Skip to main content

Tag: Stakeholder

PMTimes_Feb14_2023

The Most Important Project of Your Life!

Two and a half years ago I started working on probably the most important project of my life, and one that benefits me directly as both the project manager and customer. It would utilize over a million dollars in cost, eight months of focus and attention before moving to operations, and a little over a hundred days of intense focus and coordination. Almost two years ago it moved primarily into monitoring and control phase before moving into a closing phase almost 4 months later. It now sits successfully in operations waiting to see if another project will be needed in the future. If we were indeed successful, then no changes or updates should be needed for this project for a long, long time.

This important project is cancer treatment, and the tenants of project management can be used to help treat patients. In October 2020 I was diagnosed with Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML) and began the journey through initiation, planning, execution, monitoring and control, and closure. During this time, I was amazed at how similar the process was to managing projects. Thinking of it this way helped me organize my thoughts and make decisions as I stepped through the process. For others that undergo diagnosis and treatment, many of the same requirements and processes I had can be adapted for your treatment. Nursing may even want to formalize some of the steps to accomplish successful outcomes in other types of cancer treatment, but also things like trauma care among others.

 

Initiating

Initiation was probably the most difficult. This was not a planned project, and in fact one that came completely out of the blue. From the time I found out, a plan did begin to develop, however. While there wasn’t a formal project charter per se, there was an agreement on the goals, the high-level requirements to get there, investigation into assumptions, and determination of funding. Almost all the things that make up a project charter are good to put down on paper as an agreement with the patient. It gives them a plan and direction and helps to organize the high-level requirements of caring for cancer. Many of the high-level items here become more granular in detail as exams are done and more information on a diagnosis is gained. It becomes the foundation for the rest of the project.

Another big part of the Initiating Process Group is identifying stakeholders. Some are obvious, the patient as the customer or project owner. They may even be the project manager depending on how much they want to facilitate or be involved in the project. The project manager may also be another family member such as a spouse or parent, or they may be satisfied in letting the Oncologist as their Primary Care Provider facilitate the care and simply keep them informed as a stakeholder. The decision of role should fall to the patient or guardian as much as possible.

Other stakeholders such as nursing staff, family, and friends, and even nurse navigators and case managers. As groups, stakeholders for me included my employer, Insurance companies, Leukemia & Lymphoma Society (www.lls.org),  Be the Match (bethematch.org), and Veteran’s Administration among others. Some needed to be simply updated on status, some provided additional information and research I needed to make decisions, and others had options for funding assistance, materials, and even providing of stem cells for the transplant that was planned.

 

Planning

As you can imagine, the planning part was the most intensive. Things were new, and just like the Project Management Process Group, it has the largest and most significant number of processes. Every single process in this group played a role in planning for treatment, although in the setting of cancer care, the documentation is a little less formal, and many of the details are rolled into patient care plans and progress notes.

A plan is developed, and scope and time management requirements are determined. There is the initial treatment or consolidation chemotherapy with specific medications and times. The work to be done and schedule was laid out on a calendar to follow so I would know where I was at and what was expected at specific steps along the way. Activities were explained and laid out with a specific sequence and duration.

Cost management was laid out by identifying insurance, coverage and requirements. Much of this was reviewed in the context of this diagnosis since many of the resources would be quite costly. Specialty treatments and medications as well as extended hospitalization could easily grow into the tens of thousands of dollars and it was important to know what cost responsibilities would be to plan for financial assistance, or impact on scope of treatment. Nurse case managers as well as contacts at various non-profits could provide additional information on assistance that could be provided in various scenarios.

Project Quality Management, HR Management, Stakeholder Management, and Procurement Management were important areas as well. Daily tests were performed to identify problems or status in order to plan adjust the plan as required. While a patient does not hire the staff and decide on assignments, it was good to know the responsibilities of those staff as stakeholders so that I could pass my own updates as well as request information from the right people along the way. There were many drugs and treatments, some planned as part of the schedule, and some I could request as things progressed and needs were determined.

One of the most important areas is that of Risk Management. There are many areas of risks that had to be identified up front as part of the treatment. Chemotherapy destroyed cells that help the body fight infection and limiting exposure to risks, identifying problems such as a fever or infection, and treating those problems early helped keep things from progressing to dangerous levels. Risks were identified, plans were made to identify anything that occurred, and steps were planned for what to do if risks turned into issues.

 

Advertisement
[widget id=”custom_html-68″]

 

Executing

Once the plan was put into place, treatment could begin following the steps laid out. Everybody had their roles in managing that work, and everybody had responsibility to double check quality and treatment. I could perform quality assurance checks by verifying information and asking questions about things that seemed different from the expected routine. Nurses double checked meds and transfusions in some cases to be sure that the steps and procedures were being followed. While some of the questions seemed repetitive, they were a key part of performing quality assurance.

Managing Stakeholders and Stakeholder Engagement helped to not only keep everyone on the same plan and aware of any updates, it helped keep family connected to the process and how things were progressing. Using tools such as Social Media made dissemination of information to family and friends much easier.

The several months and rounds of chemotherapy, transfusions and checks culminated in a Stem Cell Transplant in March of 2021 which was the primary goal in the execution phase.

 

Monitor and Control

Frozen Stem Cells getting ready for transfusion. Held by gloved hands next to the nitrogen container.

As noted in the Execution and Planning groups above, monitor and control was a major part of the process from start to finish. It occurred during each round of chemo, and during the process of the Stem Cell Transplant itself.

After completing the transplant, some quality assurance took place as an inpatient, and then for several months as an outpatient over the next 100 days. Quality checks became less frequent as lab tests stabilized and as treatments based on those checks also became less frequent. A bone marrow biopsy became one of the final quality assurance tests performed at the transplant facility. Once it was determined that the expected results were obtained, cancer was determined to be in remission. I was able to return home back across the country, to settle back into a more normal routine. Stakeholders were updated, and risks continued to decrease over time. Bills were checked and paid.

 

Closing

My cancer project was placed into what I would consider “operations” in that routine follow-ups decreased from once or twice a month to every two months or more. Ability to return to work became part of normal operations to the point that I’m back at full-time work. Right now with some modifications, life is returning to normal. Quality checks continue as part of the follow-up and as long as they continue to remain normal, no further significant updates or beginning a new project should be required.

If there are abnormal exams or tests from here on out, they will require beginning a new project like this one with possible changes to scope or processes depending on requirements and advances.

 

Final Thoughts

Cancer is a difficult process for anyone to go through. With all the things involved in my treatment and care from symptoms because of not only the disease, but the treatments involved, I often thought about how much more difficult it is for kids, as well as those without the experience or resources that I had available to me. Having a well laid out and documented plan helped me organize and elicit the information I needed to be informed as a stakeholder and project manager. My medical background helped me understand the hows and whys of the treatment, and my experience in medical billing has helped me navigate the world of health insurance for a diagnosis as challenging as this.

Incorporating some of the processes in project management can help not only staff, but patients better organize their treatment and expectations. Even if not certified in project management, the knowledge gained by medical staff members can only help patients work through the complex healthcare system for things like cancer, trauma care, and chronic illness.

 

PMTimes_Nov29_2022

Star-staffing SMEs on Change and Transformation Projects

Smart organizations assure quality results by making sure their change and transformation projects are strategically staffed with star performers. They realize that these projects influence the future for years to come. They are willing to invest the time and effort to make sure the best people are in the right places.

There are many facets to managing change projects, this article addresses project stakeholders, with an emphasis on subject matter experts (SME) and their role.

The Change Project Continuum

All projects that make significant changes to products and processes are change projects. These projects range from ones that improve existing products and processes to those that fundamentally change, transform, the way an organization functions.

The difference between simple change and transformation is like the difference between gradual maturity and the metamorphosis of a caterpillar into a butterfly.

The Stakeholders

“Too often, the people side of change is either not addressed or not addressed adequately.”

Stakeholders are “individuals and organizations whose interests may be affected by the program outcomes, either positively or negatively.” They are sponsor(s), members of the steering committee (“board of directors,”), architect(s), SMEs, functional, product, program and project managers, engineers, technologists, facilitators, BAs, operational staff (current and future), regulators, QA, QC, administrative, and more.

While many factors contribute to the success of change projects, stakeholders are the most critical. These are the people who authorize, pay for, plan, implement, benefit from, and live with the results. All stakeholders must understand their roles and the nature of the change – the reason for it, the desired outcome, the plan to achieve it.

Subject Matter Experts (SME)

This article zeroes in on SME’s and the need to make sure their role is well understood. All stakeholders are important. SMEs are singled out because their role is often misunderstood and understaffed or given to less-than-optimal players.

SMEs help to ensure that deliverables meet the needs of stakeholders. In a transformation or major change project there are multiple SMEs with a variety of specialties. They provide detailed information, fact check, assure compliance with regulations, policies, and standards, and promote best practices. Some provide experiential knowledge of the process being changed and its environment.

SMEs possess knowledge. They are influencers, not decision makers. Decisions are made by senior program leadership using information from SMEs, architects, and others.

Technical SMEs

SMEs may be technical or content experts. The work of technical SMEs is focused on technology, legal, regulatory, financial, policy, procedural compliance, and support matters.

The technical SME role is relatively objective, but there are always interpretations. For example, deciding if a design approach complies with regulations and standards depends on an SME’s interpretation of the regulations, their flexibility, and understanding of the design.

As a project or program manager, choosing the right technical SME (if there is a choice) means finding ones who bring options and recommendations to the table rather than making arbitrary decisions.

Because technical SMEs are often working across multiple projects and may have other, operational, responsibilities, make sure their availability is adequate and that you are building SME response time estimates and realistic delays into your schedule.

 

Advertisement
[widget id=”custom_html-68″]

 

Content SMEs

The content SME role is far more subjective. The content SMEs’ role is to provide knowledge of the program’s current and target settings. Working with content experts, business analysts document procedures, operational history, etc. Designers and architects rely on practical feedback regarding the feasibility and potential impact of design elements.

Knowledge

SMEs provide knowledge. There are two types of knowledge, explicit (documented) and tacit (undocumented). Explicit knowledge is easy to acquire. Though it often does not reflect reality.

To obtain tacit knowledge engage subject matter experts to get the pulse of the organization, its nuances, and its staff. As a project manager beware of subject matter experts who:
• think their perception of reality is reality
• have outdated knowledge
• lack a process understanding that considers multiple perspectives
• do not realize that they represent current, and possibly, future stakeholders
• are overburdened with operational work to dedicate adequate time and attention
• do not realize the importance of their role
• Think they are in charge (though there are exceptions).

As an example, some SMEs who are in oversight positions, such as review board members “may sit in judgment … and expect their knowledge to influence content decisions. Their input may be a distraction to the process if they insist on making their influence felt on decisions that the design team and other SMEs are in a better position to make.”

Objectivity

When it comes to getting knowledge that will be used to make decisions, the goal is objectivity. Though there are always personal and organizational biases. Expect subjectivity and work to integrate it into a full decision package.

For example, a very knowledgeable SME who has been part of an organization for decades may be biased towards retaining the status quo, even though the project goal is to radically change it. An SME may not understand the power of technologies such as artificial intelligence and robotics and dismiss ideas from technical SMEs, designers, and architects. Another SME might be forward looking in terms of applying technology to transform a process, but fails to address the impact on staffing and customer relations.

To promote objectivity make sure the SMEs and other stakeholders understand the need for it, and are willing to take the time and effort to elicit knowledge from stakeholders with multiple perspectives.

Star-staffing

Organizational change and transformation programs are investments in the future. They set the stage for years of operation and evolution.

Don’t scrimp on SME staffing. Put “stars” on the project. Be ready to give up key operations and management people to staff the project with SMEs who have the mindset and availability to be effective partners in the change process.

This requires dialogue among program leadership, functional and operational managers, and communication across all stakeholders to ensure that everyone is aware of the need for open-minded objectivity, their role, and how it impacts success.

 

PMTimes_Nov16_2022

Lean and Project Sustainability

On July 18th, 2008, SPIEGEL quoted the Dutch architect Rem Koolhaas on how sustainability is seen and understood by various people. Rem Koolhaas allegedly said that “sustainability is such a political category that it’s getting more and more difficult to think about it in a serious way”. The issue raised by Rem is that sustainability is a complex concept, difficult to think about. It is therefore difficult to implement and control a concept that doesn’t come out clearly in our minds.

The former German Chancellor Angela Merkel, quoted by the financial times on March 28th, 2009, commented on sustainability from the lean management viewpoint and opined that the 2007-2009 Great Recession “did not come about because we issued too little money but because we created economic growth with too much money, and it was not sustainable growth.”

The issue raised by Merkel is that monetary and related instruments leave out key lean principles, especially on eliminating waste, namely (i) identifying and specifying value from the customer’s perspective, (ii) mapping the value stream, (iii)creating continuous flow, and (iv) establishing pull system. Eliminating waste is a major aspect of quality management. With the USA’s Great Recession case at hand, this article discusses lean as a tool for sustainability.

 

Eliminating waste to maximize sustainability

Generally, there are two types of work: value-adding and non-value-adding work. The non-value-adding work is also known as waste. A major aspect of sustainability thinking is the efficient and effective management of resources. In lean management, there are 7 categories of waste that need to be considered for sustainability’s sake.

They include (i) overproduction, (ii) over processing, (iii) waiting, (iv) transport, (v) inventory or stock, (vi) motion and (vii) defects.

Sustainability-oriented project teams will strive to eliminate these wastes to make sure project results “meet the needs of the current generation without compromising the ability of future generations”. By eliminating the above-listed wastes, project teams increase the chances for project results to survive the closure phase.

 

Voice of the customer (VOC) as the foundation for sustainability

The Brundtland Commission report underscores three dimensions of sustainability namely environment, society, and economy. The social dimension of sustainability requires that beneficiaries of any given intervention are heard and participate in the decision-making process. It is this participation in the decision-making that guarantees the ownership of beneficiaries. Not only the lack of this ownership does shorten the lifecycle of the project results but also erodes the capacity of beneficiaries for resilience and adaptation.  Needless to mention that resilience and adaptation are key features of a sustainable intervention.

Applied to project management, the lean methodology uses VOC to collect information on how customers or stakeholders feel about the project and their expectations.  For instance, customers interviews, live chat, focus group discussions, emails, social media, feedback forms or even special events such as customer dinner or brown-bag lunch are organized to collect data on how customers, at their respective chain levels, feel about the business, the products and understand their preferences.

 

Advertisement
[widget id=”custom_html-68″]

 

Mistake-proofing the sustainability-related processes

Mistake-proofing, also known as poka-yoke, is a declaration of systematic war against errors to make it impossible for an error to happen or if it occurs it doesn’t reach customers. The majority of poka-yoke in manufacturing use automatic devices or other technological tactics to filter out errors.

It is advisable that, in all industries, whenever possible, the project team and other stakeholders use poka-yoke to prevent the occurrence of errors throughout the project life cycle. For instance, during the formulation or reviews of the projects, checklists can be automated using drop-down lists with links to critical features of sustainability.

If certain sustainability requirements are not met, the next step will be put on hold until everything is right. Advanced technologies will also include digital documents and pictures (both baseline and targets). The use of GIS and GPS in mistake-proofing helps to prevent environment-related mistakes. Simply put, there are many ways project sustainability can be assured using the poka-yoke technique.

 

Two Muda that threaten sustainability: the USA great recession case

 What if chancellor Merkel’s complaint was about overproduction or over processing?  From her argument, we learn that the traditional belief that monetary policies and related instruments designed and implemented by central banks and other monetary institutions are not necessarily demand-driven. When Chancellor Merkel argued that “too much money” was supplied in the market, she warns us against the Muda of overproduction of money that doesn’t match with sustainable growth.

Assuming that Merkel was right, it is logical to warn against a new Muda of overproduction probably worse than the 2007-2009 great recession, as it would be exacerbated by the solution brought by the federal reserve. In fact, as a response to the crisis, the Federal Reserve, along with massive government spending, reduced the interest rate to zero and bought financial assets to add more money into the economy.

From another analytical angle and in line with Merkel’s opinion, since the federal reserve injected much money into the economy, it can be inferred that a second Muda of over processing is ongoing. For complex processes, unless mistake-proofing is used, over processing can only be known when products are out and customers don’t take them.

 

Conclusion

With scarce resources and increasing demand by the current generation, it is urgent to think about how to assure the quality and quantity of what the current generation will leave for the future one.

This said, we need to first figure out what will be the needs of future generations and then, as advised by the Lean Methodology, establish a pull system to serve those needs. The above-discussed great recession would not have happened if there were a poka-yoke to prevent it. The fundamental question is why the Federal Reserve didn’t think of mistake-proofing in the financial system to prevent the crisis.

Is it because this kind of poka-yoke is impossible? Is it because, as Rem tries to convince us, sustainability is just a fashionable political category?

PMTimes_Aug9_2022

Exceeding Expectations is a Quality Killer

Do you remember a time when you were hungry, and once your favorite food was brought, you couldn’t help but consume only part of it? Why didn’t you eat it all, given it is your favorite food? The answer is very easy. As you eat, hunger starts to disappear and immediate interest in the favorite food starts to reduce until it disappears. At the time you feel satisfied with already eaten food, swallowing an extra unit will be harmful. How would you feel if a friend of yours insist that you should eat that extra quantity of that delicious food?

The project management profession is full of similar stories. In the project management profession, stakeholder engagement is paramount to the project’s success. The purpose of fully engaging stakeholders is to ensure their satisfaction.

Why do stakeholders’ expectations matter?

Project management is one of the few jobs that are likely to suffer less from robotization. This is because the project management job involves interacting with people to understand their needs to serve them better. The business case at the origin of a project ensures the business bottom line is at the service of key stakeholders essentially customers, end-users, suppliers, and the sponsor. Consistency in project management consists of regularly testing the correspondence between the business case and stakeholders’ expectations. This test helps ensure that the project implementation serves the needs and wants of stakeholders since a project, regardless of the industry, should be pro-people. By trying to develop a new product, service, or result, a project exists to serve the needs or expectations of key stakeholders mainly customers and end users.

Benefits realization: the total utility for stakeholders

As rightly put in the previous section, a project exists to serve the needs of key stakeholders. Customers and end-users invest their capital into a project expecting that the ultimate result will make them better off or happier. When a project manager or a project team member strives to meet stakeholders’ expectations, she/he assumes that by doing so the beneficiary stakeholders will get more enjoyment or happiness from the project results. Microeconomics teaches us that this satisfaction, or happiness felt by the consumer, or the stakeholder in the project management language, is also known as utility in the disciple of Economics. Utility function has been largely studied by microeconomics scholars and they postulate that the consumer will seek to maximize the utility derived from consumer goods and services.  If project team members stop here, they will spare no effort to find how they can exceed customers’ expectations. However, Microeconomics arrived at a conclusion that for a single good or service (project result in this case), consumers maximize the enjoyment or total utility when marginal utility becomes zero, as its curve reaches the flexion angle. At this point, the total utility starts to decline, and the extra unit of goods consumed starts harming the consumer as illustrated in the following graph. Remember the old saying that “too much is always bad”.

 

PMTimes_Aug10_2022

 

Advertisement
[widget id=”custom_html-68″]

 

Navigating the project complexity to meet stakeholders’ expectations

In light of the above discussions, the work entrusted to the project manager is not straightforward. It is full of changing individual and organizational behaviors, a dynamic system behavior resulting from connectedness and interdependency of project elements that interact to bring about change as well as ambiguity stemming from unclear cause-and-effect relationships, emergent issues, and situations that can be interpreted differently.

Stakeholders’ expectations are embedded in individual and organizational behaviors, which, as mentioned above, are changing. The changing nature of stakeholders’ expectations makes it difficult to identify them. Targeting to exceed stakeholders’ expectations will bring more complexity as, to be safer, it would be built on assumptions of increasing marginal utility which is a very rare situation. Proponents of the postulate of exceeding stakeholders’ expectations base their view on the assumption that the expectations in question are less than the maximum total utility or benefit that can be obtained from the project.  However, this is not always true, given that history is full of examples of overambitious stakeholders. In addition, this assumption of a sober and realistic stakeholder tends to forget other aspects that make project management complex namely the limited resources, emerging issues, stakeholders’ changing behavior, and most importantly the diminishing marginal utility of most of the project results as well as their opportunity cost.

To solve this problem, the adaptive approach in project management proposes to regularly check stakeholders’ expectations and adjust targets to a desired, justifiable, and affordable level. By adjusting project targets, the project team will hence deliver to newly identified stakeholders’ expectations rather than exceeding them. The adaptive approach will embrace the continuous improvement practice in which the regular assessment of stakeholders’ expectations will be the mandatory entry point.

Ethics and exceeding stakeholders’ expectations

In most situations, the project team members work as agents on behalf of the sponsor who is the principal. They receive the project implementation mandate from the sponsor or the customer. The project team is selected based on its skills, experience, exposure, and network, assumably required for successful project implementation. As they carry out their duties, team members obtain specific information on the project. Ethics requires the project team to share specific information with relevant stakeholders to ensure informed decision-making. Before delivering beyond expectations, a team member that behaves ethically will check with the concerned stakeholders if doing so will be beneficial for them. If the stakeholder confirms his interest, then the project team will be delivering on revised stakeholders’ expectations rather than beyond expectations.

If on the contrary, the project team goes ahead and delivers the unilaterally revised targets without confirmation from concerned stakeholders, this will sound unethical because one would ask why hiding good things, and the moral hazard can easily slip in this behavior.

Conclusion

As a continuous improvement practice, it is recommended to regularly check stakeholders’ expectations to deliver just on it. It goes without recalling that “too much is always bad”.

PMTimes_Aug2_2022

When is a Decision Final?

This article addresses the question, when can a decision no longer be changed?

Everything we do results from a conscious or unconscious decision. When it comes to anything important, it is better to make firm conscious decisions.

In projects, changing decisions about objectives, requirements, designs, staffing, and vendor selection is disruptive and costly. Not changing them may also be disruptive and costly.

 

When is a Decision Final?

A decision is final when it can no longer be changed. It can no longer be changed when the decision has been completely implemented or when authority, rules, and regulations say the decision cannot be changed.

We can’t revoke a decision to build a house once the house is built. It is physically impossible (in the absence of time travel) to go back and not build it. While it is physically possible to change a decision that has been deemed final by authority, there are political ramifications.

 

Models, Beliefs, and Relationships

Models and beliefs about sticking to decisions influence the decision-making process. Relationships among stakeholders are affected. Some expect that once a decision has been made the decision-making ends. They believe that going back to reassess a decision is a sign of poor decision making – being sloppy, wishy-washy or indecisive.

Consider the relationship between executives, clients, requirements analysts, and implementers.

  • Clients and executives love decisiveness and hate ‘analysis paralysis’ – they want to ‘get on with the work’
  • Clients often change their minds
  • Requirements analysts are charged with avoiding the need for changes and communicating changes to the implementers
  • Implementers are often ‘annoyed’ by the changes, thinking that the clients are indecisive and oblivious of the impact of their changes and the analysts are not doing a good enough job when eliciting requirements
  • Analysts feel that they are not given sufficient time and do not have sufficient access to decision makers.

We value both firm decisions and the flexibility to change them.

 

Expect Change

Change is inevitable. Consider a conscious decision-making process:

“1) Define values, goals, objectives and specifications underlying the issue or question

2) Define the decision making and target environments

3) Agree upon decision criteria

4) Identify solution options

5) Analyze and compare solution options vis-à-vis the decision criteria

6) Decide

7) Implement the decision

8) Monitor and adjust

9) Reflect on the process for lessons learned.”[1]

We see that step seven, Implement the decision, is not the finish line. We acknowledge the need for adjusting decisions whenever conditions change.

 

Advertisement
[widget id=”custom_html-68″]

 

Decision Making and Change Management

This question of when a decision is final links decision making and project change management.

The heart of change management is deciding whether to change previously made decisions.

A change management process decides whether to allow change to earlier, frozen, decisions. Changes are costly. Changing a requirements or design decision before it is implemented costs far less than changing it afterwards. Changing a decision that has been baked into a contract can require legal proceedings. Changing a screen design in a website less costly than changing the design of a physical product, like a bridge or building once construction is started.

 

A Middle Way

Enable and minimize change.

We want to be flexible, open to changing our minds, and we want to avoid wasting time and effort caused by having to unnecessarily revisit decisions.

Let’s look at a case. A design team decided on the use of a certain type of handheld device. Based on that decision a procurement process was started. A couple of weeks into the procurement process for the devices, the design team changed its mind. They decided that a handheld device would not work. They changed the design to use work stations instead. This wasted the time and effort of the procurement team and the vendors they reached out to for bids.

Was the change warranted? Yes, it was recognized that use of handheld devices made operational costs excessive.

Could the design change have been avoided? Maybe. If the team avoided unnecessary changes by spending more time and effective effort to better understand the decision factors – objectives, work environment, criteria – using checklists, and making sure people speak up with ideas, comments and criticisms.

 

Causes

In this case, the design team became aware that they had not consider the operational issue of the loss, damage, and ‘shrinkage’ of the devices when a member spoke up to bring the operational issue to light.

Why hadn’t he/she/they spoken up earlier? Maybe the idea just dawned, or out of fear to speak up during the design sessions. Either way, it was a good thing the issue was raised and that the design team and leadership accepted the change, even though it disrupted schedules and wasted effort. The up front loss was miniscule compared to the expenses saved.

Imagine if design team leadership didn’t support the change, saying that it was too late or too politically dangerous to question the earlier decision. Not only would there have been an inferior outcome, but some members of the design team would also be demotivated, thinking that their leadership was unprofessional and cowardly.

If this kind of thing happened frequently it would be a sign that the design team’s process needed some improvement.

 

Action

Adapt an approach that dynamically balances enabling and avoiding changes.

Any project decision can be changed until the decision has been completely implemented. Minds change when information regarding decision factors change. While you may never be perfect, make sure your decision-making process addresses all the factors that influence the decision. Take the time to get it as right as possible the first time.

Consider how often stakeholders change their mind after having decided, and how many decisions end up being poor ones.

Do you need to devote more time and focused effort to the decision process? Do you need more formal facilitation, brainstorming, checklists, and input from experts regarding objectives, decision criteria, environmental considerations, and options?

[1] https://www.projecttimes.com/articles/the-power-of-decision-criteria/