Tag: Requirements

Co-authored by Carol A. Kirby

Why a Project Manager Needs it to Prevent or Manage a Difficult Conversation

It is tempting for a project manager to focus very tightly on the goals, project deadlines, deliverables and tight or slack aspects of the critical path to completion. Well, of course! you say. That’s the nature of the job, isn’t it? Let me offer an alternative idea: There is no management without people management, and the manager has no more difficult task than getting work done through people. People are emotional; they change their minds, they protect themselves against risk and disapproval, they avoid (or enjoy) conflict, and they are sometimes unmanageable. Given this reality, we focus on what we can control: the task, and we assume that the people issues will be solved somehow through the task-completion process.

With new, more democratic approaches at work, there seem to be few words to describe the complexity of interdependent relations between people and teams. Do we still have Bosses? Subordinates? Direct Reports? Or do we choose the new language of Teams, and Associates? Traditional structures have morphed into peer networks, not chains of command. New pressures on organizations to collaborate internally to enable competition externally reveal a dire need for improved communicative effectiveness in most workplaces.

Interpersonal competence (the ability to communicate, influence, supervise, lead, manipulate processes and control resources at all levels of the organization) is absolutely essential as organizations and their projects increase in scope and size and complexity, with the resulting stress that project managers commonly experience in today’s tight financial times. Tough Respect is one approach, I suggest the best approach, to managing projects and the people who execute them in a firm but fair manner. Reputations for excellence have been built on it.

New managers tend to focus on the decision-making rights and control responsibilities they expect will come with promotion to a managerial job. However, experienced managers know they must still lead, while adapting to the erosion of that traditional boss-power, for they know that it does not come from position any more. Where, then? Today’s manager earns vital soft power by establishing credibility through demonstrating competence; influencing others on behalf of the team; clarifying goals and the ways to get there; getting the right people into the right jobs with the right tools; measuring the right things; ensuring that staff are provided development challenges —and by communicating.

In good times or in positive circumstances, communication can seem relatively easy but in tight, stressful situations with tense people we can quickly revert back to old, ineffective styles. Specifically, which workplace situations do we find tough and hard to handle? A 2003 study identified the big problems as confronting those who are lazy, who don’t perform well, and handling those who are negative, cynical, and toxic. Which people cause us frustration? Topping the list are those who are passive-aggressive, arrogant, and/or incompetent. Further up the scale of difficulty are people who are argumentative, autocratic, judgmental or immature. Then there are the ones from whom it is best to walk away and never look back.

How, then, do we approach these diverse personalities in order to get the project done? Tough Respect demonstrates the process in four distinct steps:

1. Preventing a tough situation
2. Knowing when you are having a tough situation
3. Managing a tough situation
4. Knowing when to walk away.

Prevention

Preventing tough situations calls for authenticity and trust.

Authenticity

Authenticity is an essential mental set; it is conveyed in your walk and your talk. Psychologists have interviewed muggers in jail, who have told them they can tell from across the street who they can attack and who they do not mess with. Great martial artists will tell you: The best fight is the fight that is never fought. Why bother training and learning, then? Because that is where we develop confidence. If you give off subtle signals that it is OK to push you around, someone will do just that.

That doesn’t mean you should take the Command and Control approach; quite the opposite. The language of authenticity is firm but fair. Respect is built into every up, down, and sideways interaction. Blaming people is replaced by an objective assessment of the processes and systems that were involved. The authentic project manager doesn’t take the lazy way out. The authentic project manager uses power not to push people around, but to arrange things, obtain resources, use contacts, verify processes, get the right equipment, and network with others who are influential to get the job done.

Trust

Replacing the old-think concept of top – down power calls for a new foundation based on trust. Our relationships succeed or fail one conversation at a time. Trust, candor, and effectiveness are tightly linked, but trust is the catalyst in the mix. We demonstrate respect if we are candid without being negatively critical, if we let people know that we think they can handle bad news or constructive communication about performance problems.

Trust creates an engine for innovation, because people feel safe enough to take risks. Professionals, especially, need a climate of emotional safety if they are to think outside the box. Where it is well known that “Heads will roll!” heads are kept down for self-preservation.

It is important to be aware of when we are Having a Difficult Conversation. This is too easy, you say. I know when I’m having a hard time, don’t I? You may indeed start to feel uncomfortable with what you are hearing, and feel anger rising inside. OK; but what about the other guy? Is he having a great time? Doubtful, unless he is one of those who enjoys hurting others. He may see this conversation as a respectful interaction when he says, “I’ll call him into the office and lay a few truths out, get it all on the table, talk it through, make him see sense, make a few things clear,” etc.

The problems arise here when one or both parties don’t really know what their impact is on others. Not my problem, she doesn’t know she’s a jerk, you think? Well, it is your problem if you are on the other side of the table. And it’s your problem if you don’t realize that others dislike your approach and your way of dealing with them.

A conversation becomes difficult when the pendulum of conflict starts to swing. We know it is hard then, because our focus becomes razor sharp, we feel the pulse rate rise, we stand up, and we become tense. Once the pendulum has started to swing (What do you mean by that…. Excuse me? What was that again? Just a minute….) it takes very little energy to make it go higher, and even less to sustain the swings back and forth. (I would have thought it was clear to anyone, even you….I’ll make it crystal clear for you…. OK, let me be perfectly frank… You really want to know?).

In such a situation, unless preventive action is taken, the emotional climate becomes overcharged quickly. It does take considerable commitment to stop the upswing, but one of us has to take the initiative, even if it is simple, such as “Come on, this is getting us nowhere. Let’s stop it and talk things through”. To take the energy out of a difficult conversation, one party has to absorb the shock, take the hit, and back down. This may be easy to say, but for many of those who equate power with control, it can be difficult to do.

If we know what is likely to happen, or is going on, and what our impact is on others, before we get hot under the collar, we can prevent it getting out of hand.

Managing a Tough Situation

The exercise of control over actions and moods has long been an unwritten social expectation (Control yourself, please! Get a grip! He lost it completely!) This is more true in some cultures than others (the British “stiff upper lip” for example). We all know that our range of control depends on stress levels, mood, and a host of other factors. We can’t control the world but we can control how we think about it, and therefore how we react to it.

When attacked, we can stand aside by using various means: looking away, focusing on a picture on the wall, focusing on a part of the attacker’s clothing or a lapel badge, for example. It may seem disrespectful to you to refuse your complete attention to someone who is forcefully targeting you, but as a defense mechanism it is merely the strategic allocation of attention. We might also think of it as the controlled delaying of the gratification that we get from returning fire. In a perfect world we would have objective views of differing opinions or interpretations rather than flare-ups and destructive conflict. However, the reality is all too familiar: we interpret the situation instantly, and respond to attack, usually defensively, but sometimes angrily, in one or more of three modes:

Response Mode # 1: we object to the facts of the matter and say, “This is incorrect. You got your facts wrong. It didn’t happen that way.”

Response Mode # 2: our feelings are hurt and we feel outrage. “How dare you! That hurts my feelings… What a thing to say to me!”

Response Mode # 3: we perceive comments as attacks on our identity, our competence, our integrity, our self. “What are you saying about me? Are you accusing me of incompetence? What kind of person do you think I am?”

The Fourth Mode

While perfect control is for most of us a dream, we can learn how to respond to an attack or verbal hit. The Fourth Mode of Defense calls for you to acknowledge the hit, recover your balance, step back and choose what to do next.

It seems natural for us to want to win. “I can look after myself, thank you!” or, “I can take care of it. I’m grown up – just watch me.” Or, “If they mess with me they’ll regret it.” However, such knee-jerk, prideful responses just push that pendulum higher into the no-win zone.

It’s a no win because even if you see yourself as having won – the other party lost. Now you have an enemy. How many of us need enemies in daily life? That’s right; none of us do.

There are many techniques to manage difficult conversations; use assertive language, blend with the attacker to deflect it; be precise in your talk of expectations; know how to make points on performance that is great, weak, lacking, or unacceptable; deal with stress-affected people with empathy, not sympathy, and more. To cover that detail here is not possible; you’ll have to take the course or read the book from which parts of this article are excerpted. The key is, though, fairly straightforward: know how much you contributed to the problem (Yes! It will be some amount, however small…) and manage the conversation with skill and language that does not inflame.

When to Walk Away

We said earlier in this piece that the need for power and the abuse of power are major causes of workplace conflict. Stress adds to the tension. It is a destructive tradition of our society that we take freedom away from others by making them do what we want them to do or say is good for them.

There is a wide variety of personality types that resists our best efforts at trusting, effective communication. With some of these, our most skilled and empathetic efforts fail, or may even make matters worse. However, we can learn to identify these people and to realize when we should cut our losses.

Power-addicted people tend to think like this: I control others or they control me; it is my right and my duty to control workers. It is my right and my duty to catch, and to punish those who disobey, break the rules, or don’t work hard enough. There is nothing harder to control that a righteous-minded person who is given a little power over others. However, it is almost impossible to control others if you try to make them do something that does not satisfy their needs. Motivation, for example, is maybe the least understood aspect of managerial work. Briefly, motivation is not about making others work; it is about arranging the work environment so that others feel as though they want to work.

How to deal with power oriented authoritarians? Clarify expectations in detail then walk away until you have a bottom line to demonstrate your competence.

What of those whose expectations change, or can never be met?

Perfectionists are some of the most reliable, hardworking, solid, responsible people around. Unfortunately they bring a dark side with them; they are driven to meet self-imposed personal and professional standards and goals to such an extent that they cannot abandon themselves to even a few hours of purposeless leisure. They feel guilty and undisciplined. Like Type A personalities, they would see being sent on holiday as some kind of punishment.

How to deal with perfectionists? Ask questions, ask for help, leave a “draft” copy for their “approval: and then walk away until the perfectionist has changed it.

Workaholics are out of control, think about work constantly and if they are unable to work they feel panicky or depressed. They get a high from deadlines, long hours and a single-minded focus on work, but personal relationships suffer as a result. Manic overworking can produce surges of adrenaline that can result, over the long term, in high blood pressure and heart problems. It’s a symptom of obsessive personality and a broader obsession with orderliness, control and perfectionism, perhaps rooted in mild but long-lasting depression.

How to deal with a real life workaholic? If this person is an engine in your department, don’t tell them to take it easy; give them lots to do and don’t try to compete with them when they offer reports of “I worked all night on this.”

In using Tough Respect and the specific communication skills related to this approach, we become adept at assisting people to achieve the goals of the project at hand. Of equal importance is the fact that we help them grow into trusting, trusted colleagues who bring new skills and insights to future projects and to all aspects of the work environment.

Don’t forget to post your comments below.

Dr. Roy L. Kirby’s career brings together hands-on industrial experience and decades of management consulting with both private and public sectors at home in Canada and overseas. Today, he teaches at university in Canada and in China; creates workshops and professional development events tailored for high-performance clients, consults internationally on the resolution of selected organizational problems, and writes more than he used to but still less than he should.

Dr. Carol A. Kirby has a distinguished record of success in her chosen career as an educator. Carol is a well-respected thinker on problems in the management of adults and children; her PhD work in counseling has been sustained by professional development at Harvard and Columbia. She has taken that skill set and blended it with her experience with problem people and problem situations as a manager and leader. She has taught graduate students in Canada and at present teaches.

Whenever I make a presentation on project management best practices, I always point out that if project managers are oblivious of the impact of change management variables on their projects, these projects will be challenged or even fail. Here I am not speaking of the management of change requests from project stakeholders that could result in scope creep or project deliverables that bear little resemblance to original project objectives or scope. This conversation often results in an ah’ha moment for many in the target group because it allows us to recognize one of the key reasons why projects fail – our inability to address or lack of acknowledgement of the symptoms of change that permeate our projects. Even if the project team produces the ‘Rolls Royce’ of deliverables, guess what? The project may still fail because of such issues as lack of buy-in or resistance to change. So, should we be considering these management disciplines as two disparate areas? What are the consequences for our projects if we do?

Change management is a systematic approach aimed at facilitating the movement of individuals, groups, and organizations from a current state to a desired future state. Project management involves the planning, scheduling and controlling of project activities to meet project requirements. It is the application of skills, tools and techniques to project activities in order to meet stakeholders’ needs and expectations[¹] So should the two be married?

Projects have specific goals and objectives, and therefore must deliver specific results. The implementation of a project management methodology provides some key benefits to any organization. Project management was developed to introduce a structured, consistent approach to managing projects, thus fostering time and cost efficiencies by proactively planning and considering all relevant variables that could impact a successful outcome. Additionally, project management provides coordinated and ‘trackable’ processes to monitor and control performance. Some people limit these variables to the “hard’ factors, such as schedule, budget or scope management, overlooking ‘soft’ variables such as, the impact of an effective change management execution strategy to successful project outcome – this usually to their peril. Success not only depends on the extent to which the project deliverables meet specifications or requirements but also on the willingness of stakeholders or end users to change the status quo. But these objectives cannot be achieved without the project manager recognizing and embracing their role as a transformational leader and change agent.

Whether this is a small ‘c’ or a big ‘c’ change initiative, all project management initiatives are intended to bring about change. While the extent of the change management effort adopted should reflect and be commensurate with the magnitude of the initiative and its organization, the effective management of change should be of primary concern to all project managers. Projects have been widely accepted by management gurus and strategists as key vehicles for achieving transformational change and for executing strategic priorities.

Project managers must ensure their skills extend beyond the technical/application areas, to such competences as general management and interpersonal skills including leading, motivating, inspiring, negotiating, communicating, and conflict resolution. All of these change management skills are critical to project success and influencing stakeholders’ acceptance.

The project manager plays a key role as change agent or transformational leader. Change agents ‘make things happen.’ It is this individual (or team) that drives and supports change efforts, creating buy-in and gaining commitment of stakeholders. Successful and sustainable change initiatives begin and end with an effective leader who can respond to and lead the transformation effort by developing and implementing new systems to drive the renewal process.

Change represents uncertainty, wariness, adjusting the status quo and a frightening prospect to many. In today’s world it has become the new norm. It is constant and unavoidable, evidenced by the volatility in global and competitive markets, the tsunami of the information age and social networking, just to name a few. Change management strategy execution has undoubtedly become a critical competency in the enterprise of today. It is therefore essential for us to eliminate the following myths from the project management environment.

Myth 1 – “I’m responsible for the ‘hard’ side of the project, not the ‘soft’ stuff.”

Project teams are ultimately responsible for delivering value to the organization through their project. If your project requires people to change the way they do their jobs, then the ‘soft’ side is also your responsibility”

A perfectly designed solution that no one uses is ultimately of little value to the organization.

Myth 2 – “I have a communication plan, isn’t that enough?”

While communication is important, change management does not equal effective communication.

Change management also includes sponsorship, coaching, proactive resistance management, training and reinforcement.

Myth 3 – “We are introducing change and managing the project, so aren’t we managing change?”

Just because you are introducing a change does not mean that you are managing the people side of that change. Change management is a systematic approach to accelerate adoption and mitigate resistance.

Change management is the process, tools and techniques for managing the people side of change. In the same way that you have tools to manage the project side of the change – issue tracking, documentation, work breakdown structures, design processes – there are specific tools you can use to encourage adoption, to mitigate resistance and to manage change.

Myth 4 – “We don’t need change management.”

Change management helps to increase the speed of adoption of change, the ultimate utilization of the tools and the proficiency of employees in the future state. Many studies have shown a direct correlation between how well you manage change and whether or not you meet project objectives.This underscores the fact that to deliver the potential value of your project to the organization; you need to manage the people side of change.

Project managers and other stakeholders need to become more educated about change management and the approaches necessary to ensure it is incorporated in all initiatives. Many change initiatives/projects fall short of their objectives because project managers often do not see themselves as changes agents. Even when they do have some appreciation of this concept, there is a disconnect between accepting the project as a mechanism for change and reconciling the necessary steps to implement the change.

There are numerous change models that exist today. Whether you adopt a top down approach, as suggested by Kotter,[²] or a bottom up approach advocated in models like ADKAR[³], it is fundamentally important to project sponsors, managers and teams to proactively plan for and address these variables. The Kotter model, for example, has been widely adopted and proposes an 8-step approach. It ranges from the need to communicate a sense of urgency with realistic and relevant objectives; to making the change stick through reinforcement based on promotion, recruitment, identification of new change leaders. Then the change must be woven into organizational culture. Whether the project is functional/departmentally focused, cross-functional, enterprise-wide or includes external impact, a well articulated change strategy will be required for success.

Projects are often meant to move the organization from a current state to a future preferred state. Uniting the project and change management disciplines allows organizations to adopt a structured consistent process, balanced with active stakeholder engagement, learning, and reinforcement aimed at achieving strategic objectives and organization excellence. Key success factors for project managers – the transformational leaders/change agents in today’s organization should include:

• Beginning with the end in mind[⁴] – have a vision or understand the vision!
• Ability to communicate and influence others (both upwards and downwards) in the organizational hierarchy – exert political power
• Strong executive/leadership support and sponsorship
• Active involvement and an ability to build a shared learning environment
• Gaining consensus and alignment of project stakeholders – communicating the message and benefits, the ‘what’s in it for me’ factor
• Integrating process driven systems with people driven processes to counter fear of change, reduce risk, build momentum and create buy-in and ownership of project deliverables.

The time is now! Organizations, and their CEOs, are hungry for change. It is no surprise that there is now a movement to make change management methodology like Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK) standard, recognizing the need for a formalized, integrated process. Change initiatives are no longer viewed as an extraordinary event but as standard components of the business environment. Indeed they may be a necessity to survive the demands our new economy. Agility and vision are key, but they also requires a method amidst the uncertainty. Marrying formal project and change management standards, practices and approaches into an accepted way of executing strategic initiatives will be the way to not only survive but thrive in a changing business world.

Don’t forget to post your comments below

Cheryl Francis-Nurse, PMP, MBA is a consultant at SPM Group Limited with over 15 years experience in the fields of project management, education, international development, trade and investment. She is an accomplished Instructor/Facilitator currently responsible for the development and delivery of a range of customized project management training programs in the public sector and private industry. Cheryl gained recognition for her exemplary contribution to the management business skills and process improvement projects in 2002 when she was awarded the USAID’s First Merit Award for Exceptional Efficiency in the Management of a Business Skills Training Project. Cheryl holds an MBA with Distinction from Manchester Business School, a Post-MBA Diploma in Advanced Management from York University and the Project Management Professional (PMP) Designation from the Project Management Institute.

References:
1 Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK®)
2 Kotter, John P: Leading Change, Harvard Business School, 1996
3 Hiatt Jeffrey: ADKAR: A model for Change in business, Government and Our Community, Prosci 2006
4 Steven R. Covey, The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People, 1989

The response I received to a recent article on the importance of trust in gathering requirements prompted me to ask myself exactly what was a business requirement. Because there were no comments on the trust aspect and a variety of views on the definition of a business requirement, I had to ask myself this question: If the definition of a business requirement varies from person to person, is it still the same thing? To paraphrase, is it true that a requirement is a requirement is a requirement? After all, a requirement by any other name…

So what is a requirement? Many years ago I worked for a national retailer in an IT group which developed two specifications for developing software. The first was a business requirements document (BRD), which we called a “bird.” The second was a technical requirements document (TRD), which we didn’t bother to pronounce. We never agonized over which requirements belonged in each category. We put those that came from the business in the BRD. Generally speaking these dealt with the capabilities of the software, such as the way people would use the system and the data that needed to be entered or displayed. Those relating to how we were going to implement the software were documented in the TRD.

But as with many things in life, the more I have learned, the less I know. Not only has the distinction between business and technical requirements become blurred, but even the definition of a business requirement has evolved.

We used to say that business requirements described the “what” and technical requirements described the “how.” But the lines between these two are not clearly drawn. For example, is a business process a “what” or a “how?” Next we divided requirements into functional and non-functional and disagreed about whether or not non-functional requirements were considered technical.

Definition of a Business Requirement.

A requirement seems easy enough to define, since the IEE’s definition has been pretty well-accepted: -“a condition or capability needed by a stakeholder to solve a problem or achieve an objective.” One difficulty with this definition, however, is that requirements no longer apply to software only and business analysts work on a variety of efforts. Business analysis applies to the completion of feasibility studies, new business processes, recommendations on staffing, to name just a few. We are left to ponder whether completing business analysis work always results in requirements as defined above.

Another difficulty is that while there is general agreement that requirements can be classified and that one of the classifications is “business requirement,” there is no agreement on what those classifications should be. It would be wonderful to refer to a body of knowledge to help us out. Indeed, one of the truly great things about having a body of knowledge is that we practitioners can use language that is generally accepted and understood by all. We no longer have to waste time discussing the definition of a requirement, of business analysis, of a business requirement. Or do we?

The BABOK® Guide 2.0 describes its classification scheme to include business requirements (goals and objectives) stakeholder requirements (those coming from the business domain perspective), solution requirements (functional and non-functional) and those temporary requirements that help the organization transition from the current to the future state.

The PMBOK® Guide – 4^th Edition, on the other hand, classifies requirements as project and product (so far so good). But project requirements are classified as “business, project management, delivery, etc.” Product requirements are “technical requirements, security requirements, performance requirements, etc.” There are many ways to interpret these categories. Perhaps technical requirements equate to functional requirements, perhaps not. Perhaps delivery requirements refer to the target date, perhaps not. The point is that if we are going to rely on bodies of knowledge to help us speak a common language, it would be wonderful if they were aligned.

So what is a business requirement, anyhow? Being the old dog that I am, I still like thinking of business requirements as the umbrella term for those requirements approved by the business domain, regardless of the level of detail. However, I do believe I can learn a new trick or two, and can certainly see the rationale for defining the business requirements as the highest level goals and objectives. (BABOK® Guide). And if anyone knows what a delivery requirement is, I’d sure appreciate your letting me know.

Don’t forget to post your comments below

I am sure you have never been forced to accept and include in your project schedule unrealistic data, most likely resulting from your project sponsor or your boss making a promise on a target end date. Never? Right!

Well, we all know that this happens all the time, the result being that:

• In most surveys on project management, many project managers and teams complain that they work on unrealistic schedules
• The same project managers and teams are still being blamed for not meeting those dates
• Sponsors, bosses and organisations do not seem to be learning anything from this and
• The same pattern goes on again and again, unresolved.

I tell my workshop participants and the project managers I coach that they should stop complaining about unrealistic schedules and do something about it. I am still appalled at project managers accepting to meet dates that do not make sense, or try to meet them without discussing the affect on cost (fast tracks cost more) or on quality. Eventually they end up having to play the role of scapegoat on a sinking project because they failed to challenge their sponsor, boss or other power, when they applied their magic thinking on these projects.

It is a fact that sponsors and bosses are here to make things happen, and the faster the better. And this is quite alright. It is also a fact that many of them just do not have a clue about what they are asking you to achieve. When I tell project managers that their sponsors or client very often do not understand the conditions required the meet the dates they “force” on them, some are quite surprised. I ask them them why upper management sets such unrealistic goals…do they really think their bosses are that stupid?

Unless project managers present the facts and stop accepting unrealistic dates without conditions, they will not do an effective job of helping their management better understand the nature of the projects in question. When they do understand the situation, they will hopefully provide adequate resources and timeframes. Who’s stupid? The one asking for results or the one not explaining the conditions required and complaining delays are unrealistic…after accepting this situation by default?

Here is an example of such a situation and how a project manager can help the project sponsor or client become a better project stakeholder and supporter. During a recent coaching session, a project manager told me that he was working on a new project involving the development of new injection molded plastic components. They had worked on similar projects for many years and testing and adjustments on the new molds always took between two to five weeks before going into production because of the sheer complexity of this piece of equipment. The project sponsor provided a project end date that did not really make sense, particularly because of this historical constraint. The sponsor was told that the only way the schedule could be met was if the testing and adjustments could be completed in a week, something not achievable for this type of mold. The sponsor went into “magical thinking mode” and told the project manager that, he felt that the testing and adjustment it would go extremely well and that the one week time frame would work.

So what could the project manager do? I told him he had of course to go along with the unrealistic end date….but to make sure he documented in the project charter the fact that this date was based on the sponsor’s assumption of a one-week testing and adjustment period for the new mold. Then once the mold has been tested and the adjustments required to make it work were finally known, I told the project manager that he would have to return to the sponsor with the charter and get his new estimate for the mold adjustments, so that it can be documented again. I told the project manager that his sponsor would learn something important. Among other things, he has to accept ownership for imposed unrealistic delays (and that he will, because he is not an unreasonable person) and that he better leave things he doesn’t know about to those who do..

Many project managers react strongly when I talk about challenging their sponsors and clients on obviously unrealistic imposed project end dates. They think they put themselves at risk by doing that. In fact the contrary happens. If you do not challenge and explain why these schedules are unrealistic:

• you will have very poor team mobilisation, because your project team will not buy into this schedule and they will work on other projects, rather than be part of a projected failure
• you will fail to meet the schedule
• you will be the scapegoat for this project because you accepted it without asking the right questions
• when you tell them at the end that the project schedule was unrealistic, you will be asked why you did not tell them at the start
• you are on your way out as a successful project manager

Project sponsors and clients are not unreasonable, they are not stupid. They try to do their best with the information they have at hand and the promises they are also forced to make. They deserve better from project managers than silently working on unrealistic delay and failing. And unless project managers do their job of challenging, informing and counselling their sponsors and clients in matters of realistic delays on their projects, they will continue to work on projects where a four feet thick concrete slab supposedly will cure in two days or where the paint will already be dried before we apply it. I have seen that in project plans but it has never happened in factual physical reality. And everyone can understand that when you explain to them, including project sponsors and clients.

Don’t forget to post your comments below