Exploding the project myths – 1
by jed simms on May 25, 2011
Myth 1
Projects are the domain of project and technical experts
This myth is promulgated by both business and project managers.
Business managers want someone to blame if the project doesn’t deliver the desired results regardless of how well or badly the business has defined what it wants – “It’s not my fault; they messed up.”
Project managers use this myth to define their terrain. This allows them to be ‘heroes’ – “Just leave it to me and I’ll fix it.” Many projects managers believe they are totally responsible for a project’s success or failure and, therefore, want to control and manage the business rather than work with them.
The Real Truth
Projects start and finish in the business – they therefore need to be business led, directed and governed.
All projects are business projects. Projects are nothing less than how you execute your business strategy and implement change. Therefore, each project needs continuous, informed, and well-equipped business leadership and direction. Business ownership and involvement.
“Lack of business leadership” always rates higher than poor project management in the list of reasons why projects fail.
To achieve its business outcomes through projects, the business has to define, direct, cajole, manage, govern, and do whatever else is required to ensure the success of the project in business terms.
But up to now the business has not known what to do, when to do it, why it is required, or how to achieve it. Until now; until TOP.
TOP is the business-driven approach to projects – and equips the project to lead, direct and govern.
2 comments
The business appraoch in government is difficult, however it should not be.
Rational (input);
I have worked for both the federal and state agencies for over 20 years .
I have worked as an investment manager (reviewing business case for setting budget priorities)
I have worked as portfolio, program and project manager .
I have developed and implemented project methodologies across agencies.
I have worked for the auditors generals office and reviewed the investment process from start to finish.
Observations (outputs) :
The investment life cycle used in government does not fully articulated each element of the cycle (in most cases it is not understood at all) .
Multi year strategies 1,3, 5 years plans don’t exists other than for compliance to policy.
Business case are developed for budget approvals not implementation and delivery (obtaining funds only)
Schedules are really used as planning and forecasting tools (they realy contain resources and actual costs per activity or summary).
Risk management is a theory based compliance activity (every department has a framework compliant to the relevant standard, but risk is not an organic part of the operational fabric of departments).
There is reliance on OGC Gateway and other methodologies, if you are using Prince2 every thing should be OK!
Summary (outcomes):
Most projects fail in delivering agreed scope, time, budget, capability, functionality and benefits
Most boards are there for reporting but are not interventists.
Most board positions are filled by title rather than skills.
Most project positions and staff are inexperienced or unskilled (very few project use repaeatable process for example the procurment modle is reinvented for every new project, thus a new learning curve each time!
Conclusion (objectives): Why do most objectives fail,
In short the government behaviour is run by accountants and economists, this is the number one reason period for our problems – this issue can not be overstated.
Business case and investment approvals are financial process with little or no input from subject matter experts (risk, scheduling, technical, implemenation, change managment, benefits just to name acfew)
Justification of business needs are not validated and verified by independent sources – many are policy driven or promises.
Most (99%) of the oversight executives positions are filled by accountants and economists who have zero portfolio, program or project experience.
Investment do not undergo rigorous integration of need analysis (non financial or policy justification), option analysis (most solutions are suggested at the investment stage?) implementation strategies, timing and resource validation but to name a few.
Executives and management are neither or interested in understanding portfolio, program or project facts and detail . Thereporting lines are if not always finance driven money spent over time (outcomes are not assessed as part of the value of expenditure).
Executives and management reports are abbreviated to the extent they no longer resemble the blunt and sometime painful facts.
In conclusion: I agee with the concept that projects are business decisions, but this only pllies when operate the environment along business lines .
Have you every really examined a departmental strategic business plan (5 / 10 year outlook), business plan (3 /5 years) and operational business plan (12 month cycle). Given there 15 departments and agencies just in top tier of governement who do this 15 different ways there is little chance od having like synergies and outcomes.
I like the concept, but difficulty in seing it applied in the government environment.
if you doubts about the comment, please review the number of governement project failures over the last 5 years only?
by Barrie on May 25, 2011 at 12:22 pm. #
Jed,
I am afraid that I have to at disagree with you on this one.
Yes projects start and finish in the business and need to be governed by the business. However, you are undervaluing the expertise that a project professional brings to the successful delivery of a project.
I have just picked up the pieces of a program that was being “project managed” by a business professional who is extremely talented in his field, and extremely knowledgeable about what the business wants.
The point is though, while he is an expert in his field, he knows very little about successful delivery of a project, and as a consequence his competence is now being questioned because he was given a complex task to perform that he had no training or experience in.
The reality is that to successfully deliver a project you need a mix of skills and a governance process to oversee the delivery.
Just as you don’t give the controls of a large passenger aircraft to a Platinum frequent flyer who has an operating manual and no flying hours, you dont give control of delivery of a multi-million dollar project to someone who has no experience of project delivery.
by Kevin Hanvey on May 25, 2011 at 9:45 pm. #