by Josh
First and foremost, all projects must deliver value to their stakeholders, especially their key stakeholders.
value by Material Boy via Flickr
Why else would we be doing the project in the first place? Sometimes value is easy to measure, and other times it can be more qualitative in nature.
I’ve seen different definitions of value, and to me it’s a ratio of the benefits produced by an action and the total cost involved. Benefits and cost certainly include monetary measures, and they also include everything else that has an impact on stakeholders. Morale, risk, sustainability, general well-being, etc. are also a part of the equation.
Value from what perspective?
It’s also an equation that is different for every stakeholder. This is one reason why it’s so important to identify the key stakeholder(s) up front and understand explicitly what their goals are. Something that creates value for one stakeholder may take some value away from another. You can’t please everyone all the time. It’s a balancing act, and in that mix the key stakeholders get priority when there are competing interests. In the end, it’s that key stakeholder or group of key stakeholders who you need to deliver value to.
Delivering to what requirements?
In some circles, fullfilling the requirements and delivering the project on time and on budget are the only factors of success. If you delivered what you committed to (in a contract or otherwise) you’re golden.
I disagree.
Poor requirements elicitation and/or not involving the key stakeholders during the project can easily result in a product delivered to specifications and within time/budget constraints, and yet the product is not valuable to the key stakeholders. When this happens, it’s the project manager’s fault.
Systems in delivering value
I’ve seen individual managers who didn’t think of themselves as project managers, had no formal methodology, and delivered value. Perhaps they could have done even better with some guiding theory to approach the work with. I can tell you the number of people who can deliver projects well without a system is small. The more complexity you introduce, the harder it becomes to deliver value.
I’m sure (I hope) this will generate a lot of discussion, so please leave your thoughts on this attribute of project management in a comment!
Don't Screw This Up
18 Comments
Todd Williams November 11 2009 13:49 pm
I think Josh is right. The PM, contractor or not, has the responsibility to highlight issues with the value and other "given" constraints like the methodology and the technology. If you get criticism on trying to enhance your contract, remind people this is why they hired you, to bring your expertise to the project. If your superiors agree with your assessment then let the nay sayers complain to management. They will not get too far calling your advice self-serving if the boss agrees with you. We (consultants) are not here simply to do as told.
Cheers, Todd
Glen B. Alleman November 11 2009 10:25 am
Josh,
The AIA concept, while applicable to some forms of construction and mirrored on many other domains. The conceptual development process has been embedded in the DoD 5000.02 procurement process for decades. It's called Milestone A.
https://acc.dau.mil/IFC/index.htm
is the overall process. The concept development and refinement process between CD and MS-A.
We work similar programs for DOE where this is call CD0 where the mission need is defined. The conceptual planning lands on CD1. Our current CO2 sequestration program is in BP1/CD1.
http://www.srs.gov/general/EFCOG/05ProjectReferences/LMSandia/SandiaProcessDescription.pdf
provides some background on how DOE sees these "phases."
The term FEL (front end loading) pervades every conversation with our sub recipients on the DOE programs we work. Keeping cost control down during FEL discussions is a problem for many power plant and alternative fuels (algae fuel is our current engagement). It becomes a dumping group for all the under utilized engineering services. So there is a flip side to every good idea.
Josh Nankivel November 11 2009 07:40 am
Excellent info Dr. Paul!
I know what you mean. Having been on federal contracts, it can be difficult to put my suggestion into place. A recent decision was made by my customer and enforced via contract that went against my key stakeholders' interests. I fully supported an effort by the chief engineer and the rest of my team to conduct a review with the customer, even though many of my key stakeholders did not support it. We were able to garner enough support from the primary key stakeholders to make it happen, and it resulted in a better plan that meets everyone's needs much better.
Who knows, I wouldn't doubt a few individuals wanted me fired because of this. To me, that's one role of a project manager though, to put ourselves on the line for the greater good. My team and I had to play the politics right and get support from the right people to make it happen.
Trevor K. Nelson November 12 2009 15:53 pm
Paul,
How, or does, competitive bidding factor into a project where the contractor is brought in at the conceptualization phase?
The phases after that I can see, but not that early. Having worked in an architecture studio for several years, I never brought contractors in until our designs and concepts were at least roughed out.
Glen B. AllemanNovember 12, 2009 4:02 pm
Trevor,
this is likely context sensitive. DOE is one of the largest constructors in the US – many billions / year.
http://www.srs.gov/general/EFCOG/05ProjectReferences/LMSandia/SandiaProcessDescription.pdf
describes how these project are managed
The concept of an IPT (Integrated Project Team) is called out in DOE O 413 series guidance. On day one the IPT’s are sitting at the same table as DOE. The large E&C firms follow much of this guidance.
I’m sure on the other end with the local contractor (I have experience with some waster water builders) the processes are much more loose. At the same time the regionals (Shaw, Kitchel and others) are “buttoned up” firms building hospitals, shopping center (big malls) and the like. I know many PM’s through our PMI chapter. They behave much like government contractors – on time, on budget.
There’s just too many varieties of domain and context to speak in general terms like we hear hear.
Leave A Comment
Posting your comment...
Dr. Paul D. GiammalvoNovember 11, 2009 7:07 am
Josh, while I share your sentiments, I think you put too much of a burden on many project managers, ESPECIALLY those coming from the ranks of contractors.
For us, the contract is our project charter, and often, we have little or no control over what was designed, specified or otherwise was defined by the contract documents.
And often when we do make suggestions, contractors are accused of using change orders to enrich themselves.
So what is the solution? In 2007, the American Institute of Architects came up with what they term Integrated Project Delivery Guide http://www.aia.org/contractdocs/index.htm
In this document, the AIA advocated not only including government agencies, owners, designers, design consultants, general contractors and sub or trade contractors on as part of the integrated project team, but brining them on board during the conceptualization and preliminary design phases of the project.
In the oil, gas and mining sectors, we have long referred to this as “Front End Loading” (FEL). Yet even though this concept has been around for 30 or more years, rarely have I seen it implemented the way it could or should be.
For our IT, Telecommunications and government readers, perhaps it would be worth downloading the AIA IPD Guide (Free) and seeing if you can adapt or adopt the concepts being advocated?
It may just help your projects become more consistently successful?
BR,
Dr. PDG, Jakarta
http://www.getpmcertified.com