Perception and project management processes value

Perception is a funny thing; this, if nothing, I have learned in my life.

It has never happened to you, to involuntary hurt someone else’s feelings, just by sending him/her one e-mail, which you thought was neutral? On the other hand, have you ever been upset by a friend’s humorous comment, that, in the author’s intentions, was meant to be no more than a joke?

If this is the case, as I guess it is, you know well, what I am talking about.

Different people perceive the same things in different ways. We have talked about that in an older post.

Sometimes this attitude has to do with one’s culture, sometimes with his/her educations, some other times, simply, with temporary circumstances. You just can say.

Therefore, there is no such a thing as an objectively perceived reality, but rather, we have to cope with many different recognized ones. Luckily, this bunch of perceived realities often overlap enough, to grant a sufficient interoperability margin. The only things that cannot be misinterpreted or disguised are objective data.

The same pattern applies also to project management processes.

The dichotomy, here, is about the value that project management processes ensure and the value that the project’s stakeholders perceive. Please, take a look at Figure 1.

Figure 1.

On the y-axis, there is the value that the project’s stakeholders perceive as granted by the project management processes. On the x-axis, we can find the value that the project management processes deliver.

The 45 degrees line is the place where the perceived value matches the delivered one. The line is the project manager’s Shangri-La, the place where he/she will have to place. 

Criticism zone

The criticism zone is the region under the 45 degrees line. In this zone, the value delivered by project management processes is greater than the perceived one.

The stakeholders see the project manager’s efforts as wastes, as expenses to be cut as soon as possible and, therefore, no effective project management is possible.

The project manager has to get out from this zone as quickly as possible, trying to reposition the stakeholders’ perceptions on the equity line. Such an objective is not an easy one. There are no ‘tricks of the trade’. 

The only possible way to reconcile the provided value with the stakeholders’ expectations, is a constant and well-crafted communication, based on sound and objective data.

Esteem zone

The esteem zone is the region above the 45 degrees line. In this zone, the value delivered by project management processes is less than the perceived one. The stakeholders tend to see the project manager as a kind of wizard, an almighty presence with the ability to fix almost everything. 

Even if the permanence in this zone is far more pleasant, than being stuck in the criticism zone, still, the project manager has the due to reposition the stakeholders’ perceptions on the equity line. 

Why? Well, because taking more credit than you deserve is not fair, in the first place; and because, in the long run, it is a dangerous game. 

My grandfather used to say, “A donkey can dress up like a horse but, sooner or later, it will bray”. 

If you regularly fool your stakeholders’ perceptions, what will you do when you will have to rely on those perceptions, and you will find them spoiled by your management style? 

Again, the only possible way out, is a constant and well-crafted communication, based on sound and objective data.

The line

As we have already suggested, the 45 degrees line is the place where the project manager should stay.

Here, the perceived and the delivered value match. 

As we can see in Figure 1, three different zones can be identified on the line.

The minimum zone

The project management processes in place do not deliver great value, but this is crystal clear to all the stakeholders. They know what the project manager is up to, and if they feel like, they can ask for processes that are more valuable. 

Remember that you do not have always to be number one. Maybe, the value you are providing is good enough, for the project at hand. 

The minimum zone is adequate for small projects, characterized by short schedule, low budget, few people and few uncertainties.

The standard zone

The project manager is providing a standard level of value, with the management processes in place. Everyone knows it. No one can argue that the project manager is wasting money or is underestimating the effort required.

The premium zone

The project manager is providing great value, using complex and articulated processes. Still, everyone knows it. If the stakeholders require less effort, they will do it on a real data basis, and not just relying on perceptions. They will know that they are going to trade money with control.

The premium zone is right for big projects, characterized by long schedule, very high budget, many people and many uncertainties.

If you want to be considered a "project management superstar", this is the place where you want to be, not the esteem zone.
Even if, sincerely, my advice is always to provide the value that is required for a good management style, without artificially raising the stake.

Bottom line

Do not pretend to be a horse if you are a donkey and do not pretend to be a sheep if you are a lion. Play fair. Align the stakeholders’ perceptions to the value you are providing. Let the stakeholders decide if you are providing the value they expect from you, on real data basis and not on perceptions. In the long run, this will pay, no doubt about it.

Maybe they will not clap their hands at you, but sure enough, they will remember you when the next project is in sight.

Quest' opera è distribuita con licenza Creative Commons Attribuzione - Non commerciale - Non opere derivate 3.0 Unported.

Planning in a changing environment - Does it exist a perfect plan, and does it matter?

Which characteristics should a perfect project management plan possess?

Find an answer to the above question could be a very interesting intellectual exercise, but not very useful. Rather, I think that this activity would be a complete waste of time, not worth the effort. Do you know why?

Because I think it does not exist such a thing as a perfect plan, and even if it did, I won't be very much interested in it, because I would rather prefer a useful plan.

Project plans should be useful, not perfect.

So I believe that a far better question should be 

Which characteristics should a useful project management plan possess?

I mean, there are features that we all consider mandatory in a project management plan, but those features are there to make the plan useful, and not to make it perfect.

Precision vs. truthfulness

I think that we can all agree upon the fact that a plan should be precise to be useful. 

If a plan is too generic, it won't serve its primary purposes, which are planning, monitoring and controlling a project.

Unfortunately, the more a plan is precise, the less is probable; That is why a plan is a simplification of the reality and a single snapshot of many possible interactions within a changing environment.

So we come to a paradox. The more a plan is precise, the more it becomes useful, and the more it becomes false. The objective of a project manager is to find a good balance between accuracy and truth. Paraphrasing the famous statistician George E. P. Box about statistical models, we could say that all plans are false, but many are useful.

Figure 1.

Take a look at Figure 1.
The x-axis represents the plan’s accuracy (moving from the left to the right accuracy increases) and the y-axis the plan’s truthfulness (moving from the bottom to the top plausibility increases).
Each one of the 4 quadrants is divided into 3 zones. The green zones represent areas where the balance of accuracy and plausibility allows the creation of useful plans. The orange regions represent areas where the balance of precision and plausibility leads to the creation of not very useful plans or plans that are not worth the efforts. The red zones represent areas with impossible or absurd balances of accuracy and plausibility.
Let’s dive a little more in the graph and analyze in depth each one of the quadrants.

• (a) Plausibility is preferred to precision. This quadrant is the domain of agile project management methodologies. We have to be ready to integrate our plans frequently with new details and project insights. 
• (b) A plan that is accurate and plausible, this is the project management’s holy grail. 
• (c) Precision is preferred to plausibility. This quadrant is the domain of classic project management methodologies. We have to be ready to change our plans frequently. 
• (d) This is a very strange quadrant. Why should anyone create a project plan that is not accurate and, at the same time, not plausible? Let’s look with suspicion even the green zone.

A way to finding a reliable balance between precision and truthfulness is not to exceed a reasonable time horizon, beyond which planning is no more a process, but it becomes a gamble. This horizon is different from project to project, depending on organizational process assets, enterprise environmental factors, industry, technologies involved...
Fortunately, a project manager has many tools in his/her pocket to build useful and sound plans, like rolling wave planning, division into phases, Agile methodologies and so on.

Plans vs. Planning

In any case, even if we succeed in crafting a project management plan with a good balance between accuracy and truthfulness, we cannot forget that this is just a temporary win. Projects, as we remarked before, are living entities that try to survive in a hostile and imperfect world.
Helmuth von Moltke, chief of staff of the Prussian Army in the second part of the 19th century, known for his innovative methods, used to say that no plan survives contact with the enemy.

So we have to be prone to change our plans. Changes in project plans should never conflict with project charters or business cases. Nevertheless, in order to deliver great values as outcomes of our projects, we must be ready to change, to change quite often, and to change quick.
As a matter of fact, Helmuth von Moltke used also to say, probably as a compendium of the previous citation, that plans are nothing; planning is everything.
We need to shift our focus from the plan to the planning process. 

If it takes too long to adjust our planning documents, we cannot be as effective as we should. So it is not enough to plan accurately in a reasonable time horizon, we also need efficient planning processes running.

Conclusions

We definitively need plans for our projects, and we need to make them precise enough to be useful, but not so accurate to be remarkably unreal. We must be ready to go through well-suited change management's processes, whenever there is a need since planning is at least as important as plans themselves.

Quest' opera è distribuita con licenza Creative Commons Attribuzione - Non commerciale - Non opere derivate 3.0 Unported.

Project management - execution efficiency or process efficiency?

Mario is a cook.

He owned a small restaurant in Rome, near the Trastevere district. It was a very tiny place, where he could welcome less than 20 people at the same time. The menu was also minimal; two appetizers, three first courses and two main courses. Period. 
The kitchen was successfully managed by Mario, his wife Sandra and his son Enrico. Since the quality of the served food was fantastic, the restaurant was always packed with people.
At a certain point, Mario decided that it was time for him to take a giant leap. He decided to expand the restaurant’s turnover and moved his activity into a new place, where there was room for more than 80 people. In addition, he decided to enrich the menu, introducing six new appetizers, three new first courses and four new main courses. Obviously he intended to maintain a very high standard for the food’s quality. 
Since Mario was no fool, he expected to need more help in the kitchen and hired two new people, his nephews Rita and Francesco.
Very soon begun the problems. Managing 80 meals with 288 possible permutations is far more complex that managing 20 meals with 12 possible permutations. As a result, the kitchen collapsed. 
Mario hired two more people on the staff, but this gave no acceptable solution to the problem, on the contrary, it seemed to worsen it even more. The kitchen was small, and the paraphernalia limited, so each more cook gave less incremental help. In addition, each more cook added a cost in terms of organization and management. Even worse, lack of coordination, poor management, organization’s failure started to impact even on food’s quality.
This short story is purely fictional. Nonetheless, I think we can learn a lot from it.

The law of diminishing returns

There is a point where the addition of new resources to a project ceases to produce benefits. Even worse, beyond this point, indiscriminate and continuous addition of resources could create further inefficiencies. This consideration applies to people, material, machinery, funds...
Similarly at what happens in a small kitchen, adding more and more cooks, can lead to a situation where there are not enough activities, tools or even space for each one. Then you have two ways to proceed. You can split activities further to occupy all the resources at your disposal, or you can turn resources on different activities. 
Each solution brings inefficiencies. In addition, more resources mean greater costs, more complex management plans and more management overheads.If we consider resources as workers, we also have  to take into account personnel training, insertion costs and the time needed to make the new team perform like the old one.
The bottom line here is that if your processes fail, adding resources could not be an option. 

Obsessive replication of the first success's pattern 

A one-size-fits-all methodology does not exist in project management (and in many other human activities). 
Since each project is different, it is possible that processes and plans that worked well in the past could fail, if slavishly and uncritically applied, in future situations. It is not a wrong practice to derive management plans and processes, from those previously successfully used in similar projects. 
We have to take care to spot all the aspects in which the projects differ and in which they are similar; we have to respect and to leverage the differences between them. Mario wrongly thought that processes that could be used to successfully manage a kitchen with three cooks (the project’s team) and eight courses for twenty people (activities and complexity), could be applied, out from the box, to the management of a far more large team with far more complex activities. 
The bottom line is always to assess, react and adapt.

A solution is never infinitely scalable

This paragraph has something in common with the previous one. Indeed, in some respects, we could say that this paragraph is about one of the reason why you cannot indiscriminately reply patterns. 
A process can be considered scalable if it can be applied, unchanged and with the same proficiency, even if there are quantitative changes (more or fewer people, activities, funds...) in the scenario. If these changes are increments we talk about upwards scalability, if they are decrements we talk about  downwards scalability. If the process can keep the same efficiency just adding or subtracting resources, we talk about vertical scalability. This kind of scalability is typically limited by the law of diminishing returns. If the process can maintain the same efficiency by means of replication in several parallel instances, we talk about horizontal scalability. This kind of scalability is generally limited by managing overhead.
The bottom line is that scalability does have a cost and that any process can be scaled infinitely upwards or downwards, neither vertically nor horizontally. There is a point where scalability ends or where its cost far exceeds the benefits. In these cases, processes have to be revised. 

Join execution efficiency to process efficiency 

Since a solution is never infinitely scalable, it is mandatory to develop the skills necessary to achieve an excellent execution efficiency. 
However, since the law of diminishing returns, we must bear in mind that it is of the greatest importance also achieve  a high process efficiency.

Conclusions

Is it a smart approach, applying previously used processes to future projects? 
Yes, if these projects have, in their most sensible aspects, similarity with the projects for which these processes had been originally crafted. Even in this case we have to take our time to assess, react and adapt. 
We have also to pay attention that the processes we are applying, be scalable in the desired way and direction, to accommodate differences in projects’ sizes. Doing this keep in mind the law of diminishing returns, because the obvious solution of adding resources, may be highly counterproductive in a critical situation. 
Finally, we have to balance execution efficiency with process efficiency.

By the way, for all our North American friends, Mario has never served in his restaurant the famous Fettuccine Alfredo...if I have to say the truth...I have never seen them in any restaurant here in Italy...

Quest' opera è distribuita con licenza Creative Commons Attribuzione - Non commerciale - Non opere derivate 3.0 Unported.