Breakdown-Tolerance: Is it Time to Act?
September 21st, 2003 by HalArticle Series - Designing Breakdown-Tolerant Project Environments
I left off looking at the question, "Do we make commitments at the last responsible moment or at the most responsible moment?" I looked at the consequences of acting later than the 'last responsible moment' concluding that a breakdown was likely. So the trick is to make it just before the last moment. Which we can never know. What might we pay attention to so that we can anticipate the 'last responsible moment'?
The question is one of prudence. At any moment in the life of the project does delaying a commitment bring advantage to the project? and at what cost? This is known as options. The notion of 'last responsible moment' means we are approaching the point where the gain in waiting is about equal to the cost in waiting. And we can't really know ahead of time what the gains or costs will be. Aargh! Are you as frustrated with this as I am?
Expand the capacity for making the assessment that it is the time to act.
We can pay attention to our collective assessments of risk and opportunity. You're not making public assessments of risks and opportunities? It would seem that if you want to operate to the rule of making commitments at the last responsible moment, then you must make those assessments in public and not just be open to others influencing your assessments but encourage team members to propose more powerful assessments than the ones that you can make.
Let's look at making commitments at the 'most responsible moment'. What optimum is "most responsible" and how would we know it? Perhaps "most responsible moment" is that time when the gain in acting is at its greatest when compared to the remaining gains in waiting. And we can't know. The world is uncertain and unknowable. So what do we do?
Engage in recurrent conversations exploring, "Is it time to act?"
Is it that simple? Yes. Since no one can know for a fact that it is the 'last responsible moment', then the prudent action to take is to expand the capacity for making the assessment that it is the time to act. While I can imagine numerous ways to conduct these conversations, two aspects are paramount. The group must include:
- the people who have been 'in the field' (doing tasks) to provide a grounded basis for assessing, and
- the performers who you anticipate will make the commitments.
The principal skill for the conversations is making assessments. Piece of cake.
Tomorrow, I'll start writing about step two in designing breakdown-tolerant project environments: making commitments with confidence that they can be fulfilled as promised. Since I'm making this all up as I go, PLEASE keep writing and commenting. And please know that just because I haven't incorporated your specific comments doesn't mean you aren't having a big affect on me. My mind is racing into the wee hours!
Related Posts
- Back to Designing Breakdown-Tolerant Project Environments I last wrote about Designing Breakdown-Tolerant Project Environments in a four-part series: [1] [2] [3] [4]. It's not c...
- From Breakdown to Breakthrough There is a community of lean construction leaders in Northern California who get together each month at a dinner meeti...
- Breakdown-Tolerance: Just the Right Number of Commitments In the first part of this series I explored the circumstances for breakdowns and the action to take to minimize the gene...
- Designing Breakdown-Tolerant Project Environments I love the title of this posting. If only I really knew how to do it! So let's see what we can uncover and innovate to...
- No Commitment, No Breakdown, No Problem! Let's start with my definition of a breakdown: An interruption while in the midst of fulfilling ones commitment jeo...
September 22nd, 2003 at 5:32 pm
…mechanism of last resort, after all of our due diligence and higher-level regulators have failed. If we get a lot of breakdowns, we’re probably under-utilizing higher-level regulators. If we get no breakdowns, it’s not necessarily evidence of good higher-level regulators. Classic project management could avoid breakdowns by over-resourcing, bringing the effort in on an inflated time line and budget projection and calling that success. No breakdowns might indicate a trivial undertaking, overly engineered high-level regulators, or luck. Many who achieve no breakdowns consider it evidence of greater intelligence or skill. Could be that, too, I guess, or a better quality prescription drug than I’m using. david
September 24th, 2003 at 12:08 pm
Wow, I am not sure what to conclude for yours and Mr. Schmaltz’s comments. Is it appropriate to assume that the Project team has reached a level of trust that they believe the commitments that have been made? Is it also fair to assume that each member of the Project team understands the Theory of Constraints, Lean Construction, Customer expectations, and scope of work?
I agree with Mr. Schmaltz that if there is enough time and money the Team may conclude that their success was the result of brilliant execution. But for the most part, regardless of the success, Management will conclude it was because of Luck, enough money and a tolerant Customer, i.e. they will not use the Project as a model for a competitive advantage on the next proposal.
But I am deviating. I would like to know each of your opinions about breakdown tolerant vs. the famous 80-20 rule. And then please contrast that against the belief that the Devil is in the Details. The Project Manager cannot be construed, in my opinion, as a pessimist. So how do you promote the concept of breakdown tolerant, making/keeping commitments and still be perceived as an optimistic cheerleader?
Gary Kuhn