I’ve often found that some of the best models for business,
project management, and computer science come from the military. Many of the problems the military has worked
to solve have parallels in business and project management. The military demonstrates discipline, is
filled with engineering minds, and military history is long and storied.
In Intelligence in War author John Keegan articulates a
framework for intelligence and the stages it must pass through to be useful. The risk associated with gathering project
intelligence, and the gadgets aren’t as cool as military intelligence, but the
framework provides a good model to apply to project status reporting.
1)
Acquisition – “Intelligence has to be found.” For project status reporting acquisition requires
gathering quantitative information on the
costs incurred, the time elapsed, the work complete, the quality of completed
work, the work remaining, etc… and also qualitative information; things like
team moral, organizational will to charge forward, risk tolerance, etc… On small projects, the information needed
might be gathered in a status meeting while a larger project might require a
full PMIS with work authorization, timesheets, change request queue, etc… In corporations, you probably need the input
of the finance and AP departments.
2)
Delivery – “Intelligence once collected has to
be sent to its potential user. Unless
sent in timely fashion, preferably in “real time,” which allows it to be acted
upon, it loses its value.” In project
management delivery means getting the information to the project manager,
executive sponsor, steering committee, risk response owners, executing team
members, the project management office, and other interested stakeholders. The nirvana of “delivery” is the project,
program, or portfolio dashboard; the illusive one-stop-shop for the latest project
information. Project intelligence can
also become stale, a risk response owner missing an opportunity to execute preventative
action for example.
3)
Acceptance – “Intelligence has to be believed. Agents who volunteer their services have to
establish their credentials.” Everyone
has bias and angles. Optimists – the project
is always doing well. Pessimists – the project
is always progressing badly. Early
Adopters – that helps me, thank you. The
Laggard – explain how this helps me again?
Depending on the environment, the level of contention, and the dollars
at risk acceptance can also be contentious or plagued with resistance. I was once on a project where it took almost 120
days to get a vendor’s invoice and that was only the beginning of the
negotiation of the “actual” cost. In
organizations that haven’t tracked actual project costs, it can be difficult
for executives to believe how much even “small” projects actually cost. This is particularly difficult if you are in
a project environment where internal employees are salaried and the
organization views their contribution as a fixed cost (expense bias) rather
than a variable cost based on where they provide benefit.
4)
Interpretation – “Most intelligence comes in
scraps. For a complete canvas to be
assembled, the scraps have to be pieced together into the whole cloth.” Here is where the PM and other stakeholders
use baselines, change controls, Earned Value Analysis, and other techniques to
decide if the project is on schedule and on budget, and whether risk responses should occur
and what corrective action to recommend.
5)
Implementation – “Intelligence officers work at
a subordinate level; just as they have to be convinced of the reliability of
their raw material, so also they have to convince the decision-makers,
political chiefs and commanders in the field of the reliability of their submissions.” Implementation is the process of the PM convincing the organization that something requiring corrective action has occurred,
why the recommended course of action is prudent, and then forecasting the impact
to the remainder of the project. Implementation
is also where executive sponsor education is helpful. Project management developed a vocabulary, like
the lexicon of accounting, and executive sponsors trained in the vocabulary
have an advantage on those that do not.
Having a common lexicon makes communication between the executive sponsor
and the PM easier; when the precise meanings of things like crashing and fast
tracking are mutually understood.
No comments:
Post a Comment