Project Management Processes

In Session 10 of Pathways to Project Management (a publication of APM), we find a categorisation of the processes of project management:

1. Processes that define what need to be achieved.  Theses are what may be called problem and goal identification activities.  They are essential to clarify what we are trying to achieve, why we are trying to achieve them, and are they worth the cost involved?  Activities include business case and requirements development, as well as project management strategy and planning. 

2. Processes that plan the work required to achieve what needs to be done.  Once we know what we want to achieve, we need to think about the actual steps that need to be done to ahiceve the work.

3. Processes that monitor the work to ensure it will be done a planned.  Project need to achieve the constraints of scope, cost, and schedule.  It is critical to monitor the progress of the work to give us a good sense of how well we are going according to plan.

4. Processes that control change within the project environment.  These are the scope / budget / schedule change management activities.  All projects can expect change. Also included here are the Risk Management activities, which makes sense because risks are a source of project change.

5. Process that ensure the outputs of the project are fit for purpose.  In other words, quality assurance. It is interesting to compare how this differs from the ‘processes that monitor the work to ensure it will be done as planned.’ Does monitoring that the work is being done as planned exclude ensuring that the work done was fit for purpose?

6. Processes that ensure the outputs of the project are successfully launched in the business / customer environment.  In other words, handing over the outputs for the purpose of using the results of the project.

7. Processes that engage and motivate the stakeholders of the project.  Externally focused communication to ensure support for the project continues.  A project fails when it can no longer find support from its stakeholders.

How does this list compare with PMI’s Project Management Processes Groups?  The PMBOk Guide process groups are more abstract, and are not really at the same level as the Pathways process categories.  Cannot really do a useful comparison at this level.

Pathways	PMBOK Guide Process Groups
1. Define what needs to be achieved	Initiating
2. Plan the work	Planning
3. Monitor the work	Monitoring & Controlling
4. Control change	Monitoring & Controlling
5. Ensure fitness for purpose	Executing
6. Handover	Closing
7. Stakeholder management	Executing

Pushing Is Not Managing

A large multi-hundred-million dollar program, dangerously close to its deadline, is experiencing significant problems.

The final stages of testing reveals a large number of unexpected problems, building a mass of evidence that the product is not ready.  This is an unwelcome threat to the much publicised, long promised completion date.

What is the reaction of management?  Put pressure on those under them, as if the already stressed out workers will work better and more productively by application of pressure.  (If that were the case, then why not put more pressure at the beginning of the project, the middle... In fact, why let up pressure at all?)

Pressure shows up in the imposition of targets: You must deliver X number of tests per day! You must fix N number of defects fixed per day!

Incompetent managers have no conception that a process can only  sustain what it can sustain.  You cannot demand that a 3-lane highway accommodate 5 lines of cars.  Try to do so, and you get a mess.  And to fix that mess, you don’t try to ram even more cars. 

If a process cannot sustain a manager's demands, something will give.  The first casualty of pressure will be openness.  Fear will begin to creep and spread like an invisible fog in the project.  Fear leads to lies.  People will lie to save themselves, including from unreasonable demands.  Lies take the place of truth.  With truth gone, you cannot acquire facts.  Without facts, you lose control. Without control, you cannot manage. 

The managers will get their X number of tests, but they will be rushed and dubious quality.  They will get their N number of defects will be fixed. Some of the defects will suddenly become no longer defects. Some will be fixed  with duct tape mentality.

The manager will get the  numbers they want; these will have little resemblance to reality.  But maybe that's fine.  Maybe all that's needed is to maintain a semblance of success, just enough to get kudos and rewards for a job well done. 

There's always firefighters to put out the later problems.  But pity the people whose money is being burned up.  Pity the truth.

Ride Your Bicycle Forward

Organisations with a merit and ranking system are like bicycles being pedaled backward.

 

In the 1950s, W. Edwards Deming, then a relatively unknown statistician, conducted seminars among Japanese companies as part of the American effort to rebuild that country’s post-war economy.  

In these seminars, Deming reportedly used the process diagram shown below, to illustrate the systemic nature of a business’s processes. 

 

The diagram showed how the various parties: suppliers, production, ‘quality control’ (inspection), consumers, research, and others, fed into each other and back in one grand system of production. 

 

Despite the diagram’s deceptive simplicity, it was conveying a message that is both deep and shallow. It was a shallow message because everyone who knew anything about operations knew what it was showing. Yet the message was also very deep because the diagram confronted everyone by asking why they did not act as if they knew that. 

 

Deming made the point that because these functions depended on each other in a systemic way, they must be managed together, as a single system. To manage these functions separately, as if they were not dependent on each other is a path to institutionalised dysfunction.

 

In our modern world of systems thinking, processes management, and post the chaotic period of the 1990s ‘re-engineering’, the reminder Deming wanted to deliver can feel anachronistic.  Not only does the diagram look old, it feels old.  It would not be surprising if a modern audience today reacted to this diagram with a: 'Duh'. 

 

Duh indeed, because by this time we all should all know that. And yet it seems we  don’t.

 

So what is the big deal about Deming’s diagram?  While no one seriously questions its truth, many big companies – precisely the ones that really need to internalise this message – are still operating the business in a backward way.

 

We can illustrate the situation by imagining we were given a bicycle, and then shown how a bicycle should run, and yet we proceed to ride it backwards. 

 

In organisations where a merit and ranking system pervades, where an employee’s ‘performance’ is annually ‘assessed’ by their supervisor,  employees become forced to consider their supervisor as their most important customer.  Employees have no option but to direct all their actions and energies to figuring out what numbers the supervisor is tracking and make sure they meet those numbers, to the subjugation of other considerations.  

 

Supervisors themselves need to please their managers, and so treat their managers as their customer, always thinking: “how am I going to be ranked?”  The situation goes on -- the managers need to please their vice presidents; the vice presidents need to please their executives; executives need to please the CEO; the CEO need to please the board.  The board need to please the shareholders, often fund managers. Fund managers need to please their bosses, in a grand system of brown nosing.

Nowhere in all this is the poor paying customer, the source of the company’s income.  No, that's not entirely true.  The customer does sometimes pop up now and then, but only to the extent where they complain thereby represent a risk to the merit and ranking of employees, or where they give praise and enhance the merit and ranking of employees, or where they can be used to further please that most important of customers, the person higher up in the organisation.

This backward operation of the forward system cannot be undone without a transformation -- a deep, difficult, transformation that demands sustained struggle.  Initiating this transformation, and even more important, sustaining such a transformation will require an unbelievable level of courage, focus, and determination.  A constancy of purpose.

Organisations who are able to operate their forward systems in the right direction will eventually benefit. Once they do start moving forward, it will be easier and easier, kept in motion by a reformed cultural inertia,  to operate the system, understand it, speed it up, improve it, and even accelerate it.  They will have realised how far, FAR better it is to ride a bicycle forward.