Skip to main content

Tag: Leadership

The Best Project Managers are Emotion-driven Leaders

A short while ago, Charles J. Pellerin, the author of How NASA Builds Teams: Mission Critical Soft Skills for Scientists, Engineers, and Project Teams, came to Montreal to lead a one-day workshop based on his book. This event was organised with the sponsorship of the PMI-Montreal chapter.

This was a very enlightening day. Charles used his own personal ill-fated story, as the project director for the launch of the Hubble telescope, to get us to travel with him on his journey to the discovery of true leadership. This journey not only got him to redeem himself through an officially ‘unauthorized’ 60 M US$ fix mission to get astronauts to repair the telescope, but also got him to better understand the root of true leadership and design a system to make it happen. This is this system he talks about in his book. This is the system he is now applying as a consultant to NASA teams with radical performance improvements, thoroughly documented, scientifically measured…and all generously and clearly explained to us for our own usage in his amazing book.

His leadership competency model is based on two continuums axes: the Emotional-Logical decision making process continuum and the Intuited-Sensed data preference continuum. Out of the reunion of those two continuums emerge four types of leaders, which are basically characterised as follows:

  • The cultivating Emotional-Intuitive leader (green): great at giving gratitude, s/he is a people-builder who cares deeply about human beings and creates strong loyalty; the ultimate coach for large very complex projects
  • The including Emotional-Sensing leader (yellow): great at making you feel included as a part of the greatest whole, s/he is a team-builder who develops harmonious teams and can mobilise and get the most difficult people to work as a team; the ultimate marketer for large complex projects
  • The visioning Logical-Intuitive leader (blue): mastering reality-based optimism and living through complete commitment, s/he is an idea-builder, fond of creative ideas and demanding excellence; the ultimate innovator that can lead research and early phase projects….but might get stuck there
  • The directing Logical-Sensing leader (orange): organiser in chief, s/he is a system-builder, highly disciplined, well organised and using reliable processes; the ultimate project ‘deliverer and closer’ in hard times, putting the task first and meeting the objectives ruthlessly.

Charles goes on, in his book and in his workshops, explaining that the most effective project leaders are those that can lead through their emotions, the ‘green’ and the ‘yellow’ ones, because project management is all about teamwork and human relationships, all about journeying together towards a better place for all stakeholders. He also says that, although emotion-driven leaders can always compensate for less logical abilities, by finding good ‘blue’ and ‘orange’ team collaborators, the reverse is not possible. So, ultimately, in order to become a very effective project leader, one who does not have innate emotion-driven leadership will have to develop the necessary genuine ‘gratifying’ and ‘including’ behaviours to succeed, and be able to handle effectively larger, more complex project teams.

Charles has been using assessments of these leadership competencies to measure leaders’ and teams’ profiles and behaviours along the two continuums. He has also designed programs to get teams in NASA and elsewhere to improve their profiles, behaviours and, subsequently, performance in delivering outstanding projects.

I wrote above that Charles Pellerin was very generous in the material he shares in his fabulous book. He is also very generous on his website (http://www.4-Dsystems.com). If you go there and register, you’ll get access to some of his presentation PowerPoints. You will also be able to make a free assessment of your individual leadership style as well as a free assessment of your team profile. And, if ever Charles gets to your town for a workshop, just go have a journey into project leadership with him. This man, innately a ‘blue’ Logical-Sensing guy, has succeeded his transformation into a gratifying, very including man, who will lead you to a better self and coach you to awaken the great project leader you were born to be.

Don’t forget to leave your comments below

Managing Complex Projects. Part 1

Setting the Stage

It is no secret that our record of complex project performance is rife with failed and significantly challenged projects. This is true for virtually all types of projects. Examples abound and we offer just a few here.

Public Works Projects Boston Big Dig: Went from estimates of $2.6B to a final price tag of $14.8B

Conceived in the 1970s and finished, more or less, in 2005, the Big Dig is modern America’s most ambitious urban-infrastructure project, spanning six presidents and seven governors, costing $14.8 billion, and featuring many never-before-done engineering and construction marvels.[i]

The Chunnel: 70% cost overruns on the original contract

The banks and the shareholders who financed the Channel Tunnel knew — or should have known — that the risks of building giant projects are very great. “No projects are harder to achieve,” a consultant advised the Channel Tunnel’s five lead banks in 1984. “To work on giant projects is always exhausting and often demoralizing.” He ought to have added “bankrupting.” Despite the consultant’s warning, the banks pressed ahead. They were under pressure from their governments, which wanted to do something grand without paying for it. They were under pressure from their good customers among the large construction companies to lend for something grand, and the banks also had internal pressure to keep up the pace of business. It became the largest privately financed project in history.[ii]

Defense Acquisition Projects Defense Acquisition R&D Projects Average 42% over budget

Research and development costs of the Pentagon’s weapons programs have increased 42 percent more than originally estimated, with an average delay of 22 months in delivering initial capabilities, according to a new assessment of the Defense Department’s major acquisition programs in 2008.[iii]

NASA Mars Program: Total cost is expected to run over by more than 30 percent

NASA’s flagship mission to land a nuclear-powered, next-generation rover on Mars is facing development problems and ballooning costs that could threaten its scheduled launch next year. NASA Administrator Michael Griffin told a congressional hearing this month that engineers had to redesign the heat shield on the Mars Science Laboratory after tests showed the protective layer would not survive entry through the Martian atmosphere. The extra work is expected to add $20 million (euro13.23 million) to $30 million (euro19.84 million) to the $1.8 billion (euro1.19 billion) price …[iv]

In addition to these examples, we see complex projects in all aspects of life, e.g., the World Bank and World Health Organization (addressing AIDS in Africa), world governments (addressing the current financial crisis and climate change), and business transformation projects that in some instances have led to bankruptcy (mergers, acquisitions, re-engineering business processes and large IT systems implementations).

The economic cost of failed and challenged projects is sizeable, often in the billions of dollars. For our economic competitiveness and security, we simply must improve project performance. For these reasons, many thought leaders believe that Complex Project Management will be the next big thing in our quest to achieve better project performance. Potential benefits from the improved management of complex projects are significant. Not only will there be substantial direct returns to those organizations embracing CPM, there will also be an increase in the capacity of the global community to effect the strategic change objectives required for the complexities of the 21st century.

What is Complex Project Management?

Australia seems to be leading the charge to professionalize CPM. According to Queensland University of Technology (QUT), Brisbane Australia,[v] the CPM strategic partner of the Australian Government’s Defence Materiel Organization (DMO), complex projects are those that:

  • Are characterized by uncertainty, ambiguity, dynamic interfaces, and significant political or external influences; and/or
  • Usually run over a period which exceeds the technology cycle time of the technologies involved; and/or
  • Can be defined by effect, but not by solution.

Although there is no universally accepted definition for Complex Project Management, we can simply say it is the management of projects that have the characteristics outlined above.

Why Complex Project Management? Why Now?

As demonstrated above, across the globe, awareness is emerging of the urgent need for improved delivery of projects that are complex, critical, often large and long term, and in the multiple billions of dollars. Research indicates that traditional, linear project management tools and techniques, while still necessary, are often insufficient to manage the complexities of 21st century projects. At the same time, it is apparent that the current workforce of project managers, business analysts, engineers and architects has limited capacity to meet the challenges posed by complex projects.

In the twenty-first century, business processes have become more complex; i.e., more interconnected, interdependent, and interrelated than ever before. In addition, businesses today are rejecting traditional management structures to create complex organizational communities comprised of alliances with strategic suppliers, networks of customers, and partnerships with key political groups, regulatory entities, and even competitors. Through these alliances, organizations are addressing the pressures of unprecedented change, global competition, time-to-market compression, rapidly changing technologies, and yes, increasing complexity. As a result, business and technology systems are significantly more complex than in the past; and for many reasons the projects that implement new business systems are more complex. To reap the rewards of significant, large-scale business/technology initiatives designed to not only keep organizations in the game but make them a major player, we must find new ways to manage project complexity.

Trends in the World of Complex Project Management

Competency Standard for Complex Project Management. Again we look to Australia to lead the way. Prior to engaging QUT, the DMO, in concert with the UK Ministry of Defence and an international team of executives experienced in managing very large projects, spent considerable energy reviewing and refining a professional competency standard as an extension to the existing A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK® Guide), defining the essential competencies required for the successful leadership of complex projects, programs and portfolios. The draft Competency Standard for Complex Project Management was developed and authored by Dr. David H. Dombkins. After an extensive review process in consultation with Industry via the Defence and Industry Advisory Council, and the Australian Institute of Project Management (AIPM), the final draft was approved by the Defence and Industry PM Council in June 2006. The College of Complex Project Managers in Switzerland will retain custodianship of the standard on behalf of the international project management community. The Competency Standard is comprised of nine competency views:

View 1 – Strategy and Project Management
View 2 – Business Planning, Lifecycle Management, Reporting and Performance Measurement
View 3 – Change and Journey
View 4 – Innovation, Creativity and Working Smarter
View 5 – Organizational Architecture
View 6 – Systems Thinking and Integration
View 7 – Leadership
View 8 – Culture and Being Human
View 9 – Probity and Governance

The International Centre for Complex Project Management

The International Centre for Complex Project Management (ICCPM) is a not-for-profit organization working to advance knowledge and practice in the management and delivery of complex projects.[vii] ICCPM (formerly College of Complex Project Managers) was officially launched in Rome on 10 November 2008 at the 22nd IPMA World Congress on Project Management. The International Centre for Complex Project Management was established in 2007 as part of an initiative that started in 2005 when Australian, UK and US Government bodies and defense industry organizations launched an initiative designed to improve the international community’s ability to successfully deliver very complex projects and manage complexity across all industry and government sectors. There is a growing list of global corporate partners including BAE Systems, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Mallesons Stephen Jaques, Raytheon and Thales.

The ICCPM has embraced a research and innovation strategy that will enable it to work with partners and the international community to fund, facilitate and conduct applied CPM research. The goal is to share the research study findings with organizations across industry and government sectors, both nationally and internationally.

With support from its corporate partners and its major sponsor, the Australian Government’s DMO, the ICCPM has already made a significant contribution towards the development and delivery of the world’s first Executive Masters in Complex Project Management (EMCPM) through the Queensland University of Technology (QUT). The program is a master’s curriculum that complies with the CPM standard and is designed to accelerate the career of accomplished traditional project managers into senior leadership positions in project-based organizations. The program focuses on the art of project leadership as distinct from the competency in the engineering and project management disciplines. In designing the EMCPM program, QUT worked extensively with a number of industry collaborators including the UK Ministry of Defense, USA Department of Defense, Lockheed Martin (Fort Worth), Boeing (St Louis), Raytheon (Washington DC) and BAE Systems (UK and Australia).

What Does this Mean for Project Managers and Business Analysts?

The is an opportunity for project managers and business analysts who are working at senior levels of the organization to accelerate their careers, transitioning from accomplished traditional project managers and business analysts into senior leadership positions in their organizations. For starters, we recommend consideration of the following strategies.

Transition to a Shared Project Leadership Model. In an attempt to deliver projects successfully, we have traditionally focused on management and control, and virtually excluded the vital role of leadership. Traditionally, the project manager focuses on planning, budgeting, organizing, staffing, monitoring, and controlling. All project team members report to the project or program manager regarding project work assigned to them.

It is now becoming clear that complex projects thrive on collaboration, teams, and leadership rather than management, command and control. In the 21st century, managing complex projects is transitioning from a focus on project management to a focus on shared team leadership. Consider transitioning to the shared project leadership model. Using this approach, the project leadership team is small (four to six members), multi-disciplined, highly skilled, dedicated to the project full time, and co-located. This core leadership team shares responsibility for guiding the project, each taking the lead when their expertise is needed most. Clearly, complex projects are just that: too complex for the traditional project manager and requiring expertise leadership from several key experts.

Become a CPM Activist. Join ICCPM and support the research and innovation activities it promotes. Dedicate your professional development activities to becoming an expert in CPM through readings, self-study and formal course work. Sponsor a workshop for your organization to diagnose the complexity of your critical projects and determine strategies to manage the complexity dimensions. Advocate to establish a CPM Competency Center in your organization. Attend CPM conferences to keep abreast of the latest developments. Hone your expertise in the areas identified in the Competency Standard for Complex Project Management mention above. In addition, concentrate on the seven high priority topics that were identified as critical to the success of complex projects and are integrated into the EMCPM academic program:

  • Managing customer requirements
  • Subcontractor performance and relationships
  • Software/hardware integration
  • Start-ups
  • Strategic approaches to risk management
  • Diversity in government/industry perspectives
  • ‘Preparing the battlefield for change’

Seek out professional development opportunities that mirror the EMCPM offerings:[viii]

Domain 1: Managing Yourself and Others: People in Organisations, Building Effective Teams, Strategic Management of Complex Projects, Communicating Effectively, Creative and Entrepreneurial Thinking, Self Realisation and Personal Development, Systems Thinking, Understanding Complex Projects

Domain 2: Performing for Results: Negotiation Strategies, Business Planning, Strategic HRM, Managing for Innovation, Planning for Risk and Change, Performance Measurement, Complex Projects and the Law, Workplace Project

Domain 3: Leading for Results: Issues Management, Accountability and Governance, Managing Contract Relationships, Change and Journey, Leadership for Results, Implementation of Complex Projects, International Study Tour

This is the first in a series of articles based on the award-winning book Managing Complex Projects, A New Model , by Kathleen Hass, that was awarded the 2009Project Management Institute (PMI) David I. Cleland Project Management Literature Award. Look for the second article in the November 25 Project Times

References
[i]Nicole Gelinas, Lessons Learned of Boston’s Big Dig, Autumn 2007 City Journal, Online at:
http://www.city-journal.org/html/issue_17_4.html (accessed October 2009)
[ii]Thomas G. Donlan, Lesson of the Chunnel, Monday, January 12, 1998 Barrons Editorial Commentary. Online at:
http://online.barrons.com/article/SB884389006427386000.html (accessed October 2009)
[iii]Katherine McIntire Peters, GAO: Staggering cost overruns dwarf modest improvements in Defense acquisition, March 31, 2009.
http://www.govexec.com/story_page.cfm?articleid=42393&dcn=e_gvet (accessed October 2009).
[iv]Alicia Chang, Flagship Mars project faces technical problems and cost overruns; could jeopardize 2009 launch,
AP Worldstream, February 28, 2008. Online at: http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1A1-D8V3HR300.html (accessed October 2009)
[v]Professor Caroline Hatcher, Queensland University of Technology (QUT) Executive Master of Business in Complex Project Management Course Coordinator and Bob O’Connor, QUT Director Corporate Education
[vi]Commonwealth of Australia (Department of Defense), College of Complex Project Managers and Defense Materiel Organization, Competency Standard for Complex Project Managers, 2006. Public Release Version 2.0. Online at:
http://www.defence.ogv.au/dmo/proj_man/Complex_PM_v2.0pdf, pp. 17-18. (accessed October 2009)
[vii]International Centre for Complex Project Management. Online at
http://www.iccpm.com/ (accessed October 2009)
[viii]GS51 Executive Master of Business (Complex Project Management) EMCPM Canberra 2010 Part Time Enrolment. Online at:
https://www.projecttimes.com/wp-content/uploads/attachments/EMCPMCanberraPartTime2010CourseSummary2009-09-09.pdf (accessed October 2009)

Don’t forget to leave your comments below


Kathleen B. (Kitty) Hass, PMP is the President and Principal Consultant for Kathleen Hass & Associates, Inc., a practice that specializes in building mature business practices including strategy execution, project management and business analysis. Kitty also serves on the board of directors and the senior leadership team for IIBA, International Institute of Business Analysis.

Kitty is a prominent presenter at industry conferences, author and lecturer. Her expertise includes BA/PM organizational maturity assessments and BA/PM competency and workforce evaluations; IT strategic planning; implementing and managing PMOs, BACOEs, and portfolio management processes; leading technology and software-intensive projects; executive coaching, building and leading strategic project teams, and managing large complex programs. Ms. Hass has over 25 years experience providing professional services to Federal agencies, the intelligence community, and various Fortune 500 companies. In addition to the PMP, certifications include: SEI CMM appraiser, Baldrige National Quality Program examiner, and Zenger-Miller facilitator.

Kitty has authored numerous white papers and articles on leading edge business practices, the PMI award-winning Managing Complex Project, A New Model, the Business Analysis Essential Library series, and was a contributor to The 77 Deadly Sins of Project Management. Feel free to contact Kitty for information about her services, including a cutting edge Complex Project Management Interactive Workshop based on the award-winning book. Kitty can be reached at: 303.663.8655, [email protected], and at her Website, www.kathleenhass.com.

“Why Management” – The Ultimate Knowledge Area

Three years ago, one of my master degree students at the Lyon CESI, France, wrote a very special memoir for his thesis: the document was structured like a chapter of the PMBoK®, with nice and tidy “inputs-tools and techniques-outputs” tables. He had written about what he considered was a missing knowledge area in the PMI® project management model, “Change Management”: all that has to be done to prepare the end users of the deliverables to deliver their own part of the deal, the anticipated benefits. He was challenging what is now a paradigm for many well-intentioned project management folks. How could he question the “nine knowledge areas” fabric of the PMBoK®? The thesis evaluation committee that processed his memoir flunked him! It was as if he was questioning Covey’s Seven Habits of Highly Effective People, right? So, on that subject, I invite everyone to read Stephen Covey’s book: “The 8th Habit: From Effectiveness to Greatness 1.

Maybe I am about to get flunked too for what I am going to say here, or maybe, to paraphrase Covey’s new book title, we can get together “from effectiveness to greatness” on our projects. My student was right about the missing 10th knowledge area of the PMBoK®. But he had proposed a subset of it, not all of it. I have slowly realised this was the case, these last few weeks, as I was working very hard with some of my customers in designing and integrating “benefits realisation management” processes into both their portfolio and their project management processes.

I talk a lot about the why of a project (its ultimate purpose, its “raison d’être”). So much so that one participant in my workshops, a seasoned project manager, told me after a two-day workshop that he was appalled to realise that, during his 30 years as a project manager, he had delivered projects without caring about the why of these projects. He said that in doing so, he had very seldom delivered projects providing the benefits intended. He cannot be blamed for that, because so many project managers do the same, as reflected in the best practices included in the PMBoK®: None of the knowledge areas is dedicated to “Why Management”.

Let’s have a quick look at the current contents of the PMBoK®:

  • Scope is mainly about “what”,
  • Time is about “when”,
  • Cost is about “how much”,
  • Quality is about “what”
  • HR and Communications are mainly about “who”
  • Risk is about “what”
  • Procurement is about “what” and “who” and “how”
  • Integration is about all of the above.

In the new 4th edition of the PMBoK ®, there is a brand new sub-process that has been added to Scope Management and which is done right before defining the scope: “Collect Requirements”. I believe this is a first step in the right direction, but still not enough to ensure that benefits realisation will be more effective. It is also understandable that this situation has prevailed for such a long time, because benefits realisation is a four-headed beast, at a shared boundary between project management, program management, portfolio management and production management. Some of it must be planned and cared for within the boundaries of a project. That entails delivering the “right thing” and managing organisational change (my student’s proposed 10th knowledge area) to ensure that the transition from the “before the project” state to the “after the project” new desired state is complete, so we can reap the anticipated benefits. Some of it is strictly the domain of program management, portfolio management and of the new recurring post-project operations, for which the use of the delivered “right thing” was intended.

I am certain that in future editions of the PMBoK®, this “little” glitch will be taken care of. Meanwhile, for those who cannot wait, this 10th knowledge area, “Benefits Realisation Management”, is amply discussed on the internet and even greatly documented through the project management processes, methodologies and tools generously shared with us by the Office of Management Commerce 2, the Government of Tasmania 3 and the like. And most material on benefits realisation management also includes a subset covering change management, clearly a project management issue for me and many others. The chapter on the 10th knowledge area is already written, although not yet integrated into the PMBoK®. It is slowly but surely coming to town.

  1. https://www.stephencovey.com/8thHabit/8thhabit.php
  2. http://www.ogc.gov.uk/introduction_to_programmes_managing_benefits.asp
  3. http://www.egovernment.tas.gov.au/project_management/supporting_resources/toolkit/outcome_realisation (The Tasmanian Government site is one of the great project management information resources on the internet – they are small but they rock!)

Don’t forget to leave your comments below

How to Measure the State of Your Project

“Projects are a means of organizing activities that cannot be addressed within the organization’s normal operational limits. Projects are, therefore, often utilized as a means of achieving an organization’s strategic plan.” A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge.

Projects are a significant investment for an organization. Projects are key to an organization’s growth and improvement. The decisions about which major projects go forward are usually made during an annual planning cycle. After executives approve them, they are budgeted, resourced and slated for delivery.

How do the executives know that what is being delivered is what they originally agreed to? How does management make decisions during delivery? How does the team remain aligned on the priority items? Project status is the key.

Some example questions that project status should answer are:

1. Will the project be delivered when we expect it?

2. Do we have the budget to complete the project?

3. Will it deliver what the users expect?

4. Will the quality of the final product be sufficient?

Some example decisions that project status supports are:

  • Decide the project isn’t going to meet expected ROI and thus cancel it
  • Decide the project needs additional investment and can still meet anticipated ROI
  • Change resources on the project
  • Decide what scope to keep or change

The challenge with project status is to know what information should be collected, consolidated and reported to best support management and executives. This article discusses a framework and considerations for measuring project status. Objectives and metrics are suggested. Each organization would modify these objective and metrics to apply to the characteristics of their own organization.

Why Measure Status?

Why bother measuring status at all? It’s an additional cost to the project to collect status information. It is a distraction for team members delivering the work. It needs to be monitored by someone to ensure consistent measurement across projects. It can lead to disagreements about whether a project is actually in “green” or “yellow”.

To answer this question we first draw on a widely quoted statement from Management Guru Peter Drucker, “What gets measured, gets done”. A simple example of this is demonstrated by an effective weight loss technique of recording what you eat actually helps reduce the amount (and type of food) you each. With respect to projects, the fact that we are measuring status drives activities to get done. It serves as a reminder to team members and management what their focus should be. So, although it can be more work for team members, with the proper measurements, paradoxically, more work gets done.

A longer statement that applies comes from the famous scientist and engineer, Lord Kelvin:

“When you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meager and unsatisfactory kind; it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarcely in your thoughts advanced to the stage of science.”

Applying a scientific method permits an organization to acquire new knowledge and integrate and correct previous knowledge. In this way an organization can improve with how they deliver projects. It enables an organization to make fact-based decisions rather than relying on opinions.

What does it mean to measure? Defining what measurement means helps decide what we need to measure. For the purposes of this discussion measurement is a set of observations that reduce uncertainty where the result is expressed as a quantity. Different measurements have different information values. The value of information related to the chance of being wrong, and the cost of being wrong.

With respect to measuring project status, we want to reduce the uncertainly about what is going on in the project. By reducing uncertainty, executives gain confidence in the decisions they make on how best to continue to allocate their resources.

How to Measure Status?

Status, as defined by dictionary.com is “state or condition of affairs”. What we need to track then is the condition of affairs of various dimensions of a project (to be discussed next). The implication is we need to define the desired condition of affairs (our objectives) and measure against them.

The other area to consider is how often we want to sample status. Sampling status means to make a measurement. The measurement frequency may be different for each status dimension.

The decision about the measurement frequency is a trade-off between the cost of taking the measurement and the value of the information. For instance, if we asked team members to provide updates to how much time they have spend on a task every day it incurs overhead and thus cost. The value of having that information daily rather than weekly may be no different because it would not impact any of the decisions made.

In order to know our condition of the project, we need to know what we expect it to be compared to what it actually is. Therefore, for each measurement, we need to have an expected or target value.

Status should be driven by facts about the project rather than opinions. This removes controversy about the ‘colour’ of the status from the discussion. For instance, consider a rule in place that states a project is in ‘yellow’ if the forecasted cost is between 10%-15%. If the forecasted cost is 12% there cannot be an argument about a project being yellow or not. The rule itself cannot be in disagreement as it would be one imposed by the Project Control Office across the organization. That would only lead to a disagreement about the forecasted costs being correct or not. That type of problem should be addressed quickly since forecasted costs are core to the management of the project.

There may be multiple metrics supporting an objective. Ideally, we would have metrics that should show results in the context of the objective and leading indicators that provide a hint as to where the objective is heading.

What to Measure?

Schedule, budget and scope (also known as the project triple) are the fundamental constraints set out at the beginning of a project and agreed upon by all stakeholders. The business case to proceed with the project is based on these elements. They set the expectation of what will be delivered according to the resources allocated to the project. For this reason, the project triple are represent important items to monitor, as they are the major contributing factors to stakeholder satisfaction and to meeting the business case.

Once a project is underway the questions most often asked are: “Are we on time?” and “Are we on budget?” A project can easily be on time and on budget and still be a failure. A particularly dramatic example is the Tacoma Narrows Bridge which collapsed in 1940. The bridge was completed close to budget and on schedule. However, due to some design flaws, the investment was lost (thankfully no lives were lost except for Tubby, a cocker spaniel of a driver who narrowly escaped).

For this reason, we will add quality as a dimension we want to measure.

The following is a framework with details of the objectives and metrics to use across these different status dimensions.

 

Schedule

Schedule objective::Meet milestone dates agreed upon by stakeholders.

Schedule metric: Variance between target date and forecast date.

Measurement: Weekly

This helps us determine if we are going to meet our goal. Perhaps there are other indicators that we should be measuring that might suggest that the schedule is at risk. Components that make up the schedule are:

  • Work estimates
  • External dependencies (such as equipment orders)
  • Speed of risk and issue resolution

Metrics to address the components include:

  • Accuracy of work effort estimates for tasks completed
  • Mean time to resolving issues
  • Mean time of open issues
  • Longest current open issue

Budget

Objective: Meet the financial project cost agreed upon by stakeholders.

Metric: Variance between target cost and forecast cost.

Measurement: Weekly

Again, this helps us understand if we are going to meet our goals. Let’s consider if we can determine some leading indicators based on budget components. As an example, an IT project budget is composed of:

  • Hardware
  • Software
  • Labour

Hardware and software change in size depending on the load placed on them. Examples include number of users and number of transactions. Budget issues would arise for not capturing the load correctly. Change requests related to increasing loads is an indicator of increased budgets.

Labour cost is usually tied to work effort. Labour cost and schedule are correlated in that often an extension to the schedule results in an increase of labour cost. We already have schedule metrics so that will help us with labour costs and thus budget overall.

The other area of increased budget would be requests for new functionality. Monitoring change requests related to functionality is an indicator that the budget may go up.

Scope

Objective: Deliver the agreed upon functionality.

Metric: Variance in schedule and budget due to functionality change requests.

The measurement mechanism for scope is project change requests. Schedule and budget show the impact of that change to the project.

Measurement : Weekly

Change in functionality can be observed by the number of change requests related to functionality. As well, having requirements completion running late could mean that there is difficulty obtaining requirements and, thus, defining functionality. Measuring the variation in time between target sign-off date for requirements and the actual sign off date can be a leading indicator that there may be scope challenges.

Quality

Objective: Deliver a product with no unresolved defects.

This is a rather strong statement. Note that the term used is “unresolved defects” rather than “zero defects”. All defects need to have a resolution in place. This may be correcting the defect or deciding that the product can be realized with the defect with a mitigation solution in place.

Metric: Percent of unresolved defects.

Measurement: Weekly (although may be daily for a QA Manager)

Defects may be latent in the product just waiting for a test case to uncover it. Test coverage across all functionality is important to meet our specified objective. There should be at least one test case per requirement. Therefore, a metric to use is percent of requirements with test cases.

What about Overall Status?

The overall objective for a project is:

Deliver a project that meets an expected level of quality within the stakeholder agreed upon constraints.

Measuring overall status is tricky because, suddenly, you have lost sight of the context of the status. If the overall status is ‘yellow’ it is not clear what needs to be addressed. Rather it is a sign that the project needs attention. Overall status would be a logical combination of the other status items. Let’s look at a couple different ways to calculate this.

Worst Child

In this situation, the overall status takes on the value of the worst child status. For instance, if the financial status is yellow and all others are green, the overall status would be yellow.

This approach drives attention to pushing projects to be “all green”. It is the most thorough approach, however it may be difficult to distinguish relative priorities between projects. For example, a project with only one child status of red and a project with all children status red will both have and an overall status of red.

Weighted roll-up

In this case, each sub-status is provided a relative weighting of its importance. For example, you could place greater relative importance on budget over scope, schedule and quality. Of course, you may have more thresholds than the traditional red, yellow and green. The three thresholds are used here as an example.

Status Trends

If a project is off track as indicated by the status, management needs to make some decisions and take action to correct the problems associated with the status. Once the action has been executed management needs to know if it is making a difference. To do this we need to capture and report on the status trend.

The trend is simply how the status is changing from one reporting period to another. The principal consideration is the level of granularity of reporting period. Multiple levels of reporting periods (and thus multiple trends) may be required.

The guiding principle for the reporting period for trends is how quickly you anticipate actions will make an impact on the status. For example, a decision and action to improve the financial status may take a month or two to take effect. This won’t be reflected in a weekly trend indicator. In fact, taking too small a granularity will be misleading if there are weekly variations that do not contribute to the overall long term trend.

The following chart shows an extreme example of how measuring in the short term can overlook the longer term trend.

measuringshortterm

As you can see on a small scale, the trend oscillates up and down providing misleading information. Overall, the trend is increasing. Some example trend periods are described below.

Schedule

Schedule changes are only indicated as frequently as tasks are updated and the schedule is recalculated. In many organizations, this happens on a weekly basis. This would be the minimum period to show trends. However, there may be no material change in a project during a week. It may be better to show trends on a bi-weekly basis.

Budget

Similar to schedule, a budget change will only be seen as tasks are updated and the schedule recalculated. For some organizations, project costs are tracked through what work is invoiced. In this case the minimum frequency would be the billing cycle. Again bi-weekly is likely a good period to monitor trends.

Scope

In a controlled environment, scope only changes through Change Requests. In most organizations, change requests can be submitted at any time. However, there may be regularly scheduled change request review meetings after which the status is updated. The trend period should be aligned with these meetings in order to capture the change in information.

Quality

Quality is most measurable during the testing phase of the project. Different people may want to see different trends. A QA Manager may want to see a daily trend over an extended time period in order to track whether defects are converging or not. A manager may only want to see a weekly trend to determine if the product quality is heading in the right direction.

Ongoing Evaluation

Measuring status will require a number of iterations to refine the status items. After a project delivery cycle, reflect on the measurements in place and the end result of the project delivery. Based on the results, the measurements and trending should be tweaked to focus on the measurements that convey the information that most strongly represents project status.

Other Considerations

The status items discussed cover delivering a quality project within agreed upon constraints. These are the main concerns of the delivery team and should be their principle focus.

What it does not address is whether the business case for a project is still valid. A business case is composed of two parts: the financial opportunity (additional revenue or reduced costs) and the delivery costs. The metrics discussed cover the delivery costs. The other side piece of the equation is the financial opportunity. This should be monitored through the project lifecycle by the original project business sponsor to ensure the overall benefits to the company remain in place. Some questions the business sponsor should be asking:

– Is the original business case still valid?

– Do we still expect to capture the same market share?

– Has pricing changed?

– Have other better cost saving opportunities come up?

A similar process of defining objectives and assigned metrics can be used to answer these questions.

First Steps

The first step towards understanding project status through measurement is to identify owners of the project status definition. Typically this would be the Project Control Office or a Project Management Office. Once the area of responsibility is assigned, they can take the concepts in this document and apply them to their organization. Each organization is different with slightly different metrics. The status owners will need to draw on their experience of the business to determine the specific objectives and metrics.

Don’t forget to post your comments below!

Craig McQueen, MSc, CBIP, leads the Business Intelligence Practice for Agora Consulting Partners (www.agorainc.com). A key part of his role is assisting companies with implementing a performance management framework which ties metrics to strategic objectives. Craig has worked with various enterprise customers in the Financial, Telecom and Manufacturing industries. Through his career he has been a contributing author to 5 books and has authored over 20 articles. Craig can be reached at [email protected]

Just Say No to Project Management Charlatans

There is an interesting shift underway that has a profound impact for the project management community. Up until the past few years, the project management community has been focused on “basic training” and getting new PMs ready to write the PMP exam. While some industries such as engineering, procurement and construction have an overall higher project management maturity level, the fastest growth over the past couple of decades has been in the information technology industry, where a majority of organizations are small with a low level of PM maturity. PM publications and conferences have been mostly focused on serving these “new” IT PMs with novice (and a small amount of intermediate) training.

What has changed, however, is the emergence of more advanced topics such as critical chain scheduling (based on Eli Goldratt’s Theory of Constraints) and agile management techniques. These advanced topics have captured the imaginations of project managers everywhere, who are frustrated with the all-too-common bureaucratic governance models that are slapped on to our typical projects. People are yearning for better ways of doing things. For most, this means less useless paperwork and needless bureaucracy.

Critical Chain Scheduling is now a hot topic in magazines, on the net, and at conferences, where innovative approaches towards estimating, scheduling, and control have helped many companies reduce their project durations and budgets without sacrificing quality. Early success stories have triggered a massive surge in demand for more information about this subject, creating a shortage of experts that has led to many under-qualified people being promoted as experts.

The growth of interest in agile methods has been even more pronounced than the interest in Critical Chain – at least an order of magnitude greater. Agile methods promise higher quality, lower risk, and better stakeholder relationships, especially in high-change or high-complexity projects. Yet, again, early successes have led to a surge in demand for expertise that was (and for certain specialties still is) in short supply. Too many people with book learning, but no practical experience, have been promoting themselves as experts, which is not helping the innovative ideas and excellent practices that are part of the agile methods.

Even though demand is very strong for information on Agile and Critical Chain, we need to examine carefully the source of our information; else, we risk getting incomplete or inaccurate information that may lead us astray, causing us to believe that the techniques don’t work and shutting us off from an avenue of potential benefit for our projects. Personally, I have seen a few examples of this in recent months. In one case, a large, multinational corporation was undertaking a pilot initiative to test agile methods within their IT organization. The problem was that they hired a consultant who promoted himself as an “agile guru” but who had only implemented agile a few times in small organizations on low-complexity projects. To work smoothly in highly complex organizational environments, you need to layer additional governance structures on top of the standard agile methods. In one recent interview on the dangers of customizing Scrum (the leading agile management methodology), Ken Schwaber, one of the co-founders of Scrum, said that Scrum provides just a simple framework for a single project. To make Scrum work across a range of inter-related projects, or even an organization, requires additional practices to be layered on top of Scrum to address items that are outside of the scope of the Scrum method. To know what needs to be layered on top of a basic agile method, and to add it without unduly reducing the agility of the overall project takes expertise and finesse. These are qualities that need to be learned on the streets, through trial and error, and that you will only find in those with experience. Watch out for the army of newly-certified ScrumMasters who think they are now the experts in the agile methods after taking two to three days of training. They know enough to sound like experts, but may collapse under the pressures of a real, complex project.

The real need is for measures of competence not knowledge. In North America, the PM community is just starting to figure that out. The PMI is introducing its first competency-based certification for program managers (PgMP). The formation of two associations, the American Society for the Advancement of Project Management www.asapm.org and the Project Management Association of Canada www.pmac-ampc.ca are bringing to us the four-level competency-based certification model used around the world by national associations affiliated with the International Project Management Association [www.ipma.ch], the oldest professional association for project managers in the world. The IPMA certification model is not about passing a test (like the PMP) but rather focuses on assessing workplace performance. To get IPMA certified, you must demonstrate (with evidence) repeated, successful performance as a project manager on complex projects.

At one point, employers thought that a PMP was an indication of a superior project manager. Now that PMI has churned out hundreds of thousands of PMPs, employers have come to recognize that the presence of a PMP does not distinguish between poor and excellent PMs; rather, employers are seeking other measures of performance such as the IPMA competency-based certification model, or proprietary PM competency assessment systems developed for in-house use.

We need to demand evidence of competency from those we turn to for advice, whether it is PM basic training, or advanced training in topics like Critical Chain Scheduling and Agile Management. By listening only to those who can clearly show their competence, we will get much better advice and steer clear of the naïve recommendations of some so-called experts. The result will not only be better projects, but also increased trust in our profession.