SPONSORS

SPONSORS

The Benefits of the Earned Benefit Framework

Counteracting the Common Causes of “Project” Failure

 

Applying Earned Benefit Management

SERIES ARTICLE

By Crispin (“Kik”) Piney, PgMP, PfMP

Southern France

 



This article was triggered by Alan Stretton’s series of articles in the PM World Journal, and especially his latest one, in November 2018, entitled “Responsibilities for ‘project’ successes/failures?” On reading that article, I realized that the Earned Benefit Framework can – and should – be applied to counteract a number of the highlighted issues.

Introduction: What I Had Overlooked

I have just realized that, although the Earned Benefit Method insists on the importance of starting from the “why” of any endeavour,  (i.e., the intended benefit) before focussing on the “how” (i.e., the actions, tools and techniques), I have so far omitted to explain the basic, organizational benefits of applying this method. To date, I have explained the power of the method for providing all of the information required for effective realization of the forecast benefits along with the associated techniques and algorithms. However, if the organization is dysfunctional, the results of the techniques will also be worthless

The real “why” for applying the Earned Benefit Framework is to enhance project value and business success in a predictable and repeatable manner. As will be explained, one definite cause of failures in benefits-realted endeavours is the lack of tools and concepts specific to program management, allied, all-too-often, to the lack of the will for greater visibility. In addition, all such endeavours are carried out as if the use of project management concepts and tools will be sufficient for ensuring success. It will be shown that neither these project management concepts nor these tools are, in fact, adequate for achieving success in complex programs, and that the Earned Benefit Framework can provide the solution to these problems.

The current article will explain how the application of the Earned Benefit Framework along with the adoption of an Organizational Project Management model can counteract incomplete and unreliable organizational practices that seriously undermine the chances of project success.

Acknowledgement

Alan Stretton has given me permission to quote extensively from his recent article in PM World Journal [Stretton (2018)], and I would like to acknowledge his contribution to raising my awarenesss of the issues and for trusting me to make good use of his material.

Link to Previous Articles

Earlier articles in this series [Piney 2018b, Piney 2018c, Piney 2018d, Piney 2018e, Piney 2018f, Piney 2018g] explained how to apply the Earned Benefit cost and benefit evaluation algorithms to a representative case study.

The current article changes topic, away from the technical details of method, to concentrate on the organization as a whole.

In order to allow this article to be understood independently of the earlier ones in the series, some reminders are provided below, plus an overview of the case study,  prior to addressing the current topic of counteracting common sources of project failure.

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.

BRMs can be developed in two passes, as follows:

Top-Down Strategy 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 contributing to realizing 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 contribution fractions to calculate the contribution to the anticipated benefits of each node in the BRM. In particular, the BAR evaluates the contribution to the anticipated benefits of each component project.

More…

To read entire article, click here

 

How to cite this article: Piney, C. (2018). The Benefits of the Earned Benefit Framework: Counteracting the Common Causes of “Project” Failure; Series on Applying Earned Benefits Management, PM World Journal, Vol. VII, Issue XII (December). Available online at https://pmworldjournal.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/pmwj77-Dec2018-Piney-Benefits-of-the-Earned-Benefit-Framework.pdf



About the Author


Crispin Piney

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/

 

 

A Health Check for a Portfolio with Customer-Facing Projects

 

Project Business Management

SERIES ARTICLE

By Oliver F. Lehmann

Munich, Germany

 



Summary

Project portfolio management for corporations doing customer projects to make a living has its specific challenges. Projects in crisis can impact the entire portfolio and jeopardize the existence of the company. The magic triangle on contractor-side is made of customer-happiness, profitability and liquidity.

A Project Portfolio in Need of a Turnaround

ArmyAnt, Inc.[1] is a company that performs projects for a major number of customers integrating hardware and software to complex working systems. Companies decide to buy and use their services due to ArmyAnt’s great experience from past projects and also to a thick folder with letters of reference and of gratitude from customers of previous projects.

ArmyAnt has many assets such as skilled people, know how, licenses and equipment that customers love to tap into and use them as project resources. ArmyAnt in turn loves to tap into customers’ financial assets and turned them into revenue and finally into profit. ArmyAnt was just a typical company bringing money home by performing projects for customers against payment under contract.

As any company that made its living from being a contractor for one or more customers, ArmyAnt worked inside a magic triangle of objectives, that included the happy customer, protection of the own liquidity, and profitability. Liquidity protects the presence of the organization, the happy customer as an incumbent and a reference allows it to be successful in the future, and profitability provides the resources to realize this future. The magic triangle is shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Profitability of customer-facing projects is one corner of the “Magic triangle” of Project business management for vendors

However, in the recent past this profit topic turned out to become more and more a problem. ArmyAnt had started almost two decades ago as a one-man-one-customer provider. Archibald Ant, the founder of the organization, began doing customer projects as a self-employed service provider for his former employer, after his boss had to run a lay-off project, which affected many jobs including Archibald’s. While the company made him redundant, his no-more boss still wanted to use his competencies and experience. The solution was to assign work to him as a contractor instead of hiring him as an employee. The costs he incurred for the organization moved from the payroll to the procurement budget, a development that was welcomed by shareholders. Archibald found that somewhat strange, because as a contractor he was rather more expensive. So he started his little business, which soon proved to be highly profitable  for him.

Despite the profit, Archibald soon noticed the risk of having only one customer: The company could end business with him at any time and such a decision would leave him without income from one day to the next. His income was fully dependent on his single client, and when they had negotiations about fees and contractual conditions of business, he learned that the company was fully aware of his dependency.

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). A Health Check for a Portfolio with Customer-Facing Projects; Series on Project Business Management; PM World Journal, Vol. VII, Issue XII (December).  Available online at https://pmworldjournal.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/pmwj77-Dec2018-Lehmann-A-Health-Check-for-Customer-Facing-Projects.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 and ofProject Business Management” (ISBN 9781138197503), published by Auerbach / Taylor & Francis in June 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] All names changed.

 

 

Overcoming Fear of Failure

 

Risk Doctor Briefing

SERIES ARTICLE

Dr David Hillson, PMI Fellow, HonFAPM, FIRM

The Risk Doctor Partnership

United Kingdom

 



The fear of failure often stops us taking risks, because most of us think of failure as “A Bad Thing”. Reality is more balanced. The following ten key characteristics of failure show it includes both negative and positive aspects:

  1. Failure is natural. Failure is an intrinsic part of life, as illustrated by the natural laws of competition and survival of the fittest.
  2. Failure is universal. Failure can be found everywhere, affecting all facets of human existence, including both personal and corporate activities, in both private and business arenas.
  3. Failure is inevitable. Perfection is an illusion, 100% success is unattainable, and there will always be more failures than successes.
  4. Failure is pain. Failure nearly always has negative consequences, and it is usually unpleasant for those who experience it.
  5. Failure is opportunity. Failure offers us the chance to draw a line under the past and make a fresh start, stepping out into the future.
  6. Failure is learning. Failure teaches us where further effort would be wasted and encourages us not to repeat the same mistakes in the future.
  7. Failure is information. Failure is a definite result, a clear outcome, indicating what not to do in future.
  8. Failure is directional. Failure closes off some potential paths of action, and leaves others open or untried, encouraging us to try something different.

More…

To read entire article, click here

 

How to cite this paper: Hillson, D. (2018).  Overcoming Fear of Failure, Risk Doctor Briefing; PM World Journal, Volume VII, Issue XII (December).   Available online at https://pmworldjournal.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/pmwj77-Dec2018-Hillson-overcoming-fear-of-failure.pdf



About the Author


Dr David Hillson HonFAPM PMI-Fellow CFIRM CMgr FCMI

The Risk Doctor

 

 

 

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/

 

 

Outsourcing and Resource 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 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 resource management group of processes as a stand-alone group 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 subject, 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 of obtaining resources, both external (P14) and internal (P15) ones.

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

Outsourcing Management

Purpose

The purpose of the Outsourcing Management process in the context of this book is selection of qualified vendors for implementation of project components, as well as managing relationships with vendors for quality deliverables and seamless integration with other components of a project.

Before making a commitment to use outsourcing on a project, there must be a reasonable proof that using outsourcing will increase company benefits and there must be awareness that outsourcing provides significant challenges in producing quality deliverables.

Outsourcing Challenges

Outsourcing, which is also known under the name of subcontracting, exists in several business areas. The government, military, heavy machinery and others use onshore resources, as opposed to the offshore ones. However the heaviest use of offshore outsourcing is in the information technology, electronics and manufacturing industries. In the past ten years there has been a strong trend to take advantage of lower costs of offshore development and manufacturing.

This trend takes jobs out of the higher-cost country, which is profoundly negative, but in order to stay competitive, companies cannot afford to ignore this option. Besides, public companies will have to follow the shareholders’ decisions, which are mostly motivated by profit. It appears that the trend is here to stay for a while, but in the foreseeable future it will slow down or will be gradually reversed, because the cost of the offshore development is steadily going up. As soon as the cost in low cost countries (LCCs) becomes comparable to the cost of the onshore development, the trend will stop. For example, ten years ago Canada was considered a low cost country, because the average rate of the Canadian developer was about 40% lower than the rate of US developers; in part due to 40% difference in value of the Canadian versus the US dollar. Software development by several US corporations was channeled there by using their Canadian branches. Today the cost of software development in Canada is not any lower than in USA and Canada is no longer a low cost country. Having software development done outside the country presents many challenges. Among them are:

  • Language barrier
    In many countries English is spoken only by a small minority. This limits communication between the onshore project manager and the offshore team.
  • Different time zones
    Some of the most popular LCC outsourcing countries have a difference with the US Eastern time zone of 8 to 14 hours. This means that during the period between 8:00AM and 5:00PM Eastern Time, the offshore time may be 8:00PM to 5:00AM, which makes communication for both teams problematic. When email is used for communication, the reply to the query will come – at the earliest -the following day. It is also not always easy to get reliable status reports from an offshore project manager until deliverables are due.
  • Different customs and cultures
    In some cultures people consider asking questions impolite; therefore your business or technical requirements submitted to them must be highly detailed and accurate. If they are not, then the deliverable will reflect the offshore team’s understanding and not yours. This sometimes leads to the misconception that offshore teams are not as qualified as US teams, which is generally incorrect. Experience shows that the problems are often caused by poor – or at least vague -specifications and poor communication, rather than a specific problem of the offshore team’s qualification.
  • Privacy and confidentiality issues
    US companies are not allowed to provide offshore companies with access to actual production data, when it contains private information about customers or other confidential information. This prevents offshore companies from participating in the integration of the deliverables produced by them. The data used by the offshore team must be stripped of all references to the private and confidential information. Whenever the use of large data banks with millions of records is required to test the system, producing and keeping simulated database may be costly and convoluted.

The Outsourcing Process

The Outsourcing process consists of the following elements:

  1. Issue request for proposal
  2. Conduct bidders conference
  3. Receive proposals
  4. Investigate candidates ability to do outsourcing
  5. Select winning proposal
  6. Establish communications and reporting with the outsourcing company
  7. Provide outsourcing company with the detailed SOW and specifications
  8. Receive project plan from the outsourcing company
  9. Track implementation
  10. Track integration with other parts of the project

When outsourcing help is required, the company issues a request for proposal. For the inshore outsourcing, the announcement may be published in a newspaper or sent to a list of potential bidders. For the offshore outsourcing, the request for proposal is sent to a list of the known and reputable offshore companies doing outsourcing business. More details may be provided in a bidders’ conference, which may be either a face-to-face meeting or a teleconference with bidders who expressed interest in bidding. When proposals are received by the due date, they are reviewed and several are selected for further consideration. The bidders whose proposals were selected are investigated for financial strength and the availability of the right resources. All references should be checked. There must be sufficient evidence that the outsourcing company has delivered successfully on similar types of projects in the past with satisfactory quality. Based on the investigation and the suitability of the proposal, a winning proposal is selected. There must be a documented understanding with the outsourcing company that they must adjust their project management processes to make them compatible with standard processes in your organization.

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).  Title, Series on Project Workflow Management, PM World Journal, Vol. VII, Issue XII (December).  Available online at https://pmworldjournal.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/pmwj77-Dec2018-Epstein-outsourcing-and-resource-management-process.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/

 

 

Project Society in the Making

 

SERIES ARTICLE

Managing and Working in Project Society

By Rolf A. Lundin and Tim Brady

Sweden and UK

 



Writers have been heralding the coming of the project age for many years.  As long ago as the late 1950s Paul Gaddis’s book was extolling the virtues of a new type of manager – the Project Manager – whose business is to create a product – a piece of advanced-technology hardware. (Gaddis, 1959). Unlike so-called conventional managers in corporations at the time the project manager had to manage a higher proportion of professionals from the working level up through his subordinate managers. Gaddis points out that “crisis, uncertainty and suspense” are continual elements of project life.  He also says that the role of the project manager will be vital for the US to regain technological leadership.

The adhocracy movement

But while he was advocating the rise of a new type of manager, Gaddis was not forecasting a change in the nature of organisations away from monolithic enduring permanent organisations towards a more temporary form.  Indeed, the environment in which Gaddis was describing the rise of project managers was relatively stable – there was technological change but nothing like the rapid environmental changes that came to the fore in subsequent years.  It was Toffler (1970) who suggested that “(e)ach age produces a form of organization appropriate to its own tempo” (p.143). He acknowledged the existence of project groups as temporary forms by pointing out that there was nothing new about the idea of assembling a group to work towards the solution of a specific problem, then dismantling it when the task is completed. In his view however, what was new at the time of his book was the prevalence of such groups and “the frequency with which organizations must resort to such temporary arrangements.  He suggested the “seemingly permanent structures of many large organizations. . . are now heavily infiltrated with these transient cells.” (p.134). The use of the word ‘infiltrate’ by Toffler about these new forms was interesting in itself, suggesting some kind of surreptitious, almost covert activity in the face of resistance from the extant organizations. It was if the large hierarchical, bureaucratic organizations of industrial society were fighting a rear-guard action against the inevitable march of something new: adhocracy.

In describing the characteristics of what he called ‘super-industrial society’, Toffler was strongly influenced by the work of Warren Bennis who he quotes as suggesting that “(t)he key word will be ‘temporary’; there will be adaptive, rapidly changing temporary systems.” Problems will be solved by task forces composed of “relative strangers who represent a set of diverse professional skills.” (p.144). In Toffler’s vision of the brave new world, “rather than being trapped in a mindless bureaucratic machine, man will find himself liberated, a stranger in a world of kinetic organizations.” (Toffler, 1970 p.125).  In this world of adhocracy rather than permanence there would be transience – high mobility between organizations, never-ending reorganizations within them, and a constant generation and decay of temporary work groupings.  Toffler was at pains to impress on the reader that that “the rise of ad hoc organization is a direct effect of the speed-up of change in society as a whole” (p.135).

But there is not too much evidence that this world of kinetic organizations emerged quickly.  Rather, we find that there has been as gradual transition over the next 40 years or more as the traditional institutions continued to resist revolutionary change, with periodic announcements of the coming of the new age in which projects and temporary forms of organization will become dominant. If we fast-forward over 35 years from Gaddis’s book and 25 years from Toffler book we find researchers suggesting that projects and project management were becoming “the wave of the future in global business’ and that project management might replace traditional functional management as the key to competitive advantage in the 21st century” (Pinto and Kharbanda, 1995). Again, in the 1990s, we find a short book appearing with the title ‘Adhocracy’ extolling the virtues of  “the most common, sturdy, and visible ad hoc form: the project team, or task force” (Waterman, 1992; p.17). Waterman acknowledges the works of Bennis and Toffler but suggests that exactly how to create and manage these ad hoc forms was never fleshed out and applied to the real world of business. Waterman bemoans the trend of businesses employing consultants at huge expense to supply ad hoc teams to work on projects that could and probably should be handled by their own internal managers and employees. His book is filled with stories about successful implementation of ad hoc teams in a variety of settings including life insurance, computer firms, real estate developers, clothes manufacturers, sports teams, oil companies.  The message is clear.  If you want to be successful in today’s (i.e. the 1990s) environment, you need to learn how to manage adhocracy.

Waterman was one of the co-authors of the best-selling management book In Search of Excellence.  His co-author, Tom Peters, was also writing about the rise of projects in a series of ‘how-to’ books which were published at the end of the 1990s – The Project50: Fifty Ways to Transform Every “Task” into a Project That Matters! and The Professional Service Firm 50: Fifty Ways to Transform Your “Department” into a Professional Service Firm Whose Trademarks are Passion and Innovation!  According to Peters, “in the new economy, all work is project work”, and he urges individuals to become project gurus and turn their functional departments into fully-fledged professional service firms.  Again, the language is interesting. He suggests that it is ‘cool’ to be seen to work in this way. According to Peters, “(t)he cool professional service firm is just that: cool talent, a portfolio of cool projects, cool clients. Period. Its only asset—literally—is brains. Its only product is projects. Its only aim is truly memorable client service.” So, shifting towards project forms of organization in which internal teams deliver services to other parts of the organization is something to be encouraged as it’s fashionable, hip and cool.

More…

To read entire article, click here

 

Editor’s note: This is article is one in a series based on the book Managing and Working in Project Society by Rolf A. Lundin, Niklas Arvidsson, Tim Brady, Eskil Ekstedt, Christophe Midler and Jörg Sydow, published by Cambridge University Press in 2015.  The book won the PMI David I. Cleland Project Management Literature Award in 2016.

How to cite this article: Lundin, R. and Brady, T. (2018). Project Society in the Making, PM World Journal, Vol. VII, Issue XII (December). Available online at https://pmworldjournal.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/pmwj77-Dec2018-Brady-Lundin-Project-Society-in-the-Making.pdf



About the Authors


Tim Brady

University of Brighton
United Kingdom

 


Tim Brady
is Professor of Innovation in the Centre for Research in Innovation Management at Brighton Business School, University of Brighton. His current research interests include the management of complex projects and programmes and learning and capability development in project-based business. He is a leader of Theme E (Knowledge Management and Capabilities) in Project X, an initiative aiming to improve performance of UK public sector projects and was a member of the EPSRC-funded Rethinking Project Management network, and Deputy Director of the ESRC-funded CoPS Innovation Centre. His research has been published widely in academic management journals.

 


Rolf Lundin, PhD

Jönköping International Business School
Jönköping, Sweden

 

 

Rolf A Lundin is a professor (em.) of Business Administration at the Jönköping International Business School (JIBS) and a Courtesy Professor-in-Residence at the Umeå School of Business and Economics (USBE).  He received his PhD in 1973 at the University of Chicago (now the Booth Business School) in Management Science.  He has been a full professor since 1978, first at the business school of the University of Umeå (in northern Sweden), where he was also the founding dean of that school.  In 2001 he was recruited to dean JIBS.  He stepped down as dean in 2007.  Since then he has been affiliated with the Media Management and Transformation Center.  He has several publications in the management of projects and temporary organization area and is currently serving on the board for the PMI Global Accreditation Center which is working with accreditation of project management educational programs around the world.  His current research focus is on the use of projects in media industries.  Rolf is active in the Swedish Project Academy. He can be contacted at [email protected].

Brady and Lundin are co-authors of Managing and Working in Project Society: Institutional Challenges of Temporary Organizations, published in 2015 by Cambridge University Press and winning the 2016 PMI Book of the Year award.

To view other works by Prof Lundin, visit his author showcase in the PM World Library at http://pmworldlibrary.net/authors/rolf-a-lundin/

 

 

The Benefits of Stakeholders

 

Applying Earned Benefit Management

SERIES ARTICLE

By Crispin (“Kik”) Piney, PgMP, PfMP

Southern France

 



This article builds on the ideas described earlier in this series, and applies the Benefits Map to provide a more detailed stakeholder analysis and ensure alignment between benefits, stakeholder engagement, and strategy.

 

Introduction: Program Stakeholders

However good the strategy, planning, and general governance, a program can only succeed with the active support of key stakeholders. Even when the key stakeholders have been correctly identified, one common mistake is to focus only on their principal or most obvious relationship with the program. Although this narrow focus may be a valid approach for projects, it is insufficient for programs due to the complex interactions between the program components.

The current article will explain how to apply the Benefits Map and the assocated algorithms to broaden the initial analysis of the stakeholders’ principal focus to include their extended impact on other areas of the program.

Link to Previous Articles

Earlier articles in this series [Piney 2018b, Piney 2018c, Piney 2018d, Piney 2018e, Piney 2018f] explained how to apply the Earned Benefit cost and benefit evaluation algorithms to a representative case study.

The current article changes topic, away from finance and towards people

In order to allow this article to be understood independently of the earlier ones in the series, some reminders are provided below, plus an overview of the case study,  prior to addressing the current topic of extended stakeholder 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.

BRMs can be developed in two steps, as follows:

Top-Down Strategy 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 contribution fractions 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.

Because of the way the BRM is drawn with the strategic outcomes on the right and the component projects on the left, this top-down approach is also characterized as “right-to-left”.

Similarly, the bottom-up approach is also known as “left-to-right”.

Bottom-Up Component Evaluation

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 links and their contribution fractions), no additional assumptions on the model are required in order to evaluate to cost of each intermediate node in the model. The “Break Even Everywhere Routine” (the BEER) provides the additional link parameters (the “allocation fractions”) required for calculating the corresponding cost of each node based on the cost of the initiatives and the structure of the map.

The BAR and the BEER

It is important to understand the way in which the model works:

The BAR – by applying the contribution fractions – can be used to evaluate the top-down effect of nodes across the BRM and diffuse values from right to left. Although the BAR algorithm was initially applied to the contributions, it can also be used to diffuse any other program-related values across the model from right to left.

Due to the way in which the BEER was specified, the allocation fractions provide the means for distributing not only costs but also other quantities (such as node Earned Benefit) across the map from the initiatives (on the left in the BRM) towards the strategic outcomes (on the right).

In general, therefore, the strategic effects diffuse from right to left, according to the BAR. Tactical activities affect downstream nodes, from left to right, based on the BEER.

These features are fundamental to the ideas developed in the current article.

These ideas will be applied to provide a benefits-related stakeholder analysis on the ongoing case study.

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. The premise of the case study in that 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 that amount.

In the previous articles, the steps to achieving the business objective were developed and quantified, all the way back from the required strategic outcome across to identifying the required projects. The corresponding BRM for this program, including the financial numbers and allocation fractions mentioned above, is shown in Figure 1.

More…

To read entire article, click here

 

How to cite this article: Piney, C. (2018). The Benefits of Stakeholders, Series on Applying Earned Benefit Management, PM World Journal, Vol. VII, Issue XI – November. Available online at https://pmworldjournal.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/pmwj76-Nov2018-Piney-Benefits-series-part-6-Benefits-of-Stakeholders.pdf

 



About the Author


Crispin Piney

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/

 

 

Bringing Strangers into the Project

 

Project Business Management

SERIES ARTICLE

By Oliver F. Lehmann

Munich, Germany

 


 

“An organization’s ability to learn, and translate that learning
into action rapidly, is the ultimate competitive advantage.”
Jack Welch

Summary

Project management is changing from an internal cross-functional discipline into a cross-organizational business discipline. Project managers today must ever more tap the assets of other business entities, such as vendor companies and freelancers and turn them into project resources to develop the project performance and agility that internal resources alone can no longer deliver.

The lack of education and literature on the topic makes this transformation very difficult for the people involved and bears the risk of costly errors.

 

Delphine’s Story

In my last article[1] in the Project Business Management series in PM World Journal, I told the story of Jack Miller, who had changed job. So far, he had been doing internal projects, but his new employer was a company that generates its income through customer projects, and Jack was surprised at the vastly different requirements that he needed to meet, and for which he was not prepared at all.

Jack had a colleague and friend over many years, Delphine Smith[2], who stayed in the company, when he had to leave.

In the following months, Delphine also saw major changes happening to her work; changing from doing cross-functional projects with internal projects to cross-corporate projects with external resources. In essence, she experienced the same story but from a different standpoint and if only she had been prepared for the changes to come, she would have been able to cope with them, but she was not.

The Trend Towards Buy over Make

In previous articles in the Project Business Management series, I showed that there is an observable trend from internal projects to projects under contract. In a growing number of projects,  two or more organizations work together to achieve the project results, commonly in customer-contractor business relationships, in which the contractor does work for the customer and gets paid in return.

This development splits the project management discipline into two groups:

  • Project manager on customer side, using external resources and paying for them.
  • Project managers on contractor side, whose job it is to bring money home with projects.

Figure 1: The trend from internal, cross-functional project management to cross-organizational project business management doubles (or multiplies) project manager functions.

Figure 1 depicts this split inside the profession as a consequence of the trend towards customer projects.

The two types of project managers have to meet different requirements:

  • The first type of project managers takes over internal projects and procures the services from vendors. They must ensure that the support from the vendors is what is expected and that inside a project supply network (PSN), all parties follow a principle of “Completing over competing”, acting as partners, not as parties.
  • The second type of project managers takes over customer projects. Project Business Management for them means predominantly “bringing money home with projects” and making the customer happy.

This article will focus on the first group, the experiences of the second were the topic of the previous article in this series[3].

There are also project managers who act as “in-betweeners” in organizations such as prime contractors. Their organizations are both at the same time, contractors to customers and clients of sub-contractors.

Sitting between the tiers can be a lucrative position, but it can also be a commercial disaster. Wherever one is sitting in project business, one should remain acutely aware that project business is high risk business for all parties involved.

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). Bringing Strangers into the Project; Series on Project Business Management; PM World Journal, Vol. VII, Issue XI – November.  Available online at https://pmworldjournal.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/pmwj76-Nov2018-Lehmann-Doing-Projects-with-Contractors2.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 and ofProject 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] (Lehmann, 2018b)

[2] Name changed

[3] (Lehmann, 2018b)

 

 

Quantitative Risk Analysis

Why bother?

 

Risk Doctor Briefing

SERIES ARTICLE

Dr David Hulett

California, USA

 


 

Many projects overrun their budget and schedule targets, often due to the following causes:

  • Project plans are biased, usually towards being over-optimistic.
  • Project plans do not fully reflect the impact of uncertainty and risks (including both project-specific risks and systemic risks).

Fortunately, quantitative risk analysis can help to address both of these, through a two-stage analysis. The first stage addresses the two main causes of unrealistic plans:

  • Optimistic or biased plans. All project plans include estimates of cost and duration which are based on assumptions, and these are often optimistic. For instance, we might assume that problems that affected previous similar projects will not happen on this project. Or we might produce unrealistic estimates because of pressure from the customer, management, the competition and the economics of the project, which usually results in optimistic plans that may be unachievable. Ideally, if we could challenge assumptions and remove the effect of optimism or bias, we could ensure that the project starts with a realistic baseline plan. However, it may not be possible to counter estimating bias fully, so the uncertainty component of the risk analysis will usually include a correction for optimistic estimates of cost or duration.
  • Uncertainty and risks. Project managers must recognize that estimates of cost or duration are uncertain due to inherent variability, estimating error and estimating bias (if it exists). In addition, there are both project-specific and systemic risks that may affect achievement of schedule and cost targets. These risks must be identified and quantified, including their probability, impact and which activities they will affect. When both uncertainty and risks are incorporated in the risk analysis model, results obtained using Monte Carlo simulation will indicate a range of possible project outcomes, including the result that can be expected in the absence of actively managing the risks. These results are more realistic (and usually more pessimistic) for both finish date and total cost, but they are not the end of the story.

In the second stage, quantitative risk analysis results can be used to guide proactive risk management actions. Risks can be prioritized using the outputs of a risk analysis model, which indicate where risk management action would lead to the greatest improvement in project outcome. The prioritized risk list forms the input to a workshop or a set of interviews, where effective risk responses can be developed. Implementing these responses will result in improved project outcomes, although there will probably still be residual risks that need further action, since relatively few risks can be managed completely.

Overall, quantitative risk analysis helps the project manager in at least two ways:

More…

To read entire article, click here

 

How to cite this article: Hulett, D. (2018). Quantitative Risk Analysis: Why bother? Risk Doctor Briefing; PM World Journal, Vol. VII, Issue XI – November.  Available online at https://pmworldjournal.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/pmwj76-Nov2018-Hulett-quantitative-risk-analysis-series-article.pdf

 



About the Author


David T. Hulett, Ph.D., FAACE

Hulett & Associates, LLC
California, USA

 

 

David Hulett is recognized as a leader in project cost and schedule risk analysis and project scheduling.  He has conducted many risk analyses focusing on quantifying the risks and their implications for project cost and schedule estimating and mitigation, and many schedule assessments.  He is a Fellow of AACE International.

Clients of Hulett & Associates, LLC represent many industries and are in the US, Canada, Europe, South America, South-East Asia and the Middle East.

Dr. Hulett is well-known as a leader in the Project Management Institute (PMI) for project risk standards, including leading the risk management chapter in the Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK® Guide) and the Practice Standard for Project Risk Management. He is the author of Recommended Practice 57R-09 published in 2011 by the Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering (AACE) International on Integrated Cost and Schedule Risk Analysis and 85R-14 Use of Decision Trees in Decision Making.

Dr. Hulett has published Practical Schedule Risk Analysis (Gower, 2009) for which he was recognized by the PMI College of Scheduling for “contributions to the scheduling profession” in 2010 and Integrated Cost- Schedule Risk Analysis (Gower, 2011).

Dr. Hulett has held strategic planning positions at TOSCO, an oil shale company, and at TRW in aerospace and defense.  In the Federal government, Dr. Hulett managed offices in the Federal Energy Agency (FEA), the Department of Energy (DOE) and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).  He was also an economist with the Federal Reserve Board of Governors.  Dr. Hulett was an Instructor in the Economics Department at Harvard University.  His Ph.D. in Economics is from Stanford University and his B.A. is from the Special Program for Public and International Affairs (Woodrow Wilson School) at Princeton University.

David Hulett can be contacted at [email protected]

 

 

Project Estimating 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 estimating group of processes as a stand-alone group 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 subject, 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

 

Purpose

The purpose of the Estimating process is to describe the steps for developing size, effort, cost, schedule and critical resource estimates for a project throughout its life cycle. P12A and P12B have essentially the same content, but used for different purposes and placed in different areas of the Planning Frame.

Accuracy of Estimates

Accuracy of estimates depends on:

  • Level of detail – i. e. the degree of decomposition of the Work Breakdown Structure.
  • Risk assessment results and the remediation plan.
  • Quality of requirements.
  • The point in the project lifecycle where the estimating took place.
  • The estimator’s experience.
  • The estimating method.

There are three levels of estimating accuracy:

  1. Ballpark estimates – Ballpark or initial estimates are made when little information about the project is available and there are no detailed requirements, except the initial project request. In order to do estimates, the delivery team must be familiar with the similar types of project and the technology used. This type of estimate is also done when significant risks are involved. The accuracy range of the ballpark estimates has a range of -25% to +75%.
  1. Preliminary estimates – Preliminary estimates are performed immediately after completion of Business Requirements. Those estimates heavily depend on the team’s familiarity with similar projects, business, and technology with no high risks present. A high level WBS should be used to do this type of estimating. Preliminary estimates are used to establish the preliminary project budget and are often used to establish initial project funding. The accuracy range of preliminary estimates never exceeds -10% to +25%.
  1. Accurate estimates. – Accurate or definitive estimates are prepared from a well-defined detailed data and WBS, using techniques described below. This type of estimate is done just before the project plan package is created or updated. The estimate may not cover the entire project, but only the well-defined next stage of the project plan. It is not usually possible to do accurate estimates for the entire project, because the lack of detailed information for the required activities in the distant future. The best accuracy that can ever be achieved has a range of –5% to +10%.

Note: In some organizations, where delivery managers with no real project management experience are constantly under pressure from senior management, the PM may face demands for accuracy of estimates better than -5% to +10% or even +– 0%. Since this is an unrealistic and unachievable accuracy, project managers are forced to use tricks to match real cost to estimates. Since the project scope changes are inherent in all projects, one of those tricks is overestimating or underestimating scope changes to keep the visibility of the overall project cost within the required accuracy of estimates in accordance with managers’ demands. Another trick is using reserve activities for each group of tasks, which are adjusted as necessary to match costs to estimates. In fact, most managers are aware of this, but due to demands from senior management or temptations to report excellent achievements to the CEO, they keep of this practice ’under wraps’. We assert that these tricks provide no real benefits whatsoever and in fact threaten the project, and even may cost the project manager his/her job.

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). Project Estimating Process, Series on Project Workflow Management; PM World Journal, Volume VII, Issue X – October. Available online at https://pmworldjournal.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/pmwj76-Nov2018-Epstein-estimating-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/

 

 

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/.