no set theme, by simon harris - ipma-usa · no set theme, by simon harris; page 3 ©2014 ®simon...

©2014 Simon Harris, PMP®, CGEIT, IPMA Level D® PRINCE2®, MoR®. Published at www.asapm.org, April, 2014

No Set Theme, by Simon Harris

Editor’s note: Simon is one of our favorite authors; he has shared his insights with asapm members and

friends for over five years. Last month, he asked what the theme would be for the next asapm newsletter. Be-

cause there are many exciting things going on, we replied, “There is no set theme for this issue.” Thus the title

above, and this article. The result: Simon inspires us with what really matters in projects. Thank you Simon!

When presented with opportunity to contribute to the asapm newsletter with "No Set Theme" I was left won-

dering 'so what to say!?' But with a little thought I found what I think are *the* most important thoughts to

share. They are covered as we go below!

Luxury

My musing was "Wow, a free hand! A rare luxury. I must use that for THE most important topic! I could ex-

pand on a piece of work I'm currently doing to create three 5 day training courses: one on Leading Complex

Projects, one on Recovering Troubled Projects and the last on Project Governance. But are they the most im-

portant topic?" Actually, No. The most important topic is the confluence of the three above. None of these

three is most important because they are about projects; projects are just a means to an end, the wrong topic.

The end is what is important: achieving some benefit as high up Maslow's hierarchy of needs as context de-

mands and allows. Benefit is like beauty, it is in the eye of the beholder, it's situational and it's personal, emo-

tional, visceral.

Maximum Aggregate Benefit = Approaching Incompetence

A most important thing about projects is that they should generate maximum concurrent aggregate benefit. It

is the pursuit of maximization - up to the edge of our capability that explains why we will always need insight

into how to rescue a troubled project; because whenever we get an easy one we optimise some dimension(s)

until the balance of factors is under stress.

When we attempt to achieve results at the boundary of stressed capability the stress arises because we chal-

lenge either our speed of response ability or our understanding of cause and effect. Both approach the begin-

nings of our inability to manage by prescription (otherwise known as pre planned actions). Beyond the realm

where predictable and unhurried response is sufficient we need to add reactive management to the armoury.

This is straying into what some wish to call complex projects and some call Agile.

No Such Thing As Agile or Complex (or Simple) Projects

In my humble opinion there is no such division as simple and complex projects nor is there such a topic as Ag-

ile with a capital “A”. All projects concurrently contain simple and complex elements and all business-like

pursuits are enhanced by agility. It is the failure to comprehend that simple and complex project elements need

profoundly different techniques for control that are the roots of much of the need to rescue troubled projects.

No Set Theme, by Simon Harris; page 2


Ignorance

It seems to me that neither those who claim to be ‘professional project managers’ nor those charged with gov-

ernance have much knowledge of how to select the correct control regime for the nature of the journey con-

fronting them. Existing frameworks have advocates who reject other frameworks based on labels (Agile,

PRINCE2®, ‘Traditional’ etc.) without comprehending that they are all needed concurrently and in total are

currently still insufficient.

If portfolio governance worked correctly, then a lot of causes of Complexity that take us to the edge of trouble

or beyond would be reduced, maybe even eliminated. Portfolio governance would know how to put project

staff on the spot to explain how they were going to succeed and would see/hear/understand a rational, cogent,

correct, reliable explanation. Instead we rarely get much cross-quizzing and when we do we all know the an-

swers are bull-sxxx—an irrational, but willing, suspension of dis-belief.

Good governance must do three things for us:

1) establish the decision making architecture (DMA)

2) match the level of stress and cost tolerated with the degree of benefit anticipated

3) approve baselines.

These three need explanation to make their completeness and meaningfulness clear. The DMA is the patterns

of communications needed to put decision making information into the head of those with a duty to make the

decisions and get the decisions about direction, next actions, technical options and variation to previous

agreements made. The patterns of communication cover three management levels:

a) direction that maintains constancy of capital expressed as both money and skilled people

b) management that maintains constancy of capability including when context changes and

c) technical staff who maintain constancy of operational service delivery or build future operational ca-

pability.

Wrong Mindset

Baselines are a combination of constraints, assumptions, decision making duties and information flows. Cur-

rently common definitions of baseline might be correct but they are not reliably delivering projects and bene-

fits – the approach we discuss here has more chance. Its adoption requires a mind-set change.

The failure of the mindset was (I think) the trigger for ‘Agile’ but agile is doomed because it comes from the

same mindset of “projects develop outputs” rather than “achieve business destination with value to those who

‘invest themselves’ in the journey and the end-point”.

Nonsense of #NoEstimates (etc.)

Inescapably business runs right to left; from goals and time-limits to today and budget constraints. It can’t op-

erate without estimates because without intention and confidence in success, capital goes elsewhere to places

where there are estimates and intentions even if they are unreliable. Tracking status depends on estimating and

re-estimating capability, estimating depends on quality planning (selection of functional, non-functional/

grade, and process standards).



Knowing ‘what done looks like’ is wholly and inescapably necessary and (hidden) within the descriptions in

standards and offerings such as the PMBoK® Guide. Agile may eschew demands to deliver within predefined

limits to agreed ad uncertain predictions but the need is an immutable truth of a more powerful force – control

of capital. Likewise it’s an absolute truth that business requires control of projects that may suit an ‘Agile’

“make-it-up-as-we-go” approach.

Neither Agile nor PMBoK Guide is THE answer, but even where contradictory, both contain insights of value

to us in the search for regimes that allow reliable, robust governance.

Oxymoron

Governance of projects is the oxymoron I started with above. The Governance is about the investment. It de-

cides between the competing demands on 'fungible’ capital (Human and Financial). Either more current prod-

uct within Business As Usual (BAU) or creation of new Intellectual Capital (process, plant, products, etc.) to

generate new or enhanced benefits streams. The correct operation of governance is at the portfolio level across

the whole lifespan of all concurrent investments. It balances the demands on capital to “Run the Business”

versus demands on capital to “Change the Business” (CtB).

When we are in CtB territory governance must judge over time each investment’s relative current (varying but

hopefully growing) maturity and probable contribution. There is a life-cycle view and a hierarchical view. I’ll

illustrate the life-cycle shortly, above is the hierarchical view.



Governance Must Use The Right Life-Cycle*S* (plural)

The ‘what to sanction?’ debate that portfolio governance has the duty to oversee should evaluate current use of

resources and future consequences of possible actions and inaction across the whole portfolio. The choices

will sometimes be those that maintain the status quo. When the choices are those that bring change to current

business rules then governance must understand what the right control regime looks like.

There are three life-cycles in play. The product development one, the project control one and the governance

of investment one. I have two graphics that I use together as a Job-Aid to visualize the mapping between the

combined clarity of customer’s vision and team’s capability mapped to the relevant product development life-

cycle. The first is one I’ve appropriated and adapted from Eddie Obeng’s All Change! The Project Leader's

Secret Handbook (Two excellent books in one pair of covers! ISBN: 978-0273622215 and lots of used copies

on Amazon!!).



© Logical Model Ltd. 0845.2.57.57.07; Leading Complex Projects

Licensed for individual use without fee. A commercial license (available through [email protected]) removes this note:

Please report unlicensed commercial use, and share in fees levied

One axis on the chart above models the Customer’s clarity (and stability) of goal. The other matches the

team’s experience with the products to be developed. Team experience ranges from high (“this project is a

‘Runner’ “) to “no one has done this before” (an ‘Alien’). The combination of the two axes suggests the de-

velopment life-cycle choice.

Choice of product development life-cycle does not change the project management life-cycle. Both

PRINCE2® and PMBoK-Guide® describe the same structure, albeit with different vocabulary and from dif-

ferent perspectives. The product lifecycle always has to be Requirements, Construction, Delivery; the choice

is between doing each step once to 100% of the scope or each step many times to a subset of the scope.

The product development lifecycle can be different for each work-package / sub-project/ product being pro-

duced. Whatever the choice, the Initiate/Plan/Execute & Monitor & Control/ Close process groups of PMBoK

Guide apply and repeat (I could rename them with P2 labels as the graphic below does). Also note that the

governance cycle (largely ignored by PMBoK Guide, but labeled DP1, DP2, DP3,DP3, DP3,…, DP5 (sic) in

PRINCE2 applies once across the investment cycle.



A mature 'projects' capability gives all the participants a complete perspective on the whole hierarchy of con-

trol structures and decision making for the full duration of an investment. First step: Investment Appraisal;

then Capability Development; and then Benefits Harvesting. None of Agile, P2 or PMBoK-G explain the re-

quired support. I have some further illustrations but maybe they are best saved for another discussion.

A “successful investment” perspective starts by developing an agreed vision of the future world. Then consid-

ers the challenges required to get there. If the challenges can be met with known techniques to achieve a clear

goal then a ‘predictive’, ‘schedule-your-actions before you take them’ approach is cheapest, safest, quickest

and capable. The top structure in the lif-cycles graphic above. Where goals are unclear in terms of either

‘What’ or ‘How’ (or Both!) then reactive management inspired by Complex Adaptive Systems thinking is the

most capable approach. The bottom structure in the graphic above.

Agile, Chaotic, Common-Sense

You can call it “A”gile or “Chaotic” or my preferred label is Common-Sense. The regime, in jargon terms,

combines ‘attractors and agents’ and watches for ‘self-organisation’ and ‘emergence’. Through monitoring it

accentuates the positive and eliminates the negative (that was my father’s most repeated piece of advice to

me).



In simple terms the recipe for success is:

i. State the end-point with as much clarity as exists; if it is unknown then state the trigger for action.

ii. Consider (& engage) whoever is best suited and available to achieve the end-point; or alternatively,

those who happen to be available.

iii. Identify the rewards that are attractive to those engaged, align them with the goal from i) above.

iv. Irresistibly trigger action: The ‘burning platform’. A local disaster is the strongest trigger. Then get out

of the way, but monitor and wait for emergence. Don’t be impatient, don’t intervene too quickly; but

do discourage negative resultant behaviours before they become engrained.

v. As acceptable ideas about end-point and the route to it emerge from the near Chaotic (Agile) ‘creative

soup’ translate them to agreed prescriptions (Schedules and budgets – Gantt charts if you like them).

Plan at the 5 day-15 day or 30 day and 90 day or 300 day levels if you wish.

Combining reactive and prescriptive control regimes handles progress towards goals whatever the level of

clarity and stability of goal is. What we have is a “common-sense’ mix of PRINCE2, PMBoK Guide, Agile (in

all its flavours) and a dash of any of Lean, Six-Sigma or any framework label you wish to add when you un-

derstand how to extract value from them.

So that most important topic includes the maturity to exploit any and all sources of ideas concurrently. The

immature approach is the xenophobic one that labels ideas in order to have a shorthand way of dismissing and

or vilifying them – often without understanding of their strengths and weaknesses.

It is situational understanding of how to harness the strengths of each approach and avoid or compensate for

the weaknesses that is where the PM community should be headed. My free hand leads me to conclude that we

must be open and inclusive to ideas from all quarters so that we can maximise delivered benefits at the thresh-

old of competence. That requires self-knowing; what is our current and future capability?

Most Important Topic

With a free hand my conclusion is that the most important topic is knowing how to calibrate our current ma-

turity of ‘ability to realise benefits’, knowing how to target a future maturity and knowing the transition steps

between them.

To calibrate maturity, then focus on benefits delivery. Some illustrative questions might be…

Qn:1 How would you characterise the organisation's ability to imagine the future and share with everyone?

Qn:2 What is your ability to translate an imagined future into actions to deliver capability and construct

controls matched to the organisation's challenge and tolerance of uncertainty?

Qn:3 How readily can you transition from an existing optimised operational state to new behaviours?

Qn:4 etc.

Some guidance notes are required to expand upon these questions; for example…

Qn1-a Imagined futures must be described in terms that are concrete for each participant to comprehend in

visceral terms what the positive and negative effects will be for them personally.



Qn1-b The concrete future is described in terms of the business’ customers and products (services) that will

be delivered to the project’s customers. Descriptions of product (service) quality (grade) and value

(financial and social-return) are verifiable expressions of function & non-functional attributes. De-

velopment processes, and their inputs and suppliers must also be expressed in verifiable terms.

Qn1-c The journey from the future to today (sic) is expressed in steps such that participants can grasp their

involvement in, and see as attractive, and feel attracted to.

Qn1-d etc.

Some Key Points

There are a few ‘most important’ points above, that we recap to close. 1) A key to successful projects (sic) is “knowing what done looks like” and another is …

2) Picking the right life-cycles for project (sic) control & for product development; and

3) The current PM state of the art embodies the wrong mindset for reliable success. I call the right set ‘New

Generation Thinking.’

Never lose sight of the fact that projects deliver to people; that appreciation of something as a benefit is specif-

ic to the person and the current context. And, that it is people—not processes—that deliver the projects. How-

ever the key points do unlock a path to the most important thing: benefits.

About Our Author

Statements made in this article are the opinion of the au-

thor.

Simon Harris, PMP, CGEIT, IPMA-D, PRINCE2, MoR

speaks, consults, mentors and trains on governance of

change.

Simon helps client’s investment journey from Boardroom

to boiler-room and from “light-bulb” to benefits harvest-

ing by showing where Dimension Four®, PRINCE2®, and

PMBoK Guide help direct, manage, and develop. We call

it New Generation Thinking. Follow Simon’s thoughts

@pm_ngt and #pm_ngt.

He can be contacted at [email protected] and

+44 77 68 215 335. Website: www.LogicalModel.Net.

All trademarks are the property of their registered owners in the United Kingdom, the USA and other countries.

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.logicalmodel.net/

no set theme, by simon harris - ipma-usa · no set theme, by simon harris; page 3 ©2014 ®simon...

Documents