I received this email today. As I prepared a reply, I decided to share it with readers of this weblog. I started answering with the mechanics of delivering projects on a lean basis, but then it occurred to me that one needs to see their role differently to deliver projects with far less waste, higher schedule and cost reliability, and so much safer.

Hi Hal,

Please help me understand:

The CM needs an approach for bringing the interests of the specialists into alignment with the promises to the customer.

Our role in construction projects is either general contractor or construction manager (CM). We plan our projects using master CPM schedules and two-week look-ahead schedules for site activities. Typically we do not self-perform any work. How do you apply the Last Planner™ and the "pull principle" in such an environment?

Bosko

Great question. As CM you are responsible for the completion of your promises to the customer. Sub contracting doesn't shift that responsibility. You are still responsible. But how do you carry out that responsibility?

Normally, a CM hires numerous Subs to perform specialty roles. These Subs interact with each other to produce the finished spaces. Each Sub naturally acts in their own interests seeking to optimize their use of their labor, equipment, and materials. This local optimization of resources leads to an overall reduction in the productivity, risk to schedule performance, and higher costs. The CM needs an approach for bringing the interests of the specialists into alignment with the promises to the customer.

The approach has three steps:

1. Backward schedule just that work that adds value for the client. Produce this reverse phase schedule in conversation with the primary Subs on your project.
2. On a six-week look-ahead basis prepare the work, wherewithal, and the circumstances for completing the work on the reverse phase schedule so that each task can be started and completed without interruption. Continue to review and make-ready the work adding a new week from the schedule each week.
3. Have crew leaders (last planners) have public planning conversations where they promise the completion of only the work that has been prepared (ready). The weekly work plan (WWP) is the sum of the promised tasks. Use the WWP to guide what is done on a daily basis. Also use it to measure how you are performing and to learn from planning failures.

Your aim is to have tasks completed as promised. As CM you have a project manager and site superintendent for the project. Their roles shift from controlling (after-the-fact monitoring) and motivating (carrot and stick) to engaged planning, preparing, and navigating with those people performing the work. The essence of the your work as CM is to see that performers are in a position to be successful with their efforts.

Lean projects require more conversation, more engagement, and more teamwork. Your role is to be the leader that brings all that about.

After OSHA concluded that Linda Moeves', owner of Moeves Plumbing, willful inherent disregard of safe work practices led to the death of 22 year-old Patrick E. Walters when he was buried alive in the cave-in of a trench, OSHA then negotiated away the willful designation, reduced the fine, and set-back safe work practices in the process. The New York Times thankfully has taken up the cause. In the first of three articles in the series When Workers Die, David Barstow reveals the collusion and ineptitude of the federal agency chartered to protect workers from unscrupulous and irresponsible actions of employers. You must read this article and return each day for the following two articles.

The article describes the inspectors' actions to bring about training and safe practices at Moeves Plumbing. I don't understand what training is necessary. The information is readily available and understandable to all in OSHA's Construction Industry Digest. Here's the relevant text from pages 26 and 27:

Each employee in an excavation shall be protected from cave-ins by an adequate protective system except when:

• Excavations are made entirely in stable rock, or excavations are less than 5 feet (1.5 meters) in depth and examination of the ground by a competent person provides no indication of a potential cave-in. 1926.652(a)(1)(i) through (ii)
• Protective systems shall have the capacity to resist, without failure, all loads that are intended or could reasonably be expected to be applied or transmitted to the system. 1926.652(a)(2)

Employees shall be protected from excavated or other materials or equipment that could pose a
hazard by falling or rolling into excavations. Protection shall be provided by placing and
keeping such materials or equipment at least 2 feet (0.6 meters) from the edge of excavations,
or by the use of retaining devices that are sufficient to prevent materials or equipment from
falling or rolling into excavations, or by a combination of both if necessary. 1926.651(j)(2)

Daily inspections of excavations, the adjacent areas, and protective systems shall be made by a competent person for evidence of a situation that could result in possible cave-ins, indications of failure of protective systems, hazardous atmospheres, or other hazardous conditions. An inspection shall be conducted by the competent person prior to the start of work and as needed throughout the shift. Inspections shall also be made after every rainstorm or other hazard increasing occurrence. These inspections are only required when employee exposure can be reasonably anticipated. 1926.651(k)(1)

Where a competent person finds evidence of a situation that could result in a possible cave-in, indications of failure of protective systems, hazardous atmospheres, or other hazardous
conditions, exposed employees shall be removed from the hazardous area until the necessary
precautions have been taken to ensure their safety. 1926.651(k)(2)

A stairway, ladder, ramp, or other safe means of egress shall be located in trench excavations that are 4 feet (1.2 meters) or more in depth so as to require no more than 25 feet (7.6 meters) of lateral travel for employees. 1926.651(c)(2)

Patrick E. Walters did not have to die. Nor do over 1,200 other people who die in construction-related incidents each year. Swift prosecution is the only thing that will have company managers take their responsibilities seriously. OSHA knows that and doesn't do it.

In a page from OSHA's website OSHA Saves Lives they describe an incident just like Patrick Walters. They make no mention of levying fines.

"Get out of that trench," OSHA Inspector Robert Dickinson ordered a worker in an unshored, unsloped, unsafe trench by the side of the road near El Paso, Texas. Good thing El Paso Assistant Area Director Mario Solano had spotted the trench earlier on September 13, 2001 and sent Dickinson and Elias Casillas to check it out. Because 30 seconds after the employee left the trench, the wall near where he had been standing collapsed. Heeding the compliance officer's warning and order to leave the trench kept the worker from experiencing a serious, perhaps life-threatening injury.

It read's like OSHA believes it's own PR. OSHA inspectors are not there to prevent an injury. They are there to see that systems and practices are in place for preventing all injuries. Nothing has changed just look at the numbers: 2002 (1,121), 2001 (1,225), 2000 (1,155), 1999 (1,191), 1995-1999 Avg (1,115) (collected from US BLS 2000, US BLS 2001, US BLS 2002).

Please join David Barstow and the New York Times bring about a reform at OSHA. Link to the article. Link to this posting. Write Russell B. Swanson, OSHA's Director of Construction, at bswanson@dol.gov, John L. Henshaw, Assistant Secretary of Labor OSHA, at this form, or Elaine Chao, Secretary of Labor at this form. And write members of congress.

Let me introduce you again to David J. Anderson. David is the author of Agile Management for Software Engineering. He has a companion weblog where he continues to explore the topics in his book. David will be one of our guest authors in next year's Project Leaders' Studio™ Conversation with Authors teleconference series. Have a look and sign-up.

In a recent posting David proposes Good, Fast, Cheap, Pick 3! Common wisdom says there is an iron triangle cornered by good, fast, and cheap. For any project or product you can have two of those elements but not three. That wisdom makes permanent the relationship. By not questioning the wisdom people go about designing products, processes, projects, and services to provide just two.

David's been reading Built to Last, by Jim Collins and Jerry Porass. In this classic management book the authors speak of the phenomena as The Tyranny of the OR. They offer an alternative view, The Genius of the AND. David claims,

Agile software development is all about having it all - good quality through rigorous testing, reviewing, and learning - fast speed through face-to-face communication, less bureaucracy and more tacit knowledge - low cost through small teams of empowered generalist developers.

You'll need to read Agile Management to learn how. (David, how about a few follow-up postings?) You can also dig through his previous weblog postings for hints.

Thought you'd enjoy a taste of David Schmaltz's writing. David will be the first author we interview via a teleconference in January. Here David is writing in Winston Brill's Innovative Leader, The Blind Leading the Blind.

David uses John Godfrey Saxe's famous fable "The Blind Men and the Elephant," as metaphor to explore the nature of projects and what we can do to produce success on our teams.

(B)lindness is a continuing feature of work life today. Consider your last project. Didn't it require the enthusiastic contribution of several different specialists, each unavoidably blind to all but his own perspective?

If your project succeeded, did the plan predict the path you ended up following? Chances are you succeeded by figuring out how to blindly lead each other to success, not by following some omniscient leader or predictive plan, but by somehow integrating the disparate perspectives of all of the "blind men."

David offers six steps for dealing with the always-present blindness on project teams.

What You Can Do to See the Elephant

1. Be clear about your own purpose for engaging.
2. Understand your intentions.
3. Extend your trust.
4. Let go of how it's supposed to be.
5. Stop trying to motivate others.
6. Sit in the mess before tidying it up.

Visit his article to read how.

We look forward to kicking off the New Year by having a conversation with David. You're all invited! Get ready by adding The Blind Men and the Elephant, Mastering Project Work to your wish list this holiday season. Better yet, buy two copies from Amazon. You'll get free shipping. You'll have one to give away and one to keep for yourself!

Now, have a look at the announcement, http://leader.halmacomber.com/project_authors.html and follow the instructions you find there to stay informed.

I prepared this top ten list of listening skills with an eye towards developing mastery. Not that I have mastered the skill of listening, but because it is a skill worth mastering. I am sharing it here due to the enthusiasm readers have shown for the topic.

This posting is quite long and I have stripped all but the last two exercises that go with each listening skill. While the source of each skill comes from someone else, I take full responsibility for the collection and the commentary that follows each item. I urge you to practice one skill at a time. Give each one at least two weeks before moving down the list. You are also welcome to share this list freely with your team. They are sure to help you in developing mastery!

We start each studio note with a quote from a leader.

Listen to the voice of David

In the bible, nobody listens to David. There were plenty of gizmos with which to fight Goliath, and David was dismissed as a punk kid with a slingshot. In the end, the kid was right. When I've made a good decision, it's usually because I've listened to the voice of David.

I'm running into stories on listening everywhere. (Just like that Jeep Wrangler I have my eye on. I see one everyday.) I've been studying and coaching listening for 15 years. As I prepared to write these notes, I re-read just under 50 sources on listening. It seems every article on listening has a list of ten steps for more effective listening. Much of it is common from one article to the next. After reading and re-reading, I've compiled my top ten with references to the sources:

Listening Top Ten Countdown

10. Stop talking.
    The Top Ten Tools for Effective Listening, Dr. Philip E. Humbert, Resources for Your Success!

    This is an obvious place to start, yet people routinely speak over each other neither listening to what the other is saying each only intent on being heard. This behavior has as its source an intent to force an outcome. That outcome is to have ones own views prevail. This is selfish and imprudent.

    How many times must we learn that two are smarter than one and three are smarter than two? We all want to be smarter. Stop talking. People who speak over others don't trust that their concerns, wants, or needs will be addressed by the speaker. A key to having others care about your concerns is to start caring about their concerns.

    Stop talking.

9. Put all your energy into listening.
   The Top 10 Listening 101 for Listening 1-on-1, Debra Atkinson, Life's Too Good to Be True

   We live at a time when it is just too easy to multi-task. We can use instant messaging while we are on the phone and using the mute function have a conversation with someone else. This is absurd. There is no chance that listening is occurring…in any of those situations. Putting all ones energy into listening means give it 100% of your attention. Attention is the only zero-sum resource we have. If I give my attention to you, then I don't have attention in that moment for someone or something else. That's just the way it works.

   I find I give the most energy to those tasks I am most excited about. So the million dollar question is, "What is it about listening to a particular person that gets you excited?"

   Maybe listening doesn't take extra energy. Good listeners describe the experience as effortless rather than consuming energy. Some even say that they get energy while listening fully. The short term job for you is this: learn to put all of your energy into listening so that listening becomes effortless.

8. Notice your own filters when listening.
   The Top 10 Variations on an Ineffective Listening Theme, Susan W. Abrams, Coachville's Top Ten

   We really don't have filters. We're all different and we are the same:

   • We have our own concerns.
     Our interests, intentions, and worries are unique.
   • We have our own experiences.
   • We have a rich set of distinctions.
     Our set is different from the set that another person has.
   • We have our commitments.
     Some of those commitments may be pressing.
   • We have a perspective on the world.
   • We have moods. (Or, do moods have us?)
     Moods are circumstantial and pervasive.
   • And we have our blindness.
     There are some things that we will never see.

   These combine for a filtering effect.

   We are able to operate safely in the world thanks to a neuro-biological phenomenon — the reticular activating system (RAS). The system is part of our autonomic system for regulating our body and keeping us safe. The RAS allows us to go about our lives without being preoccupied. And the RAS lets through the filter only what is important.

   It takes self-noticing in the midst of a conversation to counter filtering effects. We do that by offering questions to the speaker for elaboration. I've found that I am most surprised by what people say in answer to a question of elaboration when I think I already understand them.

7. Don't argue mentally.
   Effective Listening, Gregory Wells, Davis and Elkin College

   I agree.
   I don't agree.
   I really don't agree.
   Now that's insane!

   Agreeing and disagreeing are forms of arguing. Argument: to make a case for or against. When we listen for agreement we are not listening. We have some intention for validating our own views, ourself, or the person speaking. It's quite the trap. When we disagree we usually let the speaker know. You're wrong. Rarely are the parties then able to have a productive conversation. The speaker feels criticized. The listener is righteous. This is not a good condition for listening.

   Agreeing can be worse. I think this person is very smart. I'm in full agreement. Agreeing is just another form of not listening. When we agree, we have no reason to ask questions or encourage the person to go on. We agree. Let's get on with it. Agreement is the ultimate form of dismissal. The speaker feels affirmed by your agreement AND you're not listening!

6. Inhibit your impulse to immediately answer questions.
   Tips on Effective Listening, Larry Alan Nadig

   Most of us want to be helpful. Many go overboard setting out to fix whatever is broken for others. Questions are often indicators of something that is of concern for the speaker. A mother asks, "When will you be home?" Answering, "11:00 PM" misses the concern for safety or her own needs. Perhaps she is lonely. The quick answer to the question fails to reveal the concern. Asking, "Mom, why do you ask?" provides the opportunity for Mom to share what she cares about.

5. Adjust to the situation.
   Listening Effectively, John A. Kline

   The situation is never what we anticipate it to be. That's right, NEVER. However, the situation often matches what we anticipate it to be. Why? We don't really see situations as they are. We perceive them based on our filters. And those perceptions are strongly influenced by what we are looking for. (Remember that Jeep Wrangler?)

   Adjusting to a situation requires that we suspend our going-in presumption of the situation. Once suspended we are able to newly perceive it. Then we can choose to attune to the situation as we now perceive it.

   When we encounter something other than expected it can have both positive and negative impacts on our listening. We expect a speaker will be calm, yet when the person speaks it is with full emotion.. Are you ready for that? Listening in the presence of the unexpected takes intention and attention.

4. When in doubt about whether to listen or speak, keep listening.
   Be an Effective Listener!, Dianne Schilling, Women's Media

   Many of us have the habit of jumping in the conversation at the first breath the speaker takes. Worse, some of us just speak over the others who are already speaking. I call this a listening-free zone.

   The key thing I've learned is that the most powerful thing you can do is listen. You don't have to have the last word. You don't have to get credit for anything. I've always led in groups — you know, get people around the table to discuss an issue. But now I hold back what I think. I say to myself, "Not now, not now! Wait, wait!" This new approach has changed my life.

   Debbie Hopkins, Chief Operations and Technology Officer, Citigroup Fortune, Oct 13, 2003

   The emphasis here is on "keep listening." That presumes listening was occurring. If not, then go to one of the other steps. Take actions to keep the speaker talking. Continuing to listen is one action. Use encouraging questions to keep the speaker on a roll.

3. Don't assume you have to do anything but listen.
   A Dozen Ways to Shut Up and Listen, Joe Wynne, Gantthead

   Listening is sometimes all that someone wants from us. They receive it as a gift when they get it. People talk about active listening as a set of actions one takes while listening. For instance, repeating what is said, saying, "Go on." nodding ones head. None of this is important if you give all of your attention to the speaker. The speaker will recognize listening. There's nothing more that you have to do.

2. Work at listening.
   Ten Keys to Effective Listening, Ohio University

   We work on our golf game and our public speaking. Children work on their penmanship and at practicing scales on musical instruments. Skill builds with practice. Feedback is critical to know that practice is working. Make an effort to learn to listen better. As you would do for anything that is important to you, set aside time, be intentional, and assess your performance to adjust your actions in the next round of listening.

   Exercise: Enlist others (a learning partner) in your listening efforts. Share your listening goals. Invite people to observe and comment on your listening. Also ask people to tell you their experience of being listened by you. Assess your progress with the familiar mastery questions:

   1. What am I learning?
   2. What am I good at?
   3. What will I give my attention to?

   Share these assessments with a learning partner to build support.

1. Listen generously with a willingness to be influenced.
   Listen Generously: You Might Even Learn Something, Deborah London Baker, London Baker Group

   To be generous with our listening entails keeping open the possibility that we don't understand what is being said and why. What you might understand as a critical comment could be a veiled request. When you think you understand why someone has the opinion they express they could have 'reasons' that might not even be revealed to the speaker.

   Exercise: Engage the speaker with the question, Why do you say that? Come from a mood of curiosity and speak the question as an invitation to share how the speaker sees the world. Use follow-up questions to learn more about the speaker's views. Reflect on your own assumptions or inferences

Masterful listening is effortless.

Mastery is developed over an extended time. With mastery comes a freedom of action. People who have mastered any skill say they don't think about what they do, they just do. With all there is for leaders to be concerned, becoming masterful at listening will produce a great payback. Practice each skill every day for at least two weeks. Your team (and your family) will thank you for it.

Galford and Seibold have a five-stage model for building personal trust, The Trusted Leader, pp.75-87. I'm not here to endorse it or criticize it. I'll start by sharing it. I reviewed the authors' book at the end of October in my brief posting Take the Trust Test. Since then, I keep making reference to the book. Here's their five stage model for building personal trust:

Stage One: Engaging

They use the metaphor of syzygy (alignment of sun, earth, and moon) to show the beginning step for trust. They claim people must be predisposed to trusting. By engaging with each other you begin to see the world from the other's perspective. As you continue to engage you will discover what the other cares about.
 

Stage Two: Listening

All relationships are based on paying attention to each other. The principal way we do this is through listening. The authors share these four steps for improving listening skills:

1. Be patient
2. Let the other person tell her story in her own words, and respect the way in which the story unfolds, but don't be afraid to clarify what you hear.
3. Try not to use stock phrases to excess.
4. When you're listening to someone, behave like you're listening to them!

Stage Three: Framing

This is the stage where you get to show the other that you've been listening. The authors create drama at this point saying, "(T)his is the moment when you're obliged to let the other person know that you have stood in his shoes…and that you are confident there can and will be a meeting of the minds between his perspective and yours." The authors put framing in a form of getting at the "taproot issue" facing the other person.
 

Stage Four: Envisioning

You create a positive view of the world that the two of you will share. It is a step for exploring and agreeing upon a possible outcome.
 

Stage Five: Committing

"Committing is where you live out the promises you've made or implied at every other stage of building personal trust."
 

The five stages are presented in a context of there's something for the two of us to address. However, the authors claim that these five stages can be used for building ordinary personal trust with a colleague. Looks that way to me, too.

Now for my commentary. I said in yesterday's posting that I like this book. Greg and I use it along with Solomon's and Flores' Building Trust as the basis of work we do on project leadership. That said, I think the authors are missing two elements and not giving enough attention to a third element. First, they miss the issue of competence in establishing trust. I trust you as a project manager because you are competent to perform what it is project managers do. I don't trust an artist as a project manager. Nor do I trust my financial advisor with caring for my children. Competence in a specific domain of action is foundational to building personal trust.

Next, the authors miss that when we trust someone it has two elements to it. There is the part where we assess the other as trust-worthy. Then there is the part where we grant our trust. The first part is rather straight forward. Through interaction we develop opinions of the other's competence, reliability, sincerity, and concern for our concerns. The second part is often all about us rather than the person to be trusted. The act of granting trust is a declaration we make fully knowing that it is only based on our opinion. We make that declaration (or not) trusting in our own capacity for assessing trust-worthiness while putting ourself "at risk" to the consequences of trust misplaced.

The authors emphasize listening as key to establishing trust. I couldn't agree more. Their fourth point is the key. We must behave like we're listening, not as in "acting" but authentically. That means give your full attention to the speaker. It's not easy. Takes loads of practice. And in this time where technology interrupts us and enables multi-tasking, we get far too much practice at not being present. Readers of this weblog know how much emphasis we place on listening. I'll share the top ten list of listening actions we use in the Project Leader Studio with you tomorrow.

Great news! I just got off the phone with Rob Galford. He has agreed to be the sixth author on next year's teleconference series with us. Look for the announcement for the whole program at the end of the week. If you haven't read The Trusted Leader, then now is a great time to do so.

I've been travelling extensively for the last week. Somehow, client work took a priority over blogging. (Imagine that!) I'll fill you in.

Greg Howell and I offer a project leadership program we call the Project Leaders' Studio. This is a program for people who are project managers who want to develop leadership skills. We conduct the program primarily by teleconference. However, during the first part of the program we conduct an in-person 3-day intensive. We just finished an intensive that was quite instructive for Greg and me.

During the intensive we cover a series of topics that we claim collectively represent a shift in the foundation of project management. We start with the issue of uncertainty. While every project manager knows the future is uncertain, most PMs plan for their project as if the plan can be followed. When times get tough, more detail is added to the plan. This only makes the plan more difficult to follow. Our conversation at the intensive centered around the organizations' demand for more detailed planning and an insistence on measuring the PM to a baseline schedule. The PMs concurred producing a detailed schedule helped them manage the project, however in candid moments they lamented being measured on a baseline plan. While Greg and I urge people to improvise with their team, they are officially measured and rewarded on their ability to follow the plan.

We explored many topics: listening, Theory of Constraints, lean principles, DNA of the Toyota Production System, capacity-delay curve, and autonomic control. The most impacting topic was trust. We've explored this topic on many occasions, but none as clear as this one.

Most PMs know their team is only as strong as the trust that exists among the team members. We continually hear PMs say that the team is temporary, therefore there's no good reason or not enough time to invest the long hours in building trust. (We really think that this is a cop out. People don't know how to build trust.) Patrick Lencioni describes trust as the foundation of all functioning teams. As we explored the basis for trust, it looked more like a small investment that would yield a big return.

We have two favorite books on trust. Building Trust in Business, Politics, Relationships, and Life, by Rober C. Solomon and Fernando Flores and The Trusted Leader, by Robert Galford and Anne Seibold Drapeau. From the two books we have created a set of exercises that a PM can follow to develop skills at swiftly establishing trust on a team. Have a look at one of the four sessions on trust from our series: Granting Trust. There are three other studio notes on the subject of trust: cultivating commitment-making, producing trust, and repairing trust.

We learned two lessons during the intensive: first, people only hope that trust develops on their projects, and second, trust is too often the happy accident of an early breakdown in trust. Our conversation during the intensive dwelled on the seeming inaccessibility we have as PMs to the underlying sources of trust. Thankfully, by the end of the conversation the PMs could see practical actions they could take.

Have a look at the notes on Granting Trust. Try the exercises on your project. We think Pat Lencioni hit the nail on the head…the foundation of all high performing teams is trust. There is nothing more important for you to do as a project manager than to build and preserve trust among your team.

I don't do this very often but I have to showcase one man's work and his calling: Better Workplace Now™. Tom Terez has set out to create better workplaces. This doesn't appear to be altruistic. Tom's writing indicates a pragmatism rather than idealism. Tom is a story-teller. He's well-equipped with an MBA and a degree in journalism. But he's not just a story-teller. I get the impression he lives the lessons of his stories.

I came to find Tom by way of Alan Mossman, a friend and colleague from the UK who is working with Greg Howell this week delivering a workshop in Atlanta on implementing a lean approach on your projects. Alan picked up the story from one of his friends, Geof Cox who reprinted the article in New Directions, also in the UK. (I love how small a world it is!) Alan is a regular reader and frequent commentor of this weblog.

What got both of our attention is the story of an elementary school principal in Ohio. I'll let you read the story. It's well-worth your time. Go to Lessons from a Principled Leader. In a sidebar, Tom describes 7 action steps for being present to your situation. I've excerpted them here.

1. Reserve some quiet time for yourself each day. Listen to the inner dialogue.
2. Walk around, observe, ask questions. Be among the people who do the work.
3. Expect to see fascinating things. Then tell stories about what you've seen.
4. Don't dismiss the "small" stuff. What you think isn't important may be very important to someone else.
5. Remember that all organizations, no matter how bad they appear in the moment, have things that are working. A well-framed question or prompt can lead people to acknowledge and honor what currently works.
6. Recognize that even negative people are trying to say something positive. If someone complains about dull meetings, what they're saying is that they want better meetings where they can communicate and engage with colleagues.
7. Strive to live by the 95% Rule: Spend 95% of your time trying to understand and just 5% of your time making judgments.

Tom could have told a story about project managers and used the same 7 action steps. Try them on for a week or two. I bet it makes a big difference in your effectiveness and enjoyment.

There's plenty more at Better Workplace Now™. Have a look and get a bronze key while you are there.

You gotta be asking what is he doing now? Well, I'm participating in an experiment in concurrent blogging. Bloggers all over are writing today on the subject of the "brand". The idea is to see what new is created when we all blog intentionally rather than just top-of-mind. To find other postings search on the prepend to the title [grid::brand]. It will take a day or so for Google to catch up with all the postings, but it should be interesting. Or visit: the grid brand channel.

I've been curious about the traditional airlines' entry into the discount market. For years Southwest, Frontier, ATA, Air Tran, and now Jet Blue have been cherry-picking profitable routes and flying without the expense of large hubs. They've also been able to attract personnel at below the rates at the major airlines. So why does the public like these upstarts? Price is at the top of the list, but that can't account for all of the market. These carriers have staked out a brand. The combination of great pricing and a strong brand make them unbeatable. Or is that the case?

In the last year we've seen the launch of three new services all in competition with the upstarts. It started with Tango. Air Canada is a monopoly for point-to-point travel within Canada. They had been challenged by some entrepreneurial endeavors mimicking what Southwest was doing in the US. Their response was to create a discount brand using the same systems as Air Canada but branding it differently. It's hard to say what their success is. I have tried flying on Tango but the flights are limited. Even with 14 day advance purchase I couldn't get a flight. I went online just yesterday looking for a flight from Toronto to Vancouver and they were all sold out. Is that success? Maybe. But I was disappointed.

Air Canada is not doing much to identify Tango as its own entity. Once I started my flight reservations I was directed to an Air Canada page. Then I couldn't get back to Tango without typing the URL again. People don't know about Tango, and I predict it will stay that way.

Delta has responded to Jet Blue, et al, with Song. Fast Company profiled the Song start-up over the summer. It's a great story of project leadership. Throughout the start-up they put a premium on new ideas. Of course you can't predict when a new idea will obsolete your plan. So the start-up team was quick to adjust their plans on-the-fly. The new airline will be everything that Delta is not. Fun, full-featured cabins, and competitive with Jet Blue. The web experience is consistent. Unlike Tango, when you book a flight with Song you stay on a Song site. Nice. These folks just might have a chance.

Now I get to Ted, as in Uni-Ted. A banner on the United site shows the Ted website as flyted.com. No go. When I clicked on the banner it took me to the United travel planning site. Looks like this new brand of theirs is just another line extension. They don't take to the air 'til February.

Ted appears to be a reincarnation of Shuttle by United, the money-losing service that operated in California. They will operate a budget oriented service for vacationers. This offshoot airline will operate from DIA serving the southwest market. Looks like a Southwest attack to me. Anyone want to bet who'll be the winner: the profitable Phoenix carrier or the offshoot rising from DIA? Even if United does a great job with the project to launch the new airline, it's going head-to-head with a deep-pocket operator who owns the low-priced market. Further, Southwest is THE brand that others emulate. It may not matter how good Ted is. Southwest has the market.

So does this have anything to do with projects and leadership? You bet! Each one of these airline launches is a complicated project. Usual project practices would have people planning these out to the nth degree at the very start. Only Song seems to get the nature of their project. They have set up a process to improvise as they go. That can only help as they get this new brand off the ground. It seems to me that good brands are all about doing one successful project after the other. Let's see if these airlines have it in them.