Securing Reliable Promises on Projects
Back in July 2001 I wrote this paper on promising that I later made available through this weblog. The paper is one of the most-accessed files on the site. Based on some recent inquiries I've updated it.

When I wrote the paper I was attending to a missing skill I observed on project teams implementing the Last Planner System®. People on the jobsite didn't have the habit or the skill of making commitments. I wrote the paper to aid the project manager and the superintendent to get promises where they are needed. Later, I developed a clearer interpretation of planning and control on projects: planning is conversation that both prepares performers for action while dealing with uncertainties and activates the network of commitment. With this interpretation securing reliable promises is more important.

Take another look at the paper. Make copies. Share with your team. And, here's access to Securing Reliable Promises on One Page. Hang it where everyone will see.

In the summer of 2003 three authors presented their thoughts on the nature of the breakdown delivering projects in the construction industry. Lauri Koskela took the lead writing with Glenn Ballard and Greg Howell. The authors analyze the current situation for making change, present the conventional solutions, propose a systemic approach, and outline a four-part approach to change. You can find their paper Achieving Change in Construction along with the other IGLC conference papers introduced on this site.

People throughout the construction industry acknowledge that projects are routinely late, over budget, fail to satisfy the customer in some significant way, create strains on project team members, and injure and kill workers along the way. News of any of these circumstances no longer surprises, nor are we moved to action. The authors characterize the situation with the question, "Do we need a problem-solving approach or systemic change?" After examining the changes underway they conclude:

"The limited impact of structural, behavioral and IT related initiatives to date points to the same limit to change — the current mental model of production."

So the mental model(s?) are to blame. That on one hand seems to be on the mark, but what are the prevailing models and what might we change to?

The prevailing model of construction projects has been well-described as transformation of information and material, a.k.a the input-process-output (IPO) model. Activities are identified in a reductionist fashion breaking down milestones into activities and activities into tasks. Tasks are assigned to tiers of experts individually contracted and left to manage their work by themselves.

And the new mental model(s)? The authors fail to offer proposals saying instead,

"(T)he switch from the transformation model (of production) to the flow model is just one, even if important, part of the paradigm shift needed…new distinct elements of the theoretical foundation have been progressively found…and we anticipate a quest for unification of theory of production and production management."

My friends conclude the dilemma of construction is an issue of the unification of production theory. I do believe they see the limitations of current mental models. However, in this paper they limited their view on what mental models are in question. They may be making a starting-out error by characterizing construction first as production rather than as project. This leaves out of the quest a look at the examination of project management, communication theory, approaches to design and engineering, and education, just to name a few intersecting mental models.

Lauri, Glenn, and Greg suggest there are two complementary approaches for achieving change. The first has to do with producing economic value. They argue that people will adopt an approach that produces higher value. They couple this with a high involvement high learning organizational approach. High involvement will bring about the change. Yet they finish this wonderful paper with,

"(T)he sluggishness of change in construction is due to limited understanding of change needed and resulting confusion regarding means of change."

Can we make the change to new mental models? Certainly our current mental models have tremendous inertia reinforced by computer systems, contracting practices, the organization of the industry, and our education systems. But change we must. I think the authors are right. Change is limited to understanding of the current situation. Read Achieving Change in Construction to learn from three of the best minds on the subject.

A reader suggested I post my list of top 10 rules for a project manager. Upon further consideration, I've decided to make it an expanded Project e-Tip. This one will not be displayed in the customary format. Today is the 730th day of my weblog. That's right, it's the last day of two years of blogging. Woo hoo! I'll go back to the Project e-Tip format next week.

I thought this would be easy. It wasn't. Readers regularly write me for advice on one thing or another. I've noticed a pattern in my responses. But it took me some time to settle on exactly ten "rules". I don't even like the word rules, unless rules are made for breaking. (Don't tell my teenage son that.) So I propose these "rules" in a spirit of collaboration. I'm looking forward to your comments, your proposed alternatives, and a few healthy arguments along the way.

So there you have it. As I wrap-up my second year writing this weblog, I can confidently suggest that the above ten ideas will dramatically improve your projects. Are these ten rules the top ten? You decide. But don't take too long. Share these rules with your team. Your team members are sure to help you carry them out!

Some of my readers will notice that I left out one of the five big ideas: "optimize the project not the pieces". I didn't know what to do with that idea. It seems to me to be the advice to project participants rather than the project manager. What do you think?

Want a copy for printing? (8½ x 14) Ten Rules for Project Managers or this PDF version Ten Rules for Project Managers.

In today's Washington Post John Henshaw Director of OSHA writes, OHSA's Work Defended. He was repsonding to a cover story of August 15 on Making OSHA More Business Friendly. His letter to the editor is off the mark. Here's my response to the editors.

Dear editors,

John L. Henshaw wrote in today's paper that OSHA is doing just fine. Perhaps he hasn't noticed what is going on in the construction industry. As many people die each year now as did in 1992. That is in spite of all the investments made in safety. A few months ago I wrote an Open Letter to John L. Henshaw which I published to my weblog. I invite you to take a look. We can make a big impact in a short time. It seems it's just not Mr. Henshaw's priority. On average 1300 people will be injured today. 3 will die. 1 will be Mexican. This is not the time for complacency, defensive letters, and self congratulations. It's time to address the abominable condition in the construction industry.

Hal Macomber

Please join me in keeping this issue in front of OSHA and our industry.

Making Do: The Eighth Category of Waste, by Lauri Koskela.

I've written about the eighth waste in my posting introducing Two Great Wastes™. A number of people want to update Taiichi Ohno's taxonomy of materiel waste. Lauri Koskela is the most recent. Lauri's eighth waste is the most novel. He claims we incur waste when we fail to use the tools, materials, and processes that are called for. He calls this making do.

Lauri calls making do the opposite of buffering. He distinguishes that as the urge to keep the process going in spite of not having everything ready. When buffering materials are waiting on processing. With making do processing continues without all appropriate wherewithal. Lauri claims,

"Making do is usually applied when there is unexpected unavailability of a (standard) input. Making do is another penalty due to variability."

I really like his formulation. Lauri is getting at something that we all know well. Have you used a screwdriver when another tool was called for? I have. Have you improvised steps for accomplishing a task rather than use the standard called for? I have. Have you substituted one material for another rather than stop to get the right material? I have. I imagine at one time or another we have all taken an expedient action. We were making do with some intention to just get the job done.

Blindness is not making do.

While I wasn't present for his presentation and discussion I heard that some people thought he was stretching it. Here's their argument: how can we be making do when we are working with all we have? And if we are, how would that be a waste? We can think of scenarios where we are in the wilderness, or far from a source of material, or in a country without access to the best resources. Lauri is not speaking about any of this. He's speaking about the situation where we have the time to do planning. We have clear direction about what is preferred. And we have access to sources of materials, tools, skilled labor, and process. It is in these usual project situations that making do is so wasteful.

One problem is people think waste is observable. It is not observable only assessable. What do I mean? We can observe someone is using a screwdriver. We have the opinion that a different tool would get better results. That is our assessment. There is not given waste. Further, if people are blind to other possibilities, then how can we call it waste? Do you open a paint can with a screwdriver? I do. Did you know there is a special tool for opening paint cans? Well, I didn't. One cannot claim I am making do when all I know about is the use of screwdrivers for opening paint cans. Blindness is not making do.

I'm still curious about the underlying contributors to making do. It seems to me that resignation, laziness, expediency, habit or custom, blindness, and deliberate action all contribute to the waste. Local economics and market conditions have a great impact on whether we call an action making do or doing good. When I can hire laborers for a few dollars a day am I making do when I choose not to rent equipment at two or three times the cost? Of course not! Economics matter. There is no universal standard for assessing that one is making do.

I have one last comment about the formulation. Lauri presumes cognitive action. Lauri says that it is our response to the unexpected unavailability of wherewithal that is the waste. Sure, but I think he can go further. In the project setting variability is a function of the performance of the planning system and practices. We can engage in a way that minimizes the unexpected unavailability. Doing so would reduce the urge for expediency. That could lead to a significant reduction in this waste.

Lauri offers a new distinction for engaging with the world that allows people to observe and assess waste. Read Making Do: The Eighth Category of Waste. Share the paper with your team. And begin observing and assessing where you are making do.

Check out other IGLC papers and commentaries.

One of the more provocative lean construction principles is make decisions (commit) at the last responsible moment. Our habit which is reinforced by project software is to go for the early start. That habit inevitably gets us into trouble. One reader proposes a practice that helps you follow the lean construction principle.

The Project Reformer's e-Tip of the Week

033: Contract Only for that which You Understand

This tip derives from a lean principle commit at the last responsible moment. A reader from South Africa sees this as sound advice, but argues it can result in much effort managing expectations. He suggests that we contract (promise) for only that which we understand. By breaking the project into a development phase and a performance phase you can develop an understanding of client wants and needs then make commitments based on that understanding. Here's their two-step contracting process: spend time with the client to understand his problem contract with the client to develop the plan conceptualize the solution develop a project plan (time & budget) contract with the client to implement implement the solution Results: We have far less pain around scope changes We have far less effort to manage expectations. These are clear. First contract: we'll tell you how and why. Second Contract: we'll implement. We have a better relationship with the client - he feels more in control. Projects run shorter. What we have done is buy some time for decent planning. During this time, we also do some testing and piloting. Free work you might suggest. But, it serves us well as we have all the answers when those creative scope change requests hit us on a Monday morning. The Project Leaders' Studio™ This week's Project e-Tip was proposed by Mike O'Callaghan of Engen Petroleum, Ltd.

©2004 Hal Macomber | weblog.halmacomber.com | e-Tip Archive | PDF | Submit Tip

How about an e-Tip proposal for a friend?

I had the opportunity today to observe a group of 20 superintendents and foremen plan the next six weeks of their project. They were working out how they would build the project. This contrasts with the way the project had been planned up to that point. Like most projects, a few smart experienced people work out a sequence of activities that others are to follow. This project, like many others, fell behind schedule and drifted over budget. Also, like many projects, the only thing to do was to ask the project team members what needed to be done.

Why do we think the head is smarter than the body? Why do we wait 'til a project is in trouble before asking the project performers what it is we should be doing?

Today's session was impressive. The superintendents and foremen worked their way through the schedule correcting sequences while identifying the work that can be done and culling that work that can't be done. After 2½ hours these people had a plan that they were committed to. And, unlike having "experts" plan the work, these superintendents and foremen got practice thinking through how they will build. That practice will be invaluable when the future turns out to be different from their expectations.

The Taiichi Ohno 7 wastes of production are a simple and elegant way to focus improvement actions in production process settings. The 7 wastes are taught to teams who use them as a way to observe, assess, and improve process to provide more value. The 7-item taxonomy has been so successful that it is one of the first aspects of lean thinking that is adopted.

Is the taxonomy complete? Many people think not. People have been tinkering with the taxonomy starting with the book Lean Thinking, by Jim Womack and Dan Jones, who proposed the eighth waste to be providing something that the customer doesn't value. Others followed suit making 7 other proposals that I could find. Read the rest of this entry ¶

I think I'll write a book. I've been looking over the best-sellers. The big hits have one thing in common. Their titles all start with a number. The author follows that number with a few words to convey that he or she has the secret. For just $19.95 you can have the secret too! I've picked 10 of the most popular number-titles to illustrate the extent of the wisdom packed inside.

Life is never so simple that success can be described by a single-digit list

• 7 Habits of Highly Successful People, by Steven Covey
3. Put first things first
7. Sharpening the saw
• 10 Things that Keep CEOs Awake, by Elizabeth Coffey
2. Developing bifocal vision
10. Balancing your act
• 11 Keys to Leadership, by Dayle M. Smith
3. Develop a dynamic belief system
10. Nurture effective channels of information
• 12 Simple Secrets of Happiness, by Glenn Van Ekeren
7. Forgiveness: Keeping bridges in good repair
12. Gratitude: Show it!
• 17 Essential Qualities of a Team Player, by John C. Maxwell
8. Enlarging: adding value to teammates in invaluable
15. Selfless: there is no "I" in team
• 17 Indisputable Laws of Teamwork, by John C. Maxwell
2. Big Picture: The goal is more important than the role
14. Communication: Interaction fuels action
• 21 Indispensable Qualities of a Leader, by John C. Maxwell
1. Character: Be a piece of the rock
19. Servanthood
• 21 Most Powerful Minutes in a Leader's Day, by John C. Maxwell
4. Navigation: Anyone can steer the ship, but it takes a leader to chart the course.
18. Sacrifice: A leader must give up to go up
• 22 Immutable Laws of Branding, by Al and Laura Ries
11. Fellowship: A brand should welcome other brands
21. Mortality: No brand will live forever. Euthanasia is often the best solution.
• 50 Things that Really Matter (no author)
6. Bubble baths
42. A good cup of coffee

I want to start my book with a number others haven't taken. I'm thinking 37. There are many reasons to love 37: It's prime. It's a two-digit number; life is never so simple that success can be described by a single-digit list. The digits add to ten. Next, I'll need to pick a grabbing qualifier.

The "I"s have it in the above titles. I've selected INARGUABLE. It might help to keep the hecklers away. Now for the rest of the title. While I know something about leadership, there's just way too many leadership books available today — 93,851 titles on Amazon earlier this month. The subject I know the most about is projects. But I'm looking for a new audience. I've narrowed it down to vacations — 67,695 Amazon results, or to player pianos — just 1,523 Amazon results. I like to take vacations so I'm probably as qualified to write on that subject as any of the above authors. I don't own a player piano, but I'd like to one day. And the market for books is not crowded. I've made up my mind. My book will be titled The 37 Inarguable Uses for Player Pianos. It's got best-seller written all over it.

In case you're wondering, I don't own all the above books. I subscribe to Business Books Summaries. Each week I get a new book summary in PDF format by email. Each summary is 7 - 12 pages long — just the right length for all that numerical wisdom.

Keeping ourselves and each other safe on construction worksites takes our everyday attention. 1,300 people are reported injured everyday on construction jobsites in the US. It's not only the gross safety violations that lead to injury and death.

  Plumber dies in 3 foot deep trench.
      Landscaper dies when tailgate collapses.
          Painter dies when moving ladder.

These are the headlines of the last few weeks. These people were not doing something reckless — just the opposite. However, each one was taking safety for granted.

Construction work is inherently dangerous. We can never take our safety for granted. Three people die everyday on construction worksites. Sure, there are the freak accidents. There are also those situations where the jobsite has tipped to dangerous. Heed this warning:

Beware of small hazards.

Read Safety Everyday's construction safety in the news sideblog.

There are plenty of ways breakdowns occur on projects. We don't need to add to them. One common problem is taking a short-cut to obligate others to take action rather than to secure reliable promises and freely given commitment.

The Project Reformer's e-Tip of the Week

032: Don't Mistake Obligation for Commitment

In this time of hyper-connectivity and simultaneous physical seperateness we see some extremely bad habits that create breakdowns, frustrations, and waste on our projects. One significant culprit is the emailed meeting request. We all know how it works, someone sends out a meeting request often at the last minute expecting that everyone that receives the request will show up at the meeting. With online calendars the meeting organizer can see that times are "free" and presumes that there will be no reason for saying no. Depending on the stature or rank of the meeting organizer people might understand that the only response is to accept the request or to just show up. There are two mistakes in this scenario. First, one person can not make a promise for another person. The most you can do is to promise to get a promise-yes or a promise-no. The other mistake is in assuming that an "opening" on a calendar grants you authority to commit that time. This is not a matter of the technology. Technology only allows us to do what we will do anyway. Projects are too often commitment-free zones. Take responsibility for activating a network of commitment rather than taking the seeming short-cut to obligate people. Nothing beats a group of people who are committed to complete tasks to the satisfaction of others on their team. The Project Leaders' Studio™

©2004 Hal Macomber | weblog.halmacomber.com | e-Tip Archive | PDF | Submit Tip

This week's e-Tip comes to us at the suggestion of reader Linda Raymond of Lockheed Martin. By now Linda is enjoying The Blind Men and the Elephant, Mastering Project Work, by David Schmaltz as a gift for proposing an e-Tip that I published. There are more books as gifts where that one came from. I'm giving UNSTUCK, by Yamashita and Spataro as gifts for the next three e-Tips that I publish. Get yours!

I've been living in the dissonance of the worlds of project management and enlightened company management. You only need to read a story here and there in Fast Company or Business 2.0 to see that we are setting out to manage our companies in a different way than we attempt to manage our AEC projects. That dissonance led Greg Howell and me in collaboration with Lauri Koskela and John Draper to write the paper Leadership and Project Management: Time for a Change from Fayol to Flores. Greg presented the paper last week to the 12th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction, in Copenhagen, Denmark. I got to stay home to tend to client work. I'll let Greg comment to this posting to share how the paper was received.

We succeed on projects by enabling project performers to adjust to the uncertainties of the world with benefit of full context of the planning on the project.

Our paper began with a discussion list thread gone bad in March 2003. In exasperation, I wrote an email and I posted it to the weblog, Lean Project Delivery Rejects Cartesian Thinking. Greg and I had just finished our paper on linguistic action for IGLC-11. I opened by saying bad management and leadership are to blame for the poor performance of our projects. I finished with a hunch on where we need to look for a new model.

"Our deterministic reductionist approach to projects is the limiting condition. New theory must embrace both the uncertainty that is the project milieu and the unpredictable, serendipitous, richness of the human condition when interacting one with the other."

Now fast-forward 16 months. Our basic premise in the Fayol to Flores paper is what we know as good principle and practice of management has been made obsolete by the very nature of project work. Project performers' tasks are dependent on the completion of other tasks. The unreliability of completion leads to all sorts of waste and consequent coping behaviors. The usual practices of establishing firm plans and controlling project performers' actions to those plans exacerbates the situation. Holding firm in a world that is always changing just takes you further off course. Instead, we succeed on projects by enabling project performers to adjust to the uncertainties of the world with benefit of the full context of the planning on the project. The only thing missing is theory to support a move from one set of behaviors to another.

We credit Henri Fayol, a French mining engineer, with codifying a theory of management that was consistent with the emerging mass production and scientific management of the turn of last century.

Fayol's Five Management Functions

1. To forecast and plan the future and to prepare plans of action
2. To organize the structure, people, and material
3. To command activity
4. To coordinate, unify, and harmonize effort
5. To control to assure policies and plans were followed

Fayol's 14 Management Principles

1. Specialization - division of labor
2. Authority with responsibility
3. Discipline
4. Unity of command
5. Unity of direction
6. Subordination of individual interests
7. Remuneration
8. Centralization
9. Chain / Line of authority
10. Order
11. Equity
12. Lifetime jobs (for good workers)
13. Initiative
14. Esprit de corps

I've been having some fun speaking about project management and leadership theory. I ask an audience what they think is good theory and practice. After they rattle off a few points I show them Fayol's five management functions and 14 principles. People usually agree that Fayol got it right. Then I share Fernando Flores' view of the world. People agree with that too!

Flores sees the world differently. And the world has changed in the more than 70 years that elapsed. In Fayol's time labor was the largest part of the product. The usual laborer was uneducated. The reverse is true today, especially in large AEC projects. Flores put it succinctly,

"Management is that process of openness, listening, and eliciting commitments, which includes concern for the articulation and activation of the network of commitments, primarily produced through promises and requests, allowing for
the autonomy of the productive unit." [Flores, 1982]

Can we have it both ways? We think not. We think that one significant contributor to the malaise of project performance is the management and more especially the leadership that is manifest. Our evidence is anecdotal. Nevertheless, we now have an explanation for why some companies and teams succeed taking a lean approach and why others don't.

Greg and I are optimists. We think we will come to understand our situation with continued inquiry, dialogue, and collaboration. Please contribute to our education and the reform of project management by reading and commenting on the paper.

Have a look at other papers reviewed at IGLC Papers.

The August 8, 2004, Sunday Edition of the New York Times ran a story Building a Bad Reputation: Sloppy American Construction, Julie V. Iovine. The story appeared in the Arts and Design section. [You'll need to move fast to read the article. The NYT only makes their stories available for about 1 week. If you haven't registered with the site, then you'll have to do that before viewing.]

This story will make its way around the AEC and real estate industries. Ms. Iovine is saying publicly what many architects have been saying about contractors and the subcontractor workforce for years.

"Got a gaping one-inch space between frame and window? Just fill it in with silicone and call it a day. Not perfectly flush or plumb? Who cares!"

But she doesn't stop there. She's also saying what contractors have been saying about architects.

"(T)he architect's reputation for meticulous standards was so daunting that some 50 contractors had refused to bid on the job."

Is our industry broken? Do we have a bad reputation among foreign designers? While it may be an exception, some people in the industry are up for the challenge.

"At first there was this big fear that the kind of quality possible in Japan was impossible here. Some of us took that as a challenge to achieve the equivalent level of craftsmanship."

There is something foreign designers value about the American way.

"The team spirit in the U.S. is exceptional. Once they are in front of a challenge, they rise to it. It was a pure American effort."

I suspect poor quality persists due to the way we manage.

Here's what I make of the situation. In the U.S.A. we do not have a value for and practice of learning and innovating on the jobsite. Too often we buy out the job by awarding pieces to subcontractors on a lowest price basis. Those subcontractors hire other specialist subcontractors each offering their lowest price. We do this in an attempt to optimize the cost of the job. Instead, we get sub-optimization of systems and the project as a whole. Further, we bring strangers together and make no effort to build relationships. Why bother? Labor is labor? We can replace one person with another without negative consequences to the job. And that's where we are wrong.

We can make concrete that has "the airless density of a flourless chocolate cake." We can form that concrete so the finish can be polished. And we even can design, fabricate, and install curtain wall systems to tight tolerances. But we can't do any of that reliably without fundamentally changing what we value from our construction activities. And that goes for the architects too. They must bring construction folk into the earliest stages of design if they want a design that is constructable to their intentions.

I see the lean approach transforming the AEC industry.

I suspect poor quality persists due to the way we manage. The story of Toyota's entry to the U.S.A. is instructive. Toyota took GM's worst plant in Freemont, CA, where there were reported to be more worker grievances than in the rest of GM combined. That plant is also where they had low quality and high recalls. Giving up, GM closed the plant. Toyota came in and hired back a large group of the workforce but not the management. Instead, Toyota infused the workforce with the Toyota DNA. Then together management and workers designed the plant operations. The Corollas that come off that line are equally good as those from Japan.

Ms. Iovine interviewed Dana Buntrock, author of "Japanese Architecture as a Collaborative Process". Ms. Buntrock, just up the road from Toyota, said quality is tied to wealth. But she's changing her mind.

"Now I am beginning to wonder if well-built architecture occurs only at a very fragile economic moment. You need not only affluence, but a group of people who are well paid enough to remain in the crafts and building trades even though they are intelligent, and you need the overall size of an architectural project to remain relatively small."

I'm more optimistic than Ms. Buntrock. Just as the lean approach has made Toyota a powerhouse and competitors their imitators, I see the lean approach transforming the AEC industry. And it is well on its way in northern California, just a few miles from Toyota's Freemont facility. Read the August 7, 2004 story appearing in the Silicon Valley/San Jose Business Journal Sutter Health Tells It's Builders, "Make It Lean".

The AEC world can learn from those people doing information technology projects. I hear people in IT say, "Construction is straight forward; everything is visible and predictable." That shows how little they know about construction! But hidden in that statement is the recognition that IT projects must deal with high levels of uncertainty. While the IT world inherited the practices of project management from the AEC world, they have adapted those practices to accommodate some of the same challenges prevalent in AEC projects.

Planning is practice for the main event. Let's practice with the people who will perform.

All but the trivial construction projects are uncertain. The nature of engineer-to-order one-off products nearly guarantees that a group of strangers will have one heck of a challenge designing and building. Bill Heldman, Director of Operations for the City and County of Denver Office of Information Technology, writes in Microsoft Certified Professional Magazine That First Step Is Tricky. The article is worth a read, particularly if you are not an IT professional. You'll see something about how another large group of project folk see the world. Bill describes approaches for dealing with poorly articulated project requests, something that is oh-so familiar in the AEC world.

Bill's basic message is to set your project up for success by taking the time to define outcomes, time tables, budgets, team members, and project roles. While he misses at least one important element — practices for planning — Bill's emphasis on getting the project started well is on the mark. Projects that start well are more likely to finish well.

I have one beef with Bill. He recommends that a project manager

"…whip up a project plan for almost any IT undertaking of any size".

It's exactly that way of working that gets us into trouble in the AEC world. Project planning is effective when we include the team of performers. When we engage the performers in an on-going planning process we not only expand the knowledge, talents, and judgement available, but more importantly we prepare the performers to operate in the uncertain future. Planning is practice for the main event. Let's practice with the people who will perform. Planning is a recurring conversation that produces a coherence of the promises of the performers with the overall promise of the project. While the first step of starting well might be tricky, don't miss the second step of collaboratively planning.