Archive for the 'theory' Category

I still meet many project managers who just state that sharing a project vision (if ever there is one) is a waste of time and that the project team should just concentrate on what they are asked (told ?) to do. This always reminds me of my first project management courses, more than 30 years ago (dinosaurs were still alive), when I was told that: "The more information people have about a project, the more veto power we are giving them…so, it is important to keep information sharing to the strict minimum, using as a strict yardstick of information distribution direct-task-oriented need-to-know information."

I am appalled to see that this primitive belief still endures today, since it shows so little understanding of how human minds and hearts really work. I am also appalled that, each time I ask about Vroom's Expectancy Theory of Motivation (dating back from the early 1960s) and it's significance to project management audiences (including many PMPs), I find out that it is still mostly unheard of or, when it is known of, it rings no bell about the relationship between sharing a project vision and mobilizing project teams to ensure project success. This is very unfortunate since Vroom's simple theory:

Read the rest of this entry ¶

In my first guest-blogger entry, I mentioned the importance of managing perceptions. I wrote that not doing so was the main cause of why only one project out of three was considered successful by major stakeholders, according to the Standish Group's Chaos Report¹. I concluded that "not managing perceptions" could be considered the 10th waste of ill-managed projects.

It is easy to say that we have to manage perceptions. But where and how should we start doing that? The Chaos Report gives us pretty good leads on that. The report identifies the involvement of end-users as the No.1 in its Top Ten List of project key success factors. I talked about that also when Hal gave me the opportunity to contribute a project e-tip back in 2003 (e-tip 016: Keep the Customer/End-User Involved). After all these years, this e-tip is still relevant and I propose to rename it The Proximity Principle and to revisit it as it pertains to fighting the 10th waste.

Read the rest of this entry ¶

1. www.projectsmart.co.uk/docs/chaos-report.pdf [ ⇑ back ]

We often discount great accomplishments by saying people were just lucky. The luncheon speaker at the TWI Summit says otherwise. Luncheon speakers are about as good as the conference budget allows. I wasn't expecting much at the TWI Summit. It's the first of its kind conference. While it was the largest meeting of TWI proponents in over 50 years, it was only about 135 people. Boy was I surprised by the luncheon speaker on the first day. Jim Swartz spoke about finding and seizing great opportunities. His talk was based on his book Seeing David in the Stone, by James and Joseph Swartz.

Due to significant Florida weather delays, I had the opportunity to read and finish Seeing David in the Stone in one setting. I am impressed. Very impressed. I shouldn't be. Norman Bodek introduced Jim to me calling him a genius. After listening to his speech, being in a private conversation and reading the book I can see that Norman is right. Not only is he a genius, he's written an easy-to-read and engaging book.

The book is based on many years of private research into what makes the great ones successful. They studied 70 great people to discover what was common among them. In addition to Gates and Einstein, the authors studied Galileo, Edison, Michaelangelo, DaVinci, Pasteur, Curie, Eisenhower, and Walton. The authors identified three groups of behaviors with a total of 12 actions. Here they are:

Read the rest of this entry ¶

Our everyday speaking gets in the way of better planning. This weekend I was listening to Tim Russert interview Presidential Spokesman Tony Snow on Meet the Press. Tim asked Tony about the plan for winning the war in Iraq. The question inferred that something went terribly wrong. Tony replied,

"I'm not sure anything went wrong. Battle plans don't live beyond the first encounter with the enemy."

Tony went on to say that like most of life we can't anticipate the future…no amount of planning can change that. Tony is right about that. The future is uncertain and unknowable. Grasping that fact is a key to better planning. Read the rest of this entry ¶

This morning I was having a conversation with Greg Howell about measuring various aspects of project and program performance. Greg mentioned the universally accepted wisdom of Peter Drucker, "What gets measured gets done." He said it missed the point. Greg commented, "What matters more is understanding. Professor Clark Oglesby always said,"

'You can't manage (or improve) what you don't understand.'

That makes sense to me.

So here I am working my way through today's RSS feeds and I see this item, You Can't Manage What You Don't Measure, by John Reh. I read John's article a few times. After listening to Greg, I admit I was reading with skepticism. John did a good job presenting Drucker's wisdom. Is that good enough? or should we be paying more attention to Oglesby?

I won't argue for no measures. I'm now more interested in how we can bring understanding to our projects and business along side of measures. One clear way I know of doing that is with Five Whys. Anyone have other ideas?

What project techniques make the biggest contribution to project success? Gantt charts? No. Earned Value? No. Critical Path? No. The biggest contributor just might be "all that jazz." Read what these authors have to say, Playing the Live Jazz of Project Management.

Next in series

I read the following quote from Walter Bagehot in Time Magazine's end-of-year farewell to John Kenneth Galbraith.

"One of the greatest pains to human nature is the pain of a new idea."

The quote reminds me of the theory-trap we are in with projects. So with this posting I am updating my Notes on the Underlying Theory of Project Management is Obsolete.

While our tools are ever more sophisticated and there is more project management training, our project results languish. The new idea — projects are conducted in an unfolding network of commitments — challenges the very nature of what people do today in the project setting. The PMI is going to great lengths to teach people the old ideas.¹ In essence saying, "Just get good at doing what we've been telling you to do all along and your projects will come out just fine." Following that teaching with certification is producing a world-wide paradigm that is having the affect of blinding practitioners to alternative ideas (theories). In the face of that, the agilists are dealing with the pain of their new ideas; so are those adopting lean construction. Read the rest of this entry ¶

1. The PMI is succeeding. Membership has swelled from under 100,000 in 2002 to over 300,000 going into 2007. Attendance at conferences is at an all time high. And a cottage industry including top universities has grown to prepare project managers for the certification, CPM®. [ ⇑ back ]

Previous in series

Is project management even possible? David Schmaltz thinks not. He writes Why Project Managers Can't Manage Projects. Just read it…please…for your sake. It's Pure Schmaltz!

In PMI's September 2006 PM Network CareerTrack section Karen Bannan has an article titled, In Theory: You can't always go by the book. (Sorry, it's not available online, even to PMIers.) Three things caught my attention. First, just a few weeks ago, Karen interviewed me for an up-coming article. Second, my friend Lauri Koskela was interviewed for this article. Third, the article was about the usefulness of theory in practice. I was somewhat surprised by what I read.

The article opened quoting Lauri Koskela, Ph.D., Univ. of Salford,

"Many of the methodologies taught in textbooks are idealizations. What project managers encounter in reality are plenty of stumbling blocks. This means that students or new project managers often find out that theories don't work for them in practice."

Karen goes on with quotes from Paul Hassels, CapGemini,

"It's always a balance between process and content. Getting too far carried away from either poses a risk."

After including a number of other quotes, Karen begins her close with a doosey from Gregory B. Beacher, Ph.D., Univ. of Maryland,

"Theory is not otherworldly. Theory is just distilled best practices."

To Beacher's credit, Karen finishes this way,

"Your practice will be much richer if you are informed by theory."

It looks to me that these people don't agree on the meaning of the word "theory". Some speak of it as "conjecture" while others indicate a scientific explanation that can be used for prediction. I prefer the last.

The books are relying on obsolete underlying theory.

Four years ago, Lauri Koskela and Greg Howell presented their research in a paper for PMI's bi-annual research conference. They titled their paper, The Underlying Theory of Project Management Is Obsolete. I was told the presentation of the paper generated quite a controversy. In my opinion, Lauri and Greg wrote a great paper. It pointed to flaws in our conjecture about how we succeed on projects. I blogged about the paper for 5 or 6 postings. You will find a collection of my commentary on the lens for Project Management Theory.

I have to agree with Karen's conclusion when it comes to project management theory, "…you can't always go by the book." The books, as Lauri and Greg put so well, are relying on obsolete underlying theory. It's not so much that putting theory into practice fails us, as it is we are relying on the wrong theories. Further, methodologies are no substitute for theory. Following them with an appreciation for theory, as Beacher says, will enrich our practice and lead to better results.

Thanks to Karen's article, I was prompted to create a new lens. You'll find all the project management lenses from a navigation button on the top of each page.

Agile Project Management (APM) arose in the software world. The lean construction community has investigated APM to see what might be cross appropriated. Why would it matter? Agile approaches are gaining favor and producing better results for software development.

Is Agile Project Management Applicable to Construction?

Bob Owen, et al

Agile had a similar starting point with that of lean project delivery. Projects were just not getting done to the satisfaction of the users, the sponsors, and the performers. Agile also has to deal with an evolving understanding of what will satsify the client. And the client has a changing understanding of what they need and want. Conducting the project in a way that embraces learning is central to developing the project while avoiding waste.

"APM is most appropriate to project situations that require emergent requirements."

Bob comes from the IT community. He's doing research and getting his PhD in Lean Construction. He is arguing that APM would be a good fit at least during the design and preconstruction phases. He says organizations need to:

• Embrace change to improve value
• Establish a learning organization
• Committed and loyal workforce

"APM is most appropriate to project situations that require emergent requirements."

Look to the world of ants to understand how construction can evolve.

Swarm intelligence and Ant Colony Approach for Applied in Optimizing Construction Process

Fritz Gehbauer, et al

The LPS® is a self-learning system. The central principle of a swarm is self-organization and following strict rules.

Use a few simple rules throughout the planning process.

Nature inspires design of the built environment and of machines. From a swarm we can learn to:

• Provide immediate rewards for results
• Provide immediate and frequent measurement
• Provide individual measurements

Use ant algorithms at various points of planning. For instance, sequence planning could be influenced by using a few simple rules consistently throughout the planning process. We'll get to find out. The authors have an experiment underway that they will report on next year.

Too many projects are late or over budget, or both. In the March 2006 issue of Customer Relationship Management magazine Jim Dickie reports in It May Cost More Than You Think that about 33% of all CRM implementations take at least twice as long as the CRM vendors told their clients.¹ In addition, 41% reported that they exceeded their budgets for implementation. This is no surprise to anyone following CRM implementations. Far too many have been dismal failures. So how can this be?

In the same March issue, Natalie Petouhoff, Ph.D., attributes CRM failures to our brains, Read the rest of this entry ¶

1. Based on CRM's 12th annual Sales Effectiveness Survey with responses from over 775 companies. [ ⇑ back ]

Any good process needs to be changing…always.

For the last two years I've argued privately with my colleagues that the common sense on process thinking was misplaced. Actually, I've said it is a dumbing down of organizations. I certainly recognize that process is a way we embed and convey organization learning. But, all too often, managers are lazy. Independent of the people who perform the process managers put something in place that doesn't change. Worse, the really competent, innovative, and inspired people are constrained by prescribed process.

Any good process needs to be changing…always. Much to my surprise, I just read Ross Mayfield's essay, The End of Process. Ross is a great thinker and writer. He argues compellingly that we must take a different approach.

"Because of constant change in our environment, processes are outdated immediately after they are designed."

Don't be swayed by process thinking. Even PMI has succumbed. I recall reading 'projects are process'. Huey. There's not much more I can say than read Ross' article. I just wish I had written it.

Project results are highly uncertain. Despite various efforts to change that, projects continue to yield mixed results. Perhaps something else is required. Two researchers think so. They propose we go all the way back to our basic understanding of things and processes in
On the Metaphysics of Production, by Lauri Koskela and Mike Kagioglou.

The paper was presented at IGLC-13 in Sydney this summer¹. I've read the paper three times. The authors make a series of claims that taken seriously could lead us in a different direction. For instance,

They say that projects are process. If so, then why continue to deconstruct a project with a WBS? Process is temporal where things — which can be deconstructed — are atemporal.

They say that what we understand as processes include operations and non-value-adding steps. Simply breaking down processes doesn't reveal that waste. Value can't be distinguished separate from an observer who has concerns for a future along with standards that are unique to that observer. Any attempt at eliminating waste independent of the client of the project can't incorporate the basis for making a relevant assessment of value.

The authors summary point is,

"It is not only theories that count, but also the metaphysical assumptions on which our theories are based."

Metaphysics is such an old word. We don't have to concern ourselves with the nature of our being to understand the mistake we've made with projects. We have been distracted when planning and managing projects by the everyday world of things. The key perhaps is to notice the processes that involve the building of relationships, establishing trust, learning from one another, and coordinating action. These processes cannot be understood by the reductionist deterministic model that works so well with things.

As is usual for IGLC papers, the authors do a good job of providing references for their well-argued claims. This is a paper for those of us who are serious about rethinking our approach to delivering projects and are ready to challenge our own way of understanding the world.

1. The International Group for Lean Construction is in its 13th year. Researchers, practitioners, and academics come together each summer some place in the world to share what they have been learning. The papers are peer reviewed to maintain novelty and rigorous presentation. [ ⇑ back ]

The IGLC is in its 14th year bringing together researchers and practitioners in an international forum. We've been highlighting and commenting on some of the best of more than 500 peer-reviewed papers. I added a lens for IGLC Papers where you'll find a single source for the papers reviewed in RPM. I'll be adding to the lens as I continue to present and comment on more papers. Enjoy!

rom down under we are advised to align management compensation to project success. On the surface this looks right. On-Time and On-Budget, by Munir Kotadia, ZDNet Australia, however the author fails to address the source of project success. It shouldn't take management compensation schemes to have a project team do well.

"If all you think is, 'Is it on time and on budget?' then you are in trouble."

Egidio Zarrella, KPMG, recommends IT organizations establish an enterprise project management office (EPMO) to bring oversight and aid to project teams. He goes on to say,

"Project management is there to say, 'If it is going off the rails, how do we pull it back? It is like steering a ship — you don't just say 'everybody jump off and let the ship smash into the land'."

Zarella goes on to say,

"The EPMO does not intervene on every project — that is not the point. They become part of the learning organisation."

So what does an EPMO have to do with executive compensation? Neither author Kotadia nor Zarella offer insight. Until we hear more, let's keep our attention on putting together project teams whose talents and interests are in alignment with the aims of the projects. Along with that, help the team make and keep promises to each other. These things work.

areto's Law or the 80/20 Principle is well-known to economists and quality improvement professionals. Simply, it states: 80% of the gain will come from 20% of the effort; conversely, 80% of our effort produces only 20% value. The relationship was first distinguished about 100 years ago by Italian economist Vilfredo Pareto. He observed that 80% of the wealth was concentrated among 20% of the citizenry. The law is more of a way of observing phenomena than it is an irrefutable principle. However, empirical studies have shown one situation after another where the law holds up.

The art of the project manager is to focus all team members on the few things that really matter.

Author Richard Koch wrote the book The 80/20 Principle: The Secret to Success by Achieving More with Less to introduce this perspective to general business. Koch does a good job explaining the principle and giving examples. He writes encouragingly of the opportunity in being highly selective in the actions we take to further our aims. At one point he shares his view on the ten biggest opportunities for using the 80/20 principle. Number 9 on his list is project management. Here's a summary of his points: Read the rest of this entry ¶