Project vs. Team Member Objectives

by Lech on November 21, 2011

I have read an interesting statement about project objectives recently:

Question: “How does a successful Project Manager effectively communicate the vision and objectives of an organization to the project team?”
Answer: “Some of the most successful projects I have been involved with, both leading and as part of the project team, have also asked the team members what their own aims and objectives are.”

(The discussion took place in a closed group — I decided to remove the names of the authors in this case.)

As project managers we aim to deliver expected results with focus on the following:

  1. Project objectives
  2. Team
  3. Individual members

Of course, one could argue we should consider all known constraints, knowledge areas or themes. Understood. There are many project-related aspects to juggle with, but the above focuses on a leadership perspective — overall project, team, individual members.

No. 1 — project objectives — is a no-brainer. We launch projects to “translate” business objectives into reality. To reach these objectives we form a team (no. 2), a team composed of individuals (no. 3).
When a project is launched teams and members are closely considered. With the deadline behind the corner, however, it’s common to neglect some of the PM’s team-related duties, the project manager is less likely to give team members enough attention. This is why I find the idea — to consider both project and team member objectives — useful throughout the project.

We might not need to communicate team member objectives in the same way as project objectives, but it helps to know them and return to them at regular intervals, e.g. team meetings or discussions with our colleagues.

“How do you understand the objectives of the project?”
“What are your personal goals related to this project?”
“What do you want to achieve as a member of our team?”

One can say that we should apply the same strategy for the project team as we do with other stakeholders – define attitude, influence, and expectations — objectives (among others). Moving a step further, i.e. keeping the team’s objectives closer to overall project objectives, might help us maintain stronger focus throughout the project.

Other suggestions:

  • Use the kick-off to communicate project objectives and their link to strategy (bottom-up), link to deliverables (top-down); use the occasion for the sponsor to endorse you, make you his or her representative
  • Put project objectives in a visible place throughout the project — board in meeting room, presentation / document templates, email signatures etc.
  • Repeat project objectives when possible / review at phase gates
  • No need to repeat that, I suppose – make sure project objectives are S.M.A.R.T., linked not only to deliverables (traceability), but also the business case

What are your favorite practices, techniques with regard to project and/or team objectives?

Interesting posts on the topic:

Timeless Leadership

by Lech on October 11, 2011

In life — nothing seems permanent. As it was famously described by Steve Jobs in his Stanford Commencement Address:

“… death is very likely the single best invention of Life. It is Life’s change agent. It clears out the old to make way for the new. Right now the new is you, but someday not too long from now, you will gradually become the old and be cleared away.”
Source: http://news.stanford.edu/news/2005/june15/jobs-061505.html

I’ve previously written about the “3 things that matter”. It occurred to me that there is an extra layer about things, ideas and people — permanence.

Things age. All of them. Attaching oneself to things is plain shortsighted.

Moving on to ideas. Most of them age as well — it takes perspective to see that, but man’s history is littered with dead ideas, which back in their time felt permanent. They weren’t.
Some ideas evolve.

All relationships can become timeless. Throughout our lives — and this is certain — we work on relationships so that they can evolve and develop, for the common good. When we look at “famous people,” their likely impact on our lives, on history, was through connecting with others — leading them, helping them, serving them.

Things age, most ideas become obsolete, and relationships — have the potential to be timeless.

“We take a little piece of every person we meet with us, wherever we go.” – @marcandangel

How does this matter?

Personally or professionally, what we do allows us to connect, serve, and inspire other people. By learning to recognize the importance of relationships in our actions, we embark on a journey towards timelessness.

Why Do You Launch a Project?

by Lech on September 20, 2011

Construction by caribb

Photo courtesy of flickr.com/caribb/

Can’t you simply develop an application, write a business procedure, set up a point of sales, build… another Dreamliner?

The problem is either too big, too complex or there is not enough time for operations to deal with it.

I used to think ‘projects’ were but a modern buzzword stolen from the construction business. After all, we used to build buildings, roads, bridges, for quite a while (these were big). By the same token, we now farm, hunt clients or execute (things, hopefully).

I used to think good operations would be able to manage (or execute, for that matter) the kind of change that is expected from a project — thanks to sound business processes and continuous improvement.

And yet, if projects are a means of putting someone’s vision into life, the TO-BE can differ significantly from the AS-IS, and it may be that a vision is almost oposite to any “business as usual”. A broad perspective then, a different set of skills or know-how, combined with orderly, persistent execution, are the kind of ability you look for in a Project Manager.

A strategic choice

by Lech on August 4, 2011

Product, customer or operational excellence — according to M. Treacy and F. Wiersma one of these three directions is a choice every company needs to make in order to succeed on the market.

… Apple is all about products — solid, shiny artifacts.
… Amazon is about customer intimacy — top-notch service and support. 
… Walmart is about operations — quick, low-cost, “reusable” business processes.

You cannot be all three. If you want your brand to stay meaningful, you better chose.

Two types of employees

by Lech on July 26, 2011

In my early working years I came across a manager who had a peculiar way of dealing with recruits. When a team member was on board, she allowed that person to do… nothing. After several days you could observe one of the following patterns:

Pattern 1: Passive

The employee waited for instructions, for work to be handed over. After a long enough period, when frustration levels became unbearable, the person started complaining and often quit.

Pattern 2: Active

After a short period of time, one could observe the “active” employee talking with other team members — gathering knowledge, building a network, setting up tools. It happened once or twice that the newly recruited person excelled in a given area in less than a month.

Conclusion

Two behaviors, one setting, two outcomes: one of disillusionment, second one — of confidence and strength.

Everyone has to find his or her place in this world. Still, if I were to choose a project team member, I would certainly opt for the “active” type.

First, build relations

by Lech on May 19, 2011

I was recently reminded how important it is to build relations between individual members of a team before any collaborative work is being initiated. And this isn’t solely a virtual teams’ issue. It’s common.

The trouble spot

What if someone disagrees with your opinion? What if you hear a remark that doesn’t *seem* all too kind? Or if someone pats you on the shoulder for some reason (and you don’t like it)? What if the message in your inbox is too short or too long, too harsh or too sweet?

We usually consult our internal judge. In practice, emotions often win – we complain, burst out, start arguing or exercise “assertiveness”. Even if we are able to refrain from any immediate reaction, we might be holding a grudge, collecting “minuses”, waiting for the right moment when our “patience tank” is empty and then.. well… we have to act.

But what if?

What if the other person was actually wrong? What if he or she made a mistake? Overestimated our sense of humor, didn’t realize patting on the shoulder didn’t necessarly work in our culture, misunderstood our “friendly signal”? What if that person didn’t figure out (somehow) that we had “one of those days…”?

Intentions are key

When you start by building relations, you realize the first thing you gain is trust in the other person’s good intent. Sometimes this means getting to know the traditions of a different culture, dealing with generalizations and prejudices, or any virtual barriers for that matter.

“As human beings, we are all the same, there is no need to build some kind of artificial barrier between us.” – Dalai Lama

The bottom line

Trusting the good intentions behind another person’s actions, we often learn from hindsight, that indeed, they where pure, the reasoning understandable. For the team this understanding means higher likelihood of success in any endeavor, fewer conflicts in general, and more fun on the way.

First, build relations.

A leadership exercise

by Lech on May 18, 2011

“We start in pairs. One person will have his eyes covered. The other will be the leader.”

A typical leadership excercise, done in rounds. Both participants (the ‘leader’ and the ‘follower’) are instructed separately. The leader is told to guide the follower to an agreed location, usually several hundred meters away. The single oddity being that the latter cannot see a single thing and has to rely on the assurance, instructions, and a helpful hand from the leader (first round). In the second round, the task and route stay the same, but the leader’s assurance and instructions will have to do. In the third – the follower is entirely on his own.

Neither of the two roles are easy. Clarity is paramount. Clarity drives trust. However, the responsibility you bare, as a leader, is in proportion to the trust you were able to build. You give your team the right to make mistakes (a must), but responsibility stays on your side.

Iterative work is human

by Lech on November 27, 2010

Having read several great articles discussing Agile and Waterfall recently (e.g. More Agile Claims, What Killed Waterfall Could Kill Agile), I decided to share some thoughts.

These days I’m involved in internal projects for “the business” (as opposed to “the ICT”). In a sense that IT components are part of a project, delivered by a an internal IT unit or an external supplier — usually with a dedicated Project Manager (obviously, every project is a “business” project, as it should lead to business benefits). Agile management hasn’t come our way yet.

I wish it had (I know it aims at software development though).

Iterations are human.
“Linear action” is the domain of machines, rather than people.

Take a look:

(If ‘A’ is the beginning of a project and ‘B’ — its end, it might be that iterations bring the team closer to the final product as expected by the client and his/her understanding of quality. The picture is a huge simplification — having in mind expectations, constraints etc.)

We love to have a clear picture of where we’re headed. Describe it (business case, charter), plan it (aka make a prognosis) and then control it (or in many unfortunate cases – be managed by it). Having all constraints in place, it’s easier to put the damn thing on an invoice. Problem is:

  • Project Managers need time to grow as practitioners, as leaders. There aren’t so many experienced ones as one might think.
  • We have the tendency to reduce cognitive disonance in many ways — when things go wrong, only few have the skills and guts to let the world know “the king is naked.”
  • Not every environment leaves ample space for error and change.

Bottom line — people are not computers. They err, they fool themselves (“I don’t think this is so much of an issue yet”), they don’t always respond well to outside pressure (“By when exactly did you promise to deliver feature X?”). That’s why lean embraces errors and man’s imperfect nature calling it “continuous improvement.”

“if your #lean efforts are struggling, ask how much fear is in the org: fear of trying, fear of failing, fear of blame or punishment?” — Mark Graban from @LeanBlog

This is why I like the idea of iterations in any environment. Agile recognizes it, waterfall — not exactly.

* * *

Additional links

Organizations aren’t good at doing projects

by Lech on November 24, 2010

Organizations aren’t good at doing projects. The popular Chaos Report shows mediocre results at best. In short — only every third project is a success. The rest? Failures or challenged — breaching time, buget and/or scope constraints.

Source: The Rise and Fall of the Chaos Report Figures

Some argue the methodology used in the report isn’t correct. It’s good to consider this criticism (see bottom links if you’re interested in details), but as practitioners we can see for ourselves. After several years of project work, when it comes to projects and success, I am moderately optimistic.

The good thing is… there’s plenty of space for improvement!

[1] The Rise and Fall of the Chaos Report Figures

[2] Quantifying requirements volatility effects

[3] Let’s say “No” to groupthink and stop quoting the Chaos Report

Updated — Nov 26, 2010:

[4] Standish Report

How do you organize meetings?

by Lech on November 21, 2010

Whenever I organize meetings I can’t help thinking something is broken.

It’s not simple enough.

Either the tools I know do not support the process well, it’s the people who make it more difficult than necessary, or both.

People (incl. availability) + time + location is all it takes. Truth is, the algorithm behind this is not that simple at all. But the problem is not a new one either.

How do you handle this?

← Previous Entries