You Can Manage Expectations or Ruffled Feathers

One of the key functions of an effective project manager is to ensure the free flow of information about the project and to use that flow to help manage expectations. Project Management Institute (PMI) defines expectation management as “the process of communicating and working with stakeholders to meet their needs and addressing issues as they occur.”1 With the widespread adoption of Agile and other iterative methodologies, this is an often overlooked discipline. Regardless of the methodology used, before a project goes live it is always prudent to hold a go/no-go session. There are a series of key questions that are pertinent to ask at that session. But for the purpose of this article, I want to focus on one: Is the receiving organization ready to accept the product?

As technology projects are challenged to deliver more, faster, and with fewer resources, it is bringing the issue of expectation management to the fore. Project managers tend naturally to focus their communications on the project team and their sponsor. This makes perfect sense if you realize that the project manager gets most of their day to day input from the team and the majority of their outbound communication is aimed at the sponsor or the PMO. However, once we move into the execution phases, we need to intentionally involve two receiving organizations that very frequently are left out of the communication loop: the support teams and the end users. The support teams are going to have to know about the changes coming down the pike and the types of issues they are likely to face after the go-live event. Their needs for documentation and understanding can typically best be met by involving a representative team member from the level one and level two support teams either late in the Planning phase or early in the Execution phase. But engaging the end user is another matter entirely.

Managing the expectations of end users presents a particular challenge for project managers. We want to minimize the “expectation gap”2 between their expected value and their perceived value of what we deliver. But we do not typically have a clear picture of what is going on in their worlds. We are usually working with generalized personas that represent our end users’ needs, but not real people with real jobs and sometimes with real conflicts. Over the past 25 years of my experience one of the most effective ways I have found to handle this aspect of communication management is to leverage the Sales and Marketing teams. There are two particular points where they can add the most value.

First is when prioritizing the requirements for delivery. They know first-hand what things they hear the most about from their ongoing conversations with the clients. They can also provide invaluable insights about things that will add the most value from the point of view of the people who are actually paying the bills. Their input in this phase does need to be tempered a bit as they will never prioritize a requirement that the end user never sees such as improvements in the back end architecture that enhance the supportability of the product. But they do have insights that no one else on the team has that need to be taken into account. Sometimes seemingly trivial enhancements that the development team might overlook can have tremendous value to the end users providing a large ROI from a value perspective.

Second, I like to see the Sales and Marketing groups involved in the Execution phase. As decisions are made that determine what is in and out of scope for the project. To determine when to engage them, a balance needs to be struck between the cost of their engagement versus the value they bring. As a project manager, you can leverage them in the Communications plan by letting them work on how best to frame the message to the end-user community thus taking some of the burden off the project manager. At a minimum, they need to be engaged once the final in and out list is determined and with sufficient time before go-live to effectively communicate with the client base before a go/no-go meeting. Let’s go back to the question in my opening paragraph: Is the receiving organization ready to accept the product?

Just because the development work is done and tested does not necessarily mean that we are ready to push the project live. There can be myriad reasons not to push a set of enhancements into your live production environment that have nothing to do with the readiness of the software itself. That final go/no-go meeting MUST take these reasons into account. As project managers, if we fail to do so, then we fail to meet the needs of a vitally important stakeholder group who largely fund our professional existence. We fail in one of the key areas of our responsibility. We can spend our time and energy engaging the right teams and effectively managing expectations, or we can focus solely on a delivery date and spend our time and energy smoothing all the feathers we ruffled by pushing out things our customers weren’t ready to receive. The choice really is ours as project managers. My experience has been that the former is much more satisfying and leads to much better results in the long run.

Endnotes
1. A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge, Fourth Edition – Project Management Institute, 2008
2. http://consultingacademy.com/a08.shtm – Consulting Academy, Brazos Consulting, 1999-2009

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Scope Management versus Ownership

“Who ‘owns’ the scope of a project?” is a question I have been asked frequently in my career. It has come a bit defensively from project managers seeking to solidify their position and from project sponsors with the same goal. In order to effectively respond, we need to have a common understanding of what scope actually is.

Scope is a word that gets bandied about with a fair amount of regularity. Each use takes a few minor liberties with the definition which might be acceptable on its own. But when taken in aggregate land us far off the desired destination. Dr. Harold Kerzner, one of the revered fathers in the project management world, defines scope as “The summation of all the deliverables required as part of the project. This includes all products, services, and results.” 1 The Project Management Institute defines it as “The work that must be performed to deliver the product, service, or result with the specified features and functions.”2 Using these definitions, we can eliminate some of the factors which cause confusion such as the business benefits of the project, the expected and actual return on investment, etc… While these are useful and necessary pieces of information for the project, I have seen them improperly included in the scope of a project which helps drive some of the confusion about ownership.

I want to divert us for just a moment to create an analogy that I am going to use later to help answer the original question. Think back to the old west in the 1840’s. Stagecoaches rolled over 3,000 miles of territory, from California to Nebraska, and from Colorado into the mining regions of Montana and Idaho as a primary means of effective and speedy transport of people, goods, and treasure. Stagecoach line owners such as Henry Wells and William Fargo invested significant sums to develop and deliver those service lines and decide which towns were profitable enough to get service and which were not. Each stagecoach driver was tasked to deliver their passengers and cargo to a given town on a given date. Keep this image in the back of your mind as we continue our discussion about scope ownership.

Another definition will be useful at this point. Ownership can be defined as “recognized as having full claim, authority, power, dominion, etc…”3 Now, let’s think about our stagecoach example as a project. In this case, the line owners would be the sponsor and the driver would be the project manager. The project is to deliver the passengers and cargo from Denver to San Francisco stopping in Salt Lake City, UT and Carson City, NV resulting in a tidy $150 net profit. The constraints: a) take no more than 5 days. b) Spend no more than $20 on horses. The driver now has the classic project manager’s triple constraints: a scope, a budget, and a timeline. The scope was set and “owned” if you will by the line owners. But they expect the driver to “own” that scope in the sense of internalizing it and stewarding that scope effectively within the constraints while they move on to other concerns. Passengers and cargo bound for Utah are loaded and the stage is on its way and making great time, until one of the wheels breaks. Repairs are made and they get underway again. The driver gets into Salt Lake City half a day behind schedule. The passengers and cargo are appropriately swapped out and the driver decides to spend $25 to buy 2 additional horses to make up the lost time. He makes a deal with the local Postmaster to carry an additional mail load to Carson City for $5, thus maintaining his cost constraint. They are off and the driver has a strong sense of “owning” the scope and delivering against the constraints he was given.

They arrive in Carson City half a day ahead of schedule having made up an entire day with the additional horses. Again, passengers and cargo are appropriately swapped out and they are preparing to get underway when a well-dressed man approaches the driver asking if they will take him to Albuquerque right away. The driver estimates that the trip would cause a five day delay. The man offers $500 for the trip. That would be an additional $400 net profit for the Wells Fargo line owners after the extra expenses. The other passengers begin to complain about their plans and the man offers each of them $100 in addition for the inconvenience explaining that he has vitally important business to attend. The money gains agreement from the other passengers who don’t make that much annually.

Now: Who “owns” scope?

At the first stop in Salt Lake City, the driver (project manager) acted well within bounds and used some creativity to meet the stated scope. But now he is being asked to take the coach in an entirely different direction (Authorize a change in scope). He has appropriately evaluated the impact (the schedule delay) and the cost of the change and evaluated the potential return. But does he have “full claim, authority, and power” to make that decision? If he were an independent coach owner, the answer would be yes. But he is accountable to the coach line owners (sponsors). They have a much larger view of what is happening outside his particular journey. They have extensive cargo from Shanghai waiting for his arrival in San Francisco to ship back to Saint Louis. They are also trying to establish a reputation of on-time, predictable, safe delivery that will be the hallmark of their new cross-country bank system. This delay is completely inconsistent with that objective. The impacts of the change to scope can have ripple effects far beyond what the project manager can see.

At the end of the day, it is the project sponsor who “owns” the scope of project. Change requests that come along can and should be evaluated by the project manager, but ultimately are the decision of the sponsor if the original scope is put at risk. The project manager becomes a loyal steward, if you will, but does not have the right to alter that scope on their own.

By the way, phones were not around, so the coach went on to San Francisco. Charles Bent ended up buying one of the extra horses and riding alone to assume the governorship of the new United States Territory of New Mexico in 1846. Wells Fargo is a nation-wide banking chain but has no offices in Albuquerque, NM.

Note: The names and dates are correct but the events are not historically accurate and are used solely to illustrate the point.

Endnotes
1 Kerzner, H. (2006). Project Management: A Systems Approach to Planning, Scheduling, and Controlling. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
2 Project Management Institute. (2008) A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBoK © Guide) – Fourth Edition. Newtown Square, PA: Author.
3 http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/own (2011) Dictionary.com, LLC. , Oakland, CA.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Revised Site

Symproma Corporation stopped operations in 2010.  This site is now owned by Richard Singletary.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Are You a Team Leader or a Task Master?

Just because there are people assigned to your project or your department does not make you a leader.  Have you ever noticed that people always seem to want to work with or for a particular manager or project manager?  In some cases, there are certainly personalities that do not lend themselves to leading teams.  In these cases it is up to management to provide some intervention and help those folks with some self-awareness and career planning work.  But more often than not in my experience, it is the attitude of the person themselves and how they view their team that makes the difference.  And this can be learned and developed.

Take five minutes and think about your team.  Not the collective group, but the members.  Be honest.  What is your relationship to them?  Were they assigned to you to help get your project completed?  Is their lack of performance making you look bad?  Do you find yourself wondering what you have to do to get them to deliver?  If you find yourself answering yes, then flip the coin and consider their view of you.  Think about your interactions and conversations with each of them both in private and in groups.  Is there someone else they would rather be working with?  Who?  Why?

This is not just an academic exercise.  If you want to be a successful leader, you need to evaluate your attitude and your role in regards to your team members.  The most successful project managers I have known were those that understood they were there to serve their team members by removing roadblocks.  In the words of Harry Truman “It is amazing what you can accomplish if you do not care who gets the credit.”  Servant leadership is the model that draws others to a true leader.  They need not call people to follow them; it will happen of its own accord.  I actually had a senior manager tell me once that the job of a project manager was “to spank the donkeys and get them up the hill!”  I had another Vice-President refer to staff members as “worker bees.”  What does that attitude about subordinates reveal to you?  Imagine how that played out in day to day events.  Is that the person you want to work for?

So, if you find yourself with a team of people.  They might be direct reports or matrixed team members.  Either way, it is your job to motivate them and ensure that they deliver.  You have to make the effort to get to know them.  And you cannot fake caring.  It is easy to spot disingenuous efforts.  So find a way that is comfortable for you.  How you do this is a matter of individual style.  One aspect of your own behavior is to examine your own behaviors toward them.  Do they ever hear from you outside of team meetings?  When was the last time you just dropped by their office to see how they are doing without an agenda?  Have you gone to lunch with your team members and just tried to be friendly?  How do you treat them in public forums?  Are you the supportive leader who credits team members by name?  Or are you the one who seeks the glory of success?

Simple things can go a long way.  Send a hand-written note for a well done job.  (Email is just not very personal)  Grab a pizza with the team to celebrate a milestone in the project.  I once had a team working exceptionally hard for months and months.  I sent out an ambiguous five hour meeting request that started at noon Friday and went until the end of the day.  I did tell them that I would provide food for this working meeting.  As promised, I had pizzas and sodas along with some brownies.  You could see fatigue and concern in their faces as they slowly arrived and settled in for a long afternoon not knowing what the big issue was going to be.  With everyone and starting their lunch, contrary to their expectation, I told them how much I appreciated all the hard work they had been doing.  And I knew it was long hours that went largely unnoticed by the rest of the organization.  This meeting was simply a chance to breathe.  I closed the blinds and we watched a then popular stand-up comic video for an hour.  After we ate and laughed for about 90 minutes, I sent them all home.  Not back to work, I sent them home.  The next week they all came back with jets blazing!

Remember to look at your team as people.  If they are fading or under-performing, rather than demanding  delivery, seek to understand why and what you might do about it.  Find ways to acknowledge your team members in public.  Remember to praise in public and reprimand in private.  Find little ways to show them you see them and actually do care for them.  You will go a long way toward building trust and loyalty.  Those in turn will fuel motivation and performance.  Success will follow.  But it will only follow a good leader.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment