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
Decisions, Procedures & HIPPOs
If there´s a moment in the organizational day-by-day that majestically embodies the term “Governance” that is the moment of making an important joint decision. What amazes me day in, day out is the absence of an “architected” approach to those moments of truth. In my experience, regardless the size of the organization, its industry and maturity level decisions are quite generally taken using a “primitive” procedure that exists just due to momentum and lack of critical thinking. In the coming lines I intend to raise this situation to the reader´s awareness and provide some food for thought for you all.
Let´s start with an example. July, CIO, is presiding the monthly IT Security SteerCo for ABC Enterprises. As per the recent increase of cybersecurity attacks, the committee must make a decision. They need to increase their IT security level. Thus, they need to choose between several IT Security suites and providers. The meeting begins somewhat late and there are solely 30min booked. To make things worse, conversation digresses and when the topic comes up, July takes command of the call and states her preference. Tommy, CSO, has concerns about the suggested solution, particularly with the 3rd party implementer. Mark, IT Ops Director, too, but more from the solution itself perspective. He has heard negative feedback from peers in other organizations. Luke, CTO, has no particular position. Ditto for Emiley, PMO Lead. The clock relentlessly spins its arms and after some discussions, the “Five minutes left in meeting” alarm pops-up in everyone screens. July takes again command of the meeting and states: “Okay, let´s get to a decision – every day that passes we are at risk, we must not postpone this anymore. I also have to jump to another call. I vote for the mentioned software, and I can have our friends from SuperDeploy next week on-site to define the implementation approach in order to get a formal proposal. So what is your final take, Tommy?” Tommy feels the pressure, he´s put on the spot. So he concedes. Mark makes a couple final rebukes but alas, “if July and Tommy agree, well, me too. So, yes”. The rest of the team robotically say “yes” and that´s it. The team adjourns the phone bridge. And we all say, “Geez, so, what just happened here?”
If you were paying attention, I guess you came to the conclusion that the aforementioned meeting was engineered to fail. Or more precisely, it lacked engineering. It was an ad-hoc, impromptu improvisation with no script, no guide, no agenda and no method, particularly for the moment of truth (the voting exercise). This is my core point: smart, logical, fact-based decisions are not taken like this. The scenario was perhaps exaggerated (lack of punctuality, lack of focus, short timeframe, etc.) but I think that we all have seen stuff like this in our careers. The voting exercise is the summit and culmination of it all. Once July makes her preference utterly clear and public (and that is the Highest Paid Personal Position or HIPPO) there is nothing left to be said. Her CIO role and commanding style pushes the rest of the attendees toward her preference. And the decision is taken.
A wise man makes his own decisions. An ignorant man follows public opinion
Chinese Proverb
So what´s to be done? I don´t have a one-size-fits-all answer, but First thing is to be aware of this issue which seems to affect us like a chronic disease to which we have become anesthetized. Secondly, I believe that this is the type of meeting (and particularly in a WFH / Remote culture) is the one that demands a more strict business approach: punctuality, pre-defined agenda, pre-defined time-slots, pre-defined priorities, pre-defined roles (eg, note-taker, chairman, etc.). And Third, I say that voting must not be taken lightly. The HIPPO(s) must be left at the end, for obvious reasons. If possible, the possibility of simultaneous voting tools should be considered, and perhaps in some cases, even private voting. Disclaimers should be warranted. Even second debates for final endorsement, maybe, in business critical matters. It´s a matter of creativity and tweaking an adequate solution for each org.
At the end, I believe the point is clear now: “Management is doing things right”, said Drucker. Let´s make sure that the second part of his quote – “Leadership is doing the right things” works out during voting exercises.
Fernando
Reflexiones de un PM en un mal día (parte I) / The deliberations of a PM on a bad day (part I)
VERSIÓN EN ESPAÑOL (ENGLISH VERSION BELOW)
“Los cántaros, cuanto más vacíos, más ruido hacen.” – Alfonso X el Sabio
Serrat canta “Hoy puede ser un gran día”… pero ciertamente hay días que no son así. Como Gerente de Proyectos (Project Manager – PM) estos días aciagos se presentan más seguido de lo que quisiéramos. Recuerdo uno de esos días sucedido recientemente. Con la cabeza fría, puedo identificar (al menos) los siguientes factores como parte de la receta del desastre:
- Un Portfolio Manager con una visión sesgada de los proyectos y programas bajo su cargo: diríamos que el caballero en cuestión vivía su puesto mirando siempre “hacia arriba”, hacia la Alta Dirección y el “C-Suite”, y nunca hacia el portafolio, salvo para dar direcciones.
- Un Program Manager del área en que me desempeñaba (a la cual reportaba directamente) con un estilo gerencial absurdo. Su mantra era “quédese en su caja”: una manera muy directa y poco poética de enarbolar la bandera de los “silos” o “compartimentos estancos” organizacionales. Además de ello, una limitada capacidad de escucha. y el sistema de escalación era disfuncional.
- Ausencia de un Project Charter o SOW confiable: me encontraba luchando en el proyecto desde hacía casi 6 meses y aún no existía un documento que oficializara su alcance, objetivos, presupuesto y otros “detalles”.
- Ambiente generalizado de premura y urgencia: deadline inamovible y, por decir lo menos, poco realista. Todo es “para ayer”.
- Alcance (scope) “saltarín”: la cantidad de elementos a desarollar en el proyecto cambiaba a un ritmo insólito, inclusive semana a semana – el término “scope creep” se quedaba muy corto.
- Juego de la “papa caliente” con la responsabilidad: más que un esfuerzo conjunto entre los diferentes equipos desarrollando los diferentes proyectos y programas del portafolio para entregar a tiempo la masiva cantidad de productos (entregables), el tema recurrente en el día a día era un juego político en donde lo más importante era que la culpa no recayera “en mí”: un juego de búsqueda de culpables y evasión de responsabilidades, amén de falta recurrente de coordinación y por supuesto de visión y trabajo en equipo.
- Mal ambiente laboral, epidemia del síndrome de “burnout”, faltante crónico de staff, alta rotación, etc.
Coincidará conmigo en que esta es la “tormenta perfecta”: una acumulación de factores que solo puede devenir en un proyecto / programa / portafolio fallido – independientemente del presupuesto, el cual, como adivinarán, era limitado y controlado con “marca personal”. Con el paso del tiempo, reflexioné: ¿Existirá un factor común que es el verdadero causante de todos estos (en algunos casos aparentemente inconexos) problemas? ¿Hay una causa raíz “maestra” subyacente a todo este desastre, un mínimo común denominador? Y, para rematar: ¿Es esto culpa del PM o de alguien más, y quién es ese “alguien más”? Unas cuantas lecturas, incluyendo breves repasos del PMBOK, el “Rita”, PMI´s “Pulse of the Profession”, algunas conferencias y artículos varios de estrategia y gerencia pero sobre todo un análisis concienzudo me llevaron a una conclusión general: efectivamente, hay una causa raíz detrás de todo esto: la organización como tal. Puede sonar en primera instancia como una perogullada, pero analicemóslo un momento: el problema no es el PM, tampoco el PgM y tampoco el PfM. Así que no hay que “echarse encima el muerto” en la conciencia. El problema es el SISTEMA: cuando en una organización la norma es el desorden, la sobrecarga laboral, la corrupción de prioridades, sobrecarga del pipeline de proyectos, etc. etc. entonces no es alguien, son los procesos globales de la organización los que están mal diseñados, mal implementados o mal ejecutados (o estos tres problemas a un tiempo). Y esto a su vez puede traducirse en una palabra: mala (o ausente) gobernanza: léase gobierno corporativo, pasando por elementos tácticos y cuasi-operativos.
Tenemos entonces un diagnóstico: un sospechoso, el supuesto “villano de la película”. Pero… ¿Cómo podemos estar seguros de que este es ciertamente el culpable y qué hacer ante esta triste realidad? Ánimo, hay esperanza: dejaremos esas reflexiones para las siguientes partes de este análisis, nos vemos en los próximos posts…
“Un hombre con una idea nueva es un loco hasta que la idea triunfa.” – Mark Twain
ENGLISH VERSION
“The empty vessel makes the loudest sound.” – William Shakespeare
Cat Stevens sings “Morning Has Broken” in an all-positive mood, but sometimes… oh gosh it isn´t a good day. As PMs, those bad times come more often than what we would linger for. I remember one of those days. With a cushion of months in between and a fresh and more objective perspective, now I can identify (at least) the following list of factors behind the “Perfect Storm” scenario hailing over that particular project:
- A Portfolio Manager with a biased, unbalanced perspective of the programs and projects under his accountability: this person was leading with the eyes always pointing at the Executives, Sponsors and the C-Suite, with virtually no time nor attention for the team under his command.
- A Program Manager directing the area in which I was working (I reported directly to that person) with an absurd management style: that person´s Project Management mantra, preached to all the team, was “stay-in-your-box” – do not ask about other areas and projects, do not request info on the general effort status, shut up and look down. Of course, this translates into the official empowerment of organizational silos, not to mention a very limited capacity to listen.
- No Project Charter or SOW available: we were six months already into the effort, and there was no official charter nor Statement of Work… requisites were managed in a pretty muchinformal way and in any case, there was no definitive document stating the project objectives, terms and conditions.
- An universal environment of urgency: if anyone received a task or an instruction, the rationale was always urgency, “it is late”.
- Project and Program scope capable of competing in the “Calaveras County Jumping Frog Jubilee” (remember Mark Twain´s short story? Check the link below): the scope changed week by week. The list of applications in our scope mutated sometimes even twice per week.
- Responsibility was managed like the a hot potato game: as such, the spirit was not to work as a team and actually solve issues, but to toss the blame on someone else, fast, before it hurts you. As such, the Project Team behaved in a political and evasive way, creating lack of trust and unnecessary antagonisms.
- Staff issues: we were always short on staff, people were demotivated and “burned-out”, the project suffered due to high staff turnover and attrition.
Of course, the sum of these factors create a nearly impossible scenario, regardless the budget allocated for the effort (which, of course, was limited and strictly controlled). This set of conditions steer the project / program / portfolio towards failure. As stated above, with the perspective of time and distance, I have meditated: is there a common factor, a root-cause, a minimum common denominator behind all the above listed issues? Moreover, if that is the case, what is that “sum of all fears” thing, and is the PM to be blamed? A series of lectures, including the new PMBOK v6, Rita Mulcahy´s famous training book, PMI´s latest “Pulse of the Profession” report, a couple conferences and other technical articles but mainly a lot of internal deliberation have led me to a sound conclusion: YES, there is a common cause, and it is the organization itself, the company. This may sound initially as a “duh” statement, but before you bully me, let me present the nuts and bolts to extract the real value out of it. First of all, we need to be clear that the PM (nor anyone in the project, nor the PgM of the PfM or even the Sponsor) is to be ultimately blamed. This is not a small thing: so first and foremost, don´t feel personal frustration or take the blame. The root cause lies in the SYSTEM behind the projects: its not the actors, its not the play, its the stage and the theatrical company (Shakespeare would be proud of the analogy I guess). When disorder, lack of priorities, lack of staff, work overload, high attrition, pipeline “cholesterol” and overload are the norm, then something is utterly wrong at a general level. This means that the blame is not to be put on someone – and especially not you as the PM (perhaps C-Suite, but let´s avoid the blaming exercise for the time being) but on the organizational PROCESSES, which may be faulty designed, faulty implemented or faulty executed (or a combination of those). In a nutshell, all this mess can be translated into a single evil: tainted, degraded organizational GOVERNANCE.
So, we have come to a conclusion and we now have a SUSPECT. Still, how can we be sure that this is indeed the despicable villain behind all this mess and how to tackle this inconvenient reality? We will deal with these questions in the coming posts. Stay tuned…
“A person with a new idea is a crank until the idea succeeds.” – Mark Twain
Bonus material:
- Mark Twain´s short story – “The Celebrated Jumping Frog of Calaveras County“
- PMI´s “Pulse of the Profession” report 2017: click here
- PMI´s “Pulse of the Profession” report 2018: click here
- Alfonso X of Castile: click here – he is the author of the top quote in the Spanish version of the article: “Pitchers, the emptier they are, the louder they sound”
