As a project manager who does not produce the product being delivered, we often need to reflect. What value am I providing my client? How are they better off with me around?
It helps to be both personal and impersonal.
How does it help them to have a project manager for this project? What value does this position provide?
How does it help them that I am the project manager for this project?
According to Shoji Shiba, knowledge has several levels. The first level is simply Exposure. You've heard of Linux, you know what it is, you've had the chance to do some basic stuff with it, like listing the files on the system. It is plain that such a level of knowledge is of very little use.
The second level is Skill. At this level, one's knowledge has reached some usefulness. You know how to ride a bike, and you can use the bike to get you from A to B without much falling down. At this level, your productivity is very basic and inefficient. Workers who are at this level are not very effective. They can do the job but need much supervision to ensure their work is satisfactory.
The third level is Understanding. You have reached the level where you know what you are doing and can make effective decisions.
The fourth, and final level is Mastery. You know how to use the skill at the highest levels and the highest effectiveness that the skill is able to deliver. This is where you are most productive.
It takes time to develop Mastery. It is worth taking the time to study the best ways to shorten the knowledge cycle from Exposure to Mastery.
After the project has been broken down into analysable components, we identify the source of the risk -- why is there uncertainty? What is causing this uncertainty or variability?
By addressing the causes or sources of the variability we will be better able to respond to the causes in addition to the effects.
Suppose we have identified a risk in the completion of the functional specification documents of a software development project. What we mean is that we have identified an uncertainty in the completion of these documents. They may take more or less time than expected. What might be the causes of this risk?
The specifications may take longer because the requirements may change as the project progresses. The specifications will change in proportion to the change in requirements.
The specifications may take longer because it may be realised later that the specifications do not cover its areas on the proper depth and scope.
These are two possible causes. Notice that responses required to mitigate the uncertainty could be very different. In the first cause, we need to look further at the requirements documents from which the specifications are being developed. In the second cause, we need to look at how we can identify gaps in the specifications documents. Of course it is possible that both causes occur.
Once we have identified the possible causes of the risks, we can proceed to identifying responses to address the causes, the risk, and the risk events.
* * *
References: Simister & Turner
A risk is an area of uncertainty. This uncertainty can turn into risk events that may prove unfavourable to a project. Risk events are not always necessarily unfavourable.
Whether is will rain or not, for example, is a risk for someone planning to go on a picnic. The risk events could be that it will rain heavily, or it will rain lightly, or it will not rain. The area of uncertainty, that is, the risk, is the possibility of rain.
Managing project risks is about analysing the risks (uncertainties) that a project is facing, identifying the risk events that may come out of that risk, planning responses to these events, monitoring the chances of these events, and executing responses to the risk events.
The SCERT approach to managing risk begins with breaking down the project into manageable components. Because nothing is certain, every single task in a project has some risk (uncertainty) Much of that however, is handled in the scheduling process which (must have) used a probabilistic approach (for example a 3-point estimation in PERT).
We only look at the major uncertainties.
Break the project into components. SCERT recommends no more than 20 components for large projects, and no less than 5 components for small projects.
If the concern is for risks affecting the schedule, breakdown the components by activities. If the concern is risks affecting the cost of the project, breakdown the components by cost components, highlighting their expected costs.
Once the project has been broken down into manageable components, the process of identifying the sources of risk (again, uncertainty) can be identified.
* * *
The famous line: "what we have here is a failure to communicate" elicits chuckles. People recognise the experience these words describe. The words resonates with many people because the experience is very common.
We've all had experiences of miscommunication. You may recall colleagues who never let you finish a question -- they answer the question even before you have even gotten midway through your question. Of course the answer you receive has no relation to the question you were intending to ask.
For a project manager, miscommunication is a professional tragedy. A project manager's job is constantly about communication. He doesn't do the actual work. He organises, orchestrates, informs, and instructs. He uses communication to do these. A project where the manager instructs the team to do something, and the team comes back with something else can be heading for trouble. Miscommunication consumes time, energy, money, increases tension, and decreases motivation in the workplace.
Dowling & Sayles says that for communication that instructs to be effective, it must meet a few criteria.
First, the message itself must be understood. Understanding is hard, it is easier to misunderstand. To understand something is to get exactly what is meant. To misunderstand is to get something wrong, even a very little something.
One of the problems is words. Words are never very precise. Someone said that words are cups that people fill with the meaning they want. Think of the words you often use in your projects: maximise, prioritise, quality, improve. Do they mean the same thing to everyone? These could all be understood in different ways. When you come across communication that uses words that come loaded with meaning, make sure to explain in more detail what you mean by the word.
Managers should practice getting feedback about what they are communicating. How do you know that what you said is what was heard? One way to get feedback is to ask the other party to restate what you just said. This works for some people. You can ask your staff to repeat what you said. You can also practice it yourself, repeating what other people say to you, to help them ensure that you understood them correctly. It is not as easy to ask your superiors or clients or some people to repeat back what you said.
Another way to check if they understood you is to ask questions about what you said, trying to get a hint of what they think you meant.
Once your communication has been understood you have crossed one barrier. There are two more to cross.
The next question is, yes they understood what you said, but did they believe you?
Depending on which management writer was asked, the visitors from space would be directed to different people. These writers seem to have different definitions of leadership and thus leaders. Some simplify it to 'leadership is about dong the right things, while management is about doing things right."
Leadership is about doing the right things. Not really,
Leadership is about having a vision. Not really, everyone has visions and dreams.
Leadership is about a charismatic and powerful personality. Not really, there are charismatic and powerful personalities who are not leaders (almost every movie celebrity)
Leadership is a process, influencing others to perform something. Like selling or marketing or mugging?
Leadership is about authority and power. There are many people in positions of authority who cannot command.
My current view is that leadership is about having followers. Without any followers, you are not a leader. That is all it is. To take the lead means to be the leader. Without followers there is not lead to take.
Is success the opposite of failure? I wonder if there's a middle between the two: a non-success, non-failure middle. Consider if you focused your efforts on making sure your projects succeed versus making sure your projects do not fail. Will you be doing the same things?
Something more concrete: what is the most important thing you can do on your current project to ensure it succeeds? What is the most important thing you can do on your current project to ensure it doesn't fail? Are they the same?
Project success is defined in terms of meeting project objectives. One example of an objective is meeting the project schedule. If the project meets that schedule, then the project is a success. What makes things tricky is that projects have more than one objective. The project is required to meet this schedule, but within this budget, and without having any scope left behind.
Besides the traditional constraint triangle, there are other objectives: ensuring the project team is happy, ensuring the the project stakeholders are happy, etc.
Not all of these objectives are equally important. Some are more important than others. That is why team members are asked to work on weekends rather than letting the schedule slip. That is why team members are often asked to work without extra pay -- to ensure the project budget is not exceeded.
In a project, it would be helpful to prepare a list of objectives and rank them in order of decreasing importance. That way, all objectives are kept in mind, yet at the same time clear which objective is more important.
The list might best be kept private.
