Tag: Change Management

Change is all around us, from those minor adjustments in our daily lives to world-shaping events. Excepting the whims of Mother Nature, in each change, someone is usually the catalyst, the driver.

If the change affects us directly, we can only hope that whoever the catalyst is, they have the greater good in mind. Unfortunately, that’s usually not the case. Most business decisions are made with the shareowners in mind. But one would expect not-for-profit organizations to take a somewhat more holistic view.

In this case, a not-for-profit organization, in response to competitive pressures, overlooked their primary reason for being in their rush to change. That oversight cost their clients, their staff and the community they served and threatened the very existence of the organization.

Related Article: Implementing Change – A 7-Phase Methodology

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

The Situation

This not-for-profit home health care organization was facing a severe challenge. It provided nursing care, personal support workers, therapists and other health care providers for people in their homes, communities, and workplaces. A number of large for-profit companies had entered the market and were offering those same services for less, putting pressure on the organization’s long-term viability. Their response to the challenge was one of missed opportunities.

The senior management considered a number of options for reducing costs and increasing their competitiveness. The organization had a long history of quality service enabled by highly motivated and well-trained staff and fully supported by a forward-looking management group. Unfortunately, all of the options considered highlighted the need to reduce expenses. That translated into management cuts. The cuts would make their services more cost-competitive but reduce their future capability. It was a short term versus long term choice.

The senior management chose the alternative they believed offered the least long-term downside – implementation of self-managed teams. That would allow the elimination of the four district managers, the palliative care and mental health managers, and the best practice manager through the transfer of that work to local teams. All nursing care teams would report to the remaining senior service delivery manager.

The Goal

The goal for the organization was to implement self-managed teams throughout the organization to eliminate seven management positions. Accountability for staffing, nursing communications and training would reside with the senior service delivery manager. All other management duties would be transferred to the self-managed teams.

The Project

The Director of Operations announced the change to self-managed teams through a special newsletter to nursing care staff. The letter emphasized the benefits of self-managed teams, including increased job satisfaction, productivity, and quality of care. The staff was invited to one of three half-day self-managed team training sessions in the organization’s offices. Attendance was mandatory and unpaid.

The training sessions highlighted the rationale for the move, again emphasizing increased job satisfaction, productivity and quality of care, and the timeline and process for the implementation over the next month. The sessions covered the team structure – a team leader and two team members, responsibilities, the stages of team formation – forming, storming norming and performing and provided some tools to get the teams formed and up to speed. Teams would be geographically focused and be accountable for managing all clients in the assigned area, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.

One of the key strategies for moving to the new organization was self-selection. Team members could approach the new team leaders (former district nurses and managers) to be on their teams. As well, team leaders could approach team members to join their groups. Some former managers and district nurses chose to leave or retire rather than fill a team leader role. Any gaps in the leader and member roles at the end of the matching process were filled by the senior service delivery manager. Team leaders were permanent, full-time employees on salary with benefits. The team members were part-time employees paid on an hourly basis, with no benefits.

During the month-long rollout, experience ranged from calm to chaos. A few teams formed quickly and began the process of exploring and shaping their new work world. A couple of teams formed and then disbanded due to unresolvable conflict. Most teams stuck closely to the former district nurse model where the district nurse called the shots and handed the team members their cases and times.

The Results

A few teams excelled. One, in particular, formed a very collaborative team culture with a team motto of “Duck, Bob, and Weave”. After the initial forming period, the team sent the following comments to the senior service delivery manager:

“It was an exciting and challenging transition. Our team was enthusiastic about SMT’S and went into it without any qualms. We did go through a major learning process and made many adjustments but found the process fascinating and rewarding. We learned and continue to learn from all our experiences and have been able to progress towards a fully functioning team.

Having one’s own clients and team definitely changes your outlook. It is more comfortable and rewarding and much better nursing practice to be involved with the same clients from beginning to end. Working as a team allows consistency and security for the clients which results in improved care.”

The team kept statistics by team member on number of clients, types of treatment, healing rates for wound care, complaints and compliments, hours worked, visits made, time per visit and the reasons for month to month variations (e.g. competitive pressures, training, vacation, case complexity, etc.). They reviewed their performance weekly and identified and captured improvement opportunities and best practices. They also produced a monthly report for themselves with a copy to the senior service delivery manager showing month by month progress, including the following charts:

The team registered three significant concerns: workload, unpaid time, and the need for continuing self-managed team support. The team found that:

• Providing full-time, round-the-clock coverage for their district with only the three team members was extremely challenging. Variability in service requests, the complexity of care, training for new procedures, vacation and sick time added to the stress.
• Unpaid time could account for up to 25% of their total time. They were paid by case, with a certain time established for each. Unapproved extra time on a case, travelling time, meetings with their team leader and manager, picking up supplies and calls to physicians and other healthcare professionals on behalf of their clients were not compensated.
• Additional support, tools, and training for self-managed team development was essential to maximize their performance potential. They wanted to share their findings with other teams and find out what was working and not working in those other teams. No training or support had been offered beyond the initial half-day session.

Unfortunately, other teams and staff weren’t nearly so positive. They viewed the change as something that was being done to them, without their input or involvement. There was significant resistance. Many of the former district nurses who had accepted team lead roles were overwhelmed with the additional leadership, planning, and coordination duties. Some simply continued to operate as district nurses and essentially ignored their supposed teammates. Others went on to other, less stressful jobs.

The organization’s management was generally not forthcoming with any solutions for the stress being experienced, the unpaid work or further self-managed team training. Turnover increased. Client service suffered. Recruiting became more difficult, with many new recruits departing after a few weeks because of the stress and lack of support. The sustainability of the organization is now in question.

How a Great Leader Could Have Changed the Result

1. Clearly articulate the burning platform

Management was not truthful about the challenges the organization was facing. It should have come clean and shared the burning platform, the competition from for-profits, with its staff. They needed to be involved in the search for solutions. The organization had talented, loyal, committed, long-serving staff. Unfortunately, they weren’t engaged to be part of the solution. A missed opportunity.

2. Present a compelling vision

The message from management focused on self-managed teams. Period. Instead, they could have focused on the need to improve competitiveness and productivity while sustaining and advancing their commitment to clients, community, and staff. They could have stressed the need for collaborative creativity, new work forms, structures and relationships to keep their organization performing at its peak. They didn’t. A missed opportunity.

3. Invest in the change

A change requires extra time, effort, and energy to be successful. It needs nourishment. It needs funding to realize a new way of performing. This organization’s management starting cutting as soon as the changes were announced. There was no transition support, no active measurement, and monitoring of progress being made, or not. There was no attempt to capture and disseminate the experiences of the teams, to share best practices. There were few additions or adjustments to address the concerns. A missed opportunity.

4. Leverage your strengths

The organization had a long-standing reputation for integrity and quality service to its clients. It had raised charitable donations for many years to fund its good works and had the ability to raise additional funds to support its mission, vision, and mandate going forward. Instead, senior management caved to the short-term pressure and focused solely on the expense side. A missed opportunity.

5. Measure

Management had very little information about how the change was progressing. They managed the financials, of course. They managed the number of full time and part time employees. They managed the number of clients and the services provided because that related directly to revenues. They tracked customer complaints. But, they didn’t know how the teams were functioning, how their staff was coping until it was too late. A missed opportunity.

6. Communicate

There was no overall communication plan for the change to self-managed teams, a major oversight. The communication that did happen was generally after the fact, one way, from managers to staff. One questionnaire was sent out after management realized the number of clients and levels of service were declining and turnover was increasing because of disintegrating teams. Unfortunately, there was limited remedial action taken. Very little was done on a team by team basis to solve individual challenges and share those remedies with other teams. A missed opportunity.

In his book The Wisdom of Crowds, James Surowiecki shows how large groups of people are almost invariably smarter than an elite few; “better at solving problems, fostering innovation, coming to wise decisions, even predicting the future”. Unfortunately, it seems no one on this organization’s management team read that book. Another missed opportunity.

So, if you find yourself in a similar situation, please put these points on your checklist of things to do in future endeavours so you too can be a Great Leader. And remember, use Project Pre-Check’s three building blocks covering 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 your 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

More and more clients are pursuing ERP implementation projects as executives realize they need better tools to support business objectives

– growth, service, margins, cash and the like.

When implemented well, ERP systems can support substantial business growth without the additional investment in resources. Certainly, as the minimum wage goes up and workers compensation and healthcare are such significant issues, it is something many executives are thinking about! However, ERP systems can do much more – they can help collaborate with customers and suppliers. Those with the best-extended supply chains will thrive in the end, and so it makes sense to take a look at upgrading ERP.

Thus, finding a way to successfully implement an ERP system is of paramount importance, yet the statistics dictate less than stellar performance. Typically 80%+ of ERP system implementations fail to achieve the expected results. As experts in this space, we can attest that several of these are due to unrealistic expectations without the associated resources and efforts to ensure success; however, either way, ERP success can prove elusive.

Therefore, understanding how to give you a leg up with strategies for success can be vital. Ignore all the best practice mumbo-jumbo and focus on what will really matter:

Related Article: 5 Keys to ERP Project Management Success

1. It’s all about the people: As with almost every business success, ERP success is no different. It goes back to the leader – and the team. Have you assigned whoever is available to lead the project team? Or have you put thought into it? Have you freed him/her up from their regular activities or made sure he/she can dedicate the time required? Are you saving your “A” players for growing the business and your day-to-day responsibilities instead of ERP? Sound odd? Well, we come across this on a daily basis in our consulting business. How about the software supplier’s project team? Why should you be worried about them? You shouldn’t unless you are interested in success.

For example, we’ve been involved in several ERP selection projects lately and have stayed involved to ensure the process designs would support business objectives in the best way possible, and, unfortunately, we can convey countless examples of the 80% that run into issues with people. For example, in one case, the project leader was on top of things – truly much better than the average project leader for the size company yet the project still struggled due to people issues. The software supplier ran into trouble with their project manager. You never know what can go wrong and so it’s smart to remember to keep your eye on the importance of people.

2. Focus on design: The reason we often stay involved with the design process is that this is one of the critical success factors to ensuring ERP implementation success. The quandary is that this type of role requires a broad and diverse skillset, rarely found in project managers.

The skills required include a broad, cross-functional process expertise, an understanding of database design, an understanding of down-the-line impacts of typical system transactions, an understanding of report writing/ programming and the ability to communicate effectively and bridge the gap between the technical and application resources. In our experience, we run across this type of resource 5% of the time in our clients. On the other hand, we run across this type of skillset perhaps 30% of the time with the ERP resources; however, the really bad news is that even though the capability exists 30% of the time, it is used perhaps 10% of the time. The ERP supplier does not want to dictate the design as it will be “their solution” instead of the “client’s solution”, and it is a trick to communicate effectively enough such that the client believes it is their idea or is accepting of the information.

Is it any wonder ERP projects fail miserably?

3. Focus on what could go wrong: It is often rather difficult to keep the ERP project team positive and moving forward because they are causing disruption to the day-to-day success of the business and pushing the envelope with new ideas (sometimes perceived to be threatening or ill-conceived) and process changes which might or might not be accompanied by organizational changes (another key issue with ERP success). Thus, no one wants to create more havoc by deliberately creating tension, thus, forcing practice when mistakes are made and transactions go awry is overlooked. However, this is exactly what must occur to ensure success. Deliberately try to screw up the system when testing. It is not to be a “naysayer” (which can sometimes be the perception) but it is to make sure the team knows how to back out of bad situations. It is far better to “break” the system in test than with your #1 customer!

We cannot tell you how much nonsense we’ve heard about “system XYZ” is set up to perform best practices and so the team just doesn’t want to deal with change. In 95% of the situations, this statement isn’t true. Instead, forget about all the hoopla about best practices and focus on these 3 keys to success; results will follow.

On June 23, 2016, the United Kingdom (UK) voted to withdraw from the European Union (EU). The referendum, called by Prime Minister David Cameron, produced a 52% to 48% win for the Leave side.

Tellingly, the campaign has been dubbed “Brexit” by the Leave side, a contraction of British and Exit. If the UK chooses to honour the referendum results and proceed with the exit, the changes could trigger significant economic, social and political changes, within the UK, the EU and beyond.

Related Article: From the Sponsor’s Desk: Beware the Change Within a Change

Given the risks involved, one would think both sides in the debate would pull out all the stops and use whatever techniques were available to gain an advantage. One such practice, proven in the corporate world and on projects large and small, is the management of change. While change practitioners may differ in the approaches taken and the tools used, there are some common, proven themes that work across the change spectrum. In this post, we’ll look at how the Leave and Remain sides in the referendum applied change management practices and how that use contributed to the final result.

Thanks to P.S. for the background on the story.

The Situation

Britain, with a population of 65 million, has been a member of the EU for more than forty years. By some measures, the EU is the world’s biggest economy, almost five times the size of Britain’s, with a population of over 500 million.
As reported by Jaime Watt in the Toronto Star on July 3, “Britons have been deeply skeptical of the European project for decades. Wary of the undemocratic components of the European Union, skittish about the lack of control over immigration, and overwhelmed by strict regulations handed down from Brussels, many felt the negatives of the EU far outweighed the positives.”

There has been a national campaign in Britain for a referendum for over 25 years. Its most outspoken supporter has been the UK Independence Party (UKIP) under the leadership of Nigel Farage. In the last European Parliament elections in 2014, UKIP had an enormous share of the UK vote. It doubled the number of seats and ended up with more MPs in the European Parliament than either the Conservatives or Labour.

A number of risks were identified for a British exit from the EU. The UK could enter into a recession of indefinite length and uncertain severity. The UK relies on the EU for about 40 per cent of its exports whereas the EU relies on Britain for only 16 percent of its exports. An exit could also bring about the dismemberment of the UK, with pro-EU Scotland again seeking Scottish sovereignty and pro-EU Northern Ireland possibly seeking a merger with the Irish Republic. If you couple these concerns with possible additional departures from the EU and the impact on the European and world’s social, political and economic status, the stakes were very high.

In a speech in 2013, Cameron, then leader of a Conservative and Liberal Democrat Coalition Government, criticized the EU’s economic performance, lack of competitiveness, and excessive regulation:

“There is a growing frustration that the EU is seen as something that is done to people rather than acting on their behalf. And this is being intensified by the very solutions required to resolve the economic problems.

People are increasingly frustrated that decisions taken further and further away from them mean their living standards are slashed through enforced austerity, or their taxes are used to bail out governments on the other side of the continent.

We are starting to see this in the demonstrations on the streets of Athens, Madrid, and Rome. We are seeing it in the parliaments of Berlin, Helsinki and the Hague. And yes, of course, we are seeing this frustration with the EU very dramatically in Britain.”

David Cameron faced battles on several fronts. There were a large group of Conservative MPs sympathetic to UKIP. The Conservative Party had been committed to holding a referendum on the EU for over a decade. Cameron renewed that commitment in 2015, at a time when opinion polls suggested that a majority of the electorate would oppose leaving the EU. It looked like a very safe gamble at the time.

The Goal

The goal for the Leave side was to get sufficient support in the referendum to pull the UK out of the EU. For the Remain side, the goal was to gain a majority result to keep the UK in the EU.

The Project (The Referendum)

On February 20, 2016, David Cameron set June 23rd as the date for a referendum on Britain’s membership in the European Union.

A YouGov poll conducted in the run-up to the British referendum showed that the vote for Brexit was very much one of the old against the young. The older the voter, the more he or she was inclined to leave. Some 64 percent of the age group from 18 to 24 said they would vote for Remain; just 35 percent of those between 50 and 64 wanted to stay.

The Vote Leave campaign, headed by former London mayor and Conservative MP Boris Johnson and Conservative MP Michael Gove, focused on three popular themes: control over immigration, national sovereignty, and the economy. The campaign slogan was “Take Control”. The campaign literature cited the following reasons for leaving the EU:

1. 1. We stop handing over £350 million a week to Brussels.
2. We take back control of our borders and can kick out violent criminals.
3. We take back the power to kick out the people who make our laws.
4. We decide what we spend our own money on.
5. We free our businesses from damaging EU laws and regulations.
6. We take back the power to make our own trade deals.
7. We have better relations with our European friends.
8. We regain our influence in the wider world and become a truly global nation once again.

A number of organizations also worked in support of the Leave campaign, including Leave.EU, Grassroots Out (with Nigel Farage, the UKIP leader) and Labour Leave. As John Cassidy reported in the New Yorker, “Officially, Farage played no role in the Leave campaign. He and his party have such a toxic reputation that the Conservative “Eurosceptics” who led the official campaign didn’t want anything to do with them.”

David Cameron, the British Prime Minister, was the face of the Remain campaign, officially called “Britain Stronger in Europe”. Jeremy Corbyn, the leader of the Labour party, was supposed to be supporting the Remain side. He didn’t. According to one commentator “Corbyn showed nothing but the vaguest of interests. No passion, no speeches, no action.”

The Remain campaign presented the following ten reasons for staying:

1. As part of Europe, British businesses have free access to sell to 500 million consumers. If we left the EU, our trade would face tariffs and barriers.
2. Independent experts have found that over 3 million jobs in Britain are linked to our trade with Europe.
3. A strong economy means households are better off in Europe. If Britain were to leave Europe, the hit to the economy would be equivalent to £4,300 for each UK household.
4. Being in the EU means a stronger economy, which means more investment in public services. Leaving would mean spending cuts of £36bn.
5. 44% of the UK’s international exports are to EU countries, worth £229 billion in 2014.
6. Between 2004 and 2014, the average investment from European countries every year was £24.1 billion – that’s over £66 million a day in investment from Europe.
7. The cost of holidays are cheaper in the EU, for example because the price of flights has come down 40% because the EU changed the rules to allow low-cost airlines like EasyJet to set up in Europe.
8. Over 200,000 UK students have spent time abroad on the Erasmus exchange programme. Students who have undertaken placements on the Erasmus programme are 50% less likely to experience long-term unemployment than their counterparts.
9. Workers’ rights are protected by EU legislation, including entitlements to paid holiday of at least four weeks a year, maximum working hours, anti-discrimination laws and statutory paid maternity and paternity leave.
10. Our access to the European Arrest Warrant (EAW) has meant over 1,100 suspected criminals have been arrested in the EU and returned to Britain to face justice. Also under the European Arrest Warrant, Britain has sent 7,400 suspected criminals who had fled here back to the EU.

There were a number of other organizations supporting the Remain campaign, including Labour In for Britain, Conservatives In for Britain and Another Europe Is Possible.

Over four months, the two campaigns covered Britain with leaflets, brochures, and canvassers. There was even a naval engagement, with Leave and Remain flotillas sailing down the Thames River. And then came June 23, 2016 and the vote. The question on the ballot stated, “Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?” The options were:

• Remain a member of the European Union
• Leave the European Union

The Results

As we now know, the Leave option received the majority of votes, 52% to 48% for the Remain side. As Jennifer Wells reported in the Toronto Star on June 26, “That a vote of such momentous importance was run like an election for seats on an acidly tempestuous borough council was, as many have noted, an epic miscalculation.”

Following the vote, David Cameron, the current Prime Minister, announced his resignation. Boris Johnson, the heir apparent to Cameron, bowed out of the leadership race and Michael Gove, who had previously expressed no interest in succeeding Cameron, threw his hat in the ring and then finished third in the in the vote to replace him, and out of the race. The next British PM will be a woman, either Theresa May, the longest-serving Home Secretary in more than 50 years, and pro-Remain or pro-Brexit energy minister Andrea Leadsom.

Leslie Jamison wrote in the New Yorker, “With the exceptions of London, Scotland, and Northern Ireland, every major region of the UK voted to exit the E.U. The Remain vote was particularly weak in the West Midlands and the Northeast of England, two areas that have been hit hard by de-industrialization. But even in the relatively prosperous Southeast of the country, if you subtract London from the results, a majority of people voted to leave.”

John Cassidy wrote in The New Yorker the day after the vote, “What has certainly happened is that decades of globalization, deregulation, and policy changes that favored the wealthy have left Britain a more unequal place, with vast regional disparities. It’s the shape of our long lasting and deeply entrenched national geographic inequality that drove differences in voting patterns.”

Torsten Bell, the director of the Resolution Foundation, a bipartisan think tank, attributed the result thus: “The legacy of increased national inequality in the 1980s, the heavy concentration of those costs in certain areas, and our collective failure to address it has more to say about what happened last night than shorter-term considerations from the financial crisis or changed migration flows.”

Thomas Friedman wrote in the New York Times on June 29, “Because although withdrawing from the EU is not the right answer for Britain, the fact that this argument won, albeit with lies, tells you that people are feeling deeply anxious about something. It’s the story of our time: the pace of change in technology, globalization and climate have started to outrun the ability of our political systems to build the social, educational, community, workplace and political innovations needed for some citizens to keep up.”

Barrack Obama, in a speech to the Canadian Parliament on June 29, summed up the results thus: “If the benefits of globalization accrue only to those at the very top,” he said, “then people will push back.”

How Change Management Could Have Changed the Result

Let’s be honest, implementing change in a democracy on a national or international scale is orders of magnitude more complex than implementing change within an organization, or even across a company. The numbers of stakeholders are on a different plane entirely – millions versus thousands. In addition, the authority of the change sponsors is vastly different – from elected officials counting on engaged citizens on the one hand to senior executives in usually authoritarian, hierarchical structures on the other.

Yet, proven change management practices are still relevant, if somewhat more challenging to apply. Let’s use John Kotter’s 8 Step Change Model to assess the two campaigns. Kotter is a Professor Emeritus at the Harvard Business School, a best-selling author, the founder of Kotter International and a well-known thought leader in the fields of business, leadership, and change. His 8 Step Change Model has been used widely and successfully across a wide range of industries and situations. It encapsulates the key change management principles in an easy to apply framework.

1. Create a Sense of Urgency

Often, the sense of urgency is expressed as the “burning platform”, the situations or circumstances that force a change to a new future state.

The Leave side has been agitating for action for decades. Their burning platform was the perceived loss of British sovereignty and the growing power and influence of UKIP. David Cameron’s burning platform was the increasing pressure from within his own Conservative party. The EU’s performance contributed to the burning platform, including the austerity measures enacted in response to the 2008 financial crisis and subsequent tepid economic performance and its handling of the refugee crisis.

2. Build a Guiding Coalition

The Leave campaign committee included twelve Conservative MP’s. Twelve! The Remain campaign committee included just one Conservative MP. How could Cameron have ever imagined that his Remain campaign could win if he couldn’t even convince members of his own party that the benefits of remaining in the EU exceeded the negatives?

3. Form a Strategic Vision and Initiatives

Kotter’s describes this step thus: “A vision must be bold, concise, authentic and evoke a clear future state. Initiatives must have defined goals and link directly to the strategy designed to create that future state.”

The Leave side painted a vision of an independent Britain, in charge of their own destiny. Not surprisingly, they didn’t talk about what would be lost in the exit and what the future relationships with the EU would look like. The Remain campaign focused as much on the negative consequences of leaving as they did on the benefits of the status quo. What they didn’t present was any future vision that addressed British concerns with that status quo.

The referendum question echoed that binary Leave or Remain choice exactly, a terribly simplistic choice for a very complex question. David Cameron has commented on numerous occasions about the need to reform the EU, to make it more competitive, responsive and less bureaucratic. Why were those options not reflected in the ballot?

Interestingly, neither side bothered to talk about the Initiatives that would be needed to achieve the vision.

The remaining five steps deal with change implementation. They describe the steps the Remain side should have taken years ago to address the issues that were made apparent up to and during the referendum and by the referendum results. The remaining five steps also describe the actions that absolutely need to be addressed for the Leave process to be executed effectively to deliver a better future for everyone.

This wasn’t a referendum on staying within the EU. It was an assessment of how the past forty or so years of EU membership had served the U.K. Had the Remain camp recognized that fact and responded accordingly, with proven change management practices to guide them, the results of the referendum could have been very different. The referendum result is a poignant message to whichever candidate earns the right to be Britain’s next Prime Minister – do a better job of looking after the needs of your citizens. That message should resonate with all leaders, public and private enterprise alike.

So, if you find yourself in a similar situation, put these points on your checklist of things to do in future endeavours so you too can be a Great Leader. And remember, use Project Pre-Check’s three building blocks covering the key stakeholder group, the decision management process and Decision Framework best practices right up front, so you don’t overlook these key success factors.

Finally, thanks to everyone who has willingly shared your 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