|
|
|
|
|
| Management Briefings
|
|
|
|
|
|
The art of EPMO: Ivan Lloyd, CPS (March 2010)
|
|
|
|
|
|
As business confidence starts to recover, companies are continuing to demand value in every
project they run. Organisations are asking tough questions about potential and live projects: are resources being consumed appropriately?; and are we achieving efficient utilisation?
This in turn raises a number of issues, including: can the company provide the necessary programme and project controls to stabilise the
fluctuating demand for people?; can the company cut resources and pressure people further to deliver more, or should there
be change in our cultural, organisational and behaviour habits?; and can enterprise project management (EPM) technology solutions replace people’s skills and
abilities?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Building blocks for success: John de Newtown, John de Newtown Associates(Jan 10)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Recent events in the financial sector have more than demonstrated that we live in an era of
increasing change. So whilst organisational performance will continue to depend on core
functional competences, the ability to manage change is becoming more important in
determining longer-term survival and growth.
The change programmes that organisations embark on will manifest themselves as projects of
all shapes and sizes – ranging from mini-projects (eg, installing a new office PC system) to
mega-projects (eg, the new St Pancras station development).
In the past, the ability to manage these programmes was seen as a special skillset, only
needed by ‘project people’; nowadays it is widely recognised that these skills are increasingly
part of the day job for all concerned.
In recent Evaluation Centre articles, John Brinkworth has discussed the challenges of defining
project success and Barry Tuckwood has suggested some of the key factors that can contribute
to a successful outcome.
This article aims to provide a set of guidelines to help those managing projects to assess whether they are on track for a
successful outcome and, if not, to suggest some practical tips that may help.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What is success?: Barry Tuckwood (October 2009)
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are hundreds of articles and papers that discuss project success – yet there is no real
consensus on what it is.
What do we mean by project success? People often refer to the time-cost-quality aspects alone,
with some consideration given to the project’s outputs. But while time, cost and quality are
easily measured, the real appreciation among stakeholders, by which success might more
reasonably be judged, is more difficult to assess.
Nor is it sufficient to measure success through return on investment, especially when there are
diverse users involved which makes the measurement of benefits complex.
The context has to be simple: project success should be clear to everyone involved and the
expectations match what can realistically be achieved.
In my view, then, project success combines the products and the management of the project.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The problem with PPM: Peter Andrew, ea Consulting Group (May 2009)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Businesses spend money on only two things – current activity and change.
Of these, current activity (or business as usual – BAU) is necessary and unavoidable. So
spending on this can be managed, and some costs can be saved at the margin, but it is largely
non-discretionary.
Spending on change, however, is generally discretionary. Some change is externally imposed
and therefore unavoidable – typically through regulation or sometimes the need to react to
competitors. However, for the most part, businesses can choose how much they spend on
change, and how they spend it.
Management of this discretionary spend – the investment portfolio – is always an important activity. And in the current
challenging economic climate it is even more vital that companies spend money on the right projects, and deliver them in the
right way.
Careful decisions are needed both at the start and throughout the life of projects, confirming regularly that the investment
remains on track to justify predicted benefits.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cut to the chase: Alan Fowler, Isochron (March 2009)
|
|
|
|
|
|
In a recession, a programme must deliver a return on investment and waste no time in doing
so. It becomes crucially important to realise benefits in an elegant and economical way – there’s
just no money and no time for anything else.
At first sight the solution would appear to be ever-better planning and tougher management of
scope, time, resource and quality. Control seems to be at the heart of delivery. Yet no matter
how good your preparation and governance, unforeseeable things will happen and threaten
your ability to achieve expectations.
The history of a programme will be written after it is over and cannot be written in advance.
Understanding comes with hindsight. “Life must be lived forwards but can only be understood
backwards,” said Soren Kierkegaard, the philosopher; and this is as true of programmes as of
the rest of life – including living through a recession!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
'Earthquakes' in the project portfolio: Graham Oakes, Graham Oakes Ltd (Jan 09)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Computer games are a serious business. A game for a current-generation console (say an
Xbox or Playstation 3) can cost $20 million or more to build. Even back in the mid 1990s, when
my experience with the industry began, a game could easily cost $2 million to develop. The
company I worked for had about 60 such games under development at any one time.
My company, like most in the industry, had a problem. Projects slipped. They often slipped by
months or even years. And this didn’t do a lot to help our reputation with retailers, reviewers
and customers. Perhaps even more critically, it made it impossible to predict cashflow. And so I
became part of a team that was set up to bring predictability to our project delivery.
Each member of the team was responsible for providing an independent view of the status of
about 10 projects in the development portfolio. Each week we looked at what our projects were
producing and tracked this against the original milestone schedules.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Perfecting partner projects: Hartley Millar, Management Partners (October 2008)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Organisations are steadily improving the methods they use to manage and co-ordinate projects.
At the practical level, using a dashboard approach to control a project is becoming
commonplace. After all, the opportunity to aggregate the data gathered – often in real time –
from those directly involved in project delivery seems like the Holy Grail of control.
The advantage of this approach is that, rather than confronting managers with a mass of detail,
it is possible to present an overview and ‘bore down’ on any particular areas where questions
arise.
It may not quite be a basis for managing by exception, but this clearly addresses the issue of
information overload for managers in complex projects.
However, such data only becomes useful when it is put in context, typically by comparing the actual situation with what was
planned. That, for most systems, is the project plan – and it’s the project manager and steering committee who own this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Don't forget the Q word: Steve Kirk, SGK Consulting (August 2008)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Do you remember TQM? How about ISO 9000? Or even BS 5750? For those of you like me
who’ve been around a bit, it will bring back memories of quality circles, statistical process
control and lots of written procedures. But for those of you too young to remember, it may just
be a list of meaningless acronyms. In which case, let me explain that this article is all about the
‘q’ word – quality – and why it’s as important as ever to your business and your projects.
You see, although the great management consulting fads at the moment are technology
breakthroughs like Web 2.0, mobile working and SOA, back in the 80s and 90s when the
internet was something only academics and defence companies had heard of, quality was the
big thing that no self-respecting MD would dare ignore.
No longer were companies just concerned with efficiency and productivity, now they were
focusing on customer satisfaction, the cornerstone of quality. Why? Because it was seen as a
great differentiator between you and your competitors.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stand and deliver: David Walton, Bestoutcome (April 2008)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why do projects and multi-project programmes so often fail to deliver a real return on
investment? In many cases, the root cause can be traced back to the start of the
initiative, before planning has even begun. Quite simply, there may have been a
fundamental failure to ensure the underlying business case was rock solid.
The first step to achieving a successful result, based on the business case, is to agree
what value you expect to be delivered by the investment over its working life. In short, be
absolutely clear about the whole point of spending the money.
By clarifying the value factors right at the beginning, you can ensure the project or
programme will achieve its real purpose. But it’s surprising how often this vital step is
only partially dealt with.
Another fundamental issue is that project managers – the supply-side of the endeavour – may regard a successful
outcome as delivery to budget, on time, at the right quality, and to the requirements specification.
Once this happens they regard the job as done – but that is only half the story. The other half is the value or business
benefits the investment will deliver to the client – the demand side – after delivery.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Projects without borders: Elizabeth Harrin, Spire Healthcare (February 2008)
|
|
|
|
|
|
The world of business is continually shrinking: we work in an environment of real-time
communication with colleagues on the other side of the world and online translation tools. Even
small companies can operate internationally, with outsourcing agreements and partners
overseas, which means project managers in organisations of any size face the challenges of
managing international projects.
And that means far more than just working out that when it’s 9.00am in Paris, Texas it’s 4.00pm
in Paris, France. International projects come with two main challenges: the people you are
working with won’t necessarily work in the same way as you, and the people you’re working for
won’t necessarily want the same things.
The first step in being able to address these challenges is having an open mind. National culture plays a big part in how we
act, and we can’t change that – we can just learn how to make it work for everyone concerned.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PRINCE: purple pain?: Danny Thomas, Searchlight (December 2007)
|
|
|
|
|
|
A quick glance at the job pages will confirm what virtually every project manager already knows:
if you want a career in IT project management, you have to have PRINCE2 skills. Whether you
are permanent or freelance, junior or senior, almost every job advert makes it clear that being a
PRINCE2 practitioner is no longer optional.
So why is it then, once the job is won, so few of these positions actually require the successful
candidate to exercise that practitioner status? With the exception of a few government
organisations, generally the police forces and the military, most people actually adopt PINO –
Prince In Name Only.
There is general agreement that a project management method is a good thing: repeatable
processes, a strong governance ethos and a ready supply of qualified professionals. There is
also widespread acceptance that PRINCE2 is the only method that fulfils the required criteria
and has many strengths. Without question, the governance structures PRINCE introduced – in particular a project board with
supplier and user representation at a senior level – have been extremely powerful.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Project myths and trends: Kelvin Kirby, Technology Associates (October 2007)
|
|
|
|
|
|
The project management software marketplace has come of age. In the early part of this
decade, the market was limited to a few key players. But as mainstream vendors – including
Microsoft – realised the huge growth potential in the market, they either
developed their own software or acquired existing technology from a key player in the
market.
Microsoft, for example, bought UMT Consulting in January 2006, and immediately secured its
place as a vendor in the PPM market. UMT was a well-known and respected organisation
selling high-value, high-benefit consulting services and applications to help organisations
analyse their corporate objectives, marketing strategy and product portfolio and then align their
projects and programmes to realise maximum ROI.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gateway to the boardroom: Roy Illsley, the Butler Group (July/August 2007)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Many IT departments are implementing, or considering implementing, a portfolio management
approach to ensure that they are spending their time and money on the projects that will deliver
maximum value for the business.
However, there are some fundamental points that need to be considered and actions taken if an
organisation is to obtain the results anticipated from portfolio management.
Companies are discovering that in the new global marketplace, the emergence of low-cost
competitors is forcing them to review their own cost base, and effectively do more for the same
spend. Meanwhile, Butler Group research suggests that 80% of an organisation’s IT spend is
used for non-new value adding activities, such as support and maintenance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Demystifying PPM: Mike Beard and Karen VanSant (March 2007)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Project portfolio management (PPM) benefits an organisation by making visible the ‘basket’ of enterprise projects to
management and executives – enabling them to define and track projects according to their value and relevance to enterprise
goals.
PPM is not a new concept. Commercial companies that pioneered programme management aligned to US military projects in
the 1950s transferred these project and portfolio management approaches to their commercial efforts.
In mid-2006 the Project Management Institute (PMI) released the Standard for Portfolio Management. This is a framework that
represents generally recognised good practices in project portfolio management.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
One version of the truth: Steve Kirk, SGK Consulting (January 2007)
|
|
|
|
|
|
I remember when I was managing a portfolio of projects at my last employer, the most stressful
moments came not when I was eyeball-to-eyeball with the customer in a project meeting, but
when I was in management meetings with our finance director.
Don’t get me wrong, he was a nice enough chap and we got on famously, but it often seemed
we were talking about different projects such was the chasm between our respective views. You
see, as a project/programme manager my focus was on getting things done – problem solving,
managing work and planning – while my FD was more worried about tracking the money –
recognising revenue, absorbing costs and forecasting the final impact on the company’s bank
account.
Nothing surprising about that, of course, but the way we worked and the systems we used
reflected our own goals, and trying to reconcile them was virtually impossible. It did appear that
we had two versions of the truth.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The pleasure of repeating yourself: Stuart Cooke, CEC Europe (October 2006)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Projects continue to fail at an alarming and unacceptable level. According to the Standish
Group’s CHAOS Report (2004), 60% of projects fail because they: overrun time estimates by 84%; overrun cost estimates by 43%; substantially fail to support business processes; and substantially fail to deliver benefits.
However, process maturity models and assessments clearly indicate that a defined and
repeatable process substantially improves an organisation’s project delivery capability. These
processes, or methodologies, have been around for many years, especially in the IT arena. And
now methodologies are evolving to be more generic so they are applicable to a broader range
of projects.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It shouldn't be a lottery: Alan Fowler, Isochron (August 2006)
|
|
|
|
|
|
I once asked a director of IT strategy what he thought his company’s track record was in
realising project benefits. He laughed and said, “About half a percent, I should think”. Of
course, he was joking, no-one had really measured it and it wasn’t that bad. Well, not quite
that bad.
It’s a serious issue. In 1996 Capers Jones pointed out in ‘Patterns in IT System Development
Failure and Success’ that really large software systems can “cost more than building a domed
football stadium”. Studies of a sample of eight IT developments and business change
programmes carried out in private sector companies in the UK during 1996-98 yielded the
following total costs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Keeping the faith: Tony Davies, addACUMEN (June 2006)
|
|
|
|
|
|
My wife – now of 40 years – is a fairly sparky personality. One weekend when the
children were small, I failed to come up to scratch and she went to her mother’s home
for the weekend. She returned on Sunday night – I was on duty the following morning –
to find the house in good order, the nappies laundered and put away, the children
asleep. “How did you do that?” she demanded. “Simple, I don’t know why you make so
much fuss…it is just that I haven’t slept since you left.”
The Guinness Book of Records shows that the record for building a four-bedroom house
from a standing start is 3 hours 44 minutes and 59 seconds. Built in March 1999 in New
Zealand by Habitat for Humanity it is an extremely impressive feat. The planning took 14
months. Both of these examples demonstrate the balance between execution and obtaining clarity. I would like to discuss this in
relation to projects.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Look for the label: Donnie MacNicol, Team Animation (March 2006)
|
|
|
|
|
|
The accumulated wisdom of traditional project management provides the basis for
winning the ‘minds’ of team members. This ensures that people understand what needs
to be achieved, how it must be achieved and the part they can play in making it happen.
Winning ‘hearts’ is achieved by creating a project which people can believe in, have a
relationship with and develop some level of emotional attachment to.
Clearly, without emotional attachment, you will not get the undivided attention and the
complete support of the individual, team or stakeholder group. But why is this important?
The reason is that value can only be created on a project through an individual taking
action – and it is therefore critically important ‘how’ that person takes that action. For
example, it might be the speed and care with which a bricklayer lays a wall, the
consideration and time an information architect gives to a particular design, or the extra effort a financial controller
makes in reviewing aspects of the budget prior to sign-off. The quality of each action, cumulatively, will decide between
a project being a success or failure. If your direct and wider team are truly engaged, they will feel part of something that
deserves their best, not just what has been contracted for.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Putting the management back into PM: Alex Robertson, Carosoft (January 2006)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not too long ago, television viewers in Scotland were favoured with a nightly master
class in project management. Or, to be more accurate, in NOT project management. The
source of this class was the TV report of that day’s proceedings of the Fraser Enquiry
into the building of the new Scottish Parliament. A project originally estimated at a price
of £40 million was finally finished, years late, and 10 times over budget. And night after
night we saw the enquiry conducting a forensic examination of why it happened.
I will spare you the details, but it was very clear from early on that methodologies,
reviews, client committees, no end of scrutiny of schedules and costs aside, there was
little or no professional project management applied, as project scope not so much crept
as galloped out of sight. Civil servants, pressed to be project managers, succeeded one after another, and each one left
a bigger shambles than the previous one. The miracle is that the project was completed at all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|