The Added Work of Rework
March 15th, 2004 by HalPromises and Prescriptions
Part 2 - The Added Work of Rework, by Frank Patrick
"There's never time to do it right, but there's always time to do it over." The need to re-do something is rooted in one of two possibilities. Either it was not done right the first time, or something has changed to make the original attempt less than fully useful.
Frank does a good job describing how single-point estimates for time-to-complete become memorialized in schedules and then "are translated into commitments". We see this on projects everywhere. Smart experienced people get together early on to create a schedule of tasks, durations, and due dates. The project has not yet started, nor do we know who will perform each task. Add to that the uncertainty of the future. It's no wonder that schedules are no good for authorizing the work on projects. They have no basis in the performers' current reality.
Frank goes on to describe how doing work early increases the likelihood that conditions of satisfaction will change, circumstances around the task will change, and the task will be out of sequence with other work. Want to avoid these risks? Listen on your project for these words, "Let's get a jump on it." It's a leading indicator for possible rework.
Adding a task to a to do list is the precursor to failure.
Frank misses two important aspects of promising regarding schedules. [I did read ahead in his series to see if he wrote about them.] First, in spite of our practices, schedules are never promises for task completions. Only people can make promises. At best, schedules are only suggested requests. I say 'suggested' to acknowledge that as time goes on, project tasks are completed, team members learn, and the customer makes changes. What was memorialized in the schedule might no longer be relevant. Remember this: only the promise spoken by the intended performer has any reliability.
Second, while people are bound to make poor estimates, failing to allocate capacity is equally responsible for the unreliability on our projects. Rephrasing Frank's opening statement,
"There's always time available for doing a task, but there's never time when the task is due."
To do lists get in the way of project reliability. Want to increase reliability? Then have your performers allocate the time they estimate — have them block time out in their calendars. Adding a task to a to do list is the precursor to failure.
Next up, Part 3: Work Your Way Out of Rework.
Related Posts
- Hidden Project Factory The manufacturing world is quite familiar with the term "hidden factory"Armand Feigenbaum introduced the idea that the...
- Update to Web Design Hello folks, I've been tinkering with the design to offer more, yet have it be more readable. People complained they co...
- Project Killer Phrases Listen up! If you hear any of these phrases, then it's time to have a conversation with your project manager or your...
- Work Your Way Out of Rework by ‘Promising at the Last Responsible Moment’ This is a continuation of my comments on Frank Patrick's series on Projects and Promises, Part 3 - Work Your Way Out o...
- Norman Bodek Invents Ninth Waste People can't seem to leave Ohno's Seven Wastes alone. Norman Bodek, godfather of lean, made the latest addition. He ...
March 18th, 2004 at 4:14 am
Hi Gary,
Thanks for engaging your colleague and offering your views to other readers. I didn’t mean what either of you are saying.
The usual ‘to do list’ is just that, a list. There is no way to allocate capacity to the task on the to do list. Some people assign priority to tasks, but still we see high priority tasks not get done when promised or needed.
Instead of a to do list, how about we start using an ‘as promised list’ that is part and parcel of ones calendar. This provides the opportunity to block the time in the calendar. That one step is the single most important action you can take to increase your reliability. And even better…you can have your team members do the same.
Oh, and don’t be shy about examining team members’ allocation of capacity. You get to see it anyway when you approve their timesheets. Why not make sure they are doing what they need to do to be reliable?
And for those of you who think I’m being an untrusting micro manager, you are missing the point. Only half of the tasks promised each week get done as promised. This creates enormous waste on our projects. having your team members estimating and allocating time at the moment they promise will have reliability soaring in no time. Then you can get to work on more value-adding tasks.
March 19th, 2004 at 4:59 am
I think he’s got it. :+:
Adding tasks to ‘to do’ lists is not the same as promising to complete something by a time certain. Placing high priority on a to do list task doesn’t address evaluating wherewithal, estimating time for completion, and allocating a block of capacity to perform the task.
Thankfully, my wife hasn’t caught onto the finer points in this discussion. Otherwise, there’d be no blogging, the apron would be on, and I’d be mumbling something that I dare not put to print.