Project Management Fits All Sizes

Several years ago I started a new job in an industry that was new to me. The people working for me knew I had a lot of experience but they also knew it was not in their industry. Part of the reason an “outsider” was brought in was because the current staff lacked project management skills and I was being asked to improve those skills.

I recall a discussion with one of the more competent members of my group shortly after I arrived. We were discussing the objective of broadening the application of project management skills in the department. He response was, “We have tried that here and it doesn’t work.” I was dumbfounded at the response. How is it possible that anyone could believe that project management techniques would not be applicable in any situation?

After more study of the situation, I found that his comments said less about the utilization of project management skills than it did about the culture of the organization. Effectively, he was saying:

• The culture was highly reactive
• The organization had little patience for resource management
• Schedules meant little to the organization

In addition to the cultural and organizational issues described above, there was one other important characteristic. Very little was actually being completed. Certainly, people were identifying a lot of opportunities and even developing projects to take advantage of the opportunities. But, installation of the tangible changes needed to harvest the benefits were slow and unreliable.

Senior Managers had recognized the shortcoming and wanted to find a way to address it. The challenge was one that required both introduction of Project Management skills and changes to the culture and the organizations temperament.

Project Management is a three-legged stool. The three legs are:

1. Scope
2. Cost or resource requirements
3. Schedule

The scope is simply the gap between what now exists and what will exist when the objectives of the project have been achieved. In the case of an industrial asset, it is best to view the scope in terms of systems, skills and discipline.

• System refers to the tangible elements: facilities, equipment and components.

• Skills refer to the human resources and expertise needed to operate and maintain the systems to produce the intended results.

• Discipline refers to the organization, leadership and management needed to ensure that systems are constructed and skills are applied in a manner that produces marketable results.

Each of the elements described above can be converted into a series of steps or activities needed to change raw materials in the current state into the desired elements in the future.

Once the total scope is clearly understood, it is possible to create the two other legs of the project stool.

First, it is possible to describe all the resources needed to change the current situation into the desired objectives. These resources are money, materials, people and specific skills.

Second, it is possible to describe the proper sequence of events and the amount of time each step will require to produce the desired results. In other words, it is possible to construct an accurate schedule.

Reflecting back on the comment, “We have tried that here and it doesn’t work”, it is useful to understand the cultural and organizational characteristics needed to make Project Management work:

First, Project Management needs relief from highly reactive instincts of organizations. While a well managed project is the absolute fastest way to achieve the desired results, it may not give the appearance of immediate activity. A reactive culture wants to see activity. It wants to see “boots on the ground”. It wants to see tangible and visible results. It wants to see people working all the time. Strong Project Management typically doesn’t show signs of activity until everything is ready. Then it does so in a highly organized and efficient manner.

Second, Project Management is highly dependent on an organizations desire to closely manage resources. Saying it another way, if an organization allows individuals to use “unbudgeted” resources, things are out-of-control. In this kind of organization, things get done that the organization has not approved and things that have been approved do not get done. While team organizations and matrix organizations are good in many ways, they also open the door to misuse of resources and loss of control. In the case of the individual mentioned at the start of this article, his comment recognized the fact that individuals were unable to maintain a long-term focus on projects because they were always being distracted by immediate reactive demands.

Third, Project Management is highly dependent on individuals meeting the commitments they make. When someone commits to completing an element of the schedule at a certain time, it is absolutely mandatory they do so. If the organizational culture is one that “turns a blind eye” to situations when people do not meet commitments, Project Management will not be successful.

Clearly, many organizations tend to restrict the application of Project Management skills and discipline to large or highly important activities because they are viewed as being cumbersome. A more appropriate way to determine where to apply Project Management skills is a simple test: Do you want to get it done? If you have an objective you really want to see accomplished, it is a good candidate for Project Management. If you really don’t care if it gets done or not, any approach will suffice.

This article discusses the following concepts:

1. Project Management
2. Scope
3. Cost and resources
4. Schedule
5. Organizational culture

Readers are invited to comment on these, as well as any related issues.