TWO PROJECTS – TWO VERY DIFFERENT OUTCOMES

FELLOWS FORUM TWO PROJECTS– TWO VERY DIFFERENT OUTCOMES FELLOWS HAVE GIVEN EXCEPTIONAL CONTRIBUTION TO THE PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROFESSION. HEAR FROM ONE HERE EACH QUARTER.

In the last 18 months I have been heavily involved in two projects/programs that had vastly different outcomes for their respective organisations.

Whilst project professionals all acknowledge risk management is vital for a project’s success, it does continually amaze me how little diligence and perseverance is committed to “actively” managing risks throughout a project’s lifecycle.

SITUATION 1: There are 11 large, white legal binders lined up, four binders per box, across my study floor. In total they represent nearly five years of governance body minutes for a project that was supposed to run for 18 months. In reading each of the monthly governance minutes, I am struck by the minimal risk and issue discussion and the completely absent dependency management discussions. After all, this was a highly complex technology based project with significant impacts across all of the client’s business functions and with significant impact on the client’s customers.

SITUATION 2:

The project managers are all in the room for the first of what would become a weekly 90 minute risks, issues and dependencies discussion. There are eight project managers representing streams such as change management, systems delivery, process development, communications and stakeholder engagement etc. The program has a dropdead delivery date of 1 July 2019. There are eight concurrent streams of work with significant up-stream and down-stream dependencies across the eight streams of work. The Program Manager has an excel spreadsheet which she maintains.

Before this kick-off meeting the Program Manager had 1:1 sessions with each of her Projects Managers to build the initial version of the risks, issues and dependencies (RIDS) register. She has taken responsibility to own and maintain the RIDS register.

In “Situation 2”, the technology and process improvement streams were being run using an adaptive delivery method – develop, showcase, take feedback on board, iterate etc. The technology stream was pure Scrum whilst the process stream was not. The other six streams were more traditional Waterfall in their approach. 1. All eight Project Managers were thankful the Program

Manager was going to record the RIDS into a register, manage and maintain the register. It was one less piece of administrivia they had to worry about 2. The companies PPM tool was not used for risk tracking 3. The Program Manager had: a. a scheduler to iterate the programs stream schedules each week b. a PMO co-ordinator to help develop the various governance packs, update the Kanban board etc.

What was illuminating was the Program Manager owned and diligently ran the one project function that could undermine her ability to deliver on 1 July 2019 – the RIDS register.

By doing so she was across every single risk, issue and dependency that was impacting her program. She was able to ascertain if her Project Managers were focusing on ameliorating the right RIDS by checking what RIDS had been highlighted in each project managers weekly status reports as “high”.

RIDS are the pulse of your project. It is not sexy managing them and it does require conversation that many project professionals consider “not adding value”, so the regular assessment of RIDS is often neglected. Often with disastrous consequences!

In “Situation 1” the governance minutes are effusive about schedule and budget performance but lacked consistent updates on the high RIDS that are compromising the project and their respective mitigation strategies. In comparison, the governance body in “Situation 2”, focused considerable attention on “what was worrying” the Program Manager and was very active in assisting the Program Manager mitigate those RIDS. By owning the RIDS register, the Program Manager, had her “finger on the pulse” and could escalate the right RIDS at the right time for governance body assistance.

The role of the governance body and how a Project Manager uses the sponsor and governance body to enable effective RIDS mitigation is an important feature of successful projects. The Project Manager’s ability to enable effective engagement with the sponsor and the governance body is important, but more important, is their knowledge of their role and responsibilities in the project.

In “Situation 1”, the governance body had the right decision makers, but they were not educated on their role and responsibilities. The lack of a governance body charter (that was tabled and signed-off), lead to ineffective governance body performance – RIDS were not effectively mitigated. In “Situation 2”, the Program Manager was highly experienced and knew that to meet her 1 July deadline she would require quick decision making and support from the program’s sponsor and governance body. Her governance body charter was very clear about what she needed from the sponsor and governance body to ensure barriers for 1 July delivery were quickly overcome.

In “Situation 2” an excel spreadsheet was used even though a company-wide PPM tool was available. The Program Manager told me that she wanted face-to-face RIDS conversations each week with her Project Managers. She wanted confidence that they were effectively “taking the pulse” of their stream. The immediacy of a weekly meeting with the Program Manager each week ensured the Project Managers came prepared. By obviating the recording of the RIDS into a PPM tool, the Program Manager was concerned: 1. The RIDS would not be filled out in a timely manner, and 2.She would miss the nuances of the streams RIDs only a discussion can bring

I am sure none of the above is new to you the reader. It is not rocket science. But it never ceases to amaze me how just doing the basics consistently (like risk management) can be the difference between a career ending catastrophe that ends in Supreme Court litigation (like Situation 1) or delivering a highly complex program on-time and under budget (like Situation 2).

Author: Phil Nash is an AIPM Fellow, PMAA Judge and former AIPM Australian Project of the Year Award winner. Previously he spent 10 years at Bupa establishing and leading the Bupa ePMO. He is currently an “Expert Witness” for an international software litigation case and working as a project implementation and governance consultant with Exco Partners. He has a low threshold of excitement, as he genuinely loves analysing the project delivery life cycle (and going for walks with his Golden Retriever, Sam).