Scope Change Control Process

 

Project Workflow Management

SERIES ARTICLE

By Dan Epstein

New York, USA

 



Note:
 This article is based on the book Project Workflow Management: A Business Process Approach by Dan Epstein and Rich Maltzman, published by J Ross Publishing in 2014. The book describes PM Workflow® framework, the step-by-step workflow guiding approach using project management methods, practical techniques, examples, tools, templates, checklists and tips, teaching readers the detailed and necessary knowledge required to manage project “hands-on” from scratch, instructing what to do, when to do and how to do it up to delivering the completed and tested product or service to your client.

The project workflow framework is the result of Dan’s research into the subject, having the following objectives:

1. Create the virtually error-free project management environment to ensure significant reduction of project costs
2. Reduce demands for highly qualified project managers using
the step-by-step workflow guiding approach.

While PM Workflow® is the continuous multi-threaded process, where all PM processes are integrated together, this article will attempt to describe the Scope Change Control group of processes as a stand-alone group of processes that can be used independently outside of PM Workflow® framework. It will be difficult in this article not to venture into processes outside of scope change processes, such as planning, quality, communications and other management processes, so they will be just mentioned. However, to get full benefit and the error free project management environment, the complete implementation of PM Workflow® is required.

In order to understand how PM Workflow® ensures this environment, I strongly recommend reading my article Project Workflow Framework – An Error Free Project Management Environment. in the PMI affiliated projectmanagement.com (https://www.projectmanagement.com/articles/330037/Project-Workflow-Framework–An-Error-Free-Project-Management-Environment)

The article above provides the overview and explanation of how the project workflow framework works and achieves the established objectives.

For more information, please visit my website www.pm-workflow.com


Scope Change Control (P7)

Purpose

The project scope, as opposed to the product scope, is the work required to deliver the solution to the client. The product scope is the scope of the business solution, described in the Business Requirements Document. Any change in business requirements is a product scope change, which will lead to the change in the required project work. Usually, the project scope change term is used for business requirements changes.

The purpose of the Project Scope Change Control process (P7) is to manage changes to business requirements and design and their effects on the project. The P7 process is also used when changes are required in the project cost and schedule due to the project’s poor performance. The Project Scope Change Control process ensures that:

  • Changes are identified, analyzed, approved, planned and implemented.
  • Project stakeholders are fully aware of all changes
  • All Scope Change Requests are documented and the approved changes are entered into the project plan

The Scope Change Control process is activated when the request to issue a new Scope Change Request (SCR) is initiated by any of the following:

  • Client’s team member
  • Delivery team member
  • Any stakeholder
  • Issue Management process
  • Legally mandated requests

In order to get scope change analyzed, planned and implemented, the Scope Change Control process interacts with other processes in all project process groups (frames).

Scope Change Control Process

The Scope Change Control process describes the interaction details between the delivery and client teams at the time when a project scope change is required.

It happens too often that clients directly request the delivery team members to implement scope changes, rather than following the scope change process. This is especially true, but no less insidious, when the scope changes are small. If team members accept it for implementation, the consequences of such requests – also called collectively “scope creep” – may be very grave and may cause one or more of the following problems:

  • Undocumented changes that could have significant technical, business, safety, environmental, social, and/or legal implications.
  • The scope change is implemented without the scope change requirements analysis.
  • The cost of implementing the change is not covered by the existing budget.
  • The implementation of the change is not incorporated in the project plan. Due to project dependencies many other project activities may slip the schedule or require extra work as a consequence of the changes. Even if the change takes only a few hours to implement, there may be many other project tasks delayed hours each. This delay may easily cascade and be multiplied several times in the overall effort to incorporate the change, causing significant overall project slippage. The later in the project cycle the change is requested, the greater the cost and the greater the overall impact to the project.
  • If the impact of the scope change on other tasks and projects is not thoroughly investigated, this may affect not only the project, but the steady-state operation of the organization.

Therefore, the Project Scope Change process must be strictly followed by both the client and delivery team members. This must be made very clear to everybody. Rules for the enforcement of the Scope Change Process must be included in the Statement of Work. Also, the delivery team members must be specifically instructed not to accept new change requests or modifications from anybody except project manager or specifically authorized personnel.

Considering that some clients and delivery team members may find it difficult to follow the change request process flow chart at Figure 10-1, the following description attempts to resolve this potential issue. This description should be included in the Statement of Work. The process comprises the following steps:

More…

To read entire article (click here)

 

Editor’s note: This series of articles is based on the book Project Workflow Management: A Business Process Approach by Dan Epstein and Rich Maltzman, published by J Ross Publishing in 2014. The book describes the PM Workflow® framework, a step-by-step approach using project management methods, practical techniques, examples, tools, templates, checklists and tips.  The book teaches readers how to manage a project “hands-on” from scratch, including what to do, when and how to do it up to delivering a completed and tested product or service to a client.

How to cite this article: Epstein, D. (2018). Scope Change Control Process, Series on Project Workflow Management; PM World Journal, Volume VII, Issue X – October. Available online at https://pmworldjournal.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/pmwj75-Oct2018-Epstein-scope-change-control-process-series-article.pdf

 



About the Author


Dan Epstein

New York, USA

 

 

 

Dan Epstein combines over 25 years of experience in the project management field and the best practices area, working for several major Canadian and U.S. corporations, as well as 4 years teaching university students project management and several software engineering subjects. He received a master’s degree in electrical engineering from the LITMO University in Leningrad (today St. Petersburg, Russia), was certified as a Professional Engineer in 1983 by the Canadian Association of Professional Engineers – Ontario, and earned a master’s certificate in project management from George Washington University in 2000 and the Project Management Professional (PMP®) certification from the Project Management Institute (PMI®) in 2001.

Throughout his career, Dan managed multiple complex interdependent projects and programs, traveling extensively worldwide. He possesses multi-industry business analysis, process reengineering, best practices, professional training development and technical background in a wide array of technologies. In 2004 Dan was a keynote speaker and educator at the PMI-sponsored International Project Management Symposium in Central Asia. He published several articles and gave published interviews on several occasions. In the summer of 2008 he published “Methodology for Project Managers Education” in a university journal. His book, Project Workflow Management – The Business Process Approach, written in cooperation with Rich Maltzman, was published in 2014 by J. Ross Publishing.

Dan first started development of the Project Management Workflow in 2003, and it was used in a project management training course. Later this early version of the methodology was used for teaching project management classes at universities in the 2003–2005 school years. Later on, working in the best practices area, the author entertained the idea of presenting project management as a single multithreaded business workflow. In 2007–2008 the idea was further refined when teaching the project management class at a university.

Dan is an author of many publications in professional magazines, speaker at the international presentations, a guest at podcasts, etc. The Project Management Institute’s (PMI) assessment of his book says: “Contains a holistic learning environment so that after finishing the book and assignments, new project managers or students will possess enough knowledge to confidently manage small to medium projects”. The full list of his publications and appearances can be found at the website www.pm-workflow.com in the Publications tab.

Dan can be contacted at [email protected].

To see other works by Dan Epstein, visit his author showcase in the PM World Library at https://pmworldlibrary.net/authors/dan-epstein/

 

 

Projects as Profit Centers

Must We Go Back to Square One Again?

 

Project Business Management

SERIES ARTICLE

By Oliver F. Lehmann

Munich, Germany

 



Summary

The growing percentage of project managers in customer projects over those in internal projects is a strong reason for practitioners to follow the demand for professionals and change inside the profession.

However, they should  be aware that this change brings a number of new challenges upon them for which they may not be sufficiently prepared.

 

Jack Miller[1] had been an internal project manager for more than 15 years.

He had introduced hardware and software in the company, in which he was employed. He developed new products and services and brought major change to the organization. Being on time, on budget and delivering what was expected were among the criteria against which he was measured. Others were organizational disruptions—the projects were essentially cost centers, the profit was made by others in the company—and how well or poorly the projects integrated themselves into the functional organization.

Image 1: Project managers in internal projects (cost centers) and customer projects (profit centers) have different core tasks.

Mao Zedong once famously said, “A revolutionary must move among the people as a fish swims in the water”, and Jack, considering a project manager a kind of disruptive guerrilla, moved inside his organization with confidence and success. He furthermore changed this organization: Over the years, it had turned into a modern, effective, and highly efficient operational powerhouse, and this was to a major part owed to his work. He considered himself a man of success.

Then he had to change his job. In his next company, he was again project manager, but was assigned with managing contractual projects. The company made money by performing projects for customers, and Jack was tasked with doing one of them. For some customers, the company provided resources that had to be integrated with the customer’s own resources. In others, the customer actually farmed out  the entire project to a contractor. In some projects, his new company was just the only contractor. In others, it was part of complex Project Supply Networks (PSNs) that no one fully overlooked, understood, and managed. These PSNs were continuously changing, and a company that was a subcontractor today could later turn into the role of a prime contractor, and vice versa.

Jack took over a complete project performed directly for a customer.

Jack felt well prepared for the new project. He had enjoyed a good qualification in project management, was even certified, and had many years of experience. It came as a shock for him, that he found out that he was not well qualified for them at all. He faced many new and unexpected problems, among them:

  • The unknown customer organization: Jack’s success so far was built on his great understanding of the company and its structures. He had been employed there for years and was familiar with the people involved. He had observed their interests, desires and fears and was aware of friendships but also hostilities among employees and how these led to good and bad decisions. When he needed support, he knew where to find it. He securely navigated in the complex system of trust and distrust that any organization is.In the customer organization, to whose project he was assigned, he had no such knowledge. He had to learn through trial and error the lines of direction and communications, threatened the project by trusting the wrong people and lost time and opportunities by distrusting people, who would have been worthy of his trust. He failed to see the build-up of resistance by customer employees as much as he failed to utilize support that would have been at hand for him.

More…

To read entire article, click here

 

Editor’s note: This series of articles is by Oliver Lehmann, author of the book “Project Business Management” (ISBN 9781138197503), published by Auerbach / Taylor & Francis in 2018.  See author profile below.

How to cite this article: Lehmann, O. (2018). Projects as Profit Centers—Must We Go Back to Square One Again? Series on Project Business Management; PM World Journal, Volume VII, Issue X – October.  Available online at https://pmworldjournal.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/pmwj75-Oct2018-Lehmann-Projects-as-Profit-Centers-series-article.pdf

 


 
About the Author


Oliver F. Lehmann

Munich, Germany

 

 


Oliver F. Lehmann
, MSc., PMP, is a project management author, consultant, speaker and teacher. He studied Linguistics, Literature and History at the University of Stuttgart and Project Management at the University of Liverpool, UK, where he holds a Master of Science Degree. Oliver has trained thousands of project managers in Europe, USA and Asia in methodological project management with a focus on certification preparation. In addition, he is a visiting lecturer at the Technical University of Munich.

He has been a member and volunteer at PMI, the Project Management Institute, since 1998, and served five years as the President of the PMI Southern Germany Chapter until April 2018. Between 2004 and 2006, he contributed to PMI’s PM Network magazine, for which he provided a monthly editorial on page 1 called “Launch”, analyzing troubled projects around the world.

Oliver believes in three driving forces for personal improvement in project management: formal learning, experience and observations. He resides in Munich, Bavaria, Germany and can be contacted at [email protected].

Oliver Lehmann is the author of “Situational Project Management: The Dynamics of Success and Failure” (ISBN 9781498722612), published by Auerbach / Taylor & Francis in 2016, andProject Business Management” (ISBN 9781138197503), published by Auerbach / Taylor & Francis in 2018.

To view other works by Oliver Lehmann, visit his author showcase in the PM World Library at https://pmworldlibrary.net/authors/oliver-f-lehmann/

 

[1] This is the case story of a seminar attendee before he attended one of my classes. The name is changed.

 

Human Centered Management

A Systemic Interrelation

 

Advances in Project Management Series

SERIES ARTICLE

By Dr. Roland Bardy

Mannheim, Germany

 



Management and leadership have been defined in terms of objectives, tasks, traits, behaviour, motivation, interaction patterns, role relationships or occupation of an administrative position. Most definitions reflect the assumption that it involves a process whereby intentional influence is exerted over people to guide, structure and facilitate activities and relations in a group or organization. The eminent management scholar Gary Yukl has said that true leadership only occurs when people are motivated to do what is ethical and beneficial for an organization – but he admits that leaders will more often than not attempt to merely gain personal benefits at the expense of their followers, and that, despite good intentions, the actions of a leader are sometimes more detrimental than beneficial for the followers (Yukl 2010, p. 23).

This raises the question of whether there is a divisive difference between leadership and management – with the obvious conclusion that there is an overlap between the two. The overlap will be wider or narrower depending on the person who executes the position. One definition which shows this best is by viewing management as an authority relationship directed at delivering a specific routine, with leadership being a multidirectional influence with the mutual purpose of accomplishing real change (Rost 1991).

But, as has been pointed out by Bowie and Werhane (2005), there is an additional issue that comes into view when looking at who manages a manager. A manager typically works for another, and even top managers serve as agents, for the stockholders of a business or for the elected officers in a public administration entity. This interrelation has a systemic aspect, as it is not just those connections that are intertwined but there is a definite intertwinement as well between the various perspectives that integrate management – and, since it is all about the nexus between humans, we should talk about human centered management.

The ideas explored in this article are based on a new book “Rethinking Leadership: A Human Centered Approach to Management Ethics” (Bardy, 2018) which lays a foundation for what may be called a framework for delineating human centered management. The book proposes that human centered management is determined by a systemic connection between various perspectives. Intertwining management and the human centered paradigm is much more than just a two-way relationship. It is a systemic approach that combines ethics, social relations, economic effects, and institutional conceptions. It is necessary then to embrace all these interrelations in order to validate the analysis. Systemic interconnectedness is an entity in itself, and it is to be studied on its own (Jiliberto 2004). So, in order to attain a characterization of human centered management, the systemic view combines the ethical, social, economic, and institutional perspectives.

The four perspectives influence each other within a systemic interrelation as illustrated in Exhibit 1, and this sequence of mutual effects and feedbacks is a system of its own.

More…

To read entire article, click here

 

Editor’s note: The Advances in Project Management series includes articles by authors of program and project management books published by Routledge worldwide. Information about Routledge project management books can be found here.

How to cite this paper: Bardy, R. (2018). Human Centered Management: A Systemic Interrelation, PM World Journal, Volume VII, Issue X – October. Available online at https://pmworldjournal.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/pmwj75-Oct2018-Bardy-human-centered-management-article.pdf

 



About the Author


Dr. Roland Bardy

Mannheim, Germany

 

 


Dr. Roland Bardy
is owner of BardyConsult in Mannheim, Germany, where he mainly engages in management education, and he serves as Executive Professor of General Management and Leadership at Florida Gulf Coast University. Born in Vienna, Austria, in 1942, he received his M.B.A. degree there in 1969, and his Ph.D. degree (in econometrics) from Heidelberg University, Germany, in 1974. He worked in Finance and Administration of BASF SE, the German multinational chemicals manufacturer, for about thirty years until 1999.  Then he took up teaching and consulting at Goizueta Business School, Emory University, at Fachhochschule Worms (Germany) and in various Swiss and Austrian MBA-programs. His areas are accounting, supply chain management, leadership and business ethics. He promotes the philosophy and implementation of responsible development, accountability and sustainability through, among others, the Wittenberg Center for Global Ethics (www.wcge.org). Residing both in Mannheim, Germany, and in Naples, Florida, Roland Bardy is privileged to experience both U.S. and European developments in business and academia. He has published, in English and in German, on management accounting, leadership and business ethics.

Roland Bardy is the author of the book Rethinking Leadership: A Human Centered Approach to Management Ethics, published by Routledge in April 2018.  To learn about the book click here.

 

The leadership imperative

and the essence of followership

 

Advances in Project Management

SERIES ARTICLE

By Prof Darren Dalcher

Director, National Centre for Project Management
Lancaster University Management School

United Kingdom

 



Many conversations about improvement, enhancement, governance, progress and the future inevitably resort to addressing leadership issues. Leadership is increasingly viewed as an essential life skill, a practical ability to guide other individuals, a team, an organisation, or even a country, towards a better future, an improved position or a defined outcome.

But where do we find examples of great leaders?

Traditionally, archetypal samples would emerge from either the political or the business arena, but in recent years both have been found wanting. Yet, as we face ever more complex and uncertain dilemmas and increasingly vexing wicked problems, there appears to be a greater need to identify and follow strong and powerful leaders.

What worked before?

Great leadership is sometimes measured in terms of the followers that it engenders. This may well be a dangerous idea. Former US Speaker of the House, Ohio Congressman John Boehner asserted back in 2015 that ‘a leader without followers is simply a man taking a walk’. General George S. Patton had an even more direct approach in mind when he proclaimed ‘Lead me, follow me, or get out of my way.’

Ironically, despite the plethora of publications exploring effective leadership, relatively little has been written about the role of effective followership. In a private conversation with a leading architect and chief executive of the infrastructure and construction part of the London 2012 Olympic Games, he expressed an exasperation that we teach leadership and tell people what they ought to be doing, but we hardly ever “teach” followership as we implicitly assume that following is easy, or well understood. According to Robert Kelley (1992) only 20% of the success or organisations is traced to the leader, while in practice 80% of the credit should be going to followers.

Kellerman (2008; p. xix) defines followers as ‘subordinates who have less power, authority, and influence than do their superiors and who therefore usually, but not invariably, fall into line”. Yet, followers are neither homogenous nor uniform. Kellerman’s book (2008) offers a fluid typology, which can be positioned along a spectrum, indicating the rank or level of engagement by followers, encompassing five main types:

  • Isolates: utterly detached and disinterested individuals who keep a low profile, rarely respond to leaders, resent interferences from above, and reinforce the status quo by default
  • Bystanders: observers who follow passively and let events unfold with little participation, while accepting control from above
  • Participants: engaged individuals who typically care about their organisation and support their leader with their effort or time when they agree with their vision and views
  • Activists: eager, energetic and deeply engaged individuals working for the cause and the leader
  • Die-hards: individuals displaying the highest levels of engagement with the organisation or their cause; all-consuming supporters exhibiting total and absolute engagement

Good followers therefore actively support effective and ethical leaders. It is thus expected that ‘good followers’ would also respond appropriately to bad leaders in the interest of the greater cause and the wider organisation. Kellerman’s chief concern is about mindless, or unquestioning followers, and their impact. Based on historical events, die-hards may agitate and activists may follow blindly and encourage participants to take part, while bystanders may simply allow events, however painful or harrowing, to take place, whilst others choose to ignore the entire scene. Historical precedents offer some credibility to the notion of mapping the level of engagement and participation (Kellerman, 2004). They also seem to suggest that bystanders and other participants may tolerate, or even embrace harmful actions with little, if any, questioning (see for example, Dalcher 2016 for a summary, or Zimbardo, 2007, for more detail). The direct implication is that followership needs to be taken more seriously; it also needs to encompass some sober responsibilities.

More…

To read entire article, click here

 

Editor’s note: The PMWJ Advances in Project Management series includes articles by authors of program and project management books published by Gower and other publishers in the Routledge family.  Each month an introduction to the current article is provided by series editor Prof Darren Dalcher, who is also the editor of the Gower/Routledge Advances in Project Management series of books on new and emerging concepts in PM.  Prof Dalcher’s article is an introduction to the invited paper this month in the PMWJ. 

How to cite this paper: Dalcher, D. (2018). The leadership imperative and the essence of followership, PM World Journal, Volume VII, Issue X – October.  Available online at https://pmworldjournal.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/pmwj75-Oct2018-Dalcher-the-leadership-imperative.pdf

 



About the Author


Darren Dalcher, PhD

Author, Professor, Series Editor
Director, National Centre for Project Management
Lancaster University Management School, UK

 

 

 

Darren Dalcher, Ph.D. HonFAPM, FRSA, FBCS, CITP, FCMI SMIEEE SFHEA is Professor in Strategic Project Management at Lancaster University, and founder and Director of the National Centre for Project Management (NCPM) in the UK.  He has been named by the Association for Project Management (APM) as one of the top 10 “movers and shapers” in project management and was voted Project Magazine’s “Academic of the Year” for his contribution in “integrating and weaving academic work with practice”. Following industrial and consultancy experience in managing IT projects, Professor Dalcher gained his PhD in Software Engineering from King’s College, University of London.

Professor Dalcher has written over 200 papers and book chapters on project management and software engineering. He is Editor-in-Chief of Journal of Software: Evolution and Process, a leading international software engineering journal. He is the editor of the book series, Advances in Project Management, published by Routledge and of the companion series Fundamentals of Project Management.  Heavily involved in a variety of research projects and subjects, Professor Dalcher has built a reputation as leader and innovator in the areas of practice-based education and reflection in project management. He works with many major industrial and commercial organisations and government bodies.

Darren is an Honorary Fellow of the APM, a Chartered Fellow of the British Computer Society, a Fellow of the Chartered Management Institute, and the Royal Society of Arts, A Senior Member of the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers, a Senior Fellow of the Higher Education Academy and a Member of the Project Management Institute (PMI) and the British Academy of Management. He is a Chartered IT Practitioner. He sits on numerous senior research and professional boards, including The PMI Academic Member Advisory Group, the APM Research Advisory Group, the CMI Academic Council and the APM Group Ethics and Standards Governance Board.  He is the Academic Advisor and Consulting Editor for the next APM Body of Knowledge. Prof Dalcher is an academic advisor for the PM World Journal.  He is the academic advisor and consulting editor for the next edition of the APM Body of Knowledge. He can be contacted at [email protected].

To view other works by Prof Darren Dalcher, visit his author showcase in the PM World Library at http://pmworldlibrary.net/authors/darren-dalcher/.

 

 

Realizing the Benefits

Earned Benefit tells you how much, but you need to know when!

 

Applying Earned Benefit Management

SERIES ARTICLE

By Crispin (“Kik”) Piney, PgMP, PfMP

Southern France

 



This article builds on all of the ideas described so far in this series, to provide an innovative and powerful tool for forecasting, optimizing and tracking the actual business performance of programs and their contribution to benefits realization over time.

Introduction: Link to the Previous Article

Earlier articles in this series [Piney 2018b, Piney 2018c, Piney 2018d, Piney 2018e] explained how to apply cost and benefit evaluation algorithms to a representative case study. [Piney 2018b] revealed that one of the component projects would cost more than it contributed to the overall benefits. The previous article in this series [Piney 2018e] analyzed this situation in detail based the concept of essential links and demonstrated the problems that can be caused by taking a simplistic approach to addressing this type of issue.

The current article brings all of these ideas together and adds in the effect on the benefits realization schedule of any lags between successive nodes in the Benefits Realization Map. These lags correspond to the delays that can occur between the availability of a capability and its effect on creating the corresponding outcome, or between an outcome and the full realization of the corresponding benefit.

In order to allow this article to be understood independently of the earlier ones in the series, some reminders and one clarification are provided below, plus an overview of the case study,  prior to addressing the current topic of time-factored benefits realization forecasting and analysis.

Reminder on Benefits Realization Maps

A Benefits Realization Map (BRM) illustrates how to make the benefits happen. The BRM for the case study is shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Complete Benefits Map

BRMs can be developed as follows:

Top-Down Decomposition

Once the anticipated benefits have been defined by the strategic sponsor, you need to determine all of the steps that are required for delivering this result, as well as their interdependencies, thereby allowing you to identify the necessary component projects (“initiatives”). The links from each logical step to the next are quantified based on their relative importance for delivering the benefits (the “contribution fraction” for the link).

The Benefits Allotment Routine (BAR) uses the forecast benefit value of the strategic objectives in conjunction with the link information to calculate the contribution to the anticipated benefits of every node in the BRM. In particular, the BAR provides the contribution to the anticipated benefits of each component project. This value is known as the “Earned Benefit At Completion” (EBAC) of that component project.

One additional link characteristic concerns “essential links”.  An essential link is a link from a node that is an absolute prerequisite to the destination node. Removal of the corresponding source node would cause the destination node to disappear even if there are other contributing nodes. To model the potential unavailability of an essential node, the Pruning and Link Evaluation (PALE) algorithm provides the mechanism for removing all relevant nodes and rebuilding the corresponding benefits map from what remains of the original BRM after node removal.

More…

To read entire article, click here

 

How to cite this article: Piney, C. (2018). Realizing the Benefits: Earned Benefit tells you how much, but you need to know when! Series on Applying Earned Benefit Management, PM World Journal, Vol. VII, Issue IX – September. Available online at https://pmworldjournal.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/pmwj74-Sep2018-Piney-Benefits-series-part-4.5-realizing-the-benefits.pdf

 



About the Author


Crispin Piney

Southern France

 

 

 

After many years managing international IT projects within large corporations, Crispin (“Kik”) Piney, B.Sc., PgMP is now a freelance project management consultant based in the South of France. At present, his main areas of focus are risk management, integrated Portfolio, Program and Project management, scope management and organizational maturity, as well as time and cost control. He has developed advanced training courses on these topics, which he delivers in English and in French to international audiences from various industries. In the consultancy area, he has developed and delivered a practical project management maturity analysis and action-planning consultancy package.

Kik has carried out work for PMI on the first Edition of the Organizational Project Management Maturity Model (OPM3™) as well as participating actively in fourth edition of the Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge and was also vice-chairman of the Translation Verification Committee for the Third Edition. He was a significant contributor to the second edition of both PMI’s Standard for Program Management as well as the Standard for Portfolio Management. In 2008, he was the first person in France to receive PMI’s PgMP® credential; he was also the first recipient in France of the PfMP® credential. He is co-author of PMI’s Practice Standard for Risk Management. He collaborates with David Hillson (the “Risk Doctor”) by translating his monthly risk briefings into French. He has presented at a number of recent PMI conferences and published formal papers.

Kik Piney is the author of the book Earned Benefit Program Management, Aligning, Realizing and Sustaining Strategy, published by CRC Press in 2018

Kik Piney can be contacted at [email protected].

To view other works by Kik Piney, visit his author showcase in the PM World Library at http://pmworldlibrary.net/authors/crispin-kik-piney/

 

 

Culture Clashes and Speed of Change in Project Environments

Can Agile Transformations Be Forced?

 

Project Business Management

SERIES ARTICLE

By Antje Lehmann-Benz

Munich, Germany

 



In May 2016, the US Department of Homeland Security started a new method of conducting their IT procurement processes. They wanted to be more agile and have less administrative overhead when finding and contracting sellers for the software they needed.

No other than a former Google employee actually helped design the new method and together with his team, they coined the new program “FLASH” (FLexible Agile Support for the Homeland). Eric Hysen wrote about the entire experience from his perspective in an insightful article on Medium.

As it turned out, FLASH really was something new and direly needed in a government office like the DHS. Like any other government institution probably all over the world, they were experiencing delays and long waiting times in their projects including procurements, due to security regulations, regulations, protocols, and last but not least, democratic processes to be followed.

Because expertise is mostly found in private companies, IT projects for government branches are usually answered with ‘buy’, not with ‘make’ decisions[1].

Procurement processes can be tedious and complicated, like in many larger organizations in the private sector as well.

In contrast to those, government institutions have an additional problem: They have to be transparent and as democratic as possible in their work. This means, if sellers are unhappy about not having been chosen after bid submission, they can file an official protest, thus forcing everyone involved to investigate and reconsider the decision.

Of course, this is actually a good thing. To a degree, it prevents companies from being chosen as contractors in projects where the decision is already made before the bidding process even starts. It is meant to ensure a fair competition. Like many aspects of democracies, it can be misused.

Companies can file protests because they think something was intransparent or unfair, as is the actual intention behind this kind of action

They can also file protests if they are incumbents, however, to gain more time and more income as active contractors until they are released from their contracts and replaced by others. Lastly, they can file protests in an attempt to get into a project this way after all, no matter what.

The FLASH program saw a number of such protests, so much so that it caused a significant slow-down of progress and ultimately, overall project cancellation. Understandably, this caused a lot of frustration in the team that had done a lot of work with the intention to turn these new procurement and software development processes into reality.

Culture Clashes And Speed Of Change As Sources Of Problems In Projects

In this case story, there are two major factors at play that cause difficulties in projects all the time:

More…

To read entire article, click here

 

Editor’s note: This article is one in a series based on the book “Situational Project Management: The Dynamics of Success and Failure” (ISBN 9781498722612), by Oliver Lehmann and published by Auerbach / Taylor & Francis in 2016.

How to cite this paper: Lehmann-Benz, A. (2018).  Culture Clashes and Speed Of Change in Project Environments: Can Agile Transformations Be Forced? PM World Journal, Volume VII, Issue IX – September.  Available online at https://pmworldjournal.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/pmwj74-Sep2018-Lehmann-Benz-Culture-Clashes-and-Speed-of-Change.pdf

 



About the Author


Antje Lehmann-Benz

Munich, Germany

 

 

 

Antje Lehmann-Benz, MA, PMP, PMI-ACP, PSM is a project management and agile training professional for Oliver F. Lehmann Project Management Training, working with various training providers.  Recent experience includes:

  • Since 2017: Lecturer at the Technical University Munich, teaching Scrum Fundamentals to PhD candidates in Informatics
  • 2017: Agile training for a US military institution in Germany
  • 2018: Online PMP preparation training sessions for a global telecommunications company
  • Since 2018: Scrum trainer for a German car manufacturer
  • Since app. 2009: Project management and Scrum practitioner, consultant in the semiconductor and IoT industries (Atlassian JIRA / Confluence implementations)

She is also active as a volunteer for the Project Management Institute Southern Germany Chapter e.V. (Editor-in-chief, chapter magazine “PMI SG Live”; Director at Large for English Speaking Meetings in Munich). Active in 2016-2017 for PMI International as Subject Matter Expert regarding specific industry experience.

Magister Artium in linguistics, (M.A., LMU Munich), Antje holds the following certifications: PMI-ACP, PMI Agile Certified Practitioner (http://www.pmi.org); PSM, Professional Scrum Master (http://www.scrum.org); PMP Project Management Professional (http://www.pmi.org)

She can be contacted at [email protected]

 

[1]  Find more on the concept of make-or-buy decisions here

 

The Lifecycle of a Project Risk

 

Risk Doctor Briefing

SERIES ARTICLE

Dr David Hillson, PMI Fellow, HonFAPM, FIRM

The Risk Doctor Partnership

United Kingdom

 



As we manage individual project risks, they pass through a lifecycle which can be described using a set of status values. These can help us to understand where each risk is in its lifecycle, so that we can determine what we should do next. The following set of standard status values might be useful:

  • Unknown: A risk that has not yet been identified.
  • Draft: A proposed risk that has not yet been validated.
  • Rejected: A Draft risk that is not valid.
  • Escalated: A Draft risk that is outside the scope of the project and that should be managed at program level or elsewhere in the organisation.
  • Active: A valid risk with a probability of occurrence greater than zero and that will impact one or more project objective if it occurs. An Active threat can affect the project negatively, while an Active opportunity has a potential positive effect.
  • Deleted: A risk that is no longer valid, perhaps resulting from a change in the project’s strategy, environment, objectives, or scope.
  • Expired: The time window in which the risk could have occurred has passed, so the risk no longer needs to be considered.
  • Closed: A risk (threat) for which the response has been fully effective and the risk can no longer affect the project.
  • Occurred: The risk has happened and the impact is being experienced.

Using these status values, we can describe the lifecycle of a typical individual project risk:

More…

To read entire article, click here

 

How to cite this paper: Hillson, D. (2018).  The Lifecycle of a Project Risk, Risk Doctor Briefing; PM World Journal, Volume VII, Issue IX – September.  Available online at https://pmworldjournal.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/pmwj74-Sep2018-Hillson-lifecycle-of-project-risk-briefing-article.pdf



About the Author


Dr David Hillson, HonFAPM, PMI-Fellow, CFIRM, CMgr, FCMI

The Risk Doctor
United Kingdom

 

 

 
Known globally as The Risk Doctor, David Hillson leads The Risk Doctor Partnership (www.risk-doctor.com), a global consultancy offering specialist risk services across the world.

David has a reputation as an excellent speaker and presenter on risk. His talks blend thought-leadership with practical application, presented in an accessible style that combines clarity with humour, guided by the Risk Doctor motto: “Understand profoundly so you can explain simply”.

He also writes widely on risk, with eleven major books, and over 100 professional papers. He publishes a regular Risk Doctor Briefing blog in seven languages to 10,000 followers, and has over 4000 subscribers to the RiskDoctorVideo YouTube channel (www.youtube.com/RiskDoctorVideo).

David has advised leaders and organisations in over fifty countries around the world on how to create value from risk based on a mature approach to risk management, and his wisdom and insights are in high demand. He has also received many awards for his ground-breaking work in risk management over several decades.

To see other works previously published in the PM World Journal by Dr David Hillson, visit his author showcase at http://pmworldlibrary.net/authors/dr-david-hillson/

 

 

Communication Management Processes

 

Project Workflow Management

SERIES ARTICLE

By Dan Epstein

New York, USA

 



Note:
 This article is based on the book Project Workflow Management: A Business Process Approach by Dan Epstein and Rich Maltzman, published by J Ross Publishing in 2014. The book describes PM Workflow® framework, the step-by-step project workflow guiding approach using project management methods, practical techniques, examples, tools, templates, checklists and tips, teaching readers the detailed and necessary knowledge required to manage project “hands-on” from scratch, instructing what to do, when to do and how to do it up to delivering the completed and tested product or service to your client. This article is the next part in the series Project Workflow Management.

The project workflow framework is the result of Dan’s research into the subject, having the following objectives:

  1. Create the virtually error-free project management environment to ensure significant reduction of project costs
    2. Reduce demands for highly qualified project managers using
    the step-by-step workflow guiding approach.

While PM Workflow® is the continuous multi-threaded process where all PM processes are integrated together, this article will attempt to describe the Communication Management group of processes as a stand-alone group of processes that can be used independently outside of PM Workflow® framework. It will be difficult in this article not to venture into processes outside of the current topics, such as planning, quality, risk and other management processes, so they will be just mentioned. However, to get full benefit and the error free project management environment, the complete implementation of PM Workflow® is required. In order to understand how PM Workflow® ensures this environment, I strongly recommend reading my article Project Workflow Framework – An Error Free Project Management Environment in the PMI affiliated projectmanagement.com at (https://www.projectmanagement.com/articles/330037/Project-Workflow-Framework–An-Error-Free-Project-Management-Environment)

The article above provides the overview and explanation of how the project workflow framework works and achieves the established objectives.

For more information, please visit my website www.pm-workflow.com.

 

Purpose

The purpose of Communications Management is to define methods of communication between project team members in delivery, subcontractor and business organizations in order to generate and exchange project related information and to facilitate understanding between the sender of information and the receiver.

The Communications Management process is a tool for the proper identification of stakeholders, developing project reporting and templates for different types of project communications as well as scheduling effective communications to all stakeholders.

Communication Channels

Poor project communication greatly contributes to project failure, because it becomes impossible to resolve differences in expectations between the delivery team and stakeholders. In fact, ineffective communications may easily cause differences in expectations between the delivery team and its external stakeholders.  The main reason for poor communication is insufficient time management, when team members are busy and other priorities do not (apparently) allow communication in a timely manner.  In fact, communications should be given high priority – it is often its absence which has caused the conflicting issues to arise in the first place. Other contributors to poor communications include cultural differences, time zone challenges, and in some cases, the pure volume and intensity of the information that must be exchanged.

During the course of the project the project managers spend much of their time communicating with a client, management, team members, suppliers, subject matter experts, and so on. Delivery team members must communicate between themselves. Support personnel must communicate with team members and clients. Everybody may have to communicate with everybody else, but in large project teams it is almost impossible for the PM to pay enough attention to everybody and their diverse needs for differing information at different times.  So, it is imperative to maximize the effectiveness of the communications channels that convey the most important project information.

There is a formula for calculating communication channels and links: N*(N-1)/2, where N is a number of people involved in communication. Thus, in a team of 5 members there are 5*(5-1))/2=10 two-way communication channels. In a team of 10 there are 45 channels and in a team of 23 there are 253 communication channels.  You can see that the number of channels goes up exponentially with the number of members.  This may prove to be unmanageable communication between all team members. The often-used technique to resolve this problem is to split large teams into manageable groups, having each Team Lead serve as a focal point for all communications outside that group. For example, if a team of 23 is split into three groups, having a project manager and three Team Leads with eight team members in two groups and seven members in the third group, then there are 6 communication channels between project manager and three Team Leads, plus 28*2+21 communication channels in each team, making a total of 28*2+21+6=83 communication channels. This is significantly less than 253 channels for the same number of team members shown earlier.

More…

To read entire article, click here

 

Editor’s note: This series of articles is based on the book Project Workflow Management: A Business Process Approach by Dan Epstein and Rich Maltzman, published by J Ross Publishing in 2014. The book describes the PM Workflow® framework, a step-by-step approach using project management methods, practical techniques, examples, tools, templates, checklists and tips.  The book teaches readers how to manage a project “hands-on” from scratch, including what to do, when and how to do it up to delivering a completed and tested product or service to a client.

How to cite this paper: Epstein, D. (2018).  Communication Management Processes, Series on Project Workflow Management, PM World Journal, Volume VII, Issue IX – September.  Available online at https://pmworldjournal.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/pmwj74-Sep2018-Epstein-communication-management-processes-article.pdf


 
About the Author


Dan Epstein

New York, USA

 

 

 

Dan Epstein combines over 25 years of experience in the project management field and the best practices area, working for several major Canadian and U.S. corporations, as well as 4 years teaching university students project management and several softwae engineering subjects. He received a master’s degree in electrical engineering from the LITMO University in Leningrad (today St. Petersburg, Russia), was certified as a Professional Engineer in 1983 by the Canadian Association of Professional Engineers – Ontario, and earned a master’s certificate in project management from George Washington University in 2000 and the Project Management Professional (PMP®) certification from the Project Management Institute (PMI®) in 2001.

Throughout his career, Dan managed multiple complex interdependent projects and programs, traveling extensively worldwide. He possesses multi-industry business analysis, process reengineering, best practices, professional training development and technical background in a wide array of technologies. In 2004 Dan was a keynote speaker and educator at the PMI-sponsored International Project Management Symposium in Central Asia. He published several articles and gave published interviews on several occasions. In the summer of 2008 he published “Methodology for Project Managers Education” in a university journal. His book, Project Workflow Management – The Business Process Approach, written in cooperation with Rich Maltzman, was published in 2014 by J. Ross Publishing.

Dan first started development of the Project Management Workflow in 2003, and it was used in a project management training course. Later this early version of the methodology was used for teaching project management classes at universities in the 2003–2005 school years. Later on, working in the best practices area, the author entertained the idea of presenting project management as a single multi-threaded business workflow. In 2007–2008 the idea was further refined when teaching the project management class at a university.

Dan is an author of many publications in professional magazines, speaker at the international presentations, a guest at podcasts, etc. The Project Management Institute’s (PMI) assessment of his book says: “Contains a holistic learning environment so that after finishing the book and assignments, new project managers or students will possess enough knowledge to confidently manage small to medium projects”. The full list of his publications and appearances can be found at the website www.pm-workflow.com in the Publications tab.

Dan can be contacted at [email protected].

To see other works by Dan Epstein, visit his author showcase in the PM World Library at https://pmworldlibrary.net/authors/dan-epstein/

 

 

Leading Brainy Teams

 

Advances in Project Management Series

SERIES ARTICLE

By Peter Cook

United Kingdom

 



Imagine a world where we work 15 hours a week with greater access to leisure, pleasure, intellectual and social stimulation? We’ve been promised this for decades, but the advent of computers has hermetically attached us to our iPods, iPads and office pods. Artificial intelligence offers us a one-time opportunity to break free of our addiction to working on the chain gang, although it is as yet unclear as to whether our merger with artificial intelligence will lead to a “War of the Worlds” or a harmonious fusion of man, woman, project and machine.

Brain Based Enterprises” is a new book by Peter Cook that explores the role that innovation and creativity will play to help us survive and thrive in the 4th Industrial Revolution. This is not the stone age, the steam or the industrial age, but the information revolution, where value is created primarily through the intelligent combination of knowledge and wisdom. How shall we cope in a world where it has variously been predicted that up to 50% of our jobs will disappear in the next few decades? What does that mean for education, where the half-life of knowledge is in free-fall? What will become of money in such a world? How shall we fall in love? In a business sense, what will teams look like? How shall we project manage teams of diverse people? In this extract from the book, we begin by outlining the various scenarios that will inform our lives as we merge with machines and, later on, look at some implications for teams and teamwork.

Brain Based Enterprises

It’s 07.05 am on 05 January 2030 … The day begins for Julie:

Julie wakes up at exactly the optimum time to maximise her sleep, wellbeing and energy, to a vibration in her neck from her embedded wellbeing monitor. Some ambient music bathes the room, bathed in soft purple swirling lighting. The smell of freshly brewed coffee percolates upwards from the kitchen. These are things she chose in her psychological contract with Rover. In a few minutes, coffee, water and fruit slices are brought to her by Rover, her personal robotic assistant. It’s time for Julie’s early morning well-being session, led by her ever-faithful 24/7 digital guide, who has already ironed her underwear, run a bath, organised her bag for the day, checked her travel schedule, confirmed her appointments and so on.

Rover also monitored Julie’s vital signs and adjusted her personal exercise routine around her expected physical activity during the day, to maximise her balance of mind, body and soul. Rover is, of course, a robot and makes rational decisions based on an aggregation of big data about what’s best for Julie’s work, life and play. However, Rover has also integrated humanity by taking on board Julie’s own personal values within the decision-making algorithms that Rover uses …

We are seeing the earliest signs and signifiers of a world where man and machine have switched roles with driverless trains, 3D printing, self-service shops, smart cities, smart homes, smartphones and drones. We can already measure our vital signs to improve our vitality and receive live updates on life threatening conditions to help us live long and prosper. However, the transformation towards our love affair with machines is not exactly new. We perhaps began to notice the difference as long ago as 1822 with Charles Babbage’s invention of the difference engine. Since that time, we have had the enigma machine, The Casio FX77 and many more devices that have enabled us to do ever more complex things. Many more things are still to come in our enigmatic relationship with machines via The Internet of Things, which promises to have 50 billion devices connected to the internet by 2020. Innovation consultancy Arthur D. Little (2017) report that any technology innovations that enhance people’s time to spend on higher level Maslow needs and that reduce or remove the need to focus on the lower level needs is a good innovation. We will increasingly have the ability to separate the things that satisfy us from the things that we have to do. It is entirely feasible that we will have time to enjoy those things in life that we do purely for their intrinsic value such as arts and crafts.

Perhaps, like Julie’s example in 2030, we’ll use machines to clear the space and time for us to enjoy such things. From coal mining to data mining we can envisage four potential future scenarios in our love / indifference / hate affair with man, woman, machines, robotics, artificial intelligence and official stupidity as shown in Figure 1 and described below:

More…

To read entire article, click here

 

Editor’s note: The Advances in Project Management series includes articles by authors of program and project management books published by Routledge worldwide. Information about Routledge project management books can be found here.

How to cite this paper: Cook, P. (2018). Leading Brainy Teams, PM World Journal, Volume VII, Issue IX – September. Available online at https://pmworldjournal.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/pmwj74-Sep2018-Cook-Leading-Brainy-Teams.pdf


 
About the Author


Peter Cook

United Kingdom

 

 

 

Peter Cook is a unique hybrid of scientist, business academic and musician, blending hard analytical thinking with a creative twist that comes from the arts in his work at Human Dynamics and The Academy of Rock. His books are acclaimed by Professor Charles Handy, Tom Peters and Harvey Goldsmith CBE and he writes for Sir Richard Branson’s Virgin group.  Peter was responsible for leading pharmaceutical innovation teams to bring the World’s first treatment for HIV / AIDS and human Insulin into being. He also performs with a variety of music legends including Meatloaf’s singer and Ozzy Osbourne’s guitarist, learning from the boardroom to the boardwalk. Peter brings MBA business thinking into intimate contact with parallel ideas from the worlds of music and science in his work.

For information about Peter Cook’s latest book, Brain Based Enterprises: Harmonising the Head, Heart and Soul of Business, published by Routledge, click here.

 

 

The wisdom of teams revisited

Teamwork, teaming and working for the common good

 

Advances in Project Management

SERIES ARTICLE

By Prof Darren Dalcher

Director, National Centre for Project Management
Lancaster University Management School

United Kingdom

 



One of the distinctions of project work is that it is done by dedicated teams of people, often acting outside the normal organizational structures associated with ‘regular’ work. Projects can thus be said to bring together collections of individuals who are focused on the achievement of specific objectives and targets. Teams can thus be viewed as the main way through which work gets done and value is delivered to organisations and societies. Such teams are often formed for the duration of the project and disbanded following the delivery of the objectives.

Yet, the terminology we use to describe such collections of individuals is frequently problematic and laden with different meanings: Indeed, the common interpretation of terms such as teams and groups can often be confusing.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines a team as ‘two or more people working together’. It further elaborates that to team up is to ‘come together as a team to achieve a common goal’. The Cambridge English Dictionary describes the verb team as ‘to act together to achieve something’. The definitions chime with the view of US industrialist, Henry Ford who asserted that ‘coming together is a beginning; keeping together is progress; working together is success.’

In contrast, the Oxford English Dictionary views a group as ‘a number of people or things that are located, gathered or classed together’. The Cambridge English Dictionary views a group as ‘a number of people or things that are put together or considered as a unit’.  The Collins English Dictionary offers a much wider set of definitions, including: ‘a number of people or things which are together in one place at one time; a set of people who have the same interests or aims… who organize themselves to work or act together; or a set of people, organizations, or things which are considered together because they have something in common’. Confusingly, it also designates the verb form of grouping together as ‘a number of things or people… that are together in one place or within one organization or system’.

The Merriam-Webster English Dictionary offers a more comprehensive definition of a group encompassing: ‘two or more figures forming a complete unit of composition; a number of individuals assembled together or having some unifying relationship; an assemblage of related organisms—often used to avoid taxonomic connotation when the kind of degree of relationship is not clearly defined.

The terms team and group are often used interchangeably. So, are the terms really exchangeable or is there a fundamental distinction between them?

The difference between groups and teams

In reality there are some subtle, as well as many clear distinctions. In a nutshell, individuals in groups work independently addressing their own agenda and priorities, whilst teams tend to collaborate on a single purpose or overarching goal. Groups may coordinate the individual efforts, whilst teams collaborate on achieving their common purpose often displaying mutual commitment. Teams bring together a range of expertise and capabilities needed to combine and deliver meaningful results and often extend beyond organisational silos or functional structures. Teams are also more likely to be employed on temporary endeavours, providing a focused and cross-functional orientation supplemented by closer relationships and a sense of community. The result can be viewed as the ability to emphasise communal performance rather than celebrate individual achievements (Dalcher, 2016a; p. 2).

Teams often develop a collective identity and a greater responsibility for one another whilst supporting the wider group. Members are interdependent acting out of collective interest and maximising the greater good by focusing on the main goal and key objectives. Team members develop a deeper mutual understanding that enables them to maximise the interest of the collective, with high performing teams benefitting from the synergistic impacts of the assembled team.

Scottish-American philanthropist and industrialist, Andrew Carnegie determined that ‘Teamwork is the ability to work together toward a common vision. The ability to direct individual accomplishments toward organizational objectives. It is the fuel that allows common people to attain uncommon results.’

More…

To read entire article, click here

 

Editor’s note: The PMWJ Advances in Project Management series includes articles by authors of program and project management books published by Gower and other publishers in the Routledge family.  Each month an introduction to the current article is provided by series editor Prof Darren Dalcher, who is also the editor of the Gower/Routledge Advances in Project Management series of books on new and emerging concepts in PM.  Prof Dalcher’s article is an introduction to the invited paper this month in the PMWJ. 

How to cite this paper: Dalcher, D. (2018). The wisdom of teams revisited: Teamwork, teaming and working for the common good, PM World Journal, Volume VII, Issue IX – September. Available online at https://pmworldjournal.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/pmwj74-Sep2018-Dalcher-the-wisdom-of-teams-revisited.pdf

 


 
About the Author


Darren Dalcher, PhD

Author, Professor, Series Editor
Director, National Centre for Project Management
Lancaster University Management School, UK

 

 

 Darren Dalcher, Ph.D. HonFAPM, FRSA, FBCS, CITP, FCMI SMIEEE SFHEA is Professor in Strategic Project Management at Lancaster University, and founder and Director of the National Centre for Project Management (NCPM) in the UK.  He has been named by the Association for Project Management (APM) as one of the top 10 “movers and shapers” in project management and was voted Project Magazine’s “Academic of the Year” for his contribution in “integrating and weaving academic work with practice”. Following industrial and consultancy experience in managing IT projects, Professor Dalcher gained his PhD in Software Engineering from King’s College, University of London.

Professor Dalcher has written over 200 papers and book chapters on project management and software engineering. He is Editor-in-Chief of Journal of Software: Evolution and Process, a leading international software engineering journal. He is the editor of the book series, Advances in Project Management, published by Routledge and of the companion series Fundamentals of Project Management.  Heavily involved in a variety of research projects and subjects, Professor Dalcher has built a reputation as leader and innovator in the areas of practice-based education and reflection in project management. He works with many major industrial and commercial organisations and government bodies.

Darren is an Honorary Fellow of the APM, a Chartered Fellow of the British Computer Society, a Fellow of the Chartered Management Institute, and the Royal Society of Arts, A Senior Member of the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers, a Senior Fellow of the Higher Education Academy and a Member of the Project Management Institute (PMI) and the British Academy of Management. He is a Chartered IT Practitioner. He sits on numerous senior research and professional boards, including The PMI Academic Member Advisory Group, the APM Research Advisory Group, the CMI Academic Council and the APM Group Ethics and Standards Governance Board.  He is the Academic Advisor and Consulting Editor for the next APM Body of Knowledge. Prof Dalcher is an academic advisor for the PM World Journal.  He is the academic advisor and consulting editor for the next edition of the APM Body of Knowledge. He can be contacted at [email protected].

To view other works by Prof Darren Dalcher, visit his author showcase in the PM World Library at http://pmworldlibrary.net/authors/darren-dalcher/.

 

 

Stage 5: Achieve strategic outcomes and realise benefits

 

Organisational Strategic Planning & Execution

SERIES ARTICLE

By Alan Stretton, PhD (Hon)

Sydney, Australia

 



INTRODUCTION

In this series of five articles I have been using the basic strategic business framework shown in Figure 1 below to discuss some particular issues within the organisational strategic planning, execution and benefits realisation processes which do not appear to have been adequately addressed in the PM literature.

Figure 1: An organisational strategic management framework, with project contributions

The first article in this series (Stretton 2018d) addressed Stage 1: Establish strategic objectives, and discussed the extensive preliminary work needed before strategic objectives can be reasonably established, the importance of “emergent” strategies, and the need to re-establish strategic objectives as the latter come into play.

The second article (Stretton 2018e) addressed Stage 2: Develop options, evaluate, and choose the best. It focused on the importance of developing alternative strategic initiatives, and of achieving reliable conceptual level estimates to facilitate valid evaluation of the options.

The third article (Stretton 2018f) addressed Stage 3: Augment and consolidate strategic initiatives, which included augmenting and elaborating the business cases for the chosen initiatives, confirming feasibilities, and prioritising, balancing and consolidating the strategic initiatives into a strategic portfolio, or portfolios.

The fourth article (Stretton 2018g) was concerned with Stage 4: Execute “other strategic work” along with projects, and focused on the former, hopefully partially redressing the imbalance with project/program execution which so dominates the literature.

This fifth and final article will be concerned with Stage 5, Achieve strategic outcomes and realise benefits, focusing mainly on some strategic benefits management and realisation issues which do not appear to have been altogether convincingly covered in the project management literature.

BENEFITS AND ORGANISATIONAL STRATEGY

I have not seen much material in the relevant general management literature that uses the terminologies outcomes and/or benefits to any extent in the strategic context. Yet these terminologies are used quite widely in the project management literature – particularly benefits, as we will see shortly.

More…

To read entire article, click here

 

How to cite this paper: Stretton, A. (2018). Stage 5: Achieve strategic outcomes and realise benefits, Series on Organizational Strategic Planning and Execution, PM World Journal, Volume VII, Issue VIII – August. Available online at https://pmworldjournal.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/pmwj73-Aug2018-Stretton-stage-5-achieve-strategic-outcomes-series.pdf

 


 
About the Author


Alan Stretton, PhD

Faculty Corps, University of Management
and Technology, Arlington, VA (USA)
Life Fellow, AIPM (Australia)

 


Alan Stretton
is one of the pioneers of modern project management.  He is currently a member of the Faculty Corps for the University of Management & Technology (UMT), USA.  In 2006 he retired from a position as Adjunct Professor of Project Management in the Faculty of Design, Architecture and Building at the University of Technology, Sydney (UTS), Australia, which he joined in 1988 to develop and deliver a Master of Project Management program.   Prior to joining UTS, Mr. Stretton worked in the building and construction industries in Australia, New Zealand and the USA for some 38 years, which included the project management of construction, R&D, introduction of information and control systems, internal management education programs and organizational change projects.  He has degrees in Civil Engineering (BE, Tasmania) and Mathematics (MA, Oxford), and an honorary PhD in strategy, programme and project management (ESC, Lille, France).  Alan was Chairman of the Standards (PMBOK) Committee of the Project Management Institute (PMI®) from late 1989 to early 1992.  He held a similar position with the Australian Institute of Project Management (AIPM), and was elected a Life Fellow of AIPM in 1996.  He was a member of the Core Working Group in the development of the Australian National Competency Standards for Project Management.  He has published over 190 professional articles and papers.  Alan can be contacted at [email protected].

To see more works by Alan Stretton, visit his author showcase in the PM World Library at http://pmworldlibrary.net/authors/alan-stretton/.

 

 

 

Issue and Configuration Management Process

 

Project Workflow Management

SERIES ARTICLE

By Dan Epstein

New York, USA

 



Note:
 This article is based on the book Project Workflow Management: A Business Process Approach by Dan Epstein and Rich Maltzman, published by J Ross Publishing in 2014. The book describes PM Workflow® framework, the step-by-step project workflow guiding approach using project management methods, practical techniques, examples, tools, templates, checklists and tips, teaching readers the detailed and necessary knowledge required to manage project “hands-on” from scratch, instructing what to do, when to do and how to do it up to delivering the completed and tested product or service to your client. This article is the fourth article in the series on Project Workflow Management.

The project workflow framework is the result of Dan’s research into the subject, having the following objectives:

1. Create the virtually error-free project management environment to ensure significant reduction of project costs

2. Reduce demands for highly qualified project managers using the step-by-step workflow guiding approach.

While PM Workflow® is the continuous multi-threaded process, where all PM processes are integrated together, this article will attempt to describe the Issue and Configuration Management groups of processes as a stand-alone group of processes that can be used independently outside of PM Workflow® framework. It will be difficult in this article not to venture into processes outside of the current topics, such as planning, quality, communications and other management processes, so they will be just mentioned. However, to get full benefit and the error free project management environment, the complete implementation of PM Workflow® is required.

In order to understand how PM Workflow® ensures this environment, I strongly recommend reading my article Project Workflow Framework – An Error Free Project Management Environment in the PMI affiliated projectmanagement.com (https://www.projectmanagement.com/articles/330037/Project-Workflow-Framework–An-Error-Free-Project-Management-Environment)

The article above provides the overview and explanation of how the project workflow framework works and achieves the established objectives.

For more information, please visit my website www.pm-workflow.com.

This article bundles together two processes: Issue and Configuration Management.

Issue Management

Purpose

Issues are triggered risks which may affect project goals, if they are not resolved in a timely and effective manner. Issues are not the same as scope change request. While scope change requires participation of the delivery team and usually involves design modifications, many issues may be resolved by administrative means. A few examples of issues are:

  • Staff or resource problems, such as lack of the necessary skills or team performance
  • Lack of cooperation or slow response from the client or from management
  • Requirements problems (These usually start as an issue, but eventually scope change will be initiated in order to resolve requirements problems)
  • Any triggered risk, such as a large increase in the cost of a resource

The purpose of Issue Management is the identification and management of issues that come up during all project frames; establishing actions to resolve issues and minimizing their impact on the project. The Issue Management Plan identifies resources responsible for each issue resolution task, resources for escalation when needed and the target dates for the issue resolution. The Issue Management Planning triggers every time one or more issues come up. In some cases, when issue requires scope change, it triggers new SCR. SCR will be triggered even if the issue is a result of an insufficient budget or the project slips the schedule without changing the project scope.

Unlike the quality, risk and other project processes, there is no advanced issue planning. Issue planning and issue resolution are processes which are triggered by every new issue. Issue resolution and tracking is done in the Construction Frame.

More…

To read entire article, click here

 

Editor’s note: This series of articles is based on the book Project Workflow Management: A Business Process Approach by Dan Epstein and Rich Maltzman, published by J Ross Publishing in 2014. The book describes the PM Workflow® framework, a step-by-step approach using project management methods, practical techniques, examples, tools, templates, checklists and tips.  The book teaches readers how to manage a project “hands-on” from scratch, including what to do, when and how to do it up to delivering a completed and tested product or service to a client.

How to cite this paper: Epstein, D. (2018).  Issue and Configuration Management Process, Series on Project Workflow Management, PM World Journal, Volume VII, Issue VIII – August. Available online at https://pmworldjournal.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/pmwj73-Aug2018-Epstein-issue-and-configuration-management-series-article4.pdf

 



About the Author


Dan Epstein

New York, USA

 




Dan Epstein
combines over 25 years of experience in the project management field and the best practices area, working for several major Canadian and U.S. corporations, as well as 4 years teaching university students project management and several software engineering subjects. He received a master’s degree in electrical engineering from the LITMO University in Leningrad (today St. Petersburg, Russia), was certified as a Professional Engineer in 1983 by the Canadian Association of Professional Engineers – Ontario, and earned a master’s certificate in project management from George Washington University in 2000 and the Project Management Professional (PMP®) certification from the Project Management Institute (PMI®) in 2001.

Throughout his career, Dan managed multiple complex interdependent projects and programs, traveling extensively worldwide. He possesses multi-industry business analysis, process reengineering, best practices, professional training development and technical background in a wide array of technologies. In 2004 Dan was a keynote speaker and educator at the PMI-sponsored International Project Management Symposium in Central Asia. He published several articles and gave published interviews on several occasions. In the summer of 2008 he published “Methodology for Project Managers Education” in a university journal. His book, Project Workflow Management – The Business Process Approach, written in cooperation with Rich Maltzman, was published in 2014 by J. Ross Publishing.

Dan first started development of the Project Management Workflow in 2003, and it was used in a project management training course. Later this early version of the methodology was used for teaching project management classes at universities in the 2003–2005 school years. Later on, working in the best practices area, the author entertained the idea of presenting project management as a single multithreaded business workflow. In 2007–2008 the idea was further refined when teaching the project management class at a university.

Dan is an author of many publications in professional magazines, speaker at the international presentations, a guest at podcasts, etc. The Project Management Institute’s (PMI) assessment of his book says: “Contains a holistic learning environment so that after finishing the book and assignments, new project managers or students will possess enough knowledge to confidently manage small to medium projects”. The full list of his publications and appearances can be found at the website www.pm-workflow.com in the Publications tab.

Dan can be contacted at [email protected].

To see other works by Dan Epstein, visit his author showcase in the PM World Library at https://pmworldlibrary.net/authors/dan-epstein/

 

 

 

Disappearing Benefits

You can’t simply pick and choose your investments!

 

Applying Earned Benefit Management

SERIES ARTICLE

By Crispin (“Kik”) Piney, PgMP, PfMP

Southern France

 



Introduction: Link to the Previous Article

The tagline of the previous article was “If you can’t track the allocations, you can’t understand the situation” and explained how to determine the allocation to the costs of each component project throughout the lifetime of the program. The article showed how to apply that algorithm to the case study and identified that one of the component projects and a number of the intermediate nodes clearly cost more than they contributed to the ultimate benefits. It finished with the warning that more information about the overall program benefits model was needed before any decisions could safely be taken on how the set of components might be modified to provide the optimal business result. The current article will explain the points to take into account when optimizing the portfolio in this way, and will demonstrate the potential issues that could be caused by taking a simplistic approach.

Reminder on Benefits Maps

The first articles [Piney, 2018b; Piney, 2018c; Piney, 2018d] in this series [Piney, 2018a], explained how to build a benefits realization map (BRM), how to evaluate the contribution of each component of this map to forecast the strategic benefits of the total program (the “Benefits Allotment Routine” – BAR), and how to evaluate the corresponding allocation of costs to each element of the realization map by using the Break-Even Everywhere Routine (the BEER). These concepts were illustrated on a simple case study. This introduction provides a brief reminder of these ideas.

A BRM illustrates how to make the benefits happen. It can be constructed as follows.

Once the anticipated benefits have been defined by the strategic sponsor, you need to determine all of the steps that are required to construct this result, thereby allowing you to identify the necessary component projects. The dependencies from each logical step to the next are quantified for each step in the logical chain. The BAR uses the forecast value of the strategic objectives in conjunction with this link information to calculate the contribution of every node in the BRM to the anticipated benefits. In particular, the BAR evaluates the contribution to the anticipated benefits of each component project. This value is known as the “Earned Benefit At Completion” (EBAC) of that component project.

Once the full set of parameters that define the model is known (predicted benefits, estimated cost per initiative, and the structure of the benefits map, including the contribution fractions), no additional assumptions on the model are required in order to use these parameters to evaluate to cost of each intermediate node in the model. The return on investment of any node can then be evaluated from its benefit contribution and its cost allocation.

The Earned Benefit of a component project (initiative) at a given point in time is evaluated from its EBAC in proportion to the its degree of completion at that point – i.e., the Earned Value “percent complete” of this project. As a first approximation, the Earned Benefit of the total program is defined as the sum of all of the project Earned Benefits. This definition of the program Earned Value will be revisited in the next article in this series, taking into account concepts defined later on in the current article.

Clarifications

I received the following comment on an earlier article (Piney, 2018c):

  1. “How can you claim to measure benefits when the project has yet to be completed?  […] Asked another way, how can Activity A produce any measurable benefits until Activities C and D are also finished and the services actually implemented?”

I gave a partial answer in Piney, 2018d and proposed to complete it in the current article. Once I had started work on the full explanation, I came to the conclusion that it was sufficiently interesting and involved to warrant its own article. This additional article will therefore be added to this series as a follow-on to the current article.

The Case Study for the Current Article

The business objective of the program in this example is to increase profits for an organization in the area of customer service. For the purpose of the case study, strategic analysis by senior management has shown that increased customer satisfaction with after-sales support enhances business results and has the potential for delivering additional revenue of €300,000 per annum compared with the current level of business, but that this service will also lead to an increase in operational costs amounting to 25% of the corresponding financial improvement, thereby reducing the net benefit by the corresponding amount.

More…

To read entire article, click here

 

How to cite this article: Piney, C. (2018). Disappearing Benefits, Series on Applying Earned Benefit Management, PM World Journal, Vol. VII, Issue VIII – August.  Available online at https://pmworldjournal.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/pmwj73-Aug2018-Piney-Benefits-series-part4-dissapearing-benefits.pdf

 



About the Author


Crispin Piney

South of France

 

 

 

After many years managing international IT projects within large corporations, Crispin (“Kik”) Piney, B.Sc., PgMP is now a freelance project management consultant based in the South of France. At present, his main areas of focus are risk management, integrated Portfolio, Program and Project management, scope management and organizational maturity, as well as time and cost control. He has developed advanced training courses on these topics, which he delivers in English and in French to international audiences from various industries. In the consultancy area, he has developed and delivered a practical project management maturity analysis and action-planning consultancy package.

Kik has carried out work for PMI on the first Edition of the Organizational Project Management Maturity Model (OPM3™) as well as participating actively in fourth edition of the Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge and was also vice-chairman of the Translation Verification Committee for the Third Edition. He was a significant contributor to the second edition of both PMI’s Standard for Program Management as well as the Standard for Portfolio Management. In 2008, he was the first person in France to receive PMI’s PgMP® credential; he was also the first recipient in France of the PfMP® credential. He is co-author of PMI’s Practice Standard for Risk Management. He collaborates with David Hillson (the “Risk Doctor”) by translating his monthly risk briefings into French. He has presented at a number of recent PMI conferences and published formal papers.

Kik Piney is the author of the book Earned Benefit Program Management, Aligning, Realizing and Sustaining Strategy, published by CRC Press in 2018

Kik Piney can be contacted at [email protected].

To view other works by Kik Piney, visit his author showcase in the PM World Library at http://pmworldlibrary.net/authors/crispin-kik-piney/

 

 

Mission Failure at LIDL

But Actually, What was the Mission?

 

Project Business Management

SERIES ARTICLE

By Oliver F. Lehmann

Munich, Germany

 



“Every mission has life-or-death moments.”
Alan Stern, Scientist at NASA


Summary

The international grocery chain Lidl wanted to replace a conglomerate of individual software solutions with a unified standard software supplied by SAP. The epic failure of the project named eLWIS is a prime example of the need to learn Situational Project Management (SitPM) and Project Business Management (PBM). Trial and error are too expensive as teachers for these disciplines.

A Mission Success First approach might have saved the project.

Project eLWIS: The Main Players

Lidl Stiftung & Co.KG is the world-largest discount supermarket chain based in Germany. Its standard retail program is basic grocery products but also special items including mobile licenses and temporary offerings of electronic items and other goods. Founded in its current form in 1973, the group has over 11,000 stores in 27 countries in Europe and the US[1]. Through the group’s focus on very cheap prices, which they achieve through a number of measures[2], it had a steady growth over the years and achieved a turnover of over € 70 billion (US$ 81.7 billion) in 2016[3].

Figure 1: A Lidl store in Munich, Germany

SAP is also a leader in its field – business software. Its turnover for the year 2018 is expected to be around € 25 billion (US$ 29 billion)[4]. With its offering of widely demanded state-of-the art solutions, such as high-performing databases and cloud services for their software, their outlook is very positive.

A third player was a Bavarian consulting company named KPS AG, a consulting company that presents a focus on Rapid Transformation®[5] of organizations, combined with software implementation. In July 2018, the company was selected for the Top 100 Innovation Award for small and medium enterprises.

Further players in the eLWIS project were Hewlett-Packard and Software AG[6]. For a project of this size, it is likely that there was a greater number of subcontractors working for the main players. These can be companies, but also freelancers, individuals, who work as self-employed contractors.

Replacing Old Software at Lidl

It is a common observation that providers of large and complex operations, distributed over a number of locations, have developed a farrago of software solutions throughout their history. Each individual software solution was developed and implemented against

  • specific requirements of a location,
  • by that time prioritized tasks,

which were often different to the requirements of other locations and to the task priorities of other places and moments .

More…

To read entire article, click here

 

Editor’s note: This series of articles is by Oliver Lehmann, author of the book “Situational Project Management: The Dynamics of Success and Failure” (ISBN 9781498722612), published by Auerbach / Taylor & Francis in 2016. See author profile below.

How to cite this article: Lehmann, O. (2018). Mission Failure at LIDL – But Actually, What was the Mission?, PM World Journal, Volume VII, Issue VIII – August.  Available online at https://pmworldjournal.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/pmwj73-Aug-2018-Lehmann-Mission-Success-series-article2.pdf

 



About the Author


Oliver F. Lehmann

Munich, Germany

 

 


Oliver F. Lehmann
, MSc., PMP, is a project management author, consultant, speaker and teacher. He studied Linguistics, Literature and History at the University of Stuttgart and Project Management at the University of Liverpool, UK, where he holds a Master of Science Degree. Oliver has trained thousands of project managers in Europe, USA and Asia in methodological project management with a focus on certification preparation. In addition, he is a visiting lecturer at the Technical University of Munich.

He has been a member and volunteer at PMI, the Project Management Institute, since 1998, and served five years as the President of the PMI Southern Germany Chapter until April 2018. Between 2004 and 2006, he contributed to PMI’s PM Network magazine, for which he provided a monthly editorial on page 1 called “Launch”, analyzing troubled projects around the world.

Oliver believes in three driving forces for personal improvement in project management: formal learning, experience and observations. He resides in Munich, Bavaria, Germany and can be contacted at [email protected].

Oliver Lehmann is the author of the book “Situational Project Management: The Dynamics of Success and Failure” (ISBN 9781498722612), published by Auerbach / Taylor & Francis in 2016.

To view other works by Oliver Lehmann, visit his author showcase in the PM World Library at https://pmworldlibrary.net/authors/oliver-f-lehmann/

 

[1] (Lidl, 2013)

[2] (Hanbury, 2017)

[3] (Handelsblatt, 2018)

[4] (Kerkmann, 2018)

[5] The expression “Rapid Transformation” is a trademark of KPS.

[6] (Lidl, 2018)

 

 

Agile Projects Don’t Need Risk Management (?)

 

Risk Doctor Briefing

SERIES ARTICLE

Thomas Wuttke, PMP, PMI-RMP, PMI-ACP

The Risk Doctor Partnership

Munich, Germany

 



The Agile Manifesto was published as long ago as 2001, but agile is still a hot topic in project management. In theory, agile project management is supposed to reduce risks by design, so that ultimately there are no risks any more. As a result, alongside backlogs, user stories and velocity in the agile approach, there seems to be no place for risks, for example there is no risk backlog. So where are all the risks in agile projects? Have they really disappeared? Three claims of the agile approach imply that this might be true:

1. Using an agile approach massively reduces risk. Right and wrong. It is true that the agile approach reduces some risks, such as the possibility of developing products that the market does not need. Used correctly and constantly, communication and iteration make it nearly impossible to miss the market. But the risk of developing the wrong product is only one type of risk. Risk is defined as the effect of uncertainty on goals. Since all agile projects, releases and sprints have goals, there will also be risks.

2. Risks are managed through the Impediment Backlog. Wrong. The impediment backlog provides a list of current obstacles. Impediments are like issues: they are problems that need to be resolved now. Some impediment backlogs probably also contain real risks, but that isn’t their main purpose. So, if it is used properly, an impediment backlog cannot help us to manage risk.

3. Risk is avoided through close cooperation in the team. Wrong. Of course, good cooperation within a team, working in one place and without constant interruptions, is really good for successful project work. It will avoid some risks, but not all.

Effective risk management is usually correlated with project success. But if projects conducted in an agile environment need no active management of risks, then do they all succeed?

If we focus only on the risk of missing the market needs, then perhaps it is true that agile projects are more successful than traditional projects. But within agile projects it is a different story. Much of the work turns out to be redundant. Product owners neglect their duties. The agile method is misinterpreted and misused. Managers expect miracles. And the tendency to believe that agile projects don’t need documentation only makes things worse.

More…

To read entire article, click here

 

How to cite this paper: Wuttke, T. (2018).  Agile Projects Don’t Need Risk Management, Risk Doctor Briefing; PM World Journal, Volume VII, Issue VIII – August. Available online at https://pmworldjournal.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/pmwj73-Aug2018-Wuttke-agile-projects-dont-need-risk-management.pdf

 



About the Author


Thomas Wuttke

Munich, Germany

 

 

Thomas Wuttke PMP PMI-RMP PMI-ACP CSM has a degree in Computer Science and has worked for more than 20 years on large IT integration projects in both the public and commercial sectors. He has intensive project and program management experience, and has served several organisations as general manager, director, president, international partner and Board member. His focus is on risk management in respect of process, people, culture and maturity. Thomas is a renowned and inspirational trainer, consultant, coach and speaker with assignments across Europe, China, Korea, Japan, India, Brazil and the United States. Thomas is married, has three children and lives near Munich, Germany, where he enjoys Bavarian culture, sailing and mountaineering.

Thomas can be contacted at [email protected]

 

 

Communicating Project Management

A Participatory Rhetoric for Development Teams

Excerpt of Chapter 4: On site with The Gardener and The Chef: Project Leadership and Communication

 

Advances in Project Management Series

SERIES ARTICLE

By Benjamin Lauren

Michigan, USA

 



There are two metaphors I’ve come across used to describe leadership philosophy at the project team level. The first, offered by Demacro and Lister (1999), suggests that teams can be grown, but not built. This leadership approach describes project managers who cultivate the conditions for teams to succeed as a member of a team. The second approach was described by Lammers and Tsvetkov (2008), and it positioned project managers as chefs because they must deliver successful project results consistently. The chef, they argue, uses “industry standard processes” to achieve these results. Chefs tend to have a more complicated power relationship with the team, as they are very clearly responsible for managing its processes and procedures. Leadership models in project management offer important insight into communication practices. This excerpt from Chapter 4 of my book Communicating Project Management: A Participatory Rhetoric for Development Teams explores leadership at the project level by embodying the two metaphors of gardening and cooking to understand how these leadership values influence the approach to communicating. Through a closer examination of two of the participants, this excerpt explains how leadership values influence communication at the project level, and to what extent they shape invitations to participate in project work.

To study the relationship between leadership and communication, the excerpt will lean heavily on examining the communication of two participants. The first participant I call “The Gardener” because she tends to communicate in ways that focus on growing and cultivating the growth of people to help a team succeed. Meanwhile, I refer to other participant as “The Chef” because he tends to focus on making and assembling, usually through industry standard practices, the kinds of resources and people needed to successfully complete a project. As the excerpt will explain, their individual positionality on the team also influenced how they performed leadership. Given these metaphors, how each participant approaches communicating project management is very different, even though they work toward the same goals: to complete project work successfully and to make space for people to participate.

The excerpt begins by reviewing leadership in project management. Then, it introduces The Gardener and presents the data from our work together, which illustrates her approach to growing and contributing to project teams. After, The Chef is introduced and I explain how his approach to communicating focused on following proven recipes for success. Next, the excerpt explores how their leadership approaches are linked to specific ways of communicating; how they give presence to certain values. Finally, the article ends describing the role of leadership identity as a form of rhetorical performance.

Communicating Leadership, Positionality, and Identity

As a scholarly interest and workplace practice, leadership contains a broad range of topic areas. For example, there are a number of books that focus on how to best lead (such as, Asghar, 2014; Maxwell, 2007) or attempt to teach students to be effective leaders (Northouse, 2015; Kouzes and Posner, 2017). Often the published work in leadership traverses academic and practitioner spheres. Particularly useful is Higgs’ (2003) work, which assembled a trajectory of leadership research in a western tradition, including the trends and schools of thought emerging since the ancient Greeks. In his article, he argued that scholarship in leadership tends struggle with its paradigm, oscillating between a focus on personality or behavior (p. 274). A focus on leadership personality asserts, for example, the importance of an individual’s character and charisma; whereas a focus on behavior is concerned with how leadership can be developed as a skillset. Higgs explained, “A personality-based paradigm would argue for selection as being the main focus, whereas a behaviour-based one would argue for development. In essence this is the debate around whether leaders are born or made” (p. 274). This excerpt seeks to add to this conversation to argue that leadership at the project level is a kind of rhetorical performance that is based on a set of implicit values that shape communication activities.

More…

To read entire article, click here

 

Editor’s note: The Advances in Project Management series includes articles by authors of program and project management books published by Routledge worldwide. Information about Routledge project management books can be found here.

How to cite this paper: Lauren, B. (2018). Communicating Project Management: A Participatory Rhetoric for Development Teams – Excerpt of Chapter 4: On site with The Gardener and The Chef: Project Leadership and Communication, PM World Journal, Volume VII, Issue VIII – August. Available online at https://pmworldjournal.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/pmwj73-Aug2018-Lauren-communicating-project-management-series-article.pdf

 



About the Author


Benjamin Lauren

Michigan, USA

 

 

Benjamin Lauren is an Assistant Professor of Experience Architecture in the Department of Writing, Rhetoric, and American Cultures at Michigan State University, where he serves as Assistant Director of the MA in Digital Rhetoric and Professional Writing and as a HUB for Innovation in Learning and Technology Fellow. His book, Communicating Project Management: A Participatory Rhetoric for Development Teams was published in the ATTW Series by Routledge. The book makes an argument that project managers must communicate to facilitate participation in project work, particularly in the context of networked organizations. Ben’s work has been published in journals such as Technical CommunicationTransactions on Professional Communication, and Computers and Composition.

For more about the book Communicating Project Management: A Participatory Rhetoric for Development Teams, click here.

 

 

The power of communication

and the challenge of hidden assumptions

 

Advances in Project Management

SERIES ARTICLE

By Prof Darren Dalcher

Director, National Centre for Project Management

United Kingdom

 



Communication is recognised as essential to successful projects (Dalcher, 2012), and indeed for almost any human endeavour. Moreover, one of the most commonly recorded complaints about the performance of organisations and teams relates to their inability to communicate, or to the lack of knowledge regarding the intentions of the executive group. The 2013 Pulse of the Profession Report (PMI, 2013) contends that one in five projects is unsuccessful due to ineffective communication. The report further affirms that a typical project manager should be spending 90 per cent of their time communicating.

Given the critical role of communication in projects, is there anything new to say about communicating?

When describing communication there is a temptation to focus on the message being sent, the channel that is being utilised or the underpinning technology. The Merriam Webster Dictionary accordingly describes communication as ‘a process by which information is exchanged between individuals through a common system of symbols, signs or behavior’.

However, communication entails a lot more. The Oxford Dictionary defines communication as: ‘the imparting or exchanging of information by speaking, writing or using some other medium’, including ‘a letter or message containing information or news; the successful conveying or sharing of ideas and feelings; and social contact’. The Oxford Dictionary traces the use of the phrase communication, to Late Middle English, with a derivation from Old French counicacion, and the Latin communicatio(n-), originating from the verb communicare, meaning ‘to share’.

The idea of sharing is more powerful than the single direction implied by imparting, or even the mutually bi-directional association enabled through exchanging. Indeed, the Cambridge Dictionary refers to communication as ‘the process of sharing information, especially when this increases understanding between people or groups’. The Collins Dictionary duly notes that communicating can extend beyond mere information to encompass ideas or feelings.

Conveying meaning, increasing understanding and sharing ideas and feelings extend beyond the typical core knowledge and skills taught to managers and leaders and should therefore merit further consideration regarding the potential, place and role of communication.

Exploring the context

Communication is not a smooth process that is constituted by recipient design and intention recognition, as is often implied by the different theories (Kecskes, 2010; p. 50). Firstly, there is a need to account for the internal representations of external things, whilst many of our thoughts are not represented in the external world (Rapaport, 2003; p. 401). Secondly, we do communicate with others (ibid.; p. 402)

‘When you and I speak or write to each other, the most we can hope for is a sort of incremental approach toward agreement, toward communication, toward common usage of terms.’ (Lenat et al., 1995; p. 45)

More…

To read entire article, click here

 

Editor’s note: The PMWJ Advances in Project Management series includes articles by authors of program and project management books published by Gower and other publishers in the Routledge family.  Each month an introduction to the current article is provided by series editor Prof Darren Dalcher, who is also the editor of the Gower/Routledge Advances in Project Management series of books on new and emerging concepts in PM.  Prof Dalcher’s article is an introduction to the invited paper this month in the PMWJ. 

How to cite this paper: Dalcher, D. (2018). The power of communication and the challenge of hidden assumptions, PM World Journal, Volume VII, Issue VIII – August.  Available online at https://pmworldjournal.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/pmwj73-Aug2018-Dalcher-the-power-of-communication-and-challenge-of-hidden-assumptions.pdf

 



About the Author


Darren Dalcher, PhD

Author, Professor, Series Editor
Director, National Centre for Project Management
United Kingdom

 

 

 

Darren Dalcher, Ph.D. HonFAPM, FRSA, FBCS, CITP, FCMI SMIEEE SFHEA is Professor of Project Management, and founder and Director of the National Centre for Project Management (NCPM) in the UK.  He has been named by the Association for Project Management (APM) as one of the top 10 “movers and shapers” in project management and was voted Project Magazine’s “Academic of the Year” for his contribution in “integrating and weaving academic work with practice”. Following industrial and consultancy experience in managing IT projects, Professor Dalcher gained his PhD in Software Engineering from King’s College, University of London.

Professor Dalcher has written over 200 papers and book chapters on project management and software engineering. He is Editor-in-Chief of Journal of Software: Evolution and Process, a leading international software engineering journal. He is the editor of the book series, Advances in Project Management, published by Routledge and of the companion series Fundamentals of Project Management.  Heavily involved in a variety of research projects and subjects, Professor Dalcher has built a reputation as leader and innovator in the areas of practice-based education and reflection in project management. He works with many major industrial and commercial organisations and government bodies.

Darren is an Honorary Fellow of the APM, a Chartered Fellow of the British Computer Society, a Fellow of the Chartered Management Institute, and the Royal Society of Arts, A Senior Member of the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers, a Senior Fellow of the Higher Education Academy and a Member of the Project Management Institute (PMI) and the British Academy of Management. He is a Chartered IT Practitioner. He sits on numerous senior research and professional boards, including The PMI Academic Member Advisory Group, the APM Research Advisory Group, the CMI Academic Council and the APM Group Ethics and Standards Governance Board.  He is the Academic Advisor and Consulting Editor for the next APM Body of Knowledge. Prof Dalcher is an academic advisor for the PM World Journal.  He can be contacted at [email protected].

To view other works by Prof Darren Dalcher, visit his author showcase in the PM World Library at http://pmworldlibrary.net/authors/darren-dalcher/.

 

 

Stage 4: Execute other strategic work

along with projects

 

Organisational Strategic Planning & Execution

SERIES ARTICLE

By Alan Stretton, PhD (Hon)

Sydney, Australia

 



INTRODUCTION

This is the fourth of a series of five articles on organisational strategic planning and execution. I am using the following basic strategic management framework as a common reference base for this series (with some small amendments from the first two articles in the series).

 

Figure 1: An organisational strategic management framework, with project contribution

The first article in this series (Stretton 2018d) addressed Stage 1: Establish strategic objectives, and discussed the extensive preliminary work needed before strategic objectives can be reasonably established, the importance of “emergent” strategies, and the need to re-establish strategic objectives as the latter come into play.

The second article (Stretton 2018e) addressed Stage 2: Develop options, evaluate and choose the best. It focused on the importance of developing alternative strategic initiatives, and of achieving reliable conceptual level estimates, to facilitate valid evaluation of the alternative ‘outline’ business cases, and choice of the best.

The third article (Stretton 2018f) addressed Stage 3: Augment and consolidate strategic initiatives, which included augmenting and elaborating the business cases for the chosen initiatives, confirming feasibilities, and prioritising, balancing and consolidating the strategic initiatives into a strategic portfolio, or portfolios.

This article on Stage 4 will look at strategy execution, but particularly at some aspects of what I have described as the other strategic work which is normally needed, over and above programs and/or projects, to help achieve organisational strategic objectives.

We start with discussing some broad attributes of strategy execution.

SOME ATTRIBUTES OF STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION/EXECUTION

Many large organisations struggle to implement their strategies effectively

Butler 2008 points out that many organisations pay more attention to strategy formulation than strategy execution, and goes on to make the point that

….. the vast majority of organisations simply do not execute their strategies effectively. Some of the statistics are illuminating:

  • Fortune Magazine – less than 10% of business strategies are effectively delivered.
  • Australian Institute of Company Directors – 70% CEOs who fail, do so not because of wrong strategy, but because of poor execution.
  • Ernst & Young – 70% of capital expenditure spent on initiatives not aligned with organisational strategy.
  • McKinsey – 28% of CEOs say that their company produces a strategic plan that reflects the company’s goals and challenges, but is not effective.
  • PriceWaterhouseCoopers – Only 2.5% of companies have 100% of strategic projects on time, within budget, to scope and delivering the right benefits

In a recent article in this journal, Dalcher 2018c reported that Sull et al 2015

….refer to a survey of more than 400 global CEOs that found that executional excellence is the leading challenge facing corporate leaders in Asia, Europe and the United States, topping a list of over 80 issues, including geopolitical instability, top-line growth and innovation. The authors further concede that multiple studies indicate that between two-thirds and three-quarters of large organisations struggle to implement their strategies. Similar figures are regularly quoted in most strategy textbooks.

In discussing problems associated with strategy execution, Dalcher also pointed to another situation which is related to poor performance in strategy execution, namely poor coverage in the literature, to which we now turn.

More…

To read entire article, click here

 

Editor’s note: This is article four in a five-part series on strategic planning by Alan Stretton, one of the world’s leading experts in program and project management.  This series is based on Alan’s research and writing on this topic over the last several years, much of which has been published in previous editions of the PM World Journal.

How to cite this paper: Stretton, A. (2018). Stage 4: Execute other strategic work, along with projects, Series on Organizational Strategic Planning and Execution, PM World Journal, Volume VII, Issue VII – July. Available online at https://pmworldjournal.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/pmwj72-Jul2018-Stretton-strategic-planning-series-article-4-other-strategic-work.pdf



About the Author


Alan Stretton, PhD

Faculty Corps, University of Management
and Technology, Arlington, VA (USA)
Life Fellow, AIPM (Australia)

 

 

Alan Stretton is one of the pioneers of modern project management.  He is currently a member of the Faculty Corps for the University of Management & Technology (UMT), USA.  In 2006 he retired from a position as Adjunct Professor of Project Management in the Faculty of Design, Architecture and Building at the University of Technology, Sydney (UTS), Australia, which he joined in 1988 to develop and deliver a Master of Project Management program.   Prior to joining UTS, Mr. Stretton worked in the building and construction industries in Australia, New Zealand and the USA for some 38 years, which included the project management of construction, R&D, introduction of information and control systems, internal management education programs and organizational change projects.  He has degrees in Civil Engineering (BE, Tasmania) and Mathematics (MA, Oxford), and an honorary PhD in strategy, programme and project management (ESC, Lille, France).  Alan was Chairman of the Standards (PMBOK) Committee of the Project Management Institute (PMI®) from late 1989 to early 1992.  He held a similar position with the Australian Institute of Project Management (AIPM), and was elected a Life Fellow of AIPM in 1996.  He was a member of the Core Working Group in the development of the Australian National Competency Standards for Project Management.  He has published over 190 professional articles and papers.  Alan can be contacted at [email protected].

To see more works by Alan Stretton, visit his author showcase in the PM World Library at http://pmworldlibrary.net/authors/alan-stretton/.

 

 

The Digital Social Workplace

People over Process

 

Advances in Project Management Series

SERIES ARTICLE

By Dale Roberts

United Kingdom

 



Workplace computing has, for the last three decades, been about automating process. The result is that we work together in ways that are stilted. In information science terms, they are nothing more than transactional. Digital social tools are changing the way we work, share and collaborate but surprisingly in a way that is more, not less natural. Paradoxically, technology is making organisations, teams and projects human again.

THE END OF ADVANTAGE THROUGH SCALABLE PROCESS

“I understand why you would think that” my executive contact acknowledged at a recent customer meeting, “that our competitors are businesses like ours, other [so-called] fast moving consumer goods businesses”. The threat to their €50B turnover, it would seem was clearly going to be less obvious than my earlier posseting of the name of their biggest competitor. He went on “Rather, it is the vast crowd of small, innovative brands that are no longer held back by barriers to scale, even globally”. No one competitor was going to bring this behemoth down, it would seem. Rather, it was vulnerable to a thousand cuts from the long tail of artisanal sourdough and locally made soaps.

In a digital economy, businesses are no longer secure by virtue of their size. Our high streets are slowly emptying of lumbering giants. A decade ago the financial services landscape was populated by a handful of titans whilst today, they are under threat from small, pioneering insurgents commonly referred to as ‘challenger banks’. One, unsurprising reaction, has been for incumbent businesses to buy-up and absorb the new players but they may be making a fundamental miscalculation. They are typically acquiring technology, customers or brand but overlooking the critical ingredient: Their agile ethos.

Today, competitive edge is more about how businesses organise, communicate and behave rather than their products, services or the technology they use. It is less about web sites and mobile apps and more about people.

ORGANISATIONAL INTERACTION HAS CHANGED

Human interaction has reached an electronic tipping point. It is digital, omnipresent, instant, permanent, analysable and searchable. It’s a shame that, existential issues of privacy aside, the most successful change agent and so-called social tool is Facebook because their usefulness is far broader. The Conversation Prism, an infographic co-authored by Brian Solis and now at version 5 (2013) lists hundreds of such tools supporting everyday human interactions from organising events to crowd funding. Whatever a group of people need to do, it can be done on-line or with the help of an app.

Business tools such as Slack have revolutionised the way we interact in the workplace as much as Facebook changed the way we maintain personal connections. Indeed, the term social is spectacularly misleading. It isn’t the adjective that describes the act of enjoying activities outside of work. It is attributive. It relates to society or organisations. A social group. Businesses and projects are social constructs. They are a group of people organising around a common purpose albeit an economic one.

Enterprise social tools are permitting new workplace norms. Communication doesn’t require being in the same room or even the same building. I consult often but today there is a reasonable chance that at least one person in my meeting will be in their pyjamas, providing it is a teleconference. Physical meetings are still important to forge closer working partnerships but they are only part of the mix. Indeed, on one recent occasion, I and a colleague travelled 140 miles for a meeting with a team of 7 to find that only one of them was physically present, the others joining virtually through a conference phone occupying a single spot in the centre of the table.

A decade ago, when managing projects, I would strongly recommend and sometimes insist on co-location and a project office. Today, the natural beat of project communication barely slows down when the team don’t even share a time zone.

More…

To read entire article, click here

 

Editor’s note: The Advances in Project Management series includes articles by authors of program and project management books published by Routledge worldwide. Information about Routledge project management books can be found here.

How to cite this paper: Roberts, D. (2018). The Digital Social Workplace, People over Process; PM World Journal, Volume VII, Issue VII – July. Available online at https://pmworldjournal.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/pmwj72-Jul2018-Roberts-digital-social-workplace-people-over-process.pdf



About the Author


Dale Roberts

United Kingdom

 

 

 

Dale Roberts is VP of Professional Services for Clarabridge, author, commentator, columnist, and speaker. As a professional services leader for Clarabridge in Europe, Roberts is advising some of the world’s largest companies on optimising the customer experience using social and digital insights. Prior to this he was part of the founding circle of Artesian Solutions, an innovator in social CRM and a Director of Services for business intelligence giant Cognos. Dale was identified a thought leader in big data and analytics by Analytics Week, is a contributor to business and technology publications including Wired and ClickZ and a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts. 

His first book, Decision Sourcing, Decision Making for the Agile Social Enterprise, is an inspiring commentary on the impact of social on corporate decision making. His latest, World of Workcraft, Rediscovering Motivation and Engagement in the Digital Workplace, is a timely piece on engagement, motivation and digital humanism in the workplace.

 

 

Dealing with Project Supply Networks

Be a Connective Leader

 

Project Business Management

SERIES ARTICLE

By Oliver F. Lehmann

Munich, Germany

 


“Like it or not; commands are out, negotiations are in.”
Jean Lipman-Blumen

Summary

Project Business Management brings together project management skills and business skills for the kind of projects that dominate today’s reality: Projects extending over corporate borders.

An aspect of both skills are leadership requirements that do no more stop at the boundaries of an organization but extend into other organizations, including clients and contractors. The ability to apply the achieving styles of the Connective Leadership Model often decide on the project success of these projects and also on the business success of the companies involved.

 

Leadership Requirements in Project Business Management

Some readers may have followed my previous articles on Project Business Management. In these articles, I describe various aspects of the art of doing project management in an environment characterized by contractual relationships between sellers and buyers, contractors and customers and other forms of business partners[1]. This series of articles follows a path from the outside, the organizations involved and the interfaces between them, to the core of the Project Business Manager discipline, from the technicalities and legal matters to the question what actually constitutes professionalism when projects span across corporations.

It began with a discussion of Situational Project Management (SitPM)[2] and a recommendation of an open typology of projects to prepare for the uniqueness and variability of the different projects along a major number of dimensions. Among these dimensions were those of predictable vs. exploratory projects, mark-1 vs. mark-n projects and many more.

One of these typological dimensions  was the dichotomy of internal projects, which are in essence costs centers, and customer projects, which are profit centers for the contractor company and opportunities to tap contractors’ assets and turn them into project resources for a customer organization. Contractors can constitute complex supply networks with many companies involved, including prime contractors and subcontractors over a number of tiers.

Figure 1: A simple two-tier project supply network (PSN) with a customer and five contractors

Figure 1 depicts a simple network with one ustomer and five contractors involved over two tiers. Each company has its own business interests, and getting to work together as one team dedicated to a common “Mission Success First” goal is a difficult task, whose mastership will make the project succeed or fail.

Discussing business aspects of projects under contract on both sides, customers and contractors, the articles led to questions of professionalism and qualification of project managers, who manage not only a project but a business relationship with customers, contractors or both, and as Figure 1 shows, the number of interfaces between the companies can grow rapidly.[3]

In this article, I intend to build a bridge to work that has been done since the 1990s by Jean Lipman-Blumen[4] under the flag of “Connective Leadership”.[5] Lipman-Blumen postulates that leaders have passed through two historical stages and are now entering a third one. Figure 2 describes, how leadership and also project management evolved and still evolve along these stages:

More…

To read entire article, click here

 

Editor’s note: This series of articles is by Oliver Lehmann, author of the book “Situational Project Management: The Dynamics of Success and Failure” (ISBN 9781498722612), published by Auerbach / Taylor & Francis in 2016. See author profile below.

How to cite this article: Lehmann, O. (2018). Dealing with Project Supply Networks (PSNs), Be a Connective Leader, PM World Journal, Volume VII, Issue VII – July.  Available online at https://pmworldjournal.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/pmwj72-Jul2018-Lehmann-Connective-Leadership-in-Project-Supply-Networks.pdf



About the Author


Oliver F. Lehmann

Munich, Germany

 

 

 

Oliver F. Lehmann, MSc., PMP, is a project management author, consultant, speaker and teacher. He studied Linguistics, Literature and History at the University of Stuttgart and Project Management at the University of Liverpool, UK, where he holds a Master of Science Degree. Oliver has trained thousands of project managers in Europe, USA and Asia in methodological project management with a focus on certification preparation. In addition, he is a visiting lecturer at the Technical University of Munich.

He has been a member and volunteer at PMI, the Project Management Institute, since 1998, and served five years as the President of the PMI Southern Germany Chapter until April 2018. Between 2004 and 2006, he contributed to PMI’s PM Network magazine, for which he provided a monthly editorial on page 1 called “Launch”, analyzing troubled projects around the world.

Oliver believes in three driving forces for personal improvement in project management: formal learning, experience and observations. He resides in Munich, Bavaria, Germany and can be contacted at [email protected].

Oliver Lehmann is the author of the book “Situational Project Management: The Dynamics of Success and Failure” (ISBN 9781498722612), published by Auerbach / Taylor & Francis in 2016.

To view other works by Oliver Lehmann, visit his author showcase in the PM World Library at https://pmworldlibrary.net/authors/oliver-f-lehmann/

 

[1] A chronological list of all articles in PM World Journal can be found at https://pmworldlibrary.net/authors/oliver-f-lehmann

[2] (Lehmann, 2016)

[3] (Lehmann, 2018)

[4] Her profile can be found at the Drucker School of Management at the Claremont Graduate University ( (Drucker School of Management, n.d.)

[5] (Lipman-Blumen, 2000)