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
No, a year is not equivalent to 365 days (that is, project-wise).
I hope that through the title I already have your attention: it´s a bold statement, I know. Still, my point is not driven from a post holidays´ bad hangover or an astronomical delusion. Because yes, the 2021 gregorian calendar has 360 days to go (five gone by now), but this is more sort of a reminder, a call for awareness for decision makers, namely C-Suite, Executives, Managers, PMs etc. now that we are opening the 2021 cycle. In the following paragraphs I´ll explain myself, so bear with me.
For starters, unless your projects run in the same way as your operations (24×7), we are tricking ourselves from the very beginning of our planning exercise: most of us have a deep, almost subconscious assumption (sort of a collective verbal agreement) that concurs that the project has 365 days per year to exploit. Well, that is normally not the case. Let´s start with the ends, I mean the weekends. I have done some research (my data sources are Wikipedia and ourworldindata.org) and assuming Saturdays and Sundays are off and 52 weeks per year in average, then we got 104 days less. After adding the average number of paid holidays (11 is a rounded average worldwide, 13 is the mode), the result is that we loose about 34% of the year calendar days due to weekends and holidays. That leaves us with approx. 240 days to go. Still, if we examine this count from a realistic perspective, we must consider that the last weeks of the year are quite low productive, as the first one usually is. So I dare to say that the real result of this initial filtering exercise leaves us with about 230 or 225 days to produce whatever deliverables are expected. But wait, there is more…
The aforementioned 225 available days need to have paid vacations deducted as well. Now, leave-time varies a lot across countries & legislations. Let´s again use statistics as our allies: world average paid-day vacations based on a five-days work week is 16, and the mode is 20 (source: Wikipedia, these final aggregated numbers were calculated by Fernando). So now we are down to about 205 days to work. Is this the magic number? No, there is always a catch
The 205 days are also a mirage: this number is not accounting for sick, grief and other type of leaves, not to mention travelling days if your endeavor implies such needs. So at the end, I believe we have circa 200 days to go per individual, per calendar year. For the sake of keeping it short & sweet, I am not going in detail about historical trends on leave days. Let´s just mention that diminishing working hours is a historical fact and that 4 days work week is one of the big topics of our time: “experiments” on this idea are happening as we speak. All that being said, and for the peace of your minds, the translation of the work days into work hours provides some relief, especially now that work-from-home is ubiquitous and extended working hours are a new normality: to what extent this simultaneous trend counters/balances the day availability reduction is yet to be assessed as the post-COVID era matures.
As a conclusion, I want to leave you with three ideas in mind: first, if your projects run on a 5 work days week basis, you have in fact about 200 work days per year to go (in other words, you loose 45% upfront!). Secondly, if time is of the essence (and according to my experience, it always is) we should consider for budget to work during Saturdays and/or double or triple shifts and/or a follow-the-sun tactic. A buffer for delays should be embedded into the plan as well. And then last but not least: at the end, our results depend not so much on calendars but on productivity. The point is simple: one truly devoted, focused hour – not to mention a day of undivided attention – produces more relevant outcomes than hours of “multitasking” and mediocre efforts. So let´s strive to be human and deal with one thing at a time – the correct one, the current priority – with all our capabilities and skill in this brand new 2021.
My sincere best wishes to you and your kin, may this new cycle around our star be more productive, focused, happy and healthy for all Humankind.
Fernando
Photo by Debby Hudson on Unsplash
Pick up that phone!
“The medium is the message.” – Marshall McLuhan
In days to come, 2020 will be referred not only as the COVID pandemic year, but as the Work-From-Home super-spreader. Globally, jobs not requiring our presence at a physical office are running from our homes, with all the pros & cons that this externally imposed statute implies. In this post, I dare to share the simplest yet most underrated productivity tip for these convoluted times, which is (drums rumble) … pick up the phone! Please don´t tell me you don´t have a physical handset; that is not the point. What we are saying is that we need to bear in mind, carved in letters of gold, that a voice call expedites almost any back-office process you can think about. Yes, I am not talking about fixing a meeting (enough we have, don´t we?) or an unproductive status checkpoint, this is about the old-fashioned 1:1 call – just you and the other stakeholder. For heaven´s sake, don´t email if urgent – pick up the phone and call “John”. And if you have not interacted in a time, if deemed appropriate, ask “Mary” about the family & friends – let´s keep a healthy “layer 8” (human) network functioning: times have shifted, but relationships are still (and perhaps) more important than ever.
On a related line of thought, turning on the camera during meetings and calls is mostly a good idea. Not only it conveys humanism, but it forces you to be “there” and to prepare for the meeting or call. This preparation also implies taking an early shower, dressing appropriately, shaving, make-up being the case, etc. Yes, we are physical beings and taking a shower is part of the daily personal boosters routines. If “cameras on” is what is needed for that to happen, so be it.
In conclusion, we should all develop a sixth-sense, just not for seeing dead people, but for detecting “zombie” email threads (“The Walking Mail?”). We are becoming more and more afraid to pick up the phone and call a co-worker, a customer or a supplier. Think about it: why the hesitation? It’s just a business call – talking to a peer or liaison. What is all this anxiety about? What are we afraid of? COVID cannot spread through the lines but apparently we kind of assume so. We are confusing physical social distancing with self-inflicted isolation. This is a bad thing for the industry, for the business, for our relationships, and for ourselves… and the fix is easy: pick up the phone!
Enough said, this is the end of the post. Let me hear any comments, thus, just give me a call :o)
Fernando
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
Re-learning to LISTEN!
“Wisdom is the reward you get for a lifetime of listening when you would rather have talked.” Mark Twain
Have you thought how much of your free time is devoted to visual-driven activities VS. the time associated to audio-driven ones? No, I mean it: think about it. If you are an average person, your hobbies probably range from Netflix to watching live sports: NFL, NBA, MLB, soccer, hockey, cricket, UFC, etc. There are also TV sitcoms, talk shows, YouTube, Disney+, video games and a whole menu of other visual pleasures (should I say drugs?). Then there is the old taste of going to the movies. There are still even some of us who read for pleasure or go to the theater or live shows.
Furthermore, what nowadays goes viral in social networks are either pictures, memes or videos. They are the virtual “sugar” of our times.
Curiously enough, when talking about professional time (work) we are required, many times, to only listen. Yes, just LISTEN: long phone calls, audio conferences, presentations from your leaders, etc.
I strongly believe that the absolute imbalance between the personal time devoted to visual vs listening activities is correlated to our terrible performance when required to solely listen at our jobs. If we are totally used to guide our minds mainly through the eyes, then it is logical that we feel lost, awkward and uneasy when having to guide ourselves solely by the ears: our main compass is lost. We are just not used to listen, and therefore our attention focuses on the slides on the screen, missing what the presenter is saying. We are attracted to the photos within the Skype chat and whatever stuff is available in our phone and screens… our sole captain is the eye.
Of course, this is a recipe for failure: we are missing crucial information during those key meetings, calls, conversations. What´s to be done? I have three simple yet useful suggestions to improve our listening skills at work:
- Listen to radio shows / opinion programs / podcasts during our free time. Audio-books also work. It is all about re-wiring our brains so they are capable of focusing on audio info only during extended periods of times. Repetition is key to mastery: we need to re-balance visual and audio activity.
- When attending a business meeting, have pen & paper around and take notes. Involving our hands changes the whole equation, deriving in more focus and retention. Ditto for virtual meetings: even typing/transcribing the call helps.
- Try not to interrupt… and I´m not even talking about raising your voice. I am referring to consciously avoid judgments while our interlocutors are talking. The moment our internal voice speaks up, we are not attentively listening. Let’s shut up the internal monologue during those times.
In this XXI century when the vast majority follows the eyes, being capable of following the ears can be a true differentiation. This applies to all of us in the knowledge economy, but particularly to Managers, Leaders, Execs, Coaches, PMs. Let´s re-learn to listen. Yep: as simple as it sounds and as tricky as it is, let´s just LISTEN.
Cheers,
Fernando
PS: The Buggles made a song in 1979 which is almost an omen for these times. Listen below to “Video Killed the Radio Star”…
Photo by Alireza Attari on Unsplash
When projects fail (WHY?)
“Most people are so focused on technical details that they can’t see the bigger picture. Don’t bother “checking the numbers” instead “check your assumptions.“ – Eli Goldrattt
“Check your assumptions”. YES! The entire post hinges around this master advice – you will see. Thus, under its empowering light, let me continue with (another) quote, this one from the PMI Pulse of the Profession 2019 (2019) document. Let´s try to digest this with slow, analytical thinking: “Data from the new 2019 Pulse survey show organizations wasted almost 12 percent of their investment in project spend last year due to poor performance—a number that’s barely budged over the past five years.” Hmmm. Seems that despite all the efforts in the Project Management sphere, we are stuck. Why? Well, last year´s edition of this very publication (PMI Pulse of the Profession 2018 (2018)) states that:
“1) Organizations fail to bridge the gap between strategy design and delivery.
2) Executives don’t recognize that strategy is delivered through projects.
3) The essential importance of project management as the driver of an organization’s strategy isn’t fully realized.”
Let that slowly sink in and in the meantime, let me quote the survey within the same document (PMI Pulse of the Profession 2018 (2018)) which has this question: “Of the projects started in your organization in the past 12 months that were deemed failures, what were the primary causes of those failures? (Select up to 3)”. The top three answers were “Change in organization´s priorities (39%), Change in project objectives (37%), Inaccurate requirements gathering” (35%). Bonus track – the next one is “Inadequate vision or goal for the project” with 29%. Hmmm…
“So Fernando, lots of fancy quotes but… what´s your point, man?” ANSWER: my point is that the problem with projects is (mostly) not within/about projects themselves. The project is not the problem – the problem is the ORGANIZATION itself, being it a corporation, SME, NGO, government agency or any other. The problem is that there is an underlying assumption that organizations are ready to execute projects (or at least certain types of projects) for which they just lack the necessary skills and the required maturity level. And we got evidence – smoking guns, in my opinion. In my experience, the chronic demand (lack of) competent project sponsors is just the tip of the iceberg, but a huge one it is: hitting this sole tip has sunk thousands of “Titanics” (meaning, projects of course). But then 90% of the mass of ice is submerged. The very PMI states that there is an abyss between the organization strategy and leadership and its project´s ecosystem. Projects need to align to the organization, but I say that the organization needs to be ready (aligned) for projects as well. It is the organization the one that must raise to the challenge of a “projectized” reality. Organizations should function in such a way that projects are condemned to success. An utopia? Perhaps. But my experience and the provided evidence demonstrates that the current average org is more on the other end of the spectrum – chronic chaos – which is in turn absolutely unacceptable. This sad reality translates into projects that are sentenced to failure even before they are formally “born”: no real sponsor, no real budget, unclear scope, governance mess, chronic resource overallocation… you name it. Alas! That´s why we are seeing the current state of things, where seemingly no progress is possible (5 years in a row with no improvements as per 2019 Pulse of the Profession, remember?).
But let me finish on a brighter note. Organizations are human constructs and, so long we don´t break natural laws of the Universe, we can mold them. As of how to do this – how to craft project-compatible organizations (more flexible, change-driven, congruent both horizontally and vertically) – we will talk about it in a coming post. Let me give you just a teaser for curious minds (yet another quote – I just can´t help it):
“Quod obstat viae fit pro via.” – Marcus Aurelius.
PS: the “check your assumptions” advice applies not only to projects or business. As you can guess, this is wisdom that applies for life as a whole.
Photo by Sarah Kilian on Unsplash
Photo by David Kovalenko on Unsplash
“One graph to rule´em all”: the Project Mgmt continuum
“Change occurs on a continuum and does not move in a straight line.”
― Sharon Weil
Perhaps you, as I do, perhaps both of us like to see patterns, trends, relationships. It is sometimes quite a mania, but it has also plenty of pros. For starters, it drives you into a scout mindset, open to curiosity and intellectual adventure. It also teases you into “why” mode, looking for rationale and causality. And it even helps with memorization – our mind is a “sense-making machine”. Thus, when we see relationships between concepts or events the ideas stick to our skin like crazy glue sticks to… well, to skin. But, alas! enough with the preliminaries, let´s dive into today´s topic (as per below´s pic, pun intended).
On the flipside, “siloed” concepts are hideous. Their isolation is just an appearance, a cloak, a false display of purity that derails from reality and objectivity. That´s why the apparent segregation between the Agile and Waterfall categories of Project Management methodologies has always annoyed me. I mean, is there really no bridge across them? Is this truly an opposition, an antithesis of insular approaches? I recently came to an angle that disproves the apparent discrete (discrete in the sense of disconnected, discontinuous) and conflicting nature of these two Project Management methodologies. Even better, it can be scaled to provide a common reference across ALL Project Management approaches. The novelty is to map the methodologies, standards and frameworks against their intended time-control target: this in turn creates a continuum across a single axis. A picture is worth a thousand words, hence please take a look:
The above is “One graphic to rule´em all” (sorry if you were expecting it to have the shape of a ring). In any case, it pretends to be a one-stop, quick depiction for ALL Project Management approaches. Of course there are other methodologies not listed in the diagram (eg, ISO 21500, GAPPS, LEAN, GREEN PM, and even regional approaches as in Russia, Japan and other large countries) but I´m keeping it short for the sake of clarity – we don´t want to create a TLDR situation within the image.
Moreover, as of hybrid approaches, I believe those should be placed precisely in the limit of the aforementioned categories/boxes. This in turn applies to the SAFe, LeSS, Scrum@Scale, Nexus, DAD, Watergiles and similar of this world. I would even dare to extend the idea to DevOps and related practices.
BTW, I don´t know if you already noticed, but the graphic has the additional advantage of providing common ground across different categories of entities: methodologies, frameworks and standards. We will talk about the differences – and relationships – in a later post.
But for now, let´s keep it short n sweet: may this simple thought exercise help us, PMs of this world, to put a little order in the ever expanding universe of Project Management. Hope you enjoyed reading this short article as much as I did researching for it. Now, let me hear you: what do you think – would you concur? Or perhaps not? Ideas to improve or amend? I am all ears...
Cheers,
Fernando
Photo by Blake Richard Verdoorn on Unsplash
Conferencia próximo 7 de Septiembre – Congreso PMI, Medellín, Colombia
Un breve comercial: el próximo 7 de Septiembre estaré presentando una charla en el IV Congreso Internacional de Dirección de Proyectos organizado por el Antioquía Colombia Chapter. De hecho, el Congreso tendrá lugar durante dos días consecutivos, iniciando desde el 6 de Septiembre y cerrará al día siguiente, espacio durante el cual estaré presentando mi charla “El Futuro del Project Management: una predicción para los próximos 15-20 años“.
Y… ¿sobre qué trata la charla en cuestión? Bueno, pues es ya vox populi que la Inteligencia Artificial (AI) está “de moda”: lo que fuera una eterna promesa es hoy por hoy una realidad que permea poco a poco múltiples dominios, desde la conducción de vehículos, pasando por la práctica legal e inclusive el arte. Curiosamente, las implicaciones para la disciplina del Project Management han sido poco exploradas y menos aún difundidas entre la comunidad de PMs.
Reflexionemos: muy pocos de nosotros somos conscientes sobre los cambios que afectarán a nuestra profesión. Esta charla de 45 minutos ataca esta brecha ilustrando las siguientes 4 etapas evolutivas del Project Management. Se incluyen incipientes ejemplos de herramientas afines a la profesión que utilizan tecnología AI. Se presenta además la interpretación personal del autor sobre estas tendencias y desarrollos por medio de la identificación y caracterización de tecnologías que automatizan procesos afines a nuestra disciplina. Concluiremos conversando como adaptarnos a esta nueva era de colaboración hombre-máquina.
Les invito a revisar la página de la charla para mayores detalles… ¡Nos vemos en Medellín, Colombia!
Fernando
There ain´t no such thing as a “good, pretty, fast & cheap” project
The core argument of this article is so simple that it has already been stated in the title. It´s a straightforward idea: to my humble criterion, a self-evident truth. But… alas, reality is complex and we humans are masters of self-deception. Moreover, self-deception has the terrible mania of becoming part of organizational culture, especially in large organizations. What I just said is wrong, beg your pardon. The inverse is the correct statement: organizations have the suicide obsession of self-deception. Hence, it is time to talk about project drivers, restrictions and priorities. Buckle up, here we go:
In my experience, every project has a driver. What do I mean by “driver”? In this context, it means the ultimate restriction to respect. It could be time if urgency is key. It could be cost if a limited budget is cornerstone. It could be quality if excellence is the choice. It could even be scope, if it is all about meeting a list of requirements. But the argument stands: there is always an upmost aspect to attain above all the other. Not two, not three. There is one and only one driver. Of course, this doesn’t means that there could be a secondary parameter to respect or even a third, but a scale of priorities is always inherently present. Moreover, as per the nature of projects (of reality we may say), if we accelerate the pace, the rate of resource usage increases, which translates in more costs (unless you cut scope or quality). If the scope increases, this implies more time and/or cost. If the budget is reduced, it will impact the pace, the scope and/or the quality of the outcomes. These are hard, historically proven facts: it’s the old triple-restriction story yet once again. Nonetheless, and as stated in the opening, we don’t have these truths as clear and present in our minds as they should. BTW, when I say “we”, I mean mainly the PM community but this applies to the entire universe of project stakeholders: Sponsors, PMOs, Steering Committees, Managers, Directors, SMEs, you name it. All right, but “So what?” you may ask. Let’s conclude this short article then with a practical conclusion:
PMs should be the first evangelists of this truth. Every time we receive an endeavor, we must ask: “What is the project driver?” – and explain the nature of the question and the implications of the answer as well. It should be a mantra, a fixation, a standard procedure, over and over again. On the other hand, organizations and their leaders (Managers, Directors and especially C-Suite staff) must acknowledge this truth, once and for all. People making org decisions must align the project portfolio to strategies, priorities and drivers. There ain´t no such thing such as a “good, pretty, fast & cheap” project. Sometimes the election of the driver isn’t easy, but that is the nature of life: deal with it. You need to choose. Omitting or even deferring this crucial point is a recipe for failure.
The “fast, cheap, flawless, all-requisites in” endeavor is an absurd lie: an utopia that crashes with reality. Let´s stop daydreaming. We see the consequences of this every day in the Project Management world. In the intent of finishing with a positive note, I have also seen the POWER of enforcing the project-driver good practice. It works as an strategical enabler that provides clarity, an ultimate criterion for decisions and a leverage for success: a no-brainer for a true Sponsor. Thus, let´s choose. And let´s choose wisely.
Cheers!
Fernando
Photo by Brian Wertheim on Unsplash
