One of the most startling things about Project Management is
that it demands complete honesty and sensitive diplomacy – both at the same time,
and from the same person: The Project Manager.
This refers, of course, to Project Management properly
executed, not the inexact and ineffective performance we often see around us in
the name of our distinctive art/science.
First, the complete honesty part. What is the most common flaw
of damaged projects? Failure of clear understanding, agreement and
follow-through on the responsibilities of the various stakeholders. This
cripples projects. If they are to succeed, everyone involved must be clear on
what is expected, and on commitments as well as on intended payoffs.
In the prelaunch phase of project planning and organization,
do all the stakeholders invest the effort required to clarify what benefits
they want, and to specify what they intend to do in support of the project?
Does this effort most especially include the senior stakeholders, the
decision-makers of the sponsoring organization? And do they mean it?
In too many projects of my experience, the executives who
control the resources and expectations feel no particular need to clearly and
consistently support the Project Manager, and sometimes even to come through
with the resources and organizational collaboration they originally agreed to.
And the Project
Manager frequently has no way to ensure those start-up promises will be
kept. The culture may typically exhibit erratic management backing for projects.
Sometimes the goal posts are moved without warning and sometimes resources are
arbitrarily reassigned to new priorities.
This unreliability can characterize the participation of
other stakeholders throughout the project structure. People assigned to the
project team usually have other, unrelated duties, and their functional managers
have been known to openly enforce “hometown” needs over those of the project.
Another variant of organizations’ failure to stick with
their Project Managers shows up when facilities, equipment and materials aren’t
made available, on time or at all. And outside vendors and contractors, of course,
have obvious reasons to be distracted and diverted from the project.
All of that is in the context of a complex, risk-ridden integrated process in which any variance can result in significant damage to project
schedule, cost and/or quality.
And who is the one party clearly responsible for meeting
the project requirements? It happens to be the person who is the most dependent
of all – the Project Manager. There may well be good reason why each of the shortfalls
occurred when it did. There may be brief moments of sympathy for the Project
Manager, and occasional fleeting acts of support, but everyone has other
demands to meet.
So, what can make it
all work? The answer is in the complete honesty and sensitive diplomacy of
the Project Manager. Well mixed, and competently employed, the two apparent
opposites result in a professional system for establishing expectations, sharing
responsibility and ensuring performance.
The vehicle is “minimum adequate documentation,” recording
the outcomes of comprehensive negotiations that rest upon relationships of
trust. It is driven and maintained by the Project Manager.
The discussions cover all the foundational issues,
expectations, concerns, etc. The basic decisions about the project are known, understood,
agreed upon and recorded. Everybody signs up, and is prepared to join in the
problem-solving and variance management of project execution. They fully commit to stick with it until it's successfully concluded.
Thorough communication and firm commitment build trust
among people who expect their fellow stakeholders to do what they said they
would do, and all of them make the internal arrangements necessary to meet the
requirements they have accepted. The Project Manager documents it all.
The most revealing – and powerful – document in a solid
Project Plan is the Work Package Specification, which details the
responsibilities of each stakeholder. The project sponsor and other senior
executives are as obligated as anyone else. All parties know what is to be done
and when, what it will take, what is the description of “done.”
Nothing is left until later, and there is no wiggle room. Risks
are specified and countermeasures are spelled out. All necessary communication
is part of the specification. The implications of signed documents are fully aired. Performance will be documented.
Exercising that sensitive diplomacy, the
Project Manager initiates and leads the process, coordinating the parceling out of each stakeholder’s share of
the complete honesty. It doesn’t make projects easy, but it outflanks the problems
that can make them impossible.
No comments:
Post a Comment