The guy at the
neighborhood meeting was livid.
“Just do what you
said you were going to do!” he shouted at the developer. His two dozen or so
neighbors all sounded their “Yeah!” They were fed up.
They had bought
their lots and contracted for homes to be built in this planned development
sited on a big vacant field in the city. They were promised features including
a pleasant pond surrounded by their nice little residences.
Development had
gone slowly. Most of the additional homes went up. The muddy track became a
quarter-mile roadway, paved, center circle and all.
Within the circle, though, things remained undone. A big bundle of lumber hung on the edge of a crude, huge, muddy hole. There was a concrete structure in the middle that encased a drainage system that was the practical, original inspiration for the pond idea.
The neighborhood
designer envisioned a rippling pool to be enjoyed by all. Water was always
going to come in from the adjoining neighborhood and collect in the middle. There was a legal mandate to move it on
through, and this was to be a way to make lemonade from that lemon.
At long last, the pile of lumber became
a two-foot wall around the big hole, and a footbridge extended from two sides
to a central roofless gazebo. It was going to be really nice.
But the broad
interior of the space, covered by a black material, remained bare. The only standing water around was the
undrained rainfall that accumulated on the road surface outside the periphery
of the pond.
It was now two years or so on. That is when the
developer came to the neighborhood meeting. He acknowledged that he had made a
mistake. The only part of the wet central area that would not hold water, he
said, was the place where the pond had to go.
And that wasn’t
all. The incoming runoff would not be sufficient, and it would be so
polluted – it came from city streets – that it would have to be purified. So
there would have to be water treatment equipment, and the water district would
have to be paid to pipe in a supplemental supply.
He would get rid
of the failed pond, the man said, but he would not provide the additional water
and he would not finance pollution abatement. He apologized, but the unexpected
additional requirements would have to be financed by the new neighborhood
association . . . if the members wanted to
do that.
The fix he proposed, if the members
should decide against the pond idea, was to install a sloping lawn. No
beautiful pool, but a relatively mundane vista that the association members
could populate with plantings of their choice. An underground drainage line ran through the neighborhood.
He would get rid
of the pond walls, leave the gazebo and bridge and take care of the
reworking of the site. That was it. Not a lovable prospect, but a majority of
the grumpy assemblage voted for the lawn.
With that, most of the homeowners agreed he would not, in the end, be required to provide what he had
promised.
An angry minority wanted to go to court, was
voted down and devoted several years to reminding their neighbors how little
they liked it. Mismanaged projects have a way of producing that kind of result.
This unhappy tale
illustrates an important truth. You can’t anticipate everything that will come
up in a project. Competent project management seeks to identify, analyze and
account for potential problems before the project work starts.
To the greatest
extent possible, you try to unearth what could go wrong and decide what to do
about it and when. It's called risk management, and it is central to project management. If people are involved (when are they not?), human nature
can be an important consideration.
The fix. The formula for readjustment to handle variances. All projects need it; bad projects demand it. The really awful choices erupt
when projects are not well managed, and lingering bitterness can result from
failure to properly manage – beginning at the pre-beginning – the people issues.
Because, you see,
project planning is fictional. Yes, you have to do planning. By all means, you
must do planning. But the plan, at least for any project really worth the name,
will never survive intact at the conclusion of whatever action results from
the original intent.
It’s why you have
project management, instead of fully predetermined, rigidly observed process from beginning to end of a complex enterprise. It’s in the nature of
projects that actual resource investments and results usually don’t match the original
plan. You simply can't account for everything in advance when so much of it is speculative.
Projects
generally combine routine activities – such as building houses and draining
runoff – and untried innovations -- such as turning a swamp into a pleasant
pond without knowing the nature of the underlying terrain.
Sometimes you
pull it off, and sometimes you don’t. People who need excessive assurance
should stay away from projects. I once had a participant in a two-day project
management course express gratitude to me afterwards. The workshop had
convinced him that project management was the last thing he wanted anything to
do with.
In the pond example, the builder could have
provided much greater assurance by having soil and hydrological studies done, and then
investing in whatever it would have taken to avoid the problem. He had neither the patience nor the funds for that.
In project
management, you’re simultaneously juggling, balancing and advancing multiple
activities on a limited budget under time pressure through the efforts of
people who may not all know for sure what they’re doing. The more definite and
detailed the expectations for the eventual outcome, the less likely you are to
fully achieve it.
An alternative
is, of course, to not do it. Then you have full assurance of nothing at all.
No comments:
Post a Comment