Nine Destructive Behaviours

Geoff Crane, in the time I've known him, has opened my eyes to the area of project leadership many ignore.  Geoff looks at things from a human perspective.  I know it sounds odd but many of us make objective, quantifiable calculations.  Geoff does as well but he doesn't ignore his gut feelings.  He writes about his knowledge and experiences on his blog Papercut Edge. Geoff recently wrote a series about destructive behaviors (behaviours for my colleagues in Canada) project leaders need to avoid; 9 of them in fact.  As I read each, I found myself nodding my head over and over again.  Yep, he nailed that one.  Yep, he nailed that one as well.

How did he do it!?  How did he describe situations that could have been taken from my biography?  Too bad I didn't have Geoff's book several years ago.  I could have avoided all 9 destructive behaviors.

1. The Sack
2. The Magpie
3. The Deer in Headlights
4. The Hungry Vulture
5. The Premature Solutioner
6. The Terrier
7. The Wanderer
8. The Anticipator
9. The Reluctant Puppet

When he decided to publish the series as an ebook, I was flattered that he asked me to write the forward.  Do yourself a favor.  Read his blog.  Read his ebook.  You'll be glad you did.

Forward from Nine Destructive Behaviors

To be successful as a project leader, you need to know destructive behaviour when you see it. And there is no better tool for this than Geoff's ebook! The Latin saying, ‘praemonitus, praemunitus,’ loosely translates as ‘forewarned is forearmed’. “9 Destructive Behaviours Project Leaders Need to Avoid” is an essential read for any individual wishing to be a successful project leader.

Get a free copy here!

Let's do what makes sense

I sat in a meeting Friday afternoon to meet the new guy over at the vendor's office and give my assessment to my client.  It never gets boring, listening to rhetoric from a vendor.  They usually speak to my client, not with my client.  A few months ago, after I asked the vendor a very specific question about the sloppiness of a metric, the vendor replied  Do you have a problem with that!? Well, actually, I think both of us (the vendor and I) have a problem.  We're both here to ensure this client gets quality work.  It doesn't matter if it's a software build, documentation, or even a graph is a slide deck.  The vendor lamented and the metric actually makes sense now. The new guy, though perhaps giving us lip service, actually established himself as a bridge builder and communicator.  He said he wanted to know our concerns so we'll all be in step.  He gave us his email address and mobile telephone number, telling us not be hesitate contacting him.  When we pressured him on a request we've been demanding from the previous leadership, he said they would figure out a way to get it done.  When asked of our first steps going forward, his response was...

Let's do what makes sense.

What a refreshing response. No "let me get back to you". No "let me check with my boss".  It was a direct answer.  It was ambiguous but I thought it was acceptable considering the situation.  Compared to hearing traditional responses like "Ya, we can do that" when asked to if the vendor could make a change or deliver something, this guy actually said Let's do it.  If we can be in agreement as to what makes sense, we're golden.

At the end of the day, I don't care what they can do.  I care what they will do.  Let's hope we're turning over a new leaf.

The Pepsi Challenge of Waterfall, Agile, or Kanban

I kind of enjoy it when people get all in a huff over which soda is the best.  It's bad enough they can't even decide what to call it. Is it soda, pop, or soda-pop?  I've even heard a few refer to any brown carbonated non-alcoholic beverages as a "Coke".  I don't get that at all.  I'm going to assume these people just don't care.  All they want is a brown carbonated non-alcoholic beverage that will satisfy their thirst.  As far as soda-pop, I am the complete extreme opposite.  I drink Coca-Cola.  I don't drink Coke; I don't drink Pepsi.  If I ask you for a Coca-Cola and you ask me if Pepsi is OK, I'm going to respond with a stern but polite "No".  But, at the end of the day, I am also just looking for something to satisfy my thirst.  But, I digress. Since the Pepsi Challenge in the mid-70's, there has been another battle raging.  Let's call it the Delivery Challenge.  Regardless of what facts may be reports, detailing which approach lowers risk the most, which approach delivers the most value up front, or which approach leaves the stakeholders feeling the most satisfied, we all have our favorite.  If delivery approaches were soda-pop (yes, soda-pop) in a blind taste test, chances are we'd stick with our favorite regardless of what we may have picked.

From my own perspective, I don't believe we should be so blind to these opportunities.  We should be open to the idea that formulas can be improved and we should be open to the idea that processes can as well.

When I'm dealing with the government client on a particular contract, I use Waterfall.  We're talking Waterfall the size of Niagara Falls.  It's not that I choose this approach (drink).  It's all that is currently offered. When I'm managing my own personal projects and deliverables, I use Agile and Kanban.  I'm not saying one is better than the other!  But, when the choice is mine, I know what I like from each.  I ala carte the way I do things, so (as the customer) I get the most value while not bastardizing the original processes.

I know there are those out there who are cursing me.  They are strict Coke, Pepsi, and Dr. Pepper zealots.  Think of me as that kid down at the local Kwik-E-Mart who takes his cup and adds a little of each soda-pop in his 64 ounce cup.  It may look nasty but it sure tastes good.

...and at the end of the day, isn't it important that I just satisfy my thirst?

Image source: USAGeorge

Measuring Success in NYC

When you have a project, you need to find out from the customer how they will judge the success of the project.  Don't go off giving the team high 5's and leave the customer scratching their head looking at the bill.  At the inception of the project and at the identification of each deliverable, get agreement from the customer as to success criteria. I just returned from a trip to New York.  Let's use that trip to illustrate my point.  My wife and I will represent the customers.  Both of us had a different measurement of success.

For my wife, the trip would be a success if we made it to the Gershwin on time to see Wicked.  For me, the trip would be a success if I got to have dinner at John's Pizzeria.

We identified contingency plans, so we could have different levels of success.  [1] Drive almost an hour and a half to Union Station in Washington DC.

Milestone 1 - Success

[2] Take the train to Penn Station in New York.

Milestone 2 - Success

[3] Get to the W Hotel in Time Square and check in.

Milestone 3 - Success

[4] Get to the Gershwin Theater

Milestone 4 - Success (Customer #1 is 100% satisfied)

The show was really good.  If you haven't seen it, I would recommend it.  It was odd seeing some people not dressed up.  Call me old fashioned but if you're going to the theater, it wouldn't hurt you to dress up.

[5] The next milestone was get to John's Pizzeria.  I just wanted a pie and a beer.

Milestone 5 - Success (Customer #2 is 100% satisfied)

After dinner, we returned to the hotel and then spent the evening in Time Square.  Last time we were in there, I proposed.  Not a coincidence, our hotel room was right over the spot where I popped the question. Since I take everything so seriously, we then went to a toy store, where I was promptly attacked by a Transformer.  Needless to say, that was not on my risk register.

Thank you to my wife for allowing me to check in via Foursquare and Gowalla.  I didn't do it a lot.

How was your weekend?

A Schedule More Complicated Than a Rube Goldberg

I just reviewed an Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) comprised of almost 5000 lines.  I didn't write the thing.  I was just asked to review it.  You might be saying to yourself that must be an absolutely awesome schedule, detailing every nuance of a project.  Counter to that, you might be saying to yourself that is the most overdeveloped schedule ever creating, complicating the most trivial of work. In the business of project management or leadership, you should always be asking yourself, "does this make sense?"  If it doesn't, you should be looking for the Goldilocks approach to documentation or process.  Do something that is not too complicated or simple.  Do something somewhere in the middle.

Don't make your schedule as complicated as a rube goldberg machine

As I read through the IMS, I started to think of a Rube Goldberg machine and the OK Go video titled This Too Shall Pass.  Rather than reading a very straightforward schedule, identifying all of the deliverables and a decomposition ad nauseam, I saw a schedule that both inveigled and obfuscated.  A Rube Goldberg machine is the perfect analogy for this schedule.

A Rube Goldberg machine is irreducibly complex. It is a single system which is composed of several interacting parts, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to break down. If one component is missing, the machine doesn't work; the whole system is useless.  This is NOT how an IMS should be written.  I see a schedule as a tool of transparency.  It is a way to communicate if a project is on time in a passive manner.  A fully resource loaded (properly decomposed) schedule can help you do a lot of other things.  But 5000 lines?  I don't think so, not in this case.

Image Source:  www.rubegoldberg.com

Agile is in the PMBOK so it must be true

Yesterday, I was having coffee with Jesse Fewell and we discussed, among other topics, how the PMP® or Certified ScrumMaster (CSM) credentials legitimize many in the eyes of stakeholders. This is a sore spot for many, particularly for me.  Experience and project leadership trumps a certification any day of the week.  But, for those of us who believe we know what we're talking about, a credential is sometimes a necessary evil.  As I advise a Federal PMO on a multi-year project, I have grown to accept that progress can be slow and expensive. Things can be so slow and expensive, we rarely get to see actual value delivered.  Rather, successes are measured with earned value. Sometimes, I think it's just the nature of the beast. But, it doesn't have to be that way.

You can only imagine my excitement when a vendor proposed using Agile to deliver the next (year) software increment. The PMO I advise has many PMPs but only one CSM...me.  I'm not going to go into the details of the project.  But, how could the opportunity be seized to leverage Agile?  Rather than answer that directly, I'll ask a question.  If you believe in the Agile Manifesto, how would you convince people with no experience with Agile or Scrum (but lots of experience with the PMBOK and Waterfall) that you know what you're talking about and that Agile is a viable option? I would propose that you make sure you can communicate with stakeholders in a language they understand. If you start using terms like Sprint, ScrumMaster, and Burndowns, when they understand contract periods of performance, project managers, and EVM reports, you may lose that essential stakeholder buy-in.

One of the first things I would recommend you say is "Agile is actually in the PMBOK". If your stakeholders are PMPs and they believe the dogma of the PMBOK, you'll have their attention. It's not called Agile but it is there. In Chapter 2 (Project Life Cycle and Organization) of the PMBOK, you'll read about Project Phases, specifically phase-to-phase relationships, and then even more specifically the iterative relationship.

...only one phase is planned at any given time and the planning for the next is carried out as work progresses on the current phase and deliverables.  This approach is useful in largely undefined, uncertain, or rapidly changing environments such as research , but it can reduce the ability to provide long term planning.  The scope is then managed by continuously delivering increments of the product and prioritizing requirements to minimize project risks and maximize product business value.  It also can entail having all of the project team members (e.g. designers, developers, etc.) available throughout the project or, at a minimum, for two consecutive phases.

For the Agile pundits out there, does that sound a little familiar?  For those who believe the gospel of the PMBOK, is it reasonable to believe Agile is an approach that can be considered?  Agile is not a bunch of voodoo for the wild and undisciplined.  It's an excellent opportunity to deliver value.

April PMP Certification Numbers Are In

Every month I get a copy of PMI Today and I annotate 3 data points: New PMP® for the month, new PMPs year-to-date (YTD), and total number of active PMPs. The trend continues, with the new number of PMPs in April totaling 4,718. Year-To-Date total is 19,596. There are a total of 381,111 active PMPs. The current trend predicts PMI will hit 400,000 active PMP credential holders this year.

Though I'm still worried we're rapidly reaching a tipping point, I want to congratulate those 4,718 out there who passed the exam.  It's no cakewalk and I recognize your efforts and achievement.

Of those 4,718, I've been in contact with several who passed the exam with the aid of my new product PMPrepFlashcards.com.  Yes, I know, gratuitous plug.

	December (2009)	January	February	March	April
New PMPs (Monthly)	5,403	3,714	3,713	5,344	4,718
New PMPs (YTD)		3,714	7,429	12,779	19,596
Total Active PMPs	361,238	367,619	371,014	375,959	381,111

Team Building Techniques - 5 Stages

Ladder

When I think of team building techniques, the one place I didn't think to look was the PMBOK®. In chapter 9, specifically 9.3.2, the PMBOK details Tools and Techniques of Developing Project Teams. For those out there studying for the PMP®, this might be a good time to write this down or print the blog post. The PMBOK lists 5 stages of development that teams may go through, usually occurring in order.  What PMBOK lists is relatively academic.  It won't actually help you with team building.

Those stages, with the exception of the last are based on the Tuckman ladder[1].  Forming – Storming – Norming – Performing. It's a model of group development, first proposed by Bruce Tuckman in 1965, who maintained that these phases are all necessary and inevitable in order for the team to grow, to face up to challenges, to tackle problems, to find solutions, to plan work, and to deliver results.

Why PMI found it necessary to add the last one, I can't tell you.  But, in the event you think it may appear on the PMP exam, here is what PMI thinks you should know.

Forming. This phase is where the team meets and learns about the project and what their formal roles and responsibilities are. Team members tend to be independent and not open in this phase.

Storming. During this phase, the team begins to address the project work, technical decisions, and the project management approach.  If team members are not collaborative and open to differing ideas and perspectives the environment can be destructive.

Norming. In the norming phase, team members begin to work together and adjust work habits and behaviors that support the team. The team begins to trust each other.

Performing. Teams that reach the performing stage function as a well-organized unit.  They are interdependent and work through issues smoothly and effectively.

Adjourning. In the adjourning phase, the team completes the work and moves on from the project.

The PMBOK concludes by saying a Project Manager should have a good understanding of team dynamics in order to move their team members through all stages in an effective manner.

Two stages I think they missed include  Empowering and Supporting.  If PMI can insert Adjourning into this list, with the sounds of One of these things is not like the others in my head, I think I can add my two stages.  Still, if you want to pass the PMP, perhaps you should just stick to their list.

[1] Tuckman, Bruce, 1965. Developmental Sequence in Small Groups. Psychological Bulletin No. 63. Bethesda, MD: Naval Medical Research Institute.

Image source: Orange Country Register