Failure avoidance

#ProjectManagement #Strategy #Websites #Design

Once a project is joyfully approved the cost becomes irrelevant.

All that matters now is speed, quality, staying within budget and getting to have some fun.

However.

If you’ve ever had the privilege of running a chunky tech project, you’ll know that’s easier said than done. In fact, dare I suggest, it’s more likely that the project will take longer and cost more than originally advertised. In some cases the quality of the vision will be compromised because of the constricting forces of time and money tightening around us. No fun.

But why? Prince2 practitioners and Agile scrum masters are supposed to protect us from this, aren’t they? Yes, there's some truth to that but they’re only part of the arrangement and despite their frequent acts of heroism, some things are beyond their control.

We all know that to avoid misfortune, we must accept an unvarnished view of the root cause of any mistake. Because even tiny mistakes lead to miscalculations which, in turn, often multiply at an alarming rate. Death by a thousand cuts (well, perhaps not death).

So, what are the three root causes of misadventure in a project? I finger the blame thusly:

Idealism

Purism

Inexperience

Idealism

We know not to ask for perfection, that’s unrealistic. Instead we simply demand idealism.

Let me offer an example. Imagine the following scenario. When asked ‘what’s the ambition for this project?’ If we were allowed to be brutally honest we’d probably say, ‘we’d like it to be quite good’.

The wise elders among us know that avoiding catastrophe is not to be sniffed at. ‘Quite good’ by contrast is a glorious victory. But due to social cultural norms, we can’t declare our ambition so functionally humdrum as 'quite good'.

Instead we say things like, ‘we’re looking for exceptional outcomes, a next-generation experience, to redefine the category…’ and we do so undeterred by the absence of any evidence that such leaps have ever happened here before.

The truth is our working reality is often better characterised by beige mediocrity, than vaulting exceptionalism. I say that affectionately and judged only in terms of 30 years of bearing witness to classic corporate problem solving, team-working and self-organising for innovation. Blue sky excitement evaporates, making way for the grey drizzle of regurgitated groupthink.

Grinding gears to find first feels familiar to many of us as we embark on any programme of change. Whisper it, but we tolerate a great deal of mediocrity in our present (hopefully with wit, if not sarcasm) but we demand no less than excellence in our future? No wonder we despair.

Although good may well be good enough, excellence has been ordered with a side of exceptional. Idealism crowds out realism. Budget requests go up, so does the pressure. Practitioners innocently justify their demands with increasingly elaborate ceremony.

Idealism is debilitating. We must work hard to spot it early and replace with realism at every stage of the project: when budgeting, during planning and throughout the execution.

Purism

I think we all know what I mean, but for clarity let me explain. Purism is the evil twin of perfectionism. The unwanted bastard child of pragmatism. I could go on, I really could. It’s my bete noire.

When we scope a project, we assign a game project manager, they head off to ask specialists for estimates for each part of the delivery plan. Experienced project managers know what to expect: brusque purism from a significant minority. And what does that exchange look like?

The Purist (TP): ‘if we don’t follow the very best practices, as understood by me, for my part of the project, the whole thing will fail (and I won’t put my name to that)’.

Project Manager (PM): ‘OK, give me a plan and estimate for your recommended approach’.

TP: ‘Oh... Sure… Here you go…’

PM: ‘We can’t afford this’.

TP: ‘We’re f***** then’.

Of course I’m exaggerating to make a point. Never-the-less the presence of purism at any point in a project lifecycle is a red flag for naivety and inexperience. If encountered, my strong advice is two-fold:

Eject the individual from the project (too harsh? Too Darwinian?)

Okay, if that’s not possible, they will need careful coaching plus rigorous task management

What I’m sure of is this, if we accept purist, academic, theoretical thinking we are shutting our eyes to the storm clouds on the horizon. There is just no place for it in the commercial world nor on our project. Everyone must pull together knowing that corners will always be cut, and that's usually more than okay.

Inexperience

Each member of the band must be of a standard, just a few bum notes can ruin the performance, even for the most willing audience.

So we need confidence from each member of our team. No plan survives first contact so we need to know are they calm, nimble and responsive in the heat of the programme. Do they work with the fluent skill of a seasoned professional? Is their passion and craftsmanship plain to see?

Let’s say our project team is 10 strong and we’ve a medium complex tech solution to produce. How many of them have significant and meaningful experience of delivering projects just like this, and successfully? That shouldn’t be a difficult question to ask, nor answer - should it?

And yet… how often do we interview each member of the project team?

I’ll tell you how often. Tumbleweed. That’s how often.

Experience and expertise are inseparable. You cannot lay credible claim to expertise without experience. The more experts with experience we recruit, the more likely success will be ours - and vice versa. So let's not forget, due diligence, vetting and good casting is always required for the crew we’re about to set sail with.

99.5% of the time, good is good enough

I’ve written before about the importance of a well written brief. I think it’s also really important to observe carefully the ways in which a project can degrade once inflight. If we have inexperienced teams, advocating purism and chasing an idealised outcome, it's not hard to imagine what can happen. If we embrace a good is good enough mindset, in every work package, project and programme, then the gains tend to compound, year on year.

Greatness is available, if we’re first willing to be good enough.