realism. Begin with a solid sense of scope and a sense of how stable its definition is. Then create an estimate of how much effort is required. You’ll know this based on having done the work before and by breaking the work down into manageable chunks and estimating the chunks. If the project is unique, chances are many of the tasks are not that unique. Breaking the work down will enable you to identify the uncertainties and do a better job of estimating.  If the project is like many others you’ve done before, life is easy. Do a top down analogous estimate.  For tasks that have long lead times or are being done by people who are not effectively accountable (for example outside auditors, permit grantors, etc.) Build in a cushion. 

As we know from basic training in PM the next step is sequencing to identify which tasks can be done in parallel and which must be done serially.

Next comes the hard part, resource allocation. If you are in an environment that maintains an accurate picture of how resources are allocated then this part is relatively easy. You can see who’s available when and schedule accordingly.

If on the other hand you are among the many without such an advantage you must be careful to estimate resource availability. Don’t fall into the trap of creating a schedule based on wishful thinking (or non-thinking). If you and other resources are bouncing from project to project to operational activities and back, build or if resources like clients, senior managers and end users (yes, these are project human resources) are hard to pin down for meetings and their task durations, then build contingency into your schedule. If you can, minimize interruptions and schedule projects or tasks so that they can be done without unnecessary starts and stops. Don’t be afraid to expand the schedule to accommodate multi-tasking, if you cannot get dedicated resources.

Manage risk. Keep in mind the difference between what is most likely to happen as opposed to what you would most like to have happen.

To account for uncertainty, use buffers or contingency funds rather than elongating individual tasks. At the task level, it is best to pin performers down to a specified target date. On the project level, it is realistic to expect completion within a range. Use contingency funds to manage task slippage and expectations.

Remember, scheduling is a means for managing expectations and performance. Make the initial schedule realistic and aggressive.  

Be courageous. Don’t cave in to demands to set a target date that you know is a pipe dream. Adjust the schedule as actual performance and current perspectives dictate. 

In the end, scheduling, and planning in general, does not determine the project outcome.  The plan sets a direction and approach. They provide the map we use to determine if we are on course.  If we are not on course we adjust. If the map is inaccurate we change it.

Don’t forget to leave your comments below.