Attitude is derived from perceptions, in this context the stakeholder’s perception of the project and how its outcomes will affect the stakeholder’s interests. Fortunately, perceptions are negotiable and can be changed by effective communication. Change perceptions and a change in attitude will follow.

There are two key dimensions to attitude considered in my research.  The first is how supportive or opposed the stakeholder is towards the project.  The other is how receptive the stakeholder is to communication from the project team.  Whilst receptiveness may seem less important, you cannot change a stakeholder’s level of supportiveness if they refuse to communicate with you.

Levels of supportiveness can range from active opposition to active support. For each of the important stakeholders, the project team needs to understand the stakeholder’s current level of support and then determine a realistic optimum level to facilitate the project’s success. What represents a realistic optimum varies. Environmental activists can never be realistically expected to support a new road through a wilderness area; in this circumstance the realistic optimum may be passive opposition (as opposed to active opposition) and a communications plan developed to negotiate an outcome that the environmentalists can live with.  On the other hand your project sponsor should be an active supporter, if the person is merely a passive supporter communication needs to be planned to engage the stakeholder in actively supporting the success of her project.

Achieving either of these objectives needs open communication. If the stakeholder is unwilling to communicate (either because they really don’t like you or they are just too busy) ways need to be devised to open different channels. This may involve using other stakeholders in the network around the project to open the communication, using someone else on your team as the messenger, changing the way you communicate or just plain persistence.

One of the key factors within your control that will influence the effectiveness of your communication is your personal credibility. A small amount of credibility comes from your position as the ‘project manager’; the rest has to be earned. For more on credibility see: http://stakeholdermanagement.wordpress.com/2013/04/27/733/.  However, if you cannot gain credibility with a particular person because of their ‘filters’, make sure you find a credible messenger to carry your communication.

Communication is a two way process. Only after communication channels are open can you start to listen to the other person and understand their needs, concerns or ambitions. Once these are known, you are then in a position to either explain how the current project meets those needs or consider risk mitigation strategies to modify the project to reduce issues and enhance opportunities.

The whole point of stakeholder management is to optimise the overall attitude of the stakeholder community to allow the project to succeed. This requires:

• A focus on the important people at ‘this point in time’;.
• Understanding and managing ‘their issues’, and;
• Communicating to achieve the desired changes in attitude – communicating for effect!

This is the focus of my on-going research and work and is summarised in the diagram below…

Communicating for effect mean that where people are at or above the optimum target attitudes, the purpose of your communication is to maintain the status quo and less important stakeholders who are below your desired optimum need as much effort as can be spared from your limited resources. But, important stakeholders who are below optimum need heroic communication efforts to change the situation and maximise the project’s chance of succeeding. You focus your communication efforts where the need is greatest.

Remember, a very significant proportion of the risks around most projects are people based. The only way to identify, manage and/or mitigate these risks is by effective two way communication designed to effect changes in attitude – more on this later.

The post Managing Stakeholder Attitudes appeared first on Project Accelerator News.

We’ve noticed a significant shift in our training market since the original GFC.  Corporate training has slowed significantly and discretionary skills development courses have been largely deserted. However, these two downturns have been counterbalanced by a pick up in interest from self funded trainees focused on earning recognised credentials to boost their position in the job market.  Despite the tough times it seems Project Managers are prepared to spend their hard earned wages on training provided there is a recognised credential at the end.

So whilst the slowdown has changed the training business, it would appear the value attached by project managers to professional credentials such as PMP and PRINCE2 has not diminished with year-on-year increases in the number of candidates taking each of the credential examinations. This trend seems to be a positive step with more people being willing to accept greater responsibility for their own career path development, and being conscious of their job stability in a rapidly changing work environment, are seeking to bolster their curriculum vitae in the most effective manner.

The good news is there is a positive return on this investment. The latest series of Salary Surveys, show a steady increase in salaries for qualified project managers and in the USA, Australia and a number of other countries, a $10,000 gap between PMP credential holders and unqualified project managers. Combine this with the evidence from IPMA (International Project Management Association) surveys and the message is clear: if you are interested in a successful project management career, holding a recognised credential is becoming essential. Whether this is a good thing for our profession is a different question; over the years there has been a lot of discussion on the value of credentials such as PMP frequently triggered by the failure of a ‘qualified’ person to perform in the workplace.

From a credentialing view point there are essentially two ways to assess a person; testing what they know or assessing what they do. Competency based assessments (what they do) tend to assume knowledge based on performance. You cannot perform a complex task such as managing a project without knowledge; however, competency based assessments have two disadvantages:

• Competency is demonstrated in a specific a time and location. There is no guarantee the competent person will perform as well in a different setting with different people, cultures and relationships.
• The assessment of interpersonal competencies tends to be subjective and project management is very much focused on directing and leading people. Assessing behavioural competencies goes some way towards solving this dilemma but the assessment is still subjective.

Knowledge based assessments are empirical. The person had sufficient knowledge to pass a defined test at a defined point in time. However, the passing of a knowledge based assessment such as PMP or for that matter an MBA only shows the person has a predefined level of knowledge. The disadvantages of knowledge based assessments are:

• There is no indication the person can apply the knowledge effectively in the workplace.
• The knowledge tested in any exam is only a portion of the overall domain knowledge.

Given the problems with either assessment process, assessing the relative value of a qualification is complex and differs depending on who is making the value judgment, an employer or an individual. The value of a qualification to an individual can be measured in at least three areas:

• The advantage it offers in the job market;
• The recognition governments and other licensing authorities give to credential holders and
• Its recognition by other entities offering higher qualifications through credits or advanced standing.

The value of a qualification to an employer is in part a function of the credentials reputation, and in part what this tells the employer about the credential holder. However the current state of development leaves some gaps:

• Both PRINCE2 and PMP are uniquely valuable industry based credentials; but no single assessment is ever going to provide a guarantee of a person’s suitability for employment in a particular organisation. Being a credential holder provides one point of assessment; the person had the knowledge needed to pass a difficult, quality controlled exam.
• Whereas the relative subjectivity of competence assessments lacks the clarity of pass/fail and is situational. Many of the current competency based certifications lack a rigorous testing of underpinning knowledge and there is no way of knowing if the demonstrated competence is transferrable.

To select the best candidate, employers needs to look to other aspects of a person’s overall capabilities as well as the credential they hold. But employing qualified staff helps lift the credibility of the employer in the market.

Looking 5 to 10 years into the future I expect the PM credentialing process will have change substantially to blend aspects of workplace assessment (competency) with the formal testing of knowledge. The PMI Program Management Professional (PgMP) credential is a start along this route; my prediction is most other credentials will follow.

However, don’t wait for the future! If you are in the job market today, or want to improve your prospects with your current employer attending project management courses to gain a recognised industry credential is becoming essential. The biggest change we’ve noticed in the last decade is the general shift from the view that having a credential was a major advantage in the job market to the current situation where not having a credential has become a significant disadvantage. I’m not sure this is a good thing but it is the reality we all have to live with.

The choice in the UK is between PMP, PRINCE2 Practitioner, the new APM Registered Project Professional (RPP) and possibly the IPMA Levels C or B. A few organisations have a preference for one of these, most seem to be unaware of the differences. So, if you want to advance your career in project management and increase your income the market has spoken – get credentialed… you really do need to be certified if you want to be a project manager

The post The Value of Project Management Qualifications appeared first on Project Accelerator News.

One of the concepts underpinning the research for my doctoral thesis and the Stakeholder Circle® methodology is the concept that project success is determined by the attitudes of the key stakeholders around the project. Delivering a project on time, on budget and to specification is not sufficient – if the project is not liked and the outputs are not used it is still a failure. Contrast the difference between the very low level of patronage for the Melbourne Star and the success of the London Eye.

Certainly some projects are easier to attract support to than others but even intrinsically unpopular projects to implement a business change, upgrade systems and reduce head count need the support of the people involved in the change if the project’s intended benefits are to be fully realised. And whilst change management and project management are distinctly different functions, in many respects project stakeholder management and change management are similar and both facets of an organisational change need to be working constructively together to achieve success (see more on Organisational Change Management).

Even where no internal change is needed each project needs the support of key elements of its stakeholder community to achieve a successful outcome in the most efficient way.  And given the only ethical way to influence stakeholder attitudes is through effective communication, this means every project needs to communicate effectively to achieve optimum success!

However, reporting is not enough! There are three general classes of communication that are needed in an effective stakeholder management; reporting, public relations (marketing)  and purposeful communication.

Reporting

Reporting fulfils two useful purposes; firstly it demonstrates you are running your project properly, project managers are expected to produce reports and have schedules, etc., issuing reports shows that you are conforming to expectations.  Secondly, copying a report to a person keeps you in touch with them for when more significant communications are needed.  Reporting may not be communication but it is useful. Jon Whitty has described reports and bar charts as essential ‘clothing’ for a project manager (and as Mark Twain said “Clothes make the man. Naked people have little or no influence in society”).

You cannot avoid reports; they are required by your company and often by law. You simply create them as needed. Some examples include:

• Project Status Reports.
• Meetings with your sponsor or project steering committee.
• Required reports to shareholders or your Board of Directors.
• Government required reports, safety reports, HAZOP, audit reports, etc.

The information in reports is typically pushed (ie, sent directly to) to recipients and whilst this creates a consistent set of data in a time series of themselves reports are not communication, although information in a report can be used as part o a purposeful communication (see below).

Project relations

Project relations are similar to normal public relations (PR) but focused on your project and stakeholders. PR or marketing is probably the most underrated and under used communication process. It includes all of the broadcast communications needed to provide information about your project to the wider stakeholder community, both to market the value of the project and to prevent information ‘black holes’ developing that breed misinformation and rumour.

The power of social media to feed on rumours and amplify bad news is massive and it is nearly impossible to kill rumours once they have started even if the information being circulated is completely false. Once a perception of a disaster is created in a person’s mind, the tendency to reject any other information is innate “they would say that wouldn’t they….”

Effective PR using a range of available mediums including web portals and social media can mitigate (but cannot eliminate) this type of negative influence in your stakeholder community, both within the organisation and externally. The challenge is to be first, to be understood and to be credible.

Some of the options include:

• Project newsletters (or blogs) with positive, benefits focused information and accomplishments.
• Travelling road shows and awareness building sessions that people can attend at various locations to explain the project and benefits.
• Testimonials that describe how the project deliverables provided value.
• To build excitement and get people to read your PR, consider contests with simple prizes or a project countdown-until-live date.
• Being open to ‘pull’ communication, by placing useful information such as frequently-asked questions (FAQ) and project documentation in a common repository, directory or website that people can access subject to appropriate security processes.
• Making sure your team are ‘on-message’ and have a good ‘elevator pitch’ that explains the project and its benefits in 30 seconds.
• Investing in project memorabilia with project name or image portrayed, such as pins, pencils, Frisbees, cups, T-shirts, etc. The project team members and their personal networks are one of your greatest assets – make them proud to ‘show off’ the project (this helps with team building too).

Developing an effective PR campaign is a skilled communications process designed to build buy-in and enthusiasm for the project and the deliverables. It is well worth the effort on almost every project! It is far easier to create a good first impression than to try to change an already formed bad impression among your stakeholders, and is particularly important if your project is going to change how people do their jobs – your project will experience far lower levels of opposition and the change manager will thank you.

Purposeful communication

Communication is hard work and needs to be focused on the important stakeholders (both positive and negative) with whom you need to cause a specific effect. This includes providing direction to your team members and suppliers and influencing the attitude or expectations of other key stakeholders.

Purposeful communication needs to be planned, which means you need to know precisely what effect you are seeking and then work out how to achieve the effect. This usually means you want the stakeholder to start to do something, do something differently or stop doing something.  Some of the tactics that can be used to make your communication effective include:

• WIFM – ‘what is in it for me’ – try to align your needs with something the stakeholder desires (this is called Mutuality).
• WIFMF – ‘what is in it for my friend’ – if there is no practical WIFM is there something the stakeholders friends or colleagues, or the overall organisation may benefit from?
• Using your network to build peer pressure through the stakeholder’s network of contacts.  It’s hard to hold out against a group.
• Delivering information incrementally in a carefully planned way with different people playing different roles in the communication plan.
• Making as much information as possible open to ‘pull’ communication in a project ‘web portal’ and then directing the specific stakeholder to the information you want them to respond to (this works for reports as well).

Purposeful communication is hard work and needs to be carefully focused on the stakeholders that matter at any point in time. As with risk management, a regular review of the stakeholder community is essential, to reassess the relative priorities of all new and existing stakeholders, to understand if your communication efforts are being successful (change tactics if not) and to best focus your communication effort going forward.

Some final thoughts

Effective communication needs to be designed to be effective within the stakeholder’s culture. This means leaning how the person operates and what is normal for them – you need to communicate within their paradigm.

Building this type of communication environment designed to support project success requires a strategic approach, the pay-back is less time spent fire fighting and dealing with ad hoc enquiries. Most managers accept Phil” Crosby’s maxim ‘quality is free’,  I would argue so is the cost of effective stakeholder engagement (see: The value of stakeholder management).

The post The 3 types of communication appeared first on Project Accelerator News.

The McKinsey 7-S framework was developed in the early 1980s by Tom Peters and Robert Waterman, two consultants working at the McKinsey & Company consulting firm. The basic premise of the model is that there are seven internal aspects of an organization that need to be aligned if it is to be successful. Whilst the 7-S framework was originally focused on large organisations, the concepts are equally valid for small organisations such as your project team!

The Seven ‘S’ Framework

The framework involves three ‘hard’ elements and four ‘soft’ elements. The ‘hard’ elements are easier to define and management can directly influence them; the team structure, its strategy, and the systems used by the team for work and communication.

The ‘soft’ elements are probably more important, but are also more difficult to define measure and document and are influenced by personalities and culture. When you have a team made up of the ‘right people’ (staff), with the ‘right skills’, working in the ‘right way’ (style) to achieve a shared vision, deficiencies in strategy, structure and systems can be mitigated, but when all seven elements are aligned and effective each one works to increase the power of the other elements. A fully aligned framework has enormous power to generate project success.

The elements involve:

• Strategy: the agreed approach to accomplishing the project’s objectives[1].
• Structure: the way the project team is organised and who reports to whom.
• Systems: the tools, techniques and processes used by the team to accomplish the strategy.
• Shared Values: the core values of the team that are evidenced in its culture and general work ethic[2].
• Style: the behaviour patterns of the team, their ways of interacting, and approaches to leadership and authority.
• Staff: the makeup of the team – ‘having the right people on the bus[3]’.
• Skills: the actual skills and competencies of the team members.

Shared Values is placed in the middle of the model to emphases that the ‘team’s values’ are central to achieving the optimum outcomes from all of all the other elements. As these values change, so will all the other elements.

Understanding the project’s strategy shapes the other ‘hard’ elements – the systems and structures used by the team need to support the implementation of the strategy, not work against it. The optimum structures and systems used in an ‘Agile project’ will be quite different to those used in a more traditional project; the systems needed to support a virtual team will be very different to those needed for a co-located team.

Then we come to the actual team members (staff and their skills); getting the right people with the necessary skills who are willing to work together using the team’s systems to accomplish the strategic objectives of the project is always difficult. Where possible, look at the project through the McKinsey 7-S lens and select people who are suited to the role being filled. If this is not possible look at the people you have through the McKinsey 7-S lens and adjust the structure and systems to give them the best chance of being successful.

The two elements the project manager has the most influence over are style and shared values. These are set at the beginning and people joining the team tend to adopt the ‘teams values’ based on the style of the people already there.  Changing these is difficult and requires sustained effort – if you start right the tendency will be to perpetuate the ‘good behaviours’ as the team grows.

However, if you need to change these we suggest you work through the following steps:

• Start with your Shared Values: Are they consistent with your structure, strategy, and systems? If not, what needs to change and how can the change be implemented?
• Then look at the hard elements. How well does each one support the others? Identify where changes need to be made. The project’s objectives don’t change but everything else can be adapted (including the strategic approach) to maximise the chances of a successful delivery.
• Next look at the other soft elements. Do they support the desired ‘shared values’? Do they support the desired hard elements? Do they support one another? If not, what needs to change?

As you adjust and align the elements, you’ll need to use an iterative approach of making adjustments, and then re-analysing how the change that impacts other elements and their alignment.

Some questions to help focus on the 7-S elements

Here are some of the questions that you’ll need to explore to help you understand your situation in terms of the 7-S framework. Use them to analyse your current situation first, and then repeat the exercise hypothetically to describe your proposed situation.

Strategy:

• What is our strategy?
• How do we intend to achieve our objectives?
• How are changes in customer demands dealt with?
• How is strategy adjusted for environmental issues?

Structure:

• How is the team divided/organised?
• What is the hierarchy?
• How do the various sections/people coordinate activities?
• How do the team members organise and align themselves?
• Is decision-making and controlling centralised or decentralised? Is this as it should be, given what we’re doing?
• Where are the lines of communication? Explicit and implicit?

Systems:

• What are the main tools and processes used by the team? Consider financial, HR communication and document storage. Look at both the ‘hardware’ and the ‘soft systems’.
• Where are the controls and how are they monitored and evaluated?
• What internal rules and processes does the team use to keep on track?

Shared Values:

• What are the core values?
• What is the team culture, does this fit with the wider corporate culture?
• How strong are the values?
• What are the fundamental values that the company and team are built on?

Style:

• How participative is the management/leadership style?
• How effective is that leadership?
• Do employees/team members tend to be competitive or cooperative?
• Is this a real team or just a nominal group?

Staff:

• What positions or specialisations are represented within the team?
• What positions need to be filled?
• Are there gaps in required competencies?

Skills:

• What are the strongest skills represented within the company/team?
• Are there any skills gaps?
• What is the team known for doing well?
• Do the current team members have the ability to do the job?
• How are skills monitored and assessed?

All of this may sound like hard work, but the end result of better performance will be worth it.

_______________

[1] For more on project strategy see: http://www.mosaicprojects.com.au/WhitePapers/WP1038_Strategy.pdf

[2] For more on ethics see: http://www.mosaicprojects.com.au/WhitePapers/WP1001_Ethics.pdf

[3] From: Good to Great by Jim Collins; see:
https://mosaicprojects.wordpress.com/2016/01/06/how-to-succeed-as-a-pm-in-2016/

The post Team harmony appeared first on Project Accelerator News.

In one example, a major engineering company settled a claim from shareholders a couple of years back for an undisclosed sum (probably in the region of $100 million) because they failed to keep the market properly informed about issues occurring on a major transport project. The fact that in the 6 years since the issues surfaced the project has recovered and is now seen as a success, and the company has implemented rigorous reporting systems to avoid similar occurrences in the future did not help!

In a different case, a very senior director was found to be in breach of his duties by the Federal Court because he did not make appropriate enquiries when alerted to the possibility of illegal actions within his organisation. These two examples are far from unique – the people governing your organisation are coming under increasing pressure to know what is occurring and to take appropriate actions.

What this means for you!

What does this mean to the average person in a PMO or a project team?  Because projects and programs are becoming increasingly important in the development and growth of organisations, information on the performance of project and programs is becoming increasingly important in the governance of the organisation. Which means you are responsible in your part of the organisation for ensuring the information needed by the executives is accurate. Achieving this needs a team effort!

The overall process of ensuring the right information reaches the right levels of the origination involves creating the right systems and structures, CPOs, PMOs, etc. These systems operate best in a culture of openness and accountability.  The concept of ‘governmentality’ encompasses these aspects and requires leadership from the highest levels of the organisation. We can support this aspect but cannot do a lot to create the necessary culture[1].

Making your information ACCURATE

Where project professionals can have a major influence is in creating and disseminating the information used in the governance system. The key aspects are interlinked and interdependent, and are summed up in the acronym ACCURATE:

Available: the project information has to be accessible in various appropriate formats to all levels of management.

Complete: the ‘picture’ conveyed by the project information needs to provide a full picture of the current and forecast situation.

Concise: executives are busy people – excessive detail does not help! They need to understand the ‘bottom line’.

Understandable: project management is full of technical jargon, we may understand the difference between EAC and VAC the executives will not! Communicate in business language.

Relevant: just because it is important to the project team does not mean it is important to the overall organisation, communication information in a way that is relevant to the achievement of business objectives.

Auditable: if asked you need to be able to demonstrate the source of the information and the processing steps taken to consolidate and communicate the information.

Timely:  the ‘markets’ operate in a 24-hour news cycle – important information needs to be communicated immediately (you cannot wait for the monthly report).

Explainable: project professionals need to be available to explain the information and help executives understand the consequences (typically this is a key role of an effective PMO).

Just as witnesses in court promise to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, project professionals have an ethical responsibility to make sure the information that are communicating meets this standard and is also ACCURATE.

______________________

[1] For more on governance and governmentality see: http://www.mosaicprojects.com.au/WhitePapers/WP1096_Six_Functions_Governance.pdf

The post Not knowing is no longer an option appeared first on Project Accelerator News.

The quote by astronomer Clifford Stoll ‘Data is not information, information is not knowledge, knowledge is not understanding, understanding is not wisdom’, is a good starting point. Information changes in character as it is processed:

• Work performance data is the raw observations and measurements made during the execution of the project work; for example an activity is 25% complete. Data on its own has little direct value, but knowing the accuracy of the data underpins everything else.
• Basic information is created when the data is analysed and assessed; for example, the activity should be 75% complete and as a consequence is running 3 days late.
• This becomes useful information when it is placed in context and integrated with other relevant bits of information; for example the activity is on the critical path and the delay has a direct effect on the predicted date for project completion.
• Converting useful information into knowledge needs the information to be communicated to someone who receives the communication (for example, the person reads the report) and as a consequence becomes aware of the fact the activity is running late[1].
• Understanding requires the person to interpret and appreciate the consequences of the delay. The interpretation of one piece of information to create understanding can happen in many different people’s minds (lots of people may read the report) and different people will derive very different insights from the same set of facts – one person may see the delay as relatively minor, another as critically important. Understanding is based on the frame through which each person views the ‘fact’.
• Finally using the person’s understanding of the situation wisely to inform decisions and actions is completely dependent on the capabilities, attitude, and experience of the individual who has acquired and understood the knowledge[2].

As shown in the extract from the PMBOK® Guide Fifth Edition above, project controls professionals drive the conversion of data into useful information. Once created, this information forms the basis of project reports. Work performance reports are the physical or electronic representation of work performance information compiled in project documents and used for project decision making. These reports are also distributed or made available to other stakeholders through the project communication processes with the intention of influencing and informing the actions of stakeholders (both internal and external).

Project controls professionals have complete control over the conversion of data into information, they can create useful information or they can create masses or obtuse information that is little better than raw data. Then, by communicating effectively, they can actively encourage the transition of information into knowledge in key people’s minds and by providing context and advice can positively influence the development of that person’s understanding to assist wise decision making. But achieving this this requires more than simply collecting and processing data!

How effective are you in transforming raw data into useful information that helps your key stakeholders make wise decisions?

__________________________

[1] For more on communication see: http://www.mosaicprojects.com.au/PM-Knowledge_Index.html#PPM07

[2] For more on practical wisdom see: https://mosaicprojects.wordpress.com/2017/05/21/phronesis-a-key-attribute-for-project-managers/

The post Data to Wisdom – Creating and Managing Knowledge appeared first on Project Accelerator News.

Divisive Decision Makers

Divisive decision makers give the appearance of strength and speed.  Every issue requiring a decision is quickly reviewed by the manager and a decision issued on the basis – ‘I have decided we will do this’, even if the manager does not need to be involved in the decision. Having made the decision, the manager then expects everyone to comply with his decision; dissent and alternatives are not tolerated (to do so would be a sign of weakness).  This approach to decision making is loved by the media, they have an answer that slots into the 24×7 news cycle and from the media’s perspective, it gets even better if the decision leads to controversy.

The problems with divisive, leader-centric, decision making include:

• The assumption the ‘leader knows best’
• The lack of any consensus – people are expected to do what they are told
• The lack of any commitment in the rest of the team to implementing the decision
• The likelihood the decision will stop being implemented the second the manager ‘looks away’ to focus on their next ‘important decision’

Unfortunately in many situations being seen to be a ‘strong’, assertive decision maker is confused with being an effective decision maker. In many cases, the divisive decision makers ego is intimately linked to being seen as a ‘strong decision maker and the decisions they make’.

Decisive Decision Makers

A decisive decision maker looks to the outcome of the decision – they recognise making a decision is only one step along the road to a good outcome. They know they need others to collaborate if the decision is going to ‘stick’ and lead to the intended result.  So rather than rushing into a divisive decision every time, the decisive decision maker takes a few seconds to think through the decision-making process, to determine the most effective way to reach a decision that is likely to be both the best decision and ‘stick’, the first things to consider are:

1. How time urgent is the decision? In an emergency, the best option is for the decision maker to ‘issue an order’ and to use his/her authority to enforce the decision. However, the vast majority of decisions do not need an immediate answer (even if the media or a senior manager is asking for one ‘NOW!!!’).  Where there is some time to decide, getting the best decision is a more valuable outcome.  The difference between effective decision makers and divisive ones is the ‘divisive one’ will always put the appearance of decisiveness ahead of the need to make good decisions – PR ahead of performance.
2. For the majority of decisions that have some time available for the decision-making process, the next key questions is does the leader need to make the decision or does the leader need to facilitate a decision making process? Effective leaders know the best way to get their ‘teams’ buy-in to a decision is for the team to own the decision.  The decisive decision maker is focused on getting the best decision possible by making use of the available time and the knowledge in their team. The leader’s role is to make sure the ‘right decision’ is reached within the ‘right timeframe’ by the ‘right people’ – this may, or may not, involve the leader in actually making the decision.  A decisive decision maker is the person who makes sure the decision is made!
3. Then they determine the best decision-making process to use in the current situation based on understanding the type of decision required, ranging from resolving a simple problem[1], through to dilemmas and beyond[2].

Based on this quick analysis of the decision required the leader is then in a position to direct the decision-making process towards arriving at a good, timely, and effective decision.

As with the divisive decision maker, they know that in almost every situation any decision is better than no decision and that a prompt decision is better than a delayed decision. But unlike the divisive decision maker the decisive decision maker does not need to be the ‘fountain of all decisions’, they let the right people make the decision and take credit for their work.  They use their authority to support an effective process, taking the actual decision making role only when needed to get the best outcome.

The advantage of decisive decision making is the leader uses the decision-making process to reinforce the team’s motivation and commitment to the overall project and to making the specific decision ‘stick’.

The decisive decision maker has one other key strength over most divisive decision makers. Because they focus on achieving the best outcomes, decisive decision makers are much better positioned to review and adapt any decision where later/better information shows an improvement or change is desirable.  Decisive decision makers know the difference between ‘dithering’ and ‘continually changing their mind’ (the hallmarks of people who cannot make decisions) and making prudent changes to a decision based on changed circumstances, in fact, the decision to change their decision is just another decision focused on achieving the best outcome. Unfortunately, divisive decision makers tend to see any change to a decision they have made as a threat to their credibility as a decision maker, with personal ego at stake admitting there is now a better option is difficult.

Summary

All effective leaders must make decisions – good ones are decisive, not divisive. Decisive leaders do not make ‘quick decisions’ (unless they are needed) and don’t seek unnecessary fanfares to announce their decisions. They work with their team to make sound decisions in an appropriate timeframe that are generally acknowledged as leading to a ‘good outcome’ that will ‘stick’.

Divisive decisions made quickly by the leader and imposed on everyone, even if there is no time pressure, may make the manager look ‘strong’ and boost his ego, but can easily lead to suboptimal decisions that undermine team consensus and without the support of the team, many of the decisions will not ‘stick’.

What sort of decision maker are you?

______________________

[1] For more on problem-solving see: http://www.mosaicprojects.com.au/WhitePapers/WP1013_Problem_Solving.pdf

[2] For more on the types of decision see: http://www.mosaicprojects.com.au/WhitePapers/WP1053_Decision_Making.pdf

The post Are you a decisive or a divisive decision maker?? appeared first on Project Accelerator News.

Smart influencers recognise it is often futile to work against powerful resistance, rather than fighting the situation (and making the situation worse) they slow down and look for ways to influence the eventual outcomes. They change and combine the situation, their language and their actions to achieve an outcome. The timing, and the way you use these skills defines how influential you are in any situation.

Being in the right situation at the right time helps enormously some of the key factors include:

• Being open and aware. In stressful situations, effective influences slow down, take a breath and observe what is occurring before taking action. Focused breathing is an important and often neglected way to create awareness. As we take the time to focus on our breathing we relax, which increases our perception, creates options for viewing the situation from a new perspective and heightens empathy. This in turn enhances our ability to influence and lead.
• Use physical movement as a trigger for a change in attitude. Dealing with a tough colleague, who has assumed a hostile, close position and is unwilling to open up to you may benefit from inducing a physical change to trigger a change in attitude. Suggest ‘we go downstairs for a coffee’ – if you are moving together for one thing, it may open up other ways of ‘moving together’.  A more subtle way to change a closed attitude, particularly if it is manifest in a ‘closed position’ with arms crossed, etc., is by offer the resisting colleague an object such as a pen or a document. This can result in them moving to open their folded hands, or shift forward in their chair. The change in outward behaviour can often cause changes the inner attitudes, just as surface behaviours generally are a reflection of inner feelings.
• Use the space around you to influence attitudes both in formal meetings and in your own office space; creating the right ambience will help you influence others. Some of the things to consider include:
  • A meeting table is virtually divided into personal zones. These zones are maintained zealously. Make sure you don’t inadvertently cross the lines.
  • Move away from negotiation stalemates and conflict situations by reorganising the physical setting. If the meeting has stalled try moving to a low circular table in the lobby or sitting in a corner; the less formal situation can often break down barriers and yield better results.
  • Be aware of personal space and seating hierarchies. Rather than confronting the ‘opposition’ across a rectangular meeting table consider setting up a ‘round table’ where ‘we’ can work together on the issue.

Once you have the situation optimised for influence, what you do and how you do it creates your ability to be influential. Active listening and the use of language are the key tools for creating influence. Some easy to use techniques include:

• Where appropriate use collective language ‘we’ is almost always better than ‘you’.
• In the situation where a colleague clearly dislikes your proposal avoid closed questions. It is much easier to avoid getting a ‘no’ in the first place than to change a ‘no’ into a ‘yes’ later. Questioning is a powerful way to influence a person’s attitude but requires skill, consider these three options:
  • “Do you like my suggestion?” This is a ‘closed question’ and if the answer is ‘No’ and you have nowhere to go.
  • “You do not appear to like my suggestion, why?” This is better, you now have a conversation starter but the ‘why’ has negative implications – it look as though you are blaming the other person for disagreeing with you.
  • “How could my suggestion be improved to make it acceptable to you?” Opens up a whole new paradigm; if the person makes some suggestions that are incorporated into the overall proposal, the proposal becomes ‘our suggestion’.
• Focus on what you want to achieve rather than what you think should be done. By openly stating what you want to achieve, you lead by example and create an opportunity for others to do the same. If there is agreement on what ‘we want’, reaching agreement on what has to be done to get to the desired outcome is much easier.
• Consider ‘amplification’: work with colleagues to reinforce your messages by adopting a meeting strategy called “amplification”: When one person makes a key point, other colleagues repeat it, giving credit to its author. This forces others in the room to recognise the contribution.
• Everyone reads body language, for most people it is a subconscious reaction that can help or hinder your attempts to influence. A couple of the key things to focus on include:
  • Paying attention, and being seen to pay attention – this makes the other person feel valued and is likely to enhance your ability to influence the situation.
  • Being careful what you do with your hands, gestures are culturally significant (and can have very different interpretations in different cultures) but almost everywhere if you place your hand on something you are claiming ownership – make sure you know what you are saying with your hands.
  • Don’t overreact to ‘body language’; it is a complex language and generally reacting to superficial signs can cause more harm than good. But paradoxically, your subconscious reading of the whole situation will very often be accurate.
  • Remember it is very hard to fake body language (unless you are a professional actor), to get yours right you need to have the right thoughts and attitudes first and then let nature do its bit. For more on this see: Influence: Body Language Silent Influencing by Michael Nir https://www.amazon.com/Influence-Influencing-Employing-Techniques-Leadership-ebook/dp/B00ATJUROG

The ability to influence people is a key leadership skill and is critically important if you need to ‘influence without authority’.  One way to acquire the skills is to watch others in a group situation and see how the people who are influencing attitudes and actions are behaving.  Then try emulating their behaviours in your next meeting.

How effective are you at influencing others?

_______________

[1] Influence has to be used ethically if you intend to remain influential over an extended period. For more on ethics see:  http://www.mosaicprojects.com.au/PM-Knowledge_Index.html#Ethics

The post How to influence others appeared first on Project Accelerator News.

The concept of sustainability (or the ‘Triple Bottom Line’) is fairly well understood in business, it involves balancing economic interests with the needs of stakeholders (society) and the environment.

The ‘economic’ aspect of project management is directly aligned with effective project management, delivering the project on-time, on-budget and to the required quality. And, this basic objective cannot be achieved without engaging effectively with at least part of your overall stakeholder community. So-far-so-good!  The challenge project managers and their teams face is understanding how they can move beyond the pure economic elements to take into consideration the needs of society and the environment.  What do these terms mean and how can a project manager or team member make a difference?  Fortunately there is an increasing range of resources available to help us focus on the things that matter where we can make a difference.

Sustainable Development Goals

The starting point is the Sustainable Development Goals that all 193 members of the United Nations have signed up to achieve. On 25 September 2015, the United Nations General Assembly formally adopted the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development with 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs – ‘the Goals’) and 169 associated targets. The new transformative agenda builds on the achievements of 2000 – 2015 Millennium Development Goals program, and sets the world’s targets for the next 15 years.

No one is going to attempt to tackle all 17 goals let alone the 169 specific targets, but every project team can look through the goals and targets and find 3 or 4 that they can strive to achieve. A couple of examples:

• Goal 12: Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns, Target 5: substantially reduce waste generation through prevention, reduction, recycling and reuse. Focus on this and you not only help the environment, you can also improve profitability!
• Goal 5: Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls, Target 8: Enhance the use of enabling technology, in particular information and communications technology, to promote the empowerment of women. Child care is still primarily undertaken by women – how can your team support working mothers?

There are lots of other options to choose from, all you need to do is visit the sustainable development website http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-development-goals/ and find a few that you can focus on and make a real difference!

There are also commercial benefits! As governments and corporations move to implement the SDGs, $trillions will be invested in projects to implement the changes.

Green Project Management Resources

GPM – Green Project Management is a sustainability-centered certified social enterprise whose mission is to decouple socio-environmental degradation from economic growth. The mission of GPM is ‘delivering a sustainable world, one project at a time’.  Project Sustainability starts with a company’s value system and a principled approach to managing portfolios, programs, and projects.

To learn more see: http://greenprojectmanagement.org/

Summary

The world’s governments and an increasing number of corporations are starting to focus on sustainability. Organisations are beginning to recognise they cannot survive if the society or environment it operates within fail. The role of the organisations governing body is to balance the three elements of sustainability to create win-win outcomes where better social and environmental outcomes drive better economic outcomes.   The opportunities for project practitioners highlighted in this post are firstly the opportunity to get onto the ‘front of the wave’ and be positioned to take advantage of the demand for project mangers the SDGs will create over the next few years.  Secondly, providing a practical foundation to work from to implement our ethical responsibilities to ‘to make decisions and take actions based on the best interests of society, public safety, and the environment.’

How can your team help achieve the UN’s SDGs ‘one project at a time’?

The post Sustainable project management appeared first on Project Accelerator News.

The first key question for the organisation’s governance team to consider is, is there any need for a PCB?  I would suggest in most cases, provided the organisation has well trained and effective sponsors, there is no need for a PCB.  When deciding if the costs of a PCB are warranted, the following factors should be considered:

• Is the project/program large by the standards of the organisation?
• Is the project/program more uncertain, complicated or more complex (these concepts are different)[1] compared to the normal projects undertaken by the organisation?
• Are the risks associated with the project/program higher than normal?

If the answer to any two of the above questions is affirmative, a PCB is probably warranted. If only one answer is affirmative, it is probably sufficient to appoint an experienced and committed sponsor[2]; but the risks, costs, and stakeholder attitudes need to be considered. If the project is ‘business as usual’ there should be no need for a PCB[3]. The organisation’s normal governance, surveillance[4], project management and stakeholder engagement processes should be sufficient – the most cost effective PCBs are the ones you don’t have!

Making the PCB efficient

Where a PCB is needed, no meeting should take longer than 30 minutes. The costs of running a PCB are in the range of $2000 to $5000 per hour (sometimes more) and the organisation needs to recoup value from each meeting[5].  This objective is achievable, but the PCB needs designing and managing so that it is cost and process efficient.  The design and management functions is best assigned to either the portfolio management office or an executive level PMO.

The key elements in designing the PCB are:

• Every member of the PCB will be appointed for a specific reason and the person will know why they are appointed, what is expected of them and what to expect from the PCB processes.
• The relationship between the PCB and the change management processes are clearly defined.
• The relationship between the PCB and the key project stakeholders is understood. The primary function of the PCB is to champion the project and help maximise its value to the organisation[6].
• PCB meetings only occur when decisions are required or a formal discussion is necessary, there will be no time wasting ‘monthly meetings’. Routine communication between the PM, the sponsor and the PCB members should be designed to deal with business-as-usual information flows and general oversight. There should be no surprises for anyone, ever!
• Ensuring communication with each PCB member is timely and effective, this includes: providing each member with clear, concise and informative briefing packs which will arrive in a timely manner prior to the meeting; taking the time to ‘walk’ each member through the briefing pack and ensuring any questions are shared, and preferably addressed, in advance of the meeting.
• Where PCB members have other questions or require additional information, these are communicated to the project/program manager and the sponsor in adequate time to allow proper responses to be developed and circulated to all of the PCB prior to the meeting. It’s not the job of a PCB to test the PM with ‘left field’ questions during the meeting.
• Ensuring the meetings run effectively, finish on time, have minutes circulated promptly and that all decisions are logged, referenced, and promptly communicated to all effected parties. The key responsibility of the PCB is to make timely decisions on matters that affect the organisation (not the day-to-day running of the project).

Developing PCBs that work efficiently does require the PMO responsible for the process to develop coaching and advocacy skills in addition to the PCB processes and procedures (there may be value in engaging an external coach to work with the executives in this space[7]). New PCB members will need coaching in their roles, PMs will need supervising to ensure effective, timely and complete information is made available to the PCB, ensuring proper governance processes are followed, and to ensure there are no surprises in either direction by connecting the executive decision makers on the PCB to the project/program delivery teams.

Nothing suggested above is ‘rocket science’, but if implemented effectively will lead to projects and programs that keep progressing with open communication and efficient decision making from transparent reporting and discussion.  When achieved, this process makes both the project sponsor, and the project manager’s life easier and more productive, generating increased value for the organisation.

How effective are your steering committees or project control boards?

_________________________

[1] For more on categorising projects and the difference between complicated and complex see: http://www.mosaicprojects.com.au/WhitePapers/WP1072_Project_Size.pdf

[2] For more on the role of the sponsor see: http://www.mosaicprojects.com.au/WhitePapers/WP1031_Project_Sponsorship.pdf

[3] The PRINCE2 methodology requires a small PCB for every project, the PCB exercises the power allocated to the ‘project manager’ under other frameworks such as the PMBOK® Guide with the project manager being responsible for implementing the PCB decisions.  However, in PRINCE2 environments, it is common to see a ‘steering committee’ sitting above the PCB – the questions asked in this article refer to these ‘steering committees’.

[4] For more on project surveillance see: http://www.mosaicprojects.com.au/WhitePapers/WP1080_Project_Reviews.pdf

[5] For more on the cost of committee meetings see: http://www.mosaicprojects.com.au/WhitePapers/WP1075_Meetings.pdf

[6] For more on the functions and issues with steering committees see: https://mosaicprojects.wordpress.com/2015/12/13/is-your-steering-committee-costing-5000-per-hour/

[7] A PCB Advisor is an independent delivery and governance expert who will ensure there are no surprises. This doesn’t mean that everything will go to plan (an impossible pipe dream), rather that all parties understand their responsibilities, have access to skills development and coaching, are aware of the risks they are managing and that discussions around the issues are never hidden. In the same way a company secretary connects the Governance Board to the CEO and Executive management team, it is logical on a project risky enough to require a PCB, to have a PCB Advisor providing a similar function connecting the PCB to the Project or Program Manager.

The post Make Your Steering Committee Effective appeared first on Project Accelerator News.