Posts
On most engineering and construction sites worldwide, projects that look promising at the start can suffer delays, causing missed output projection as well as increased costs. Of course the natural reaction in this case would be for everyone to use "bad planning" as a convenient excuse.
If bad planning is responsible for failure, it stands to reason that "good planning" should be the savior. And by "good planning," conventional wisdom means "more planning": more pages of tasks, more lines of specifications, and many, many more details.
Following 27 years of assisting on numerous globally intricate construction plans, acting in the capacity of process consultant or operations analyst, for example: airplanes, automobiles and off-shore drilling tasks; I most certainly know how to define good planning from what it is perceived to be; mostly it is the root problem and not the proper solution.
In depth details often is the real issue.
What goes wrong? Most planning is based on an earned value systems model of work breakdown structures that make it relatively easy to assess cumulative costs. But the granular level of detail that's good for accounting is not so good for project managers. By nature, work breakdown structures are linear, hierarchical - they do not reveal (or account for) the dependencies or "hand-offs" among plan elements, the things that must be done before subsequent steps can be fulfilled. While "good" planning does define the work, it doesn't define the relationships or - just as perniciously - it attempts to define all of them.
But project managers in truth have to actually manage relationships. Excessive details can create a problematic situation which inhibits corrective procedures by obscuring its relevance. Rigid plans make it difficult for project managers as well as their teams to make off the cuff decisions, which are required to successfully implement the action plan.
Advisably no project can commence without planning; I most certainly am not implying that detailed planning is not needed. But I do believe a proportionate level of detailing must be set: in accordance to each organization. Simple instructions and checklists are in fact all that one really requires. With flexible plans, teams can anticipate problems and change to obtain results; over planning stifles managers' abilities to effectively execute tasks. Often these strict plans prevent managers from seeing the finish line. These problems then cause numerous delays. The correct course of effective action becomes obscured. Deadlines then are missed, and subsequently managers end up in lengthy meetings where they end up trying to justify their decisions. This is when the plans that are thought to be "good" are in fact found as totally "unmanageable".
Forget "plans" rather focus on "actions".
In reality, project problems are not a possibility, but an inevitability. Things go wrong, and the more "things" there are in a plan, the greater the likelihood that small failures will lead to larger ones. That's why more planning, in itself, can never lead to timely and efficient project completion. Burdened with details, large plans become boa constrictors that squeeze the air out of any given process, suffocating hopes for success.
Therefore in order to be successful, more planning is not required but rather a shift of focus to the anticipation of problems as well as the flexibility to address them when they do arise. Consider football: where a play by play situation is needed in order to give the coach carte blanche on decision making in order to secure a win. By giving leeway in a plan the coach is able to make decisions according to the situation he is faced with at that specific point in the game.
To execute plays in a smart manner, the coach will require:
1. A clear view of the situation: What is core to the status of the project? Good coaches/managers make the work and the obstacles to progress visible. When the project flow is clear to the team, they are able to direct resource time and effort to that smaller subset of activities that make a meaningful contribution to the project goal.
2. Common goals: There is no room for players trying to pad their "stats" when you're trying to win the game. Success means perfect alignment among all team members. In a project, there is no such thing as a "balanced" scorecard. Replacing tactical metrics (productivity by discrete tasks) with one metric concentrated on the overall output aligns everyone's work with the ultimate project objective.
3. Collaboration: General action has to be a unified strategy where all members are in agreement with their specific role. Individuals have to cooperate so as to pursue common goals; achievable through clear communication as to how far the project is and what actions are still required so as to keep the project moving forward.
Planning for go-ahead action
Planning will not, and should not, go away. But good planning doesn't mean more planning. More planning defeats its purpose by burying the project team in detail it cannot manage. If we are to replace frustration with success, then smart project plans must fit the size of the team that drives the execution of the plan and manages the uncertainties of execution. Planning is not an objective in its own right, the plan's sole purpose is to enable and guide execution. Better planning anticipates problems and gives project managers the tools they need to take corrective actions as they are needed. By substituting dynamic execution for static adherence to overly detailed plans, project managers acquire the power to make workflows work.
If bad planning is responsible for failure, it stands to reason that "good planning" should be the savior. And by "good planning," conventional wisdom means "more planning": more pages of tasks, more lines of specifications, and many, many more details.
Following 27 years of assisting on numerous globally intricate construction plans, acting in the capacity of process consultant or operations analyst, for example: airplanes, automobiles and off-shore drilling tasks; I most certainly know how to define good planning from what it is perceived to be; mostly it is the root problem and not the proper solution.
In depth details often is the real issue.
What goes wrong? Most planning is based on an earned value systems model of work breakdown structures that make it relatively easy to assess cumulative costs. But the granular level of detail that's good for accounting is not so good for project managers. By nature, work breakdown structures are linear, hierarchical - they do not reveal (or account for) the dependencies or "hand-offs" among plan elements, the things that must be done before subsequent steps can be fulfilled. While "good" planning does define the work, it doesn't define the relationships or - just as perniciously - it attempts to define all of them.
But project managers in truth have to actually manage relationships. Excessive details can create a problematic situation which inhibits corrective procedures by obscuring its relevance. Rigid plans make it difficult for project managers as well as their teams to make off the cuff decisions, which are required to successfully implement the action plan.
Advisably no project can commence without planning; I most certainly am not implying that detailed planning is not needed. But I do believe a proportionate level of detailing must be set: in accordance to each organization. Simple instructions and checklists are in fact all that one really requires. With flexible plans, teams can anticipate problems and change to obtain results; over planning stifles managers' abilities to effectively execute tasks. Often these strict plans prevent managers from seeing the finish line. These problems then cause numerous delays. The correct course of effective action becomes obscured. Deadlines then are missed, and subsequently managers end up in lengthy meetings where they end up trying to justify their decisions. This is when the plans that are thought to be "good" are in fact found as totally "unmanageable".
Forget "plans" rather focus on "actions".
In reality, project problems are not a possibility, but an inevitability. Things go wrong, and the more "things" there are in a plan, the greater the likelihood that small failures will lead to larger ones. That's why more planning, in itself, can never lead to timely and efficient project completion. Burdened with details, large plans become boa constrictors that squeeze the air out of any given process, suffocating hopes for success.
Therefore in order to be successful, more planning is not required but rather a shift of focus to the anticipation of problems as well as the flexibility to address them when they do arise. Consider football: where a play by play situation is needed in order to give the coach carte blanche on decision making in order to secure a win. By giving leeway in a plan the coach is able to make decisions according to the situation he is faced with at that specific point in the game.
To execute plays in a smart manner, the coach will require:
1. A clear view of the situation: What is core to the status of the project? Good coaches/managers make the work and the obstacles to progress visible. When the project flow is clear to the team, they are able to direct resource time and effort to that smaller subset of activities that make a meaningful contribution to the project goal.
2. Common goals: There is no room for players trying to pad their "stats" when you're trying to win the game. Success means perfect alignment among all team members. In a project, there is no such thing as a "balanced" scorecard. Replacing tactical metrics (productivity by discrete tasks) with one metric concentrated on the overall output aligns everyone's work with the ultimate project objective.
3. Collaboration: General action has to be a unified strategy where all members are in agreement with their specific role. Individuals have to cooperate so as to pursue common goals; achievable through clear communication as to how far the project is and what actions are still required so as to keep the project moving forward.
Planning for go-ahead action
Planning will not, and should not, go away. But good planning doesn't mean more planning. More planning defeats its purpose by burying the project team in detail it cannot manage. If we are to replace frustration with success, then smart project plans must fit the size of the team that drives the execution of the plan and manages the uncertainties of execution. Planning is not an objective in its own right, the plan's sole purpose is to enable and guide execution. Better planning anticipates problems and gives project managers the tools they need to take corrective actions as they are needed. By substituting dynamic execution for static adherence to overly detailed plans, project managers acquire the power to make workflows work.
About the Author:
To learn more about visual project management click the info link for details. You also will find helpful resources on project management methodology when you see http://www.pinnacle-strategies.com today.
No comments:
Post a Comment