TOP Ideas

This question seemed to perplex most executives.

Wrong perspective — need for a ‘business outcomes’ focus

The most common measure of success was the simplistic (and wrong) “on time, on budget and to specification”.

A few added “and to deliver the benefits expected” but also admitted no means to track these. This seems to be more a case of ‘should be a measure’ than being an actual current measure of success.

Discussions around the governance team’s ‘measures of success’ tended to centre on the ‘scope’ and ‘project outputs’ with the occasional addition of ‘business acceptance’ (although others explicitly excluded this as a success measure on the basis that “they’ll accept what they’re given”).

Few approached the question of ‘success’ in business outcomes terms — where do we want to be and how will we measure it when we get there?

When this approach is taken the project becomes a means to an end rather than the end in itself. The measure of success is the achievement of the measurable business outcomes — an improvement to the business.

As one experienced senior executive saw business outcomes as the primary measure argued, “If we’re two months late and 20% over budget but deliver an excellent result, then in two years time no one will remember the project statistics, they’ll just remember the increase in business performance. I focus on achieving the business result.” (However, this is not to argue that on time/budget are not worthwhile outcomes!)

A key requirement of any governance team is to maintain its perspective on the measurable business outcomes to be delivered — where the organization is trying to get too. Being focused only on the project performance measures is too limited a view.

A broader definition of governance ‘success’ needed

The lack of focus on the right measures of success is symptomatic of the lack of understanding of the role and contribution of project governance.

It is usually assumed that the governance measures of success are the same as the project’s measures and, therefore, implementing the project equals a ‘successful project’. This is a misconception.

This becomes clear to governance teams when they are taken through a process to identify:

1. their measures of success
2. their measures of failure
3. and the organization’s measures of success of their project.

The results of this exercise significantly change the governance team’s perspective.

The following table shows the different perspectives — ALL of which are valid measures of success to be met.

Project measures of success	Governance team measures of success	Organization’s measures of success
Establishment of a working national centre for accounting servicesDecommissioning of regional accounting positions and rolesMeeting the set SLAs within three months of the takeover of each stateStandardising the reporting formats and accounting treatments nationwide Eliminating duplicate tasks and processes ETC	Delivering lower costs and efficiency savings so that the business sees the outcomes as valuableImproving the quality of reporting in terms of accessibility, integrity, consistency and ease of useBeing seen to have delivered a consistent or enhanced serviceBeing a silent contributor to process improvement — reducing costs and providing a more effective overlay function Receiving strong management support across the business Standardising nationally, ETC	A seamless transitionIt is easier to access informationInformation to be better qualityNational centre to be responsive Managerial importance to be recognised in service levels The regions still own the results They know and understand how the process works

How to define these measures of success and then measure their achievement is covered in The Complete Project Sponsor and Steering Committee Handbooks and training at www.project-sponsor.com