The project is (S/M/L/XL/XXL/XXXL). So WHAT?
Every PM suffers now and then a slight attack of anxiety when notified about the assignment of a new project. It´s just natural: he/she will have a close relationship with this “entity” for weeks, months or years, and he/she knows nothing about it. Thus, he/she jumps to the Business Case, Charter, Launch Gate document or any other available source to understand what the effort is about. Again, all good here. The part that puzzles me is how little organizations prepare to deal with the project. Let me cut to the chase: most organizations limit to a generic characterization of the effort, mainly by size; sometimes also by complexity. In a few cases there are further categorizations as per the scope, geo, nature of the effort. But the consequences of this analysis are quite limited, if any.
In my experience, for most organizations, most of the time, the sole actual result to the initial analysis (categorization) of the projects limits to allotting a predefined range of hours to the effort, in rare cases a budget. The best I´ve seen is an actual prioritization, which is not a bad thing at all, but these are scarce cases and the impact is constrained. This limited output makes me wonder if the initial set of parameters with which projects are analyzed is insufficient. Or perhaps the actual process to act upon those results is utterly flawed, if not entirely absent. Candidly, I think it’s a mix of both, but I also think that the biggest proportion of the issue relies on the latter.
I think that we need to take this topic more seriously in our organizations. It doesn’t make sense to waste time on the analysis of our projects to do it incorrectly and then to basically ignore it: this is a Portfolio Management “chronic disease”, if I may be allowed to use the analogy. I am not certain about the cure to this problem, still, I have already a couple prompt points. Let me say that a broader range of parameters to select upon (size, complexity, risk, urgency, stakeholders’ profiles, expected duration, budget) would help a lot. Then perhaps an algorithm, a formula could be used to produce a conclusion, an actual project comprehensive characterization as per the values of each one of the numbers. Finally – and more importantly – there must be a process to act upon it: there must be consequences. For example, if the project is urgent and risky, assign this type of PM, if the project is long and complex, request for a bigger management budgetary reserve. If these stakeholders are engaged, it is mandatory to inform them every two days of the status. You get the idea: the characterization of the project through pre-defined parameters derives into actual actions, guidelines, rules, strategies. I also think that using Lessons Learned and a Focus Group with the most experienced PMs would greatly benefit the creation of the mentioned algorithm (formula). I also foresee interesting opportunities for PMOs to this analytical, semiautomatic approach.
Imagine that: you would be receiving your projects with guidance, structure and “warnings”: now that would be a sight, isn´t it? Of course, these “automated” guidelines would have to be tuned & tweaked as per the project subtleties by the PM and his Team, but nothing like actually receiving insight from the shared pool of experience and knowledge of the organization – as a standard input right from the beginning. Not only that, the organization would be nudging projects toward success: better staffing, resource allocation, wisdom injection right from the launch. COOL, isn’t it?
And now… what do you think? Do you know any examples of this idea? How would you improve it? Let us hear your thoughts.
Best regards,
Fernando
Not Agile, not Waterfall, not Hybrid: my FAVORITE approach is…
I recently was asked a question that put me to ponder for a good while. This person reached out to me and asked “Hey, do you have a favorite Project Management methodology?” Nowadays, the en-vogue (oh la là), default answer would be to reply “Agile” in any – or all – of its different tastes. Still, for me, this is not the case. As efficient and trendy as Agile methodologies are, they come with cons. Our human nature drives us more toward entropy – a fancy way to say that we make are biased towards making a mess of it all – rather than organization & order and Agile could become a vehicle for havoc. The ulterior development of Disciplined Agile and similar variations are an admission to this point. Agile is not for every org nor every character. Furthermore, Agile is not the best approach for certain type of projects (the more “physical” the effort, the least space for maneuver & flexibility). Finally, I still have my reservations about beginning a project without a charter and a mature scope (we will talk more about this on a separate post).
A more academic, “can´t fail” answer to the question would be “my favorite is the one that applies to each project, as it is deemed appropriate”. I am not fond of this smarty sort of a riposte. As valid as it is, it´s more of a generic statement that sidetracks the conversation. It diverts the point from an actual exercise of selection & preference to a “rather don´t say” creative option. In more mundane terms, kind of a “beauty pageant” answer, if you know what I mean.
This takes us into the territory of actual methodologies. As shared upfront, Agile is not my preferred one. So, what about the “ancient” and mature Waterfall approach? Well, as we know, there are issues with it. Waterfall´s fortes are simultaneously its weaknesses: it requires lots of upfront planning. Also, and to put it in economic terms, it assumes a “ceteris-paribus” context to the effort (else, planning would be futile). Finally, it makes changes and adaptation cumbersome, expensive and slow (the more mature the project, the more valid this is). Alas! Then, what about a Hybrid method? It´s It’s another “nope” for me. We are still learning how to satisfactorily mix Waterfall and Agile approaches. Also, bringing these two approaches brings the good of both… and the worst of both.
By now I hope you are wondering what is left to be chosen: I can be picky, I admit it. So, drum-roll, please… After some reflection, my current favorite Project Management methodology is the… Rolling-Wave approach! (Applause, please). Why? Well, because from my perspective, it brings the benefits of a long-term aim of control (Waterfall) but the adaptability features of an Agile approach. This approach runs on a divide-and-conquer basis, severing the endeavor into logical, manageable chunks and focusing planning & control into the “next” one. Its like aiming to cross a vast jungle: you know the particular compass direction to follow, but you plan your path according to what the line-of-sight offers you. It´s worthy to mention that a decent level of phase/chunk overlap is also compatible with this approach. To me, this approach offers a healthy compromise between scope driven and time driven methods. I like it – I like it a lot.
So there you go, the Rolling-Wave method is my favorite PM approach. Of course, this is my personal palate: individual, subjective and particular: there´s no accounting for taste. I would love to hear your own opinion.
Regards,
Fernando
Ardiente Búsqueda de Nuestra Ignorancia
El 4 de Julio de 1776 se redactó la Declaración de Independencia de los Estados Unidos en un salón de Filadelfia. En su segundo párrafo nos lega una frase para la posteridad:
“Sostenemos como evidentes estas verdades: que los hombres son creados iguales; que son dotados por su Creador de ciertos derechos inalienables; que entre estos están la vida, la libertad y la búsqueda de la felicidad.”
Quisiera nos enfocáramos en el cierre de la frase, en esa “búsqueda de la felicidad”, en particular, en la parte de la “búsqueda” como tal. Déjenme explicarles: vi una charla Ted que me ha impactado profundamente (se las comparto más abajo para que la disfruten). La charla versa sobre búsqueda – particularmente, la búsqueda de la Ignorancia. Su autor y presentador, Stuart Firestein, nos ilumina con una revolucionaria y esclarecedora propuesta: nos propone que revirtamos todo el modelo mental que tenemos en torno a la ciencia & el conocimiento y su eterna danza con la ignorancia & lo desconocido. Firestein nos propone que invirtamos el orden de los factores, porque no se trata de que de la ignorancia nazca el conocimiento. Todo lo contrario: es un mayor conocimiento el que nos genera una mayor & mejor ignorancia. Para mí esa es una idea que verdaderamente merece la pena difundir.
Cuando escucho su discurso, vienen a mi mente algunas frases y aforismos de las grandes mentes de la historia. Permítaseme citar a algunos de estos ilustres difuntos, pues como bromea Firestein, no hay que dejar a alguien fuera de la conversación solo por estar muerto: “Al ampliar el campo del conocimiento, no hacemos sino aumentar el horizonte de la ignorancia” (Miller), “La verdadera ciencia enseña, por encima de todo, a dudar y a ser ignorante” (Unamuno), “Nuestro conocimiento es necesariamente finito, mientras que nuestra ignorancia es necesariamente infinita” (Popper), “Solo sé que nada sé” (Sócrates), “El gran problema con la humanidad es que los estúpidos están seguros de todo y los inteligentes están llenos de dudas” (Rusell). Dejemos la colección de citas afines al tema hasta aquí y que los finados no mencionados no se nos resientan: se les deja por fuera no por cadavéricos sino por pragmatismo.
Y sí, todos hemos escuchado alguna vez estas frases pero la presentación hinca el dedo en el meollo de la cuestión: es directa, divertida, didáctica. El autor nos impulsa a aceptar que el cuestionarse más y mejor no es sino el resultado directo de nuestro conocimiento. Porque no se trata de que, al saber más, haya menos por preguntarse y aprender, sino todo lo contrario – saber más nos eleva lo cual nos permite observar un panorama con nuevas cumbres por conquistar. Firestein se da el lujo de incluir al final de la breve alocución de poco más de dieciocho minutos una crítica a lo que denomina nuestro sistema “bulímico” de educación, el cual fuerza a los estudiantes a la ingesta desbordada de datos y conocimientos para luego escupirlos en los exámenes; sin mayor crecimiento intelectual de por medio.
Les insto de nuevo a tomarse el tiempo y mirar la disertación. Vivir es buscar y experimentar. Preguntar es casi un sinónimo de lo mismo – más sabiduría & conocimiento es causal directo de más y mejores preguntas. Saber es bueno, preguntar es mejor. Conocer es valioso, explorar es superior. Memorizar es útil, pero pensar es existir (se nos ha colado el difunto René en el tema subrepticiamente, aparentemente no quería quedarse por fuera…). Pensar nos hace humanos. Buscadores de felicidad y de ignorancia. Pensemos, pues.
Un abrazo,
Fernando
PD: hay un libro sobre el tema por el autor, les comparto el enlace aquí.
Photo by Klim Sergeev on Unsplash
El caso con el Caso de Negocio / The case with the Business Case
ESPAÑOL (English version below)
¿Por qué estábamos haciendo este proyecto? ¿Por qué estamos metidos en este “enredo”? ¿Para qué estábamos construyendo este producto? ¿Cuál era el objetivo último que perseguíamos? ¿Se justifica aún asignar tantos recursos a este asunto? ¿Cambió la regulación, el mercado, el contexto? Parece mentira, pero a todo Gerente de Proyectos, digo mal, a todo “Stakeholder” (Patrocinador, Gerente, Cliente, etc.) le ha ocurrido en más de una ocasión que las respuestas a estas preguntas no son cosa patente y evidente. Así es, las respuestas deberían ser casi una perogrullada. Pero el asunto no termina ahí: en la mayoría de los casos, no son las respuestas las que no están a mano, sino que olvidamos plantearnos continuamente las preguntas como tales. ¡Caramba! Es que estamos tan ocupados que casi siempre perseguimos a marchas forzadas la terminación de los entregables del proyecto sin cuestionar nada sobre el mismo. Veamos esto con un poco más de detalle, a continuación.
A lo que voy es que, en una organización gestionada de manera medianamente ordenada, en algún momento se hizo un análisis que justificaba el “dolor” asociado a la ejecución del proyecto. Eso se llama un “Caso de Negocio”. Si se hizo de manera apropiada, contendrá mínimamente una explicación del “por qué” del proyecto y el razonamiento que explica el haber escogido esa solución. Bueno,puede tener otros elementos, como las opciones para solucionar el problema ó necesidad, riesgos, costos y duración grosso modo, aprobaciones pero lo esencial es lo anteriormente explicado. Lo que ocurre es que ese problema o necesidad – ese “por qué” – y esa solución propuesta – ese proyecto – no son inmutables: nada lo es. Las circunstancias cambian. Cambia la legislación, cambia la tecnología, cambia el negocio, cambian los competidores, cambia el mercado, cambia el contexto mundial (¿alguien dijo últimamente pandemia, crisis de contenedores, crisis del mercado laboral, cambios demográficos, guerras?). El Caso de Negocio en su versión oficial 1.0 es una instantánea, una foto que respondía a un momento determinado. Sin embargo, por aprobado, se convierte en una especie de “undécimo mandamiento”, incontrovertible e incuestionable. Peor aún, normalmente se coloca “en el fondo de un cajón” – léase de un fichero digital – donde nadie lo vuelve a ver.
Atribuyo el citado comportamiento a nuestra carencia crónica de pensamiento crítico aunado a la sobrecarga laboral de la vida moderna. Actuamos entonces como autómatas, robots persiguiendo “deadlines”, hitos, entregables y semejantes. Se nos olvida pensar, cuestionar, debatir. Dicho lo anterior, la solución a este tan humano comportamiento fue identificada ya hace un buen tiempo. Me refiero a lo que plantea la metodología PRINCE2, la cual incluye en su modelo Puntos de Verificación oficiales para ventilar el Caso de Negocio – vamos, para ver si el proyecto aún “vale la pena” – al final de las diferentes etapas, incluyendo al finalizar el Proceso de Inicio de Proyecto, la Fase de Iniciación, durante las diferentes Etapas de Ejecución del Proyecto, a través del Control del mismo e inclusive al Cierre y en la Revisión de los Beneficios.
Más allá de perdernos en los detalles, lo que deseo destacar es el concepto como tal: el Caso de Negocio no debería ser nunca “letra muerta”. Supongo que podríamos hacer la concesión y en algunos tipos de proyectos de carácter iterativo o particularmente sencillos; pues limitar la revisión del mismo. Sin embargo, si el esfuerzo demanda diseño, transiciones, transformaciones, introducciones de nuevos productos & servicios o iniciativas de gran escala; pues me parece fundamental contar con validaciones periódicas del Caso de Negocio, siquiera para asegurarnos que “la brújula sigue orientada hacia la estrella polar”, si se me permite la marinera analogía.
Y usted, estimado lector, ¿tiene acaso algún caso con el Caso? Me atrevería a apostar que así es…
Saludos,
Fernando
ENGLISH (Versión en español arriba)
Why were we doing this project? Why are we in this “mess”? Why were we building this product for? What was the ultimate goal pursued here? Is it still logical to allocate so many resources to this “thing”? Did the regulation, the market, the context change? It is utterly amazing, but every Project Manager, I stand corrected, every stakeholder (Sponsor, Manager, Client, etc.) has fallen in the trap of not having the answers to these questions just at hand. That’s right, those answers should be almost a truism. But the issue does not end there: in most cases, it is not the answers that are not handy, but rather we continually forget to ask ourselves the questions as such. Alas! It’s just that we are so busy that we are almost always chasing the completion of the project deliverables without questioning anything about it. Let’s look at this in a bit more detail, below.
My point is that, in an organization managed in a fairly orderly manner, at some point an analysis was made that justified the “pain” associated with the execution of the project. That is called a “Business Case”. If properly done, it will contain at least an explanation of the “why” of the project and the reasoning behind choosing the selected solution. Well, it may have other elements, such as the options to solve the problem or need, risks, costs and duration roughly, approvals, but lets not get into the weeds. The trick is that this problem or need – the “why” – and this proposed solution – the “project” – are not immutable: nothing is. Circumstances change. Legislation changes, technology changes, business changes, competitors change, the market changes, the global context changes (someone said pandemic, container crisis, labor market crisis, demographic changes, wars?). The Business Case in its official version 1.0 is a snapshot, a photo that responded to a specific moment. However, once approved, it becomes a kind of “eleventh commandment”, incontrovertible and unquestionable. Worse still, it is usually placed “at the bottom of a drawer” – a digital folder – where no one sees it again. Oblivion.
I attribute the aforementioned behavior to our chronic lack of critical thinking coupled with the work overload of modern life. We then act like mechanisms, robots chasing deadlines, milestones, deliverables and the like. We forget to think, question, debate. That said, the solution to this very human behavior was identified a long time ago. I am referring to what the PRINCE2 methodology proposes, which includes official Verification Points in its model to air the Business Case – come on, to see if the project is still “worth it” – at the end of its different stages, including the finalize the Project Initiation Process, the Initiation Phase, during the different Project Execution Stages, through its Control and even at the Closure and in the Review of the Benefits events.
But lets not get lost in the details: what I want to highlight is the concept as such: the Business Case should never be “dead letter”. I suppose we could make the concession and in some types of projects that are iterative or particularly simple; then limit the review of it. However, if the effort demands architectural designs, transitions, transformations, introductions of new products & services or large scale endeavors, it seems essential to me to have periodic validations of the Business Case. This event for the sake of ensuring that “the compass is still oriented towards the North Star” , if I may use a nautical analogy.
And you, dear reader, do you have any case with the Case? I bet you do…
Cheers!
Fernando
Photo by Kevin Noble on Unsplash
WHO is (really) driving this project?
Today I want to share a powerful & simple thought. Or perhaps its more of a warning, or even better, let´s call it a tip. Thus, behold: Dear Project Manager, check out your current endeavor(s) and ask yourself: who is driving this project? No, stop there, I mean the question: Who is actually driving the project? Is it really the PM, as it is supposed to be? Or could it be that in reality another stakeholder has seized control? Those are actually tricky questions, lets talk briefly about them.
For starters, the default answer to the question is “I, the PM”. Default because that is what the PM was appointed for in the first place. I mean, “Manager” is in the title, isn´t it? But that´s just in theory. That may be the case (and all good thus), but chances are that for a variety of reasons and circumstances that exceed the scope of this short article, a good chunk of the project Control & Authority may have shifted to someone else. It may be the Customer, a Vendor/Supplier, a Governance Body, the Sponsor, a Consultant, a Project Team Member, a Governmental entity, a Legal Partner, a PMO Rep? Someone else? Or even perhaps no-one, and therefore the project is flying in an “auto-pilot”, “at the hands of God” basis? Even a combination of the aforementioned is possible. Regardless, the point is: as a PM, we should continuously inquire ourselves who is the actual “pilot” driving the project, no matter its stage.
The answer may surprise ourselves and not in a happy way. But information is power and self-awareness is vital. Once we understand who is actually behind the wheel, we need to make a series of secondary questions. Example: Is this the right thing at the current time? If not, who should that be – me? For how long has this been going on? Why did it happen in the first place? Has magical-thinking been implied? What about assumptions? Is there some type of bias in my perspective? Are there cultural aspects to consider? How about the overall PMO, Governance, Program, Portfolio perspective? Strategy and stratagems involved? Which is the correct way to seize back the authority, assuming that is the correct thing to do now? How does that authority grasp occur: gradually, immediately? What is the correct control / authority / accountability / decisions split across stakeholders? Should & could this happen again in the future at some stage? Should this be escalated or consulted with someone, eg, the Sponsor? Those are serious queries which demand careful analysis; the outcomes could potentially impact the success of the PM and the project. An actual plan may be required for a correct remediation , including a design and an implementation. Those are strategical, “existential” questions for a PM.
All that said, of course I am not implying that a PMs is supposed to have dictatorship-like power over the project: there are layers and layers of authority, governance, decision and perspective. Still, if the role is held accountable in some degree to the project actual results then a reasonable level of control has to be assigned to it. If that is not the case, then both the organization and the PM are deceiving themselves, and that is a dangerous game that often leads to negative results to both parties… and to the project per-se.
Alas! In conclusion, questions are always our allies. Let me finish by quoting “The Bard of Avon”: “To be or not to be, that is the question”.
Cheers,
Fernando
Photo by Kristopher Allison on Unsplash
Webinar con la Universidad Nacional: “¿Por qué fallan los Proyectos? Lecciones de la Vida Real” / Webinar with UNA: “Why projects fail? – Lessons from Real Life”
ESPAÑOL: Les invito cordialmente a ver la grabación de mi reciente webinar con la Universidad Nacional de Costa Rica – UNA, titulado “¿Por qué fallan los proyectos? – Lecciones de la Vida Real”. La exposición mezcla vivencias de mi práctica personal con anécdotas históricas de la II Guerra Mundial. Estoy seguro que mis colegas se verán retratados en más de una de las situaciones ahí dibujadas, y que alguna(s) de las propuestas de solución les serán interesantes.
Un abrazo,
Fernando
ENGLISH: You are invited to enjoy the recording of my webinar with the “Universidad Nacional de Costa Rica” – UNA (academic institution where I teach Project Management related topics), entitled “Why projects fail? – Lessons from Real Life”. I am sure that the situations there depicted – including curious anecdotes from WWII – will “ring a bell”, and that some of the ideas to correct these major problems will resonate with many of you. Feel free to turn on the captions and then the auto-translator.
Cheers,
Fernando
D-Day: Lessons from THE GREATEST Project of the XX Century
I recently finished Stephen E. Ambrose´s book “D-Day. The Climatic Battle of World War II”, a historical 600 pages masterpiece presenting the Allied perspective of what has been described as the most important day of the XX century. I also read “D-Day from German´s Eyes”, by Holger Eckhertz, which in turn provides insight from the much less publicized German perspective. After digesting both books and some interesting online documentaries (see some samples below), allow me to share with you, kind reader, some lessons learned from the Project Management perspective. And these are indeed lessons, worth to be stated, extracted from perhaps the most complex & crucial planning effort of modern times. Here we go:
Number 10: make the plan proportionate to the project.
D-Day was massive. No, I really mean it – epic, colossal, humongous, huge by all standards. Let´s check some figures: circa 160.000 Allied troops involved, storming nearly 60km of coast. Almost 7,000 ships and vessels of all type and about 2,400 aircraft; not counting gliders, tanks, trucks, jeeps and other vehicles. It is still the biggest amphibious operation of all times, a behemoth of a project. It has also one of the most bizarre Planning-to-Execution duration ratios, with about two years of Planning efforts vs a couple days of actual Execution. This context demanded a plan according to the situation. And what a plan was created. The level of granularity was astounding: massive hoax operations (“Operation Fortitude”), attack exercises and simulations, logistics to shelter, feed and train hundreds of thousands of individuals, intelligence efforts, en-masse fabrication efforts, weather analysis and forecast, enemy surveillance, attack itineraries planned to the minute and hundreds of other factors all meshed together into a gargantuan plan. Referring to solely the operation plan for his regiment, a colonel is recorded to have said “It was thicker than the biggest telephone book you have seen”. Yes, big & important projects demand big plans. Small projects usually do not demand such exercises, and then small improvements, routine changes, near-task sizes need easy stuff. The plan must raise to the need – that is the point.
Number 9: the plan is useless, still, planning is indispensable
On June 6, 1944 nearly everything that could go wrong for the Allied Forces went wrong. The weather was bad, affecting the actual approximation to the shore. Then, with the noticeable exception of the low-altitude B-26 “Marauders” aircraft, the most powerful air bombing (through B17s and other high altitude aircrafts) was a fiasco. The sky was cloudy, it was still dark and flying at 20,000 feet, pilots had no real idea of their precise location. Thousands of tons of explosives were wasted, destroying nothing but cattle and green fields. Another example? Rockets fired by the assaulting amphibious ships almost never hit the target. Then the gliders, supposed to provision thousands of tons of equipment and men failed miserably: The cause? Normandy´s hedgehogs were much higher and sturdy than English ones, making the landing a suicide. This sole factor almost caused the entire operation to jeopardize. The list goes on. Still, “In preparing for battle, I have always found plans are useless but planning is indispensable”. The author is no other but the Supreme Allied Commander himself, Dwight D. Eisenhower. This statement holds true: despite all these failures, the planning exercise made Operation Overlord a success at the end. Months of preparation created a level of awareness and perspective that allowed the troops to identify new factors and adapt as per the real circumstances. Take for example the mess made with the paratroopers. Very few men, less say regiments, landed were intended. Still, their knowledge of Normandy´s geography and their laser-focus on their goals allowed them to adapt, re-organize and cut Nazi´s supply lines. The plan can fail – but we must be aware of the circumstances.
Number 8: you need line-of-sight, you can´t control what you don´t measure
A not much-known detail about the attack is that the high command (Eisenhower, Bradley, Montgomery, Smith, etc.) and even medium rank officers were mostly blind on June 6th. The fact that the operation was launched before dawn, the bad weather and mostly the enormous amount of smoke, ashes and flying debris of all sizes & types made the coast line virtually invisible from the vessels. Tons of bombs from the bombers but mainly the ulterior navy attack with massive cannons (eg, 400mm and bigger) plus thousands of rockets launched from the lighter disembark vessels created a virtual curtain. Let me quote Ambrose book yet again: “It was most galling and depressing,” Commander W.J. Marshall of the destroyer Satterlee wrote in his action report, “to lie idly a few hundred yards off the beaches and watch our troops, tanks, landing boats, and motor vehicles being heavily shelled and not be able to fire a shot to help them just because we had no information as to what to shoot at and were unable to detect the source of enemy fire.” Furthermore, most of the primitive communication gear of the time broke up during the landing, allowing no communication from the troops at the beaches to the fleet – with some noticeable exceptions. At the end, the Navy played a primordial role, heavily bombing Nazi positions, but it took hours for decisions to be made, and for the required accuracy to be met. Let´s try by all means not to fire our cannons to invisible targets.
Number 7: don´t put all your eggs in the same basket
When I was reading the books, I came to the (general & raw) conclusion that D-Day success came mainly through a combination of plain brute force (massive numbers of everything) but mainly idiotic errors from the enemy. An idea struck my head: what if the invasion failed? What was “plan B” in case the Atlantic Wall couldn´t be breached? Well, as per historic records, there was no backup landing plan. Thus, the plan was to storm kilometers of coast, intending to make a breach somewhere and then work it from there. But the main backup was surprising: a nuclear bombing to Berlin was under consideration in case all efforts failed. Luckily, there was no need for that ultimate resource.
Number 6: don´t confuse a “how” with a “what”
Hitler, Roemmel and Co. made a supreme mistake when planning for the invasion: they – and particularly Roemmel – envisioned that the sole way to protect “Fortress Europe” (the propaganda name for the conquered Europe by the Nazis) was to construct literally a wall around it, particularly on the Atlantic coast close to the UK islands. This was a major mistake: it was Germany itself the one who proved that wars have changed forever. Fast mobility, logistics, blitzkrieg, aviation – those were the factors that had put Europe in their hands. Still, when taking a defensive position, they went back to WW I or even Middle Ages approaches, envision the Atlantic as a moat with a castle behind. If (and what an if that is) they would have put their energy not in pouring millions of tons of concrete right on the coast but in constructing more Panzers, more bridges, more secret fortifications the D-Day story could have been different. Moreover, the reconstruction of their air force would have been another good call, not to mention to station the bulk of their troops a little farther from the coast, beyond the Navy´s “columbiads”. Perhaps this would not have changed the end result of the war, but it would have altered the outcome of D-Day and provided them with time to improve and massively deploy their futuristic new weapons: V2 rockets and the impressive Messerschmitt Me 262 plus the Arado Ar 234, the first ever jet fighter and bomber. Those would have been true game changers. The lesson learned is evident: they needed to secure Europe, not to build a wall. Its a very different objective: never confuse a “how” with a “what”, with a final goal.
Number 5: there is no perfect timing – you have to take risks
On June 4th, 1944, Commander Eisenhower asked to the Supreme Headquarters Allied Expeditionary Force committee a question. He said: “Do you see any reason for not going Tuesday?”. Montgomery replied: “I would say – Go!”. Eisenhower continued walking, chin to the chest. “The question is… how long can you hang this operation on the end of a limb and let it hang there?”. Some minutes later, after more thought, he said: “I am quite positive that the order must be given”. The fleet was immediately deployed for the assault. He had to confirm again the attack next day as per the bad weather affecting the region. When reading the history, I just cant avoid feeling pity for the Supreme Commander. There was just so much at stake. It was perhaps the single most important decision of the century, and there were nothing but gray clouds around – literally and metaphorically. Will the weather get worse and sink the landing gear? Will the bombardment help enough the troops? How will the Nazis and their Panzer divisions react to the attack? Uncertainty was the word of the day. Still, a call had to be made, and he made the right one. Operation Overlord was too big and important to keep it on hold any longer. The troops were impatient and tired of the delay. Logistics were close to impossible. And each day the attack was delayed was an additional day granted for the Nazis to prepare their defenses. Risks have to be taken – calculated risks indeed, but calls and actions are a must.
Number 4: tools & tech help!
Have you heard about a Higgins boat? What about Hobart´s funnies? Well, these and many other were vehicles and gadgets crafted for that climatic day. A Higgins boat (more properly, an LCVP for Landing Craft, Vehicle and Personnel) was exactly that: a light landing vessel designed to ferry an entire platoon to the coast. Hobart´s funnies were tanks and similar powerful vehicles modified in crazy ways. There was the “Crocodile”, a tank with the cannon replaced with a massive flamethrower, the ARK, half tank, half bridge, the Crab, which had an enormous rotating cylinder on front with chains, designed to safely trigger mines. Then DD tanks (floating tanks – believe it or not) and many many other. These vehicles proved to be of true value to the troops, facilitating the excruciating task of seizing the beach. Technology helps indeed, when it is up to the task: right tool for the right job.
Number 3: adapt to survive
Reading the personal stories of the troops, it is utterly evident the level of a mess they were in. It is said that in war, each man fights its own battle, but this was never so true as in June 6th, 1944. Chaos was everywhere: paratroopers were dropped at night and got dispersed over kilometers. Tides sent troops and vehicles randomly. Enemy fire put everyone on cover. Air Force bombardment was a big fail. Still, the job was done, by adaptation means: agility at its best. The troops assembled under new leads (the close ones!), the available weapons were used, routes were changed, the brief available information was used to brilliant extremes. Teams were empowered and had the major goals clear, this allowed them to keep focused and save the day.
Number 2: use the right skills for the right job
A big factor in the success of the Allies was not only the general training of the troops, but the specialization in tasks: the assignment of the correct staff to the correct job. A good example was the exemplary performance of the 2nd Division Rangers to Omaha Beach – the 7th circle of hell during that day. These guys were the best of the best, and they proved their expertise and particularly, their motivation and stamina. These were volunteers, true patriots serving the free world while risking their lives at their own will. And they did the impossible: they climbed an almost vertical cliff under heavy fire and then secured the positions for the rest of the troops. This is in utmost contrast to the performance of the so-called Oost battalions: conscripts from all over Europe, men forced to work for the Axis cause. Most of them preferred to surrender at the first opportunity, and some even rebelled against the Germans. The lesson is clear: right skills for the right job, let´s devote the right time to allocate our resources to the tasks.
Number 1: TRUST – the troops are the ones who do the real job.
At the end, when the final “go” was given, and walking slowly toward his car after seeing the bombers depart, Supreme Commander Dwight D. Eisenhower simply said “Well, it´s on”. The interesting thing to notice is that, from the moment the orders to proceed with the assault were given, he was basically a spectator. He had empowered his Navy, Air Force and Army commanders, all through the line of command – to proceed as per their best criteria. He had led the planning effort, and made the final call. But it was now a matter of trust. Perhaps that is the most important lesson that we must learn: let the troops do their job – we got to trust them. Once the plan is ready, staff is trained, tools and systems are loaded, its on the tsoldiers, the technicians, the engineers, the developers, the staff – at the end, they are the ones doing the job. Tools, procedures, technology are good, but at the end people make things happen, they make the difference. Thus, TRUST.
“In any moment of decision, the best thing you can do is the right thing, the next best thing is the wrong thing, and the worst thing you can do is nothing.”
Theodore “Teddy” Roosevelt
To finish, a powerful “extra” lesson – and free of charge 🙂 Good ol´ Teddy Roosevelt, uncle of Franklin D. Roosevelt (coincidently, US President during most of WWII) put it in crystal-clear terms, as follows: “In any moment of decision, the best thing you can do is the right thing, the next best thing is the wrong thing, and the worst thing you can do is nothing.”. In other words, the worst decision is indecision. And that was if not the greatest perhaps the most evident mistake made by the Führer right after the beaches of Normandy were attacked. Believe it or not, after Hitler was debriefed about the situation, and having plenty of the powerful Panzer divisions – terror of the Allied forces all through the war – within hours of the invasion area in Normandy, he never ordered a counterattack. As a matter of fact, he had one of his infamous tantrums and then took a powerful sleep-pill, thus going for a long nap. No attack, no regroup, no location shift, no camouflaging, no preparation… not even a retreat. Nada. Why? Its inexplicable. Possibly he was hijacked by his emotions & temper (another lesson per-se!). What we can say now, nearly 80 years after, is that it he really blew it. Let´s learn from one of the major bloopers in war history: make your call – and make it on a timely basis; a mediocre resolution on due- time is better than a “perfect one” that comes late.
Good luck in your projects, or better-said, “V” for Victory as Churchill waved – cheers!
Fernando
Photo by Museums Victoria on Unsplash
The Quest for (True) Sponsors
“Who finds a Friend finds a Treasure”, says the old adage. The same applies for the wild “Project Kingdom”, where we can paraphrase and say the same thing, just only for Sponsors. Alas! It is just that true Sponsors are really an uncommon thing in the Project Management world: a rara avis within the modern business jungle. Now, a disclaimer is necessary upfront: it is not the case that sponsors are actually deliberately acting against PMs or more importantly, against the project and its goals. It actually doesn’t makes sense for a Sponsor to sabotage his/her own interests & organization. The project´s success is their success. So what is going on here? Answer: in the vast majority of the cases, sponsorship issues can be grouped in five general categories, as follows…
Sponsorship Problem Categories
- Work Overload: the Sponsor role demands someone with criteria, someone with experience, someone with enough ascendancy & power in the organization. These are individuals entrusted to make decisions. They manage budgets and resources. Sponsors are normally high-ranking persons within the org: C-suites, VPs, Directors. Thus, they are very busy and get pulled simultaneously from many directions. You see the in-built conflict here? The Sponsor role demands for high-profile staff who is already over-allocated. The result is that many sponsors – logically – privilege day-by-day work and “keeping the lights on” in detriment of their sponsor “additional hat”, all this to a negative effect on the projects.
- Organizational Immaturity: The Random House Dictionary defines maturity as “full development or perfected condition”. So this factor actually refers to lack of development in our entities. To put it simple, the organization (or its division) is not ready for a “projectized ecosystem”. Actually, the prior bullet point is a reflection of this, since the entity as a whole is not aware of the current workload distribution within its leads or simply lacks enough headcount to cover the sponsor roles. Another possibility is that the governance process and/or body managing the portfolio is weak. This is a common situation: the organization is immature and fills roles with names “just to fill the field”, to a total misunderstanding of the actual requirements, consequences and implications of this behavior. The governance process (Portfolio Management, “Approval Gates” system, Resource Allocation, etc.) is probably weak. Moreover, the Sponsor is not understood as the ultimate accountable person as of the project success. Au contraire, a mature organization with a solid governance process is nearly “vaccinated” against “sponsor-virus”, to put the topic in hands in our era´s terms.
- Lack of Knowledge: lets recall the actual definition of a Sponsor. According to PMI´s PMBOK 6th Edition, a Sponsor is “A person or group who provides resources and support for the project, program or portfolio and is accountable for enabling success.” I don´t know about you, but that short statement really raises my eyelash. There is a lot in there: “provides resources and support”. Also, “accountable”. And then, “enabling success”. What an explosive combo! And yet, Sponsor role training is really uncommon when compared to the Project Manager role (PMP vs ???), not to mention other technical and business areas abundance of training & education. Actually, my research found just a couple Sponsor certifications, such as PPS by APMG. This is quite interesting: if all projects should have both a PM and a Sponsor, how come this total disproportion? How come there is no specific Body of Knowledge for that role? A final disclaimer on this point: if the org runs under a PRINCE2 framework (back to the maturity point, I guess), then precisely the “Controlled Environment” part should tackle many of these issues away.
- Shared (fake) Accountability: I (Fernando) personally disagree with the PMI inclusion of a “group” as a possible entity to play the Sponsor role. In my personal opinion, “shared-accountability” is sort of an oxymoron. Accountability is personal or it isn´t. Therefore, more than one name listed as Sponsor is a contradiction in terms. I also think that there may be exceptions to this principle in the real world, especially in really mature places (CMMI L5, Prosci CM L5, PMI OPM3 L4 and similarly rated organizations) but exceptions are precisely that: rare, sparse, in a word – exceptional.
- Any possible combination of the above… which, in my experience, tends to be indeed the most common case.
How to solve this mess
What´s to be done with this situation? Let me quote Plato: “Ignorance is the root and stem of all evil”. What I mean is that education both to the individual and the organization should be the first step: we need to fully understand & digest that a Sponsor is not just a signature or a name in a PPT slide. Project Sponsorship implies active engagement, dedication, time & energy. A Sponsor should be a champion for the Project, acting sometimes as a lightning-rod in order to shield from external attacks to the endeavor, sometimes dealing with the complex organizational politics, sometimes serving as a guide to the PM. Sponsors promote, authorize, fund, approve, distribute and receive info, resources & outcomes for and to the project. They are also escalation paths, priority masters and scope definers.
Sponsors should be educated (certified), and the organization should acknowledge its maturity level and perhaps even more importantly, assign time & resources for the role. Building on this idea, and thinking outside of the box, perhaps for really busy, high-level individuals sponsoring many projects, a dedicated Sponsor Assistant may be an option. That would be a really savvy business individual, someone empowered to make decisions within pre-defined thresholds/limits/rules and with the responsibility to compile, filter and summarize key insight to the Executive he/she serves: sort of a smart funnel point for sponsorship affairs. That being said, accountability must reside in the official Sponsor and him/her only: it is a personal requirement, period.
Then for really large corporations, here´s an original idea: some organizations may require an “SMO”, the equivalent to a “PMO”, specifically, the Supportive type, but tweaked for the Sponsor role. I devise this entities as similar to their PMO equivalent, providing a purely consultative/assistant role to Sponsors by “supplying templates, best practices, training, access to information and lessons learned from other projects” (Giraudo, L. & Monaldi, E. (2015). PMO evolution: from the origin to the future. Paper presented at PMI® Global Congress 2015—EMEA, London, England. Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute.). Moreover, SMOs could be “Delivery support functions/services – these focus on supporting the delivery of change and may be provided through a central flexible resource pool of delivery staff, with capacity planning, and HR management processes.” (Giraudo, L. & Monaldi, E. (2015). PMO evolution: from the origin to the future. Paper presented at PMI® Global Congress 2015—EMEA, London, England. Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute.) So there you go: SMOs, an internal consultant agency for Sponsors, if you will, is born.
Conclusion
Sponsors are the top liaison, the ultimate bridge between the organization and the project. There is a reason why they are the ultimate accountable staff for the project success – their active commitment & engagement is proof of it. Furthermore, the mandatory time, processes, tools & resources required to execute the role must be provided by the organization, else, the organization is tricking itself.
I´d love to hear your thoughts on this topic. Email me or preferably state them as a comment to this post.
Cheers,
Fernando
ACADEMIA: Clases Virtuales para certificación PMP con la UNA / ACADEMIA: Virtual PMP classes experience with the National University (UNA).
VERSIÓN EN ESPAÑOL / ENGLISH VERSION BELOW
La enseñanza es desafiante. Y la enseñanza durante los tiempos del COVID lo es aún más: imagine hacer la reingeniería completa de un curso diseñado para la experiencia presencial y migrarlo a una plataforma completamente virtual, y hacerlo con la presión de una fecha límite previamente comprometida. Bueno, ¡desafío aceptado! Tengo el honor de enseñar en la “Universidad Nacional” (UNA), una de las mejores universidades de la región, y ya teníamos la clase de preparación para el examen PMP en nuestras agendas cuando se impuso la cuarentena en el país. Sin embargo, en pocos días nos reinventamos. El plan de estudios se adaptó, el aula virtual se cargó con variedad de recursos en línea, la plataforma Zoom estaba lista y se disponía de un enfoque virtual del tiempo de clase.
El ingrediente secreto para el éxito reside (como siempre) en transmitir humanidad a la distancia, utilizando una variedad de herramientas como el humor, calidez interpersonal, la narración de historias, las anécdotas y un uso deliberado y consciente de la voz como una extensión del Yo. Además, utilizo frecuentemente los nombres de los participantes como una forma de mantener a los estudiantes enfocados. También estamos privilegiando mucha participación en vivo: ejercicios conjuntos, preguntas tipo “por qué”, indagaciones de pensamiento crítico a los asistentes; todo esto junto con una agenda predefinida que guía las prioridades y establece fases estratégicamente planificadas para cada momento de la sesión. Asimismo, estoy haciendo un seguimiento diario a través de otros medios (principalmente, correo electrónico y chat), para nunca perder el impulso y proporcionar una plataforma rápida para preguntas y dudas.
En resumen, ha sido – y es, pues no hemos terminado – una verdadera experiencia de aprendizaje. El curso se compone de 12 sesiones de 3 horas cada una. Al final de este viaje, espero emerger como un mejor maestro y persona, mejor preparado para impartir nuevos cursos en línea en el contexto de esta “nueva normalidad”. Mi agradecimiento a la UNA / Progestic / Educación Continua por la confianza en mis habilidades y para toda la clase que dijo “sí” al desafío de prepararse para el examen durante los tiempos COVID: ¡atención, nuevos PMPs muy próximamente!
Fernando
ENGLISH VERSION / VERSIÓN EN ESPAÑOL ARRIBA
Teaching is challenging. And teaching during COVID times is even more exigent: imagine re-engineering a course designed for face-to-face experience to a completely virtual platform, and doing it with the pressure of a pre-committed deadline. Well, challenge accepted! I have the honor of teaching at the “Universidad Nacional” (UNA), one of the best universities in the region, and we had the PMP exam preparation class already in our agendas when national quarantine was enforced. In a couple days, we re-grouped. The curricula was adapted, the virtual classroom was loaded with online resources, Zoom platform was ready and a virtual approach to class-time was available.
The secret ingredient for success rests (as always) in conveying humanity through the distance, using a variety of tools such as humor, rapport, storytelling, anecdotes and a deliberate, conscious use of the voice as an extension of the self. Furthermore, there is an extensive usage of participants names as a way to keep students focused. We are also privileging lots of live participation: joint exercises, “why” questions, critical thinking inquiries to the attendees; all these along with a pre-defined agenda that guides priorities and sets phases during each session. I am also doing daily follow up through other media (mainly, email and chat), so to never loose momentum and provide a quick platform for questions and doubts.
Bottomline, it has been – and it is, we are not done yet – a truly learning experience. The course is composed of 12 sessions, 3 hours each. At the end of this journey, I hope to emerge as a better teacher and person, prepared for more online courses in this “new normality”. My gratitude to the UNA / Progestic / Educación Continua for trusting my skills and to the entire class who raised to the challenge of preparing for the test during COVID times: bring it, new PMPs coming soon!
Fernando
