Monday, 26 October 2009 00:00

Keep Failed Projects Running

Rate this item

(0 votes)

Stop Sign

Red project recovery is a four-step process. One must, however, determine a short-term plan for the project. It takes time to get to a resolution and it is nonsensical to continue spending money at the current rate. Other than doing nothing, there are two remaining options:

Stop the project.
Slow the bleeding.

The preference is the latter.

Why?

There are three primary reasons the project should continue:

Properly diagnosing a system requires that it is running. Stopping the project stops the errant behavior. It is very difficult finding problems and their root cause when they are not occurring. As with a car, the engine ceases to make that odd noise when the engine is stopped.
Waiting until after the acceptance of the full recovery plan to implement all the changes increases the risk because there are a larger number of changes to implement at one time. Remedial changes can take place while still auditing and analyzing. To continue the automotive analogy, change clogged air and fuel filters. This incurs minimal cost and effort, while few, if any, people will object.
Implementing remedial fixes exercises the system in a new way. Applying new and tightening old processes will uncover other issues to address and often point to some of the problems' root causes. Replacing a dirty fuel filter may solve the problem, have no effect or point to old parts in the car that easily break.

After completion of the audit, revisit this decision to ensure that the degree of the problems on the project is of the magnitude originally anticipated. If they are worse, it is possible that stopping the project, or even canceling it, is a better option.

Keeping the project running underscores that the first three steps of the recovery (audit, analysis and negotiation) do not necessarily occur sequentially, they may be concomitant. Put simple processes and policies in place during the analysis. Some of the obvious ones are:

Improved team communication.
Limit or eliminate overtime.
Better change management processes.
Improved risk management.

The first of these, improving communications, inadvertently starts with the audit. The unintended improvement is a result of interviewing everyone associated with the project. The downward flow of information is that management is taking this situation seriously. The big positive, however, is listening to the team and valuing their input. The value of this is immeasurable.

To reduce the impact of the analysis time, avoid assigning "gates" to these steps. Gates (requiring one step to complete prior to starting the next) will inhibit the recovery and exacerbate the financial problems. This adds unnecessary overhead to the recovery and could jeopardize its success.

Read 8353 times

Tagged under

Related items

Filling Execution Gaps: How Executives and Project Managers Turn Corporate Strategy into Successful Projects

What Filling Execution Gaps Covers

Filling Execution Gaps

by Todd C. Williams
ISBN: 978-1-5015-0640-6
De G Press (DeGruyter), September 2017

Project alignment, executive sponsorship, change management, governance, leadership, and common understanding. These six business issues are topics of daily discussions between executives, middle management, and project managers; they are the pivotal problems plaguing transformational leadership. Any one of these six, when improperly addressed, will hex a project's chances for success. And, they do—daily—destroying the ability companies to turn vision into value.

Check it out on Amazon or the Filling Execution Gaps website

Without the foundation of a common understanding of goals and core concepts, such as value being critical to success, communication stops and projects fail.

Without change management, users fail to adopt project deliverables, value is lost, and projects fail.

Without maintaining alignment between corporate goals and projects, projects miss their value targets and projects fail.

Without an engaged executive sponsor, scope increases, goals drift, chaos reigns, value is lost, and projects fail.

Without enough governance, critical connections are not made, steps are ignored, value is overlooked, and projects fail.

Too much governance slows progress, companies cannot respond to business pressures, value drowns in bureaucracy, and projects fail.

Without strong leadership defining the vision and value, goals are not set, essential relationships do not form, teams do not develop, essential decisions are not made, and projects fail.
Success vs Culture
The other day a Latvian student contacted me for my views the connection between culture and success criteria—an important and intriguing topic. After working in Taiwan, Singapore, Korea, Japan, Israel, United States, and Canada, I wear many scars of both blatant and subtle cultural violations. I also know that within a culture one person's success is often another person's failure. So, after dispelling concerns about clicking on some random email link, I completed her survey (please feel free to take it yourself). In the process, I struck up a friendship with the student, Kristine Briežkalne, who is studying at Riga International School of Economics and Business Administration . She has some interesting views and presented me with a Venn diagram showing four frames to a project (business, client, project management, and growth perspectives) and how they intersected. As the diagram is part of her Master's thesis, I will let you ponder the how to label the overlapping areas (an eye-opening exercise).
Kill The White Knight
There is a reason we hesitate to teach classes on fixing failing projects. Many a cynic feels that we simply do not want to teach our trade, however, our reason is far nobler—we should be teaching prevention rather trying to create white knights to save the day. It is the same philosophy as building a fence at the cliff's edge rather than an emergency room at its base. Our language is replete with idioms telling us to look past the symptoms and address problems at their root cause. 'An ounce of prevention versus a pound of cure' or 'a stitch in time saves nine.' Please, feel free to supply your own in the comments. Unfortunately, most of our businesses loathe this philosophy, waiting to address an issue until it is irrefutably broken.
Tales of an Expert Witness: Sex, Lies, and Video Tape (Part II)
Trust relationships, certifications, and standards sound like such a safe harbor. These sound like such great words in a proposal or statement of work. How could you possibly go wrong building a trusted relationship with a customer by committing to follow a standard? In fact, this can burn you… in court.

No one ever starts a project with the goal of ending up in court. In fact, litigation may never cross your mind; after all, you have built a trusted partner relationship. Taking a few cautionary steps, however, will make your life easier if you end up in that ill-fated litigious position. Your best chances for success come long before you enter the courtroom—even before the project starts.
The Executive-Project Manager Gap
It was such an innocuous question, "Working on an article; what is the biggest problem you see with project governance at orgs? Can you comment?" Can I comment? Really? That is like cheese to a mouse. Where could I start—bureaucracy, draconian process, poor executive sponsorship, disengaged leaders? Plenty of fodder, because they all lead to project failure. I fired off, "Creating an over bureaucratic morass stifling innovation & implementing process instead of cultivating leaders." Then the maelstrom started and it went directly to the gap between the executives and projects managers. Naomi Caietti, Robert Kelly and I had a great conversation. Most of the thread is below.