Are You in Control?

“Anything that is not managed will deteriorate” — Bob Parsons.

To manage things you must be in control. That’s the idea. This is what’s expected from a Project Manager. Within a given set of boundaries, a Project Manager is obliged to make things happen (the “why” is important, but I’ll leave it out for now). To make things happen s/he has to put the coordinates in place (as defined by the Sponsor / agreed with the Steering Committee), but general/phase/stage/milestone-to-milestone control is where the rubber hits the road.

In generic management, we distinguish four basic functions:

Planning
Organizing
Motivating
Controlling

Plans play an important role in project control — any plan is a baseline for controlling a project, in all its aspects, on a regular basis. Plans are a way to communicate future controlling of a project in the first place.

Organizing allows us to create the grounds for controlling. Motivating and controlling should go hand in hand.

Controlling is king. If we start well, it’s this daily, controlled progress that makes a successful ending. Staying awake, predicting [where possible] and reacting soon — these show a good manager, i.e. one who is in control.

Whenever I look at various approaches to project management, I usually see project life cycles, techniques, standard processes (e.g. planning), but there usually is a particular group of “ongoing” activities that could be defined as “project management” — e.g. managing risk, managing stakeholders, managing plans, managing teams, managing scope etc. Feel free to swap managing with controlling — e.g. controlling risk, controlling stakeholders, controlling plans… If you stop being in control, you no longer manage.

It’s funny how close this is to personal matters. In personal time-management, it is often said that the most important tool is a regular review.

Operations Hate Projects

lech: Very nicely put: “Most people do not resist change. They resist the uncertainty associated with change.”
wallybock: @lech Or they resist having change done TO them.

Operations

… are about the status quo. In general, it’s a false assumption (see process improvement), but in an individual’s mind that’s exactly how it works. “I am in claims handling, I manage claims from 9 to 5, 5 days a week.” “I am in customer support, I do…” “I am in logistics, I do…”

Regularly, repeatedly.

“My specialization requires focus on key activities.” Efficiency is the word of the day.

Repeatable (standardization)
Not temporary
Process

Projects

… are about change. Are [often] about imposed change. Are about dealing with the uncertain in [often|mostly] hostile environments. About managing risk, and stakeholders as if change itself was likely to be changed on the way. About fixing what’s “fix-able” — agreements, charters, initiation documents etc.

“Models are here to protect us. But experience shows, you must have your eyes wide open anyway.” Effectiveness is the word of the day.

Unique
Temporary
Product

Different worlds

Operations and projects are different worlds. Efficiency is about doing things right, effectiveness is about doing the right things (via Peter F. Drucker). But what’s more important, for efficiency to be efficient standardization is key (“I must do my job regularly well”), whereas effectiveness puts pressure on the end result (“I must deliver a result no matter what”).

What happens if you put these two together? If you’ve tried projects in mixed operations-project environments, then you probably know it too well. Projects are a blow to the organization. Let’s face it — operational employees do not like projects. They do not like to be “resourced” as it interferes with their “operating” (not to mention that multitasking is evil). Line manager – project manager conflicts are thus inevitable, and so are escalations, weak sponsors and “passing the buck.”

Can it ever work out?

@zpepe reminded me that environments are not always like that.

When we are a subcontractor working together with IT project representatives of an organization (IT departments are oft-times more project-oriented), when we are working with startups (startups are projects) or relatively small organizations. (Anything else comes to your mind?)

* * *

Is it possible to make projects fit seamlessly into “operational environments?” Or perhaps the dichotomy (operations vs. projects) does more harm than good and we should remove the word “project” from out dictionaries altogether and think “process” — no matter what.

Related:

Will Projects Cease to Exist?

What Is Wealth to You?

“According to Kiyosaki and Lechter, wealth is measured as the number of days the income from your assets will sustain you…”
Source: Wikipedia

“Wealth is the ability to fully experience life” — Henry David Thoreau

What is wealth to you? How much are you able to give up for it? Or is it exactly on the contrary, i.e. is it a by-product of a purposeful life, a life custom-designed for you, by you? In other words, is it a result of not giving up on anything you find important? On finding what’s important for you in the first place and not blindly following modern myths.

Whether I’m sitting in a dingy country pub, listening to locals complaining about “tough live” — where one has to take up any job to survive; or I’m sitting in conference rooms of modern-day corporations — packed with fear, cynicism and falseness, I can’t help thinking that there isn’t much difference. We naturally believe the other side makes ends meet better than we do.

This way of thinking changes when one can step into the shoes of the other.

Ultimately, it depends on us — our understanding of who we are and what our legacy is to be. Our true values shape our best choices. That’s where wealth is.

Dips in structured environments

Structured vs. unstructured environments

I have been recently wondering about the differences between working in structured environments (i.e. working “for someone else”, within an organization) and working on one’s own. I call the first type a “structured environment”, because at a typical workplace the employee is asked to conform to a set of rules –– openly or not. Examples?

Set working hours or ranges
Set working days or ranges
Fixed relations with limited exit barriers
(you have to resolve conflicts or change your job)
Assumed superior-inferior relationships
Set of duties
…

One could say that the above-mentioned examples are a set of boundaries or an imposed structure. Working on one’s own does not free a person from relations nor does it not [entirely] free from working hours (for example). The difference is, however, that one has more freedom to choose without having to exit the situation altogether.

To give you another example — I remember a person from my family (owner of a small business) saying something like: “I have the right to say ‘no’ to a client.” It struck me when I realized that “no” was very often not an option in intra-organization environments. “No” related to one’s duties, that is, “no” as an internal supplier. And as long as a person didn’t want to leave a company once and for all. Relations in structured environments are given and practically speaking — they cannot be broken. In a structured environment there’s very little freedom to say “no, I won’t do it,” “no, I will not work with that person.” This has moved to such extremities, that we base one’s value as a corporate employee on his/hers “peacefulness” or better — “ability to work/coexist with everyone.”

The Energy Cycle

1) Freedom = truth.
If 1) is true then…
2) Imposed rules = lack of freedom = manipulating / lying.

I know, I am seriously simplifying things here. But where am I heading? It’s been said that maintaining a false image, pretending someone else, manipulating or lying require significant energy levels. To put it plainly — they tire us. When forced to act in a structured environment the best we can often do is compromise. Very often, however, the bigger the organization, and the longer we work (more relations), the more “flexible” we have to become. And there is a price we pay.

I’ve observed a cycle which occurs in many (most? all?) corporate lives — a person starts his or her work in a new setting. Full of energy, open and friendly, he or she starts taking on new projects, responsibilities, building relationships. In a way, he or she starts to build open loops.

“Open Loop

Any open commitment, plan, or unfinished business that exists in your life. It is typical today for a busy person to have many hundreds or even thousands of open loops bouncing around throughout their conscious and unconscious thought processes, all vying for attention. Most of the stress people experience (conscious or otherwise) tends to come from inappropriately managed open loops (commitments) they make or accept.”

Source: http://gtdportal.pbworks.com/GTDGlossary

After some time — depending on the person — the smile is no longer there, the attitude is no longer so open. It takes another year or so… A change is desperately needed. This change can happen internally (switching departments, positions) or externally (quitting). That’s when the cycle starts all over again…

What can be done?

Consciousness is the starting point for any improvement… 🙂

“Common sense starts with seeing things as they are.”

Source: @tim_hurson

I believe that what can significantly improve an employee’s live is… change. If one cannot risk the switch from a structured to an unstructured environment, if one hasn’t got that luxury, it would be better to break the standard cycle, to promise a change (e.g. soon after the end of a project’s phase, project’s end).

I call it “cleaning a page” or “emptying the cup.” To make someone full with experience and prevent from overflowing, one has to prepare the ground for it.

In a structured environment — that’s when a leader comes in…

Are you a fan of your work?

Imagine a corporate training where all participants are taking part in a warm-up game. They are to behave in a certain way based on a statement from one of the participants.

At one moment someone says:

“All of you who are fans of your work please switch your seats.”

This is a real-life situation which occurred today. Now, the point is not about the activity itself nor the game as a whole. It’s about what happened when the statement was made. Out of 15 people only 1 person stood up to switch a seat.

Why?

Does this mean that most of us do not like what we do professionally (or in that particular group, for that matter)? Or is it that the grass on our neighbor’s field is usually greener?

Risky Thoughts

A couple of days ago a colleague from our Audit Department approached me during a training and asked me a question regarding risk management:

“Is there any weight added to “high”, “medium” or “low” for the “impact” column (or “probability”, for that matter) in the risk log?”

She mentioned that risk was something she was involved in more — in her present occupation, and she wanted to know, if there was anything quantitative below those values. I pointed her to m_o_r for starters — as an example of a more structured approach.

The simple answer to her question, however, was “no.” Without waiting a second thought, I added:

“I wish risk was identified -> estimated -> mitigation planned in the first place. It ends on theory level in many cases, yet any plan & business case without a [regularly reviewed] risk log to support our prognosis is a huge risk itself.”

When discussing the subject of risk, I often mention that our diligence as project managers most probably will depend on what the deliverable is. If this is a high risk project (e.g. an ascent of a high mountain or reaching the depths of the sea in a submarine) we will not treat the subject of risk light-heartedly.

* * *

On a similar note, but not directly related to risk management and risk logs, it really is better to find a way to add more meaning to the standard “low”, “medium” and “high” or “A”, “B” and “C” — either by adding a legend with more tangible information or, say, switching to “must”, “should” or “could” (but perhaps not in the context of risk).

What’s Your Baseline?

“One of the greatest Polish experts on molecular mechanisms of memory, Prof. Lech Kaczmarek, surprised me once with his original solution: I do not keep notes and I do not have an appointment calendar. Whatever I forget, it could not have been important enough. Indeed, natural forgetting mechanisms may act as a good way to thin out the to-do list; however, this solution probably isn’t suitable for everyone. Its main shortcoming: problems with stress management. Many of you would probably keep worrying than an important appointment, deadline or promise would not be met (with untold consequences).” Source: http://www.supermemo.com/articles/tasklists.htm

Do you believe in planning? Do you have a calendar or a task list? Do you “go digital” or keep it simple with pen and paper? Perhaps the most important question — have you been using any such “system” continuously for more than a year (i.e. does your personal approach actually work)? Plans are nothing more than a prognosis of what can happen. Plans are not straight paths we follow, but they can serve as a baseline to which we compare what’s happening in our lives. Here’s what Scott Berkun wrote on planning in projects:

“Later on, when scheduling became something I was responsible for, I realized the unspoken truth about schedules. They are not gifts from the future. There is no magic formula or science for creating perfect schedules. Despite my youthful perceptions, scheduling is not an isolated task: it always represents and encompasses many different aspects of what the project is now and will be later. Schedules are simply a kind of prediction. No matter how precisely they are drafted or how convincing they appear, they are just a summation of lots of little estimations, each one unavoidably prone to different kinds of unforeseeable oversights and problems.” Source: Making Things Happen by Scott Berkun

Schedules are only predictions, true. But the process of personal planning helps us answer important questions. Questions like the ones below:

Am I in line with my values? Do I keep the end in mind?
Do I maintain a balance between all important aspects of my life?
Am I [only] doing things right or am I doing the right things?

This is why I love to plan.

* * *

The two approaches that seem to be the most popular on the net:

I respect the first one, I use the latter. But what’s more important, with each year I become more aware that planning (the approach) is a very individual thing, i.e. can only be customized to suit one’s needs and should never be blindly re-used.