In engineering offices and construction trailers all over the world, promising projects suffer delays, cost overruns and missed output projections. In response, the collective finger of blame points to everyone's favorite excuse: "bad planning."
If poor planning is in fact responsible for the failure; similarly "good planning" should come to the rescue. By "Good planning" it means "additional planning"; which translates into further lists of tasks, clearer specifications and a large amount of extra detailing.
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.
Fine tuning details are the real dilemma.
What goes askew? Most scheduling schemes work according to a method of earned significance whereby effort is separated into a structure that easily assesses the collective costs. But on paper figures often look perfect until it comes to trying to implement them. Naturally, most of these work schemes are linear and somewhat hierarchical in nature- they forget to allow "hand-offs" that is part and parcel of completing any such job. While "model" planning defines the tasks, it unfortunately does not identify working interaction, although it attempts to define all of them.
But relationships are precisely what a project manager manages. Excessive detail creates a needle-in-the-haystack situation that inhibits corrective action by obscuring the truly relevant. The more details in the plan, the more difficult it is for people on the ground - project managers and their teams - to make the on-the-fly adjustments that are absolutely necessary for successful implementations.
Just as no one would advise commencing a project without planning, I am not advocating planning without details. But I do believe in setting the right level of detail: only as much as an organization can manage. Much of the project detail should be defined in simple checklists and work instructions - and not much more. When the level of plan detail is appropriate, project teams can anticipate the consequences of any change in a given line item; when projects are over-planned, consequences are impossible to forecast and managers become incapable of responding effectively. They become (to borrow a metaphor) lost in the forest, incapable of finding the right trees. As problems arise, the project becomes susceptible to delays. The project team can't see the right course of action. Deadlines are missed, and to compensate, project meetings become long, tedious affairs in which managers defend past actions to deflect blame. The planning everyone once praised as "thorough" is now exposed as "unmanageable".
Forget "planning" focus should shift onto "actions".
Problems are not only a possibility, but in truth inevitable. Things will go wrong, and strict plans almost always turn small shortcomings into much larger ones. Subsequently, more planning, can, in itself, never add to completed projects. Heavy laden with details, large tactics become like boa constrictors squeezing the life out of any process, ultimately suffocating its chances of success.
Therefore for success, adding more plans is mute and focus should rather be shifted to anticipating potential problems and having a flexible plan that can address them. Consider football: each play has to be assessed and adjusted accordingly; the coach can only do this if the plan allows him to be able to adjust it so as to win the game. This leeway enables a coach to make split second decisions in accordance to the situation he is facing.
In order to execute intelligently, the coach needs:
1. A clear observation of the circumstances: What is center to the condition of any project? Good managers/ coaches make the job and potential obstacles to advancement visible. When the team can see a clear path, it enables them to effectively implement time, effort and resources into smaller tasks which can be competently handled and contribute to reaching the desired goal.
2. Common goals: Every player concerned needs to focus on being a team player and cannot try to advance their own "stats". Success equals faultless placement of each team member. In projects, "balanced" scorecards are not possible. Replacing calculated metrics (efficiency by separate jobs) with a lone metric which is concentrated on productivity that aligns all the work done by the team, with the objectives of the project.
3. Collaboration: The team has to agree on general action strategies and what their role is. Instead of individuals pursuing their own agendas, the team must cooperate towards a common goal through crystal clear communication of the status of the project and what steps must still be taken to move forward in the project.
Planning for dynamic action
Planning should be continuous. But more planning doesn't necessarily mean it is good planning. Over the top planning ends up burying a team in unmanageable details. If frustration is to be replaced with success, then smart job plans have to fit the team size that drive the carrying out of the tasks and manages the grey areas. Planning should simply serve as a guide on how execute the work and not be an objective as such. Better planning can anticipate problems and give project managers tools that they may need to set corrective procedures in place. By substituting active execution for inert adherence to exceedingly detailed plans, visual project management enables one to obtain control and make work flow smoothly.
If poor planning is in fact responsible for the failure; similarly "good planning" should come to the rescue. By "Good planning" it means "additional planning"; which translates into further lists of tasks, clearer specifications and a large amount of extra detailing.
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.
Fine tuning details are the real dilemma.
What goes askew? Most scheduling schemes work according to a method of earned significance whereby effort is separated into a structure that easily assesses the collective costs. But on paper figures often look perfect until it comes to trying to implement them. Naturally, most of these work schemes are linear and somewhat hierarchical in nature- they forget to allow "hand-offs" that is part and parcel of completing any such job. While "model" planning defines the tasks, it unfortunately does not identify working interaction, although it attempts to define all of them.
But relationships are precisely what a project manager manages. Excessive detail creates a needle-in-the-haystack situation that inhibits corrective action by obscuring the truly relevant. The more details in the plan, the more difficult it is for people on the ground - project managers and their teams - to make the on-the-fly adjustments that are absolutely necessary for successful implementations.
Just as no one would advise commencing a project without planning, I am not advocating planning without details. But I do believe in setting the right level of detail: only as much as an organization can manage. Much of the project detail should be defined in simple checklists and work instructions - and not much more. When the level of plan detail is appropriate, project teams can anticipate the consequences of any change in a given line item; when projects are over-planned, consequences are impossible to forecast and managers become incapable of responding effectively. They become (to borrow a metaphor) lost in the forest, incapable of finding the right trees. As problems arise, the project becomes susceptible to delays. The project team can't see the right course of action. Deadlines are missed, and to compensate, project meetings become long, tedious affairs in which managers defend past actions to deflect blame. The planning everyone once praised as "thorough" is now exposed as "unmanageable".
Forget "planning" focus should shift onto "actions".
Problems are not only a possibility, but in truth inevitable. Things will go wrong, and strict plans almost always turn small shortcomings into much larger ones. Subsequently, more planning, can, in itself, never add to completed projects. Heavy laden with details, large tactics become like boa constrictors squeezing the life out of any process, ultimately suffocating its chances of success.
Therefore for success, adding more plans is mute and focus should rather be shifted to anticipating potential problems and having a flexible plan that can address them. Consider football: each play has to be assessed and adjusted accordingly; the coach can only do this if the plan allows him to be able to adjust it so as to win the game. This leeway enables a coach to make split second decisions in accordance to the situation he is facing.
In order to execute intelligently, the coach needs:
1. A clear observation of the circumstances: What is center to the condition of any project? Good managers/ coaches make the job and potential obstacles to advancement visible. When the team can see a clear path, it enables them to effectively implement time, effort and resources into smaller tasks which can be competently handled and contribute to reaching the desired goal.
2. Common goals: Every player concerned needs to focus on being a team player and cannot try to advance their own "stats". Success equals faultless placement of each team member. In projects, "balanced" scorecards are not possible. Replacing calculated metrics (efficiency by separate jobs) with a lone metric which is concentrated on productivity that aligns all the work done by the team, with the objectives of the project.
3. Collaboration: The team has to agree on general action strategies and what their role is. Instead of individuals pursuing their own agendas, the team must cooperate towards a common goal through crystal clear communication of the status of the project and what steps must still be taken to move forward in the project.
Planning for dynamic action
Planning should be continuous. But more planning doesn't necessarily mean it is good planning. Over the top planning ends up burying a team in unmanageable details. If frustration is to be replaced with success, then smart job plans have to fit the team size that drive the carrying out of the tasks and manages the grey areas. Planning should simply serve as a guide on how execute the work and not be an objective as such. Better planning can anticipate problems and give project managers tools that they may need to set corrective procedures in place. By substituting active execution for inert adherence to exceedingly detailed plans, visual project management enables one to obtain control and make work flow smoothly.
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