Don’t Screw This Up: Consistency
A solid implementation of project management must have the attribute of consistency. Without it, how can
Old Faithful 1856 - by speedphotos via Flickr
sponsors make good judgments about what projects to take on? How could you possibly seek to improve?
Random Project Management
This is what I did when I first starting managing projects. I didn’t know I was managing a “project” per se, just that something needed to get done. I wasn’t systematic about my approach, and so I did this for years without really making significant progress in my ability to deliver projects well.
It would have been impossible for me to do “good” project planning, because I was all over the place and shooting from the hip on every prior project.
Systems Enable Consistency
When I found out about formal project management as a discipline, I learned to apply systems to my project work. This enabled me to learn from past successes and failures, analyze performance, and project performance into the future with some degree of accuracy. As time went on, that accuracy became greater. My ability to repeat success became greater.
Theory Enables Consistency
If you have no over-arching theory behind the way you manage projects, then it’s difficult to determine exactly how to make things better. You can’t be proactive, only reactive.
“Rational behavior requires theory. Reactive behavior requires only reflex action. “ W. Edwards Deming
Being in a reactive mode is not conducive to consistency. It means whenever something changes, you have no basis from which to respond in a rational manner. Good systems enable you to predict potential outcomes (risk management) before they happen most of the time.
Nov 12th, 2009 at 2:36 pm
Nice post Josh.
Are you equating ‘over-arching theory’ with a particular methodology, or more generic steps (ie: Deming’s PDCA?)
Reply
Josh Nankivel Reply:
November 12th, 2009 at 2:41 pm
No particular methodology. PDCA is of course the basis for many methodologies today, but I’m not discounting other theories.
The primary point I’m making here is that a theory/methodology of some sort is a requirement…even if it’s your own home-grown thing. As long as it has a self-consistent, reasonable theoretical basis and is systematic in nature, it can be put to empirical test in the real world to see if it will deliver on the consistency attribute or not.
Of course a bad theory or methodology could lead to consistently bad results too!
Reply
Nov 17th, 2009 at 1:56 am
Interesting comments about consistency in project management. In my personal experience, I have found that behavioral consistency is perhaps the most important. People need to know what to expect from you as a PM, and perhaps more importantly from their team mates. Having clear roles and responsibilities, shared goals, and a strong sense of community make a huge difference. Consistent behavior, where everyone knows what they can expect from each other is absolutely critical. Just today in fact, I spent almost 2 hours settling an argument between a PM and the engineering lead because they had inadvertently surprised each other and made decisions that negatively impacted the project, the strategy and our roadmap. It turned out the engineering lead had made commitments without keeping the PM in the loop. This was not done maliciously – just an oversight, and perhaps more aptly … over-enthusiasm. But, this led to engineers spending time prototyping a solution for a problem that was not well articulated, and working outside the roadmap the PM had created. It turned out that this was not needed at all and we had wasted a few weeks doing something totally unnecessary. It could have been avoided if the engineering lead had followed basic protocol and kept the PM in the loop on upcoming/changing requirements. This is the behavioral consistency that is needed in a team. If people experience inconsistent behavior, it erodes trust and that is sure to destroy team dynamics. And, we all know how critical strong teams are to business results and delivering projects on time!
Reply
Josh Nankivel Reply:
November 17th, 2009 at 3:33 pm
Ah, this is a great point! I’ve seen this where schizophrenic behavior from the organization or sponsor leaks down to the PM and then we have the “flavor of the week” scenario going on. That just doesn’t work out. The team needs to be able to know what is going to be expected of them tomorrow, next week, and next month.
@Mala, what can a project manager do specifically to get consistent behavior from their team and deliver successful projects consistently?
Reply
Mala Devlin Reply:
November 18th, 2009 at 2:09 am
Good question Josh.
We often don’t have the luxury of working in a team that we get to choose or even have a voice in choosing. So, it is really important for the PM to assess team dynamics and understand what makes the team tick: why is this project important to them, what do they perceive their role to be, how do they interact with each other and with you. In the first few weeks, the PM must play the role of a ‘team coach’, build trust and create a positive, high energy culture. The techniques for doing this can be as simple as having one on one meetings with the key members, group meetings that go beyond the mechanics of tracking projects to actually building relations…. ex. follow up with a lunch. These social interactions make a huge difference when the team members need to react to a stressful situation – which is going to arise in any project. The ‘issue’ gets resolved faster when there is trust and the ‘issue’ will spiral out of control in a low trust environment. And lastly, I would suggest the PM to also ask some ‘off the wall’ questions at program meetings ‘How would you guys rate the team effectiveness in this project’, ‘Are we all working on the right things, is there something new that has crept in that I need to be aware of’, ‘What can be improved’. These open questions will definitely yield a wealth of data around project health – and the PM can then figure out a course of action proactively.
Can anyone else think of more ways in which the PM can encourage strong team dynamics?
Reply