Data Management: Data Governance (Part II: Heroes Die Young)

Data Management Series

In the call for action there are tendencies in some organizations to idealize and overcharge main actors' purpose and image when talking about data governance by calling them heroes. Heroes are those people who fight for a goal they believe in with all their being and occasionally they pay the supreme tribute. Of course, the image of heroes is idealized and many other aspects are ignored, though such images sell ideas and ideals. 

Organizations might need heroes and heroic deeds to change the status quo, but the heroism doesn't necessarily payoff for the "heroes"! Sometimes, organizations need a considerable effort to change the status quo. It can be people's resistance to new, to the demands, to the ideas propagated, especially when they are not clearly explained and executed. It can be the incommensurable distance between the "AS IS" and the "TO BE" images, especially when clear paths aren't in sight. It can be the lack of resources (e.g., time, money, people, tools), knowledge, understanding or skillset that makes the effort difficult. 

Unfortunately, such initiatives favor action over adequate strategies, planning and understanding of the overall context. The call do to something creates waves of actions and reactions which in the organizational context can lead to storms and even extreme behavior that ranges from resistance to the new to heroic deeds. Finding a few messages that support the call for action can help, though they can't replace the various critical for success factors.

Leading organizations on a new path requires a well-defined realistic strategy, respectively adequate tactical and operational planning that reflects organizations' specific needs, knowledge and capabilities. Just demanding from people to do their best is not enough, and heroism has chances to appear especially in this context. Unfortunately, the whole weight falls on the shoulders of the people chosen as actors in the fight. Ideally, it should be possible to spread the whole weight on a broader basis which should be considered the foundation for the new. 

The "heroes" metaphor is idealized and the negative outcome probably exaggerated, though extreme situations do occur in organizations when decisions, planning, execution and expectations are far from ideal. Ideal situations are met only in books and less in practice!

The management demands and the people execute, much like in the army, though by contrast people need to understand the reasoning behind what they are doing. Proper execution requires skillset, understanding, training, support, tools and the right resources for the right job. Just relying on people's professionalism and effort is not enough and is suboptimal, but this is what many organizations seem to do!

Organizations tend to respond to the various barriers or challenges with more resources or pressure instead of analyzing and depicting the situation adequately, and eventually change the strategy, tactics or operations accordingly. It's also difficult to do this as long an organization doesn't have the capabilities and practices of self-check, self-introspection, self-reflection, etc. Even if it sounds a bit exaggerated, an organization must know itself to overcome the various challenges. Regular meetings, KPIs and other metrics give the illusion of control when self-control is needed. 

Things don't have to be that complex even if managing data governance is a complex endeavor. Small or midsized organizations are in theory more capable to handle complexity because they can be more agile, have a robust structure and the flow of information and knowledge has less barriers, respectively a shorter distance to overcome, at least in theory. One can probably appeal to the laws and characteristics of networks to understand more about the deeper implications, of how solutions can be implemented in more complex setups.

Previous Post <<||>> Next Post

Business Intelligence: Monolithic vs. Distributed Architecture (Part III: Architectural Applications)

 

Business Intelligence Series

Now considering the 500 houses and the skyscraper model introduced in thee previous post, which do you think will be built first? A skyscraper takes 2-10 years to build, depending on the city in which is built and the architecture characteristics. A house may take 6-12 months depending on similar factors. But one needs to build 500 houses. For sure the process can be optimized when the houses look the same, though there are many constraints one needs to consider - the number of workers, tools, and the construction material available at a given time, the volume of planning, etc. 

Within a rough estimate, it can take 2-5 years for each architecture to be built considering that on the average the advantages and disadvantages from the various areas can balance each other out. Historical data are in general needed for estimating the actual development time. One can start with a rough estimate and reevaluate the estimates up and down as more information are gathered. This usually happens in Software Engineering as well. 

Monolith vs. Distributed Architecture - 500 families

There are multiple ways in which the work can be assigned to the contractors. When the houses are split between domains, each domain can have its own contractor(s) or the contractors can be specialized by knowledge areas, or a combination of the two. Contractors’ performance should be the same, though in practice no two contractors are the same. Conversely, the chances are higher for some contractors to deliver at the expected quality. It would be useful to have worked before with the contractors and have a partnership that spans years back. There are risks on both sides, even if the risks might favor one architecture over the other, and this depends also on the quality of the contractors, designs, and planning. 

The planning must be good if not perfect to assure smooth development and each day can cost money when contractors are involved. The first planning must be done for the whole project and then split individually for each contractor and/or group of buildings. A back-and-forth check between the various plans is needed. Managing by exception can work, though it can also go terribly wrong. 

Lot of communication must occur between domains to make sure that everything fits together. Especially at the beginning, all the parties must plan together, must make sure that the rules of the games (best practices, policies, procedures, processes, methodologies) are agreed upon. Oversight (governance) needs to happen at a small scale as well on aggregate to makes sure that the rules of the game are followed. 

Now, which of the architectures do you think will fit a data warehouse (DWH)? Probably multiple voices will opt for the skyscraper, at least this is how a DWH looks from the outside. However, when one evaluates the architecture behind it, it can resemble a residential complex in which parts are bound together, but there are parts that can be distributed if needed. For example, in a DWH the HR department has its own area that's isolated from the other areas as it has higher security demands. There can be 2-3 other areas that don't share objects, and they can be distributed as well. The reasons why all infrastructure is on one machine are the costs associated with the licenses, respectively the reporting tools point to only one address. 

In data marts based DWHs, there are multiple buildings within the architecture, and thus the data marts can be distributed across a wider infrastructure, with each domain responsible for its own data mart(s). The data marts are by definition domain-dependent, and this is one of the downsides imputed to this architecture. 

Previous Post <<||>> Next Post

Strategic Management: Strategy (Notes)

Disclaimer: This is work in progress intended to consolidate information from various sources. 
Last updated: 18-Mar-2024

Strategy

• {definition} "the determination of the long-term goals and objectives of an enterprise, and the adoption of courses of action and the allocation of resources necessary for carrying out these goals" [4]
• {goal} bring all tools and insights together to create an integrative narrative about what the  organization should do moving forward [1]
• a good strategy emerges out of the values, opportunities and capabilities of the organization [1]
• {characteristic} robust
• {characteristic} flexible
• {characteristic} needs to embrace the uncertainty and complexity of the world
• {characteristic} fact-based and informed by research and analytics
• {characteristic} testable
• {concept} strategy analysis 
• {definition} the assessment of an organization's current competitive position and the identification of future valuable competitive positions and how the firm plans to achieve them [1]
• done from a general perspective
• in terms of different functional elements within the organization [1]
• in terms of being integrated across different concepts and tools and frameworks [1]
• a good strategic analysis integrates various tools and frameworks that are in our strategist toolkit [1]
• approachable in terms of 
• dynamics
• complexity
• competition
• {step} identify the mission and values of the organization
• critical for understanding what the firm values and how it may influence where opportunities they look for and what actions they might be willing to take
• {step} analyze the competitive environment
• looking at what opportunities the environment provides, how are competitors likely to react
• {step} analyze competitive positions
• think about  own capabilities are and how they might relate to the opportunities that are available
• {step} analyze and recommend strategic actions 
• actions for future improvement
• {question} how do we create more value?
• {question} how can we improve our current competitive position?
• {question} how can we in essence, create more value in our competitive environment
• alternatives
• scaling the business
• entering new markets
• innovating
• acquiring a competitor/another player within a market segment of interest
• recommendations
• {question} what do we recommend doing going forward?
• {question} what are the underlying assumptions of these recommendations?
• {question} do they meet our tests that we might have for providing value?
• move from analysis to action
• actions come from asking a series of questions about what opportunities, what actions can we take moving forward
• {step} strategy formulation
• {step} strategy implementation
• {tool} competitor analysis
• {question} what market is the firm in, and who are the players in these markets? 
• {tool} environmental analysis
• {benefit} provides a picture on the broader competitive environment
• {question} what are the major trends impacting this industry?
• {question} are there changes in the sociopolitical environment that are going to have important implications for this industry?
• {question} is this an attractive market or the barrier to competition?
• {tool} five forces analysis
• {benefit} provides an overview of the market structure/industry structure
• {benefit} helps understand the nature of the competitive game that we are playing as we then devise future strategies [1]
• provides a dynamic perspective in our understanding of a competitive market
• {question} how's the competitive structure in a market likely to evolve?
• {tool} competitive lifestyle analysis
• {tool} SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats) analysis
• {tool} stakeholder analysis
• {benefit} valuable in trying to understand those mission and values and then the others expectations of a firm
• {tool} capabilities analysis
• {question} what are the firm's unique resources and capabilities?
• {question} how sustainable as any advantage that these assets provide?
• {tool} portfolio planning matrix
• {benefit} helps us now understand how they might leverage these assets across markets, so as to improve their position in any given market here
• {question} how should we position ourselves in the market relative to our rivals?
• {tool} capability analysis
• {benefit} understand what the firm does well and see what opportunities they might ultimately want to attack and go after in terms of these valuable competitive positions
• via Strategy Maps and Portfolio Planning matrices
• {tool} hypothesis testing
• {question} how competitors are likely to react to these actions?
• {question} does it make sense in the future worlds we envision?
• [game theory] pay off matrices can be useful to understand what actions taken by various competitors within an industry
• {tool} scenario planning
• {benefit} helps us envision future scenarios and then work back to understand what are the actions we might need to take in those various scenarios if they play out.
• {question} does it provide strategic flexibility?
• {tool} real options analysis 
• highlights the desire to have strategic flexibility or at least the value of strategic flexibility provides
• {tool} acquisition analysis
• {benefit} helps understand the value of certain action versus others
• {benefit} useful as an understanding of opportunity costs for other strategic investments one might make
• focused on mergers and acquisitions
• {tool} If-Then thinking
• sequential in nature
• different from causal logic
• commonly used in network diagrams, flow charts, Gannt charts, and computer programming
• {tool} Balanced Scorecard
• {definition} a framework to look at the strategy used for value creation from four different perspectives [5]
• {perspective} financial 
• {scope} the strategy for growth, profitability, and risk viewed from the perspective of the shareholder [5]
• {question} what are the financial objectives for growth and productivity? [5]
• {question} what are the major sources of growth? [5]
• {question} If we succeed, how will we look to our shareholders? [5]
• {perspective} customer
• {scope} the strategy for creating value and differentiation from the perspective of the customer [5]
• {question} who are the target customers that will generate revenue growth and a more profitable mix of products and services? [5]
• {question} what are their objectives, and how do we measure success with them? [5]
• {perspective} internal business processes
• {scope} the strategic priorities for various business processes, which create customer and shareholder satisfaction [5] 
• {perspective} learning and growth 
• {scope} defines the skills, technologies, and corporate culture needed to support the strategy. 
• enable a company to align its human resources and IT with its strategy
• {benefit} enables the strategic hypotheses to be described as a set of cause-and-effect relationships that are explicit and testable [5]
• require identifying the activities that are the drivers (or lead indicators) of the desired outcomes (lag indicators)  [5]
• everyone in the organization must clearly understand the underlying hypotheses, to align resources with the hypotheses, to test the hypotheses continually, and to adapt as required in real time [5]
• {tool} strategy map
• {definition} a visual representation of a company’s critical objectives and the crucial relationships that drive organizational performance [2]
• shows the cause-and effect links by which specific improvements create desired outcomes [2]
• {benefit} shows how an organization will convert its initiatives and resources–including intangible assets such as corporate culture and employee knowledge into tangible outcomes [2]
• {component} mission
• {question} why we exist?
• {component} core values
• {question} what we believe in?
• ⇐ mission and the core values  remain fairly stable over time [5]
• {component} vision
• {question} what we want to be?
• paints a picture of the future that clarifies the direction of the organization [5]
• helps-individuals to understand why and how they should support the organization [5]

Previous Post <<||>> Next Post

References:
[1] University of Virginia (2022) Strategic Planning and Execution (MOOC, Coursera)
[2] Robert S Kaplan & David P Norton (2000) Having Trouble with Your Strategy? Then Map It (link)
[3] Harold Kerzner (2001) Strategic planning for project management using a project management maturity model
[4] Alfred D Chandler Jr. (1962) "Strategy and Structure"
[5] Robert S Kaplan & David P Norton (2000) The Strategy-focused Organization: How Balanced Scorecard Companies Thrive in the New Business Environment

ERP Implementations: The Implementation Process Seems to be Broken

 

Participating in several ERP implementations, one has the expectation that things will change for the better when moving from one implementation to another. Things change positively in certain areas as experience is integrated, though on average the overall performance seems to be the same. Thus, one may wonder, how can this happen? Of course, there are so many explanations - what went wrong, what could have been done better, and the list is usually quite big. However, the history repeats in the next implementation. Something seems to be broken, or maybe this is the way implementations should work, though I doubt this!

An ERP implementation starts with a need and the customer usually has an idea of what the respective need is about. It might even have a set of high-level or even low-level requirements, which should be the case when starting on such a journey. Then the customer selects an implementation partner, event followed by a period of discovery in which the partner learns more about the business including the overall infrastructure, business processes, data and people. Once the requirements are available, the partner can evaluate them to identify the deviations from the standard functionality available and that translate into customizations, sketch solutions, respectively make a first estimate of the costs and resources needed.

Of course, there can be multiple iterations of the process in which the requirements are reviewed, reevaluated, justified, prioritized by all parties and a common understanding, respectively an agreement on the scope and expectations is reached. In the process some requirements are dropped, others are modified or postponed for a later phase or later phases. The whole process can take a few months, though it’s mandatory for creating a workable estimate used as basis for the statement of work and the overall contract.

In parallel the parties can also work on a project plan and agree upon a project methodology, following that once the legal paperwork is signed, resources to be allocated to the project. A common practice is then for the functional consultants to generate based on the requirements a set of documents - functional design documents (FDD), process diagrams - that should be used as basis for the setup, for programming the customizations and User acceptance testing (UAT). Of course, the documents need to be reviewed by the business, gaps or misunderstandings mitigated, and this takes several iterations until the business can sign-off on the respective documents. It’s the point where the setup and programming can start, usually half a year, or even a year or more after the initial steps.

Depending on the scope, in the best-case scenario the setup will take one to two months, at least until having a system ready for UAT with business data as needed for Go-Live. The agreed customizations can translate in further months and effort not only for programming, but also for testing, reviewing and further mitigations. This would be the time when many of the key users see for the first time a working version of the system, which frankly might be too late. Of course, they read and reread the FDDs, though until this point everything was very abstract and no matter how good such documents were written, they can’t replace the hand-on experience with working with the system, discovering the functionality, understanding how it works.

In the best-case scenario, the key-users are satisfied with the results and the UAT, respectively Go-Live can go on as planned, however the expectations for first time right are seldom (never) met. Further iterations and delays are then involved. Overall, the process doesn’t seem to be efficient!

Previous <<||>> Next

Performance Management: First Time Right (The Aim toward Operational Excellence)

 

Rooted in Six Sigma methodology as a step toward operational excellence, First Time Right (FTR) implies that any procedure is performed in the right manner the first time and every time. It equates to minimizing the waste in its various forms (inventory, motion, overprocessing, overproduction, waiting, transportation, defects). Like many quality concepts from the manufacturing industry, the concept was transported in the software development process as principle, process, goal and/or metric. Thus, it became part of Software Engineering, Project Management, Data Science, and any other similar endeavors whose outcome results in software products. 

Besides the quality aspect, FTR is rooted also in the economic imperative – the need to achieve something in the minimum amount of time with the minimum of effort. It’s about being efficient in delivering a product or achieving a given target. It can be associated with continuous improvement, learning and mastery, the aim being to encompass FTR as part of organization’s culture. 

Even if not explicitly declared, FTR lurks in each task planned. It seems that it became common practice to plan with the FTR in mind, however between this theoretical aim and practice there’s as usual an important gap. Unfortunately, planners, managers and even tasks' performers often forget that mistakes are made, that several iterations are needed to get the job done. It starts with the communication between people in clarifying the requirements and ends with the formal sign off. All the deviations from the FTR add up in the deviations between expected and actual effort, though probably more important are the deviations from the plan and all the consequences deriving from it. Especially in complex projects this adds up into a spiral of issues that can easily reinforce themselves. 

Many of the jobs that imply creativity, innovation, research or exploration require at least several iterations to get the job done and this is independent of participants’ professionalism and experience. Moreover, the more quality one needs, the higher the effort, the 80/20 being sometimes a good approximation of the effort needed. In extremis, aiming for perfection instead of excellence can make certain tasks a never-ending story. 

Achieving FTR requires practice - the more novelty, the higher the complexity, the communication or the synchronization needs, the more practice is needed. It starts with the individual to master the individual tasks and ends with the team, where communication, synchronization and other aspects need to be considered. The practice is usually achieved on hands-on work as part of the daily duties, project work, and so on. Unfortunately, it’s based primarily on individual experience, and seldom groomed in advance, as preparation for future tasks. That’s why sometimes when efficiency is needed in performing critical complex tasks, one also needs to consider the learning curve in achieving the required quality. 

Of course, many organizations demand from job applicants experience and, when possible, they hire people with experience, however the diversity, complexity and changing nature of tasks require further practice. This aspect is somehow recognized in the implementation in organizations of the various forms of DevOps, though how many organizations adopt it and enforce it on a regular basis? Moreover, a major requirement of nowadays businesses is to be agile, and besides the mere application of methodologies, being agile means to have also a FTR mindset. 

FTR starts with the wish for mastery at individual and team level and, with the right management attention, by allocating time for learning, self-development in the important areas, providing relevant feedback and building an infrastructure for knowledge sharing and harnessing, FTR can become part of organization’s culture. It’s up to each of us to do it!

Project Management: Projects' Dynamics II (Motion)

Motion is the action or process of moving or being moved between an initial and a final or intermediate point. From the tinniest endeavors to the movement of the planets and beyond, everything is governed by motion. If the laws of nature seem to reveal an inner structural perfection, the activities people perform are quite often far from perfect, which is acceptable if we consider that (almost) everything is a learning process. What is probably less acceptable is the volume of inefficient motion we can easily categorize sometimes as waste.

The waste associated with motion can take many forms: sorting through a pile of tools to find the right one, searching for information, moving back and forth to reach a destination or achieve a goal, etc. Suboptimal motion can have important effects for an organization resulting in reduced productivity, respectively higher costs.

If for repetitive activities that involve a certain degree of similarity can be found typically a way to optimize the motion, the higher the uncertainty of the steps involved, the more difficult it becomes to optimize it. It’s the case of discovery endeavors in which the path between start and destination can’t be traced beforehand, respectively when the destination or path in between can’t be depicted to the needed level of detail. A strategy’s implementation, ERP implementations and other complex projects, especially the ones dealing with new technologies and/or incomplete knowledge, tend to be exploratory in nature and thus fall under this latter type a motion.

In other words, one must know at minimum the starting point, the destination, how to reach it and what it takes to reach it – resources, knowledge, skillset. When one has all this information one can go on and estimate how long it will take to reach the destination, though the estimate reflects the information available as well estimator’s skills in translating the information into a realistic roadmap. Each new information has the potential of impacting considerably the whole process, in extremis to the degree that one must start the journey anew. The complexity of such projects and the volume of uncertainty can make estimation difficult if not impossible, no matter how good estimators' skills are. At best an estimator can come with a best- and worst-case estimation, both however dependent on the assumptions made.

Moreover, complex projects are sensitive to the initial conditions or auspices under which they start. This sensitivity can turn a project in a totally different direction or pace, that can be reinforced positively or negatively as the project progresses. It’s a continuous interplay between internal and external factors and components that can create synergies or have adverse effects with the potential of reaching tipping points.

Related to the initial conditions, as the praxis sometimes shows, for entities found in continuous movement (like organizations) it’s also important to know from where one’s coming (and at what speed), as the previous impulse (driving force) can be further used or stirred as needed. Metaphorically, a project will need a certain time to find the right pace if it lacks the proper impulse.

Unless the team is trained to play and plays like an orchestra, the impact of deviations from expectations can be hardly quantified. To minimize the waste, ideally a project’s journey should minimally deviate from the optimal path, which can be challenging to achieve as a project’s mass can pull the project in one direction or the other. The more the project advances the bigger the mass, fact which can make a project unstoppable. When such high-mass projects are stopped, their impulse can continue to haunt the organization years after.

Previous Post <<||>> Next Post

ERP Implementations: It’s all about Scope I (Functional Requirements)

Introduction

ERP (Enterprise Resource Planning) Implementations tend to be expensive projects, often the actual costs overrunning the expectations by an important factor. The causes for this are multiple, the most important ones ranging from the completeness and complexity of the requirements and the impact they have on the organization to the availability of internal and external skilled resources, project methodology, project implementation, organization’s maturity in running projects, etc. 

The most important decision in an ERP implementation is deciding what one needs, respectively what will be considered for the implementation, aspects reflected in a set of functional and nonfunctional requirements. 

Functional Requirements 

The functional requirements (FRs) reflect the expected behavior of the system in respect to the inputs and outputs – what the system must do. Typically, they encompass end-users’ requirements in the area of processes, interfaces and data processing, though are not limited to them. 

The FRs are important because they reflect the future behavior of the system as perceived by the business, serving further as basis for identifying project’s scope, the gaps between end-users’ requirements and system’s functionality, respectively for estimating project’s duration and areas of focus. Further they are used as basis for validating system’s behavior and getting the sign-off for the system. Therefore, the FRs need to have the adequate level of detail, be complete, clear, comprehensible and implementable, otherwise any gaps in requirements can impact the project in adverse ways. To achieve this state of art they need to go through several iterations in which the requirements are reevaluated, enhanced, checked for duplication, relevance or any other important aspect. In the process it makes sense to categorize the requirements and provide further metadata needed for their appraisal (e.g. process, procedure, owner, status, priority). 

Once brought close to a final form, the FRs are checked against the functionality available in the targeted system, or systems when more systems are considered for evaluation. Ideally all the requirements can be implemented with the proper parametrization of the systems, though it’s seldom the case as each business has certain specifics. The gaps need to be understood, their impact evaluated and decided whether the gaps need to be implemented. In general, it’s recommended to remain close to the standard functionality, as each further gap requires further changes to the system, gaps that in time can generate further quality-related and maintenance costs. 

It can become a tedious effort, as in the process an impact and cost-benefit analysis need to be performed for each gap. Therefore, gaps’ estimation needs to occur earlier or intermixed with their justification. Once the list of the FRs is finalized and frozen, they will be used for estimating the final costs of the project, identifying the work packages, respectively planning the further work.  Once the FRs frozen, any new requirements or changes to requirements (including taking out a requirement) need to go through the Change Management process and all the consequences deriving from it – additional effort, costs, delays, etc. This can trigger again an impact and cost-benefit analysis. 

The FRs are documented in a specification document (aka functional requirement specification), which is supposed to track all the FRs through their lifetime. When evaluating the FRs against system’s functionality it’s recommended to provide general information on how they will be implemented, respectively which system function(s) will be used for that purpose. Besides the fact that it provides transparence, the information can be used as basic ground for further discussions. 

Seldom all the FRs will be defined upfront or complete. Moreover, some requirements will become obsolete during project’s execution, or gaps will be downgraded as standard and vice-versa. Therefore, it’s important to recollect the unexpected.

Previous Post <<||>> Next Post

Project Management: Planning Correctly Misundersood IV

The relatively big number of Project Management (PM) methodologies considered nowadays makes it more and more difficult to understand the world of PM and make oneself understood, in the context in which terminology is used in explanations that defy the logic, in which people are stubborn in persisting that their understanding is the ultimate truth and, that between white and black there are no degrees of gray. Between all PM concepts project planning seems to be the most misunderstood, and this probably because all the activities revolve around it, while each methodology brings its own planning philosophy. Each methodology comes with its own story, its own imaginative description of what a perfect plan is about.

Independently of the methodology used there are three levels of planning. At highest level, the strategic one, the project is put in the context of other strategic activities – other projects and initiatives, as well business operations, competing altogether for the same financial and human resources.  At this level are the goals identified and put the basis for the successful execution of the project, including establishing the ground and integrating the main aspects of a project – risk, quality and communication. Here is decided which projects will be considered, in which sequence, how and when resources will be assigned. 

A project plan is typically written and further executed by having the tactical horizon in mind – the individual engagement of resources and actions, the actual means to reach the objectives set at strategic level. It’s the level where the actual project plan is detailed, where activities are sequenced and prioritized. Here each methodology has its own approach – whether the planning is done per deliverable, work package or any other approach used to partition the activities. It’s the level at which the various teams are coordinated toward specific targets. Thus the manageable unit is the team and not the individual, the deliverables or the work packages and not the individual tasks.

The operational level equates with the execution of a project’s activities. Even if the project manager oversights the activities, it’s in team’s duties to plan the activities having the set deliveries in mind. The project manager doesn’t need to know all the details, though he should be updated on a timely manner on the progress, the eventual risks and opportunities that arise in each area. This requires continuous coordination on vertical as well horizontal level.

The project manager typically oscillates between the strategic and tactical views of a project, while the operational level appears in the view only when operational themes are escalated or further coordination is needed. Even if this delimitation is clear in big projects, in the small projects the three levels melt into each other. Therefore the sprung from small to big projects and vice-versa can create issues when the approach is not tailored to project’s size and its further characteristics.

Attempting to plan each activity in the project at the lowest level of detail obscures the view, the complexity of the project kicking back sooner or later. Maintaining such a detailed plan can become a waste of time on the long term. In extremis a resource is used to update a plan, which easily can become obsolete by the time all activities were reviewed. This doesn’t mean that the project plan doesn’t need to be updated regularly, though the pace can be decided on each project’s specifics.

Therefore, one of the most important challenges in projects is finding the appropriate level of detail for planning, and there’s no general rule that works for all projects. Typically the choices alternate between work packages and deliverables. 

Project Management: Planing Correctly Misundersood III

One of the most misunderstood topics in Project Management seems to be the one of planning, and this probably because everyone has a good idea of what it means to plan an activity – we do it daily and most of the times (hopefully) we hit a bull’s-eye (or we have the impression we did that). You must do this and that, you have that dependency, you must coordinate with a few people, you must first reach that milestone before going further, you do one step at a time, and so on. It’s pretty easy, isn’t it?

From a bird’s eyes view project planning is like planning every other activity though there are several important differences. The most important one is of scale – the number of activities and resources involved, the level of coordination and communication, as well the quality with which occur, the level of uncertainty and control, respectively manageability. All these create a complexity that is hardly manageable by just one person. 

Another difference is the detail needed for the planning and targets’ reachability. Some believe that the plan needs to be done down to the lowest level of detail, which even if possible can prove to be an impediment to planning. Projects’ environment share some important characteristics with a battle field in terms of complexity of interactions, their dynamics and logistical requirements. Within an army’s structure there are levels of organization that require different mindsets and levels of planning. A general thinks primarily at strategic level in which troops and actions are seen as aggregations at the needed level of abstraction that makes their organization and planning manageable. The strategy is done however in collaboration with other generals and upper structures, while having defined the strategic goals the general must devise together with the immediate subalterns the tactics. In theory the project manager must regard the project from the same perspective. Results thus three levels of planning – strategic, done with the upper management, tactical done with the team members, respectively logistical, done within the team. That’s a way of breaking the complexity and dividing the responsibilities within the project. 

Projects’ final destination seem to have the character of a wish list more or less anchored in reality. From a technical point the target can be achievable though in big projects the most important challenges are of organizational nature – of being able to allocate and coordinate effectively the resources as needed by the project. The wish-like character is reflected also by the cost, scope, time triangle in respect to the expected quality – to some point in time one is forced to choose between two of them. On the other side, there’s the tendency to see the targets and milestones as fixed, with little room for deviation. One can easily forget that a strategic plan’s purpose is to set the objectives, identify the challenges and the possible lines of action, while a tactical plan’s objective is to devise the means to reach the objectives. Bringing everything together can easily obscure the view and, in extremis, the plan loses its actuality as soon was created (and approved). 

The most confusing aspect is probably the adherence of a plan to a given methodology, one dicing a project and thus a plan to fit a methodology by following blindly the rules and principles imposed by it instead of fitting the methodology to a project. Besides the fact that the methodologies are best practices but not necessarily good practices, what fits for an organization, they tend to be either too general, by specifying the what and not the how, or too restrictive (interpreted). 

Project Management: Some Thoughts on Planning II

A project’s dependency on resources’ (average) utilization time (UT) and quality expectations expressed as a quality factor (QF) doesn’t come as a surprise, as hopefully one is acquainted with project’s triangle which reflects the dependency between scope, cost and time in respect to quality. Even if this dependency is intuitive, it’s difficult to express it in numbers and study the way it affects the project. That was the purpose of the model built previously.

From the respective model there are a few things to ponder. First, it’s a utopia to plan with 90% UT, unless one is really sure that the resources have enough work to bring the idle time close to zero. A single person can achieve maybe a 90% UT if he works alone on the project, though even then there are phases in which the input or feedback from other people is necessary. The more people involved into the project and the higher the dependency between their activities, the higher the chances that the (average) UT will decrease considerably.

When in addition there’s also a geographical or organizational boundary between team members, the UT will decrease even more. In consequence, in big projects like ERP implementations the team members from customer and vendor side are allocated fully to the project; when this is not possible, then on the vendor side the consultants need to be involved in at least two projects to cover the idle time. Of course, with good planning, communication, and awareness of the work ahead one can try minimizing the idle time, though that’s less likely to happen.

Probably, a better idea would be planning with 75% or even 60% UT though the values depend on team's experience in handling similar projects. If the team members are involved also in operational activities or other projects, then a 50% UT is more realistic.

Secondly, in the previous post was considered in respect to quality the 80%-20% rule which applies to the various deliverables, though the rule has a punctual character. Taken on the average the rule is somehow attenuated. Therefore, in the model was considered a sprung between factors of 1 to 2 with a step of 0,25 for each 5% quality increase. It's needed to prove whether the values are realistic and how much they depend on project's characteristics.

On the other side, quality is difficult to quantify, and 100% quality is hypothetical. One discusses in theory about 3 sigma (the equivalent of 93,3 accuracy) or 4 sigma (99,4 accuracy) in respect to the number of errors found in the code, though from there on everything is fuzzy. In software projects each decision has the potential of leading to an error, and there’s lot of interpretability as long there’s no fix basis against to compare the deviations. One needs precise and correct specification for that.

I think that one should target in a first phase 80% quality (on average) and further build from there, try to improve the quality iteratively as the project goes on and as lessons are learned. In other words, a project plan, a concept, a design document doesn’t need to be perfect from the beginning but should be good enough to allow working with it. One can detail them as progress is made into the project, and hopefully their quality should converge to a value that is acceptable for the business.

Thirdly, in case a planning tool was used, one can use the model backwards to roughly prove timeline’s feasibility, dividing the planned effort by the estimated effort and the number of resources involved to identify the implied utilization time.  

Governance: Control (Just the Quotes)

"To manage is to forecast and plan, to organize, to command, to coordinate and to control. To foresee and plan means examining the future and drawing up the plan of action. To organize means building up the dual structure, material and human, of the undertaking. To command means binding together, unifying and harmonizing all activity and effort. To control means seeing that everything occurs in conformity with established rule and expressed demand." (Henri Fayol, 1916)

"The concern of OR with finding an optimum decision, policy, or design is one of its essential characteristics. It does not seek merely to define a better solution to a problem than the one in use; it seeks the best solution... [It] can be characterized as the application of scientific methods, techniques, and tools to problems involving the operations of systems so as to provide those in control of the operations with optimum solutions to the problems." (C West Churchman et al, "Introduction to Operations Research", 1957)

"Management is a distinct process consisting of planning, organising, actuating and controlling; utilising in each both science and art, and followed in order to accomplish pre-determined objectives." (George R Terry, "Principles of Management", 1960)

"The term architecture is used here to describe the attributes of a system as seen by the programmer, i.e., the conceptual structure and functional behavior, as distinct from the organization of the data flow and controls, the logical design, and the physical implementation." (Gene Amdahl et al, "Architecture of the IBM System", IBM Journal of Research and Development. Vol 8 (2), 1964)

"If cybernetics is the science of control, management is the profession of control." (Anthony S Beer, "Decision and Control", 1966)

"Most of our beliefs about complex organizations follow from one or the other of two distinct strategies. The closed-system strategy seeks certainty by incorporating only those variables positively associated with goal achievement and subjecting them to a monolithic control network. The open-system strategy shifts attention from goal achievement to survival and incorporates uncertainty by recognizing organizational interdependence with environment. A newer tradition enables us to conceive of the organization as an open system, indeterminate and faced with uncertainty, but subject to criteria of rationality and hence needing certainty." (James D Thompson, "Organizations in Action", 1967)

"Policy-making, decision-taking, and control: These are the three functions of management that have intellectual content." (Anthony S Beer, "Management Science" , 1968)

"The management of a system has to deal with the generation of the plans for the system, i. e., consideration of all of the things we have discussed, the overall goals, the environment, the utilization of resources and the components. The management sets the component goals, allocates the resources, and controls the system performance." (C West Churchman, "The Systems Approach", 1968)

"One difficulty in developing a good [accounting] control system is that quantitative results will differ according to the accounting principles used, and accounting principles may change." (Ernest Dale, "Readings in Management", 1970)

"To be productive the individual has to have control, to a substantial extent, over the speed, rhythm, and attention spans with which he is working […] While work is, therefore, best laid out as uniform, working is best organized with a considerable degree of diversity. Working requires latitude to change speed, rhythm, and attention span fairly often. It requires fairly frequent changes in operating routines as well. What is good industrial engineering for work is exceedingly poor human engineering for the worker." (Peter F Drucker, "Management: Tasks, Responsibilities, Practices", 1973)

"A mature science, with respect to the matter of errors in variables, is not one that measures its variables without error, for this is impossible. It is, rather, a science which properly manages its errors, controlling their magnitudes and correctly calculating their implications for substantive conclusions." (Otis D Duncan, "Introduction to Structural Equation Models", 1975)

"Any observed statistical regularity will tend to collapse once pressure is placed upon it for control purposes." (Charles Goodhart, "Problems of Monetary Management: the U.K. Experience", 1975)

"When information is centralized and controlled, those who have it are extremely influential. Since information is [usually] localized in control subsystems, these subsystems have a great deal of organization influence." (Henry L Tosi & Stephen J Carroll, "Management", 1976)

"[...] when a variety of tasks have all to be performed in cooperation, synchronization, and communication, a business needs managers and a management. Otherwise, things go out of control; plans fail to turn into action; or, worse, different parts of the plans get going at different speeds, different times, and with different objectives and goals, and the favor of the 'boss' becomes more important than performance." (Peter F Drucker, "People and Performance", 1977)

"Uncontrolled variation is the enemy of quality." (W Edwards Deming, 1980)

"The key mission of contemporary management is to transcend the old models which limited the manager's role to that of controller, expert or morale booster. These roles do not produce the desired result of aligning the goals of the employees and the corporation. [...] These older models, vestiges of a bygone era, have served their function and must be replaced with a model of the manager as a developer of human resources." (Michael Durst, "Small Systems World", 1985)

"The outcome of any professional's effort depends on the ability to control working conditions." (Joseph A Raelin, "Clash of Cultures: Managers and Professionals", 1986)

"Executives have to start understanding that they have certain legal and ethical responsibilities for information under their control." (Jim Leeke, PC Week, 1987)

"Give up control even if it means the employees have to make some mistakes." (Frank Flores, Hispanic Business, 1987)

"In complex situations, we may rely too heavily on planning and forecasting and underestimate the importance of random factors in the environment. That reliance can also lead to delusions of control." (Hillel J Einhorn & Robin M. Hogarth, Harvard Business Review, 1987)

"Managers exist to plan, direct and control the project. Part of the way they control is to listen to and weigh advice. Once a decision is made, that's the way things should proceed until a new decision is reached. Erosion of management decisions by [support] people who always 'know better' undermines managers' credibility and can bring a project to grief." (Philip W Metzger, "Managing Programming People", 1987)

"To be effective, a manager must accept a decreasing degree of direct control." (Eric G Flamholtz & Yvonne Randal, "The Inner Game of Management", 1987)

"[Well-managed modern organizations] treat everyone as a source of creative input. What's most interesting is that they cannot be described as either democratically or autocratically managed. Their managers define the boundaries, and their people figure out the best way to do the job within those boundaries. The management style is an astonishing combination of direction and empowerment. They give up tight control in order to gain control over what counts: results." (Robert H Waterman, "The Renewal Factor", 1987)

"We have created trouble for ourselves in organizations by confusing control with order. This is no surprise, given that for most of its written history, leadership has been defined in terms of its control functions." (Margaret J Wheatley, "Leadership and the New Science: Discovering Order in a Chaotic World", 1992)

"Management is not founded on observation and experiment, but on a drive towards a set of outcomes. These aims are not altogether explicit; at one extreme they may amount to no more than an intention to preserve the status quo, at the other extreme they may embody an obsessional demand for power, profit or prestige. But the scientist's quest for insight, for understanding, for wanting to know what makes the system tick, rarely figures in the manager's motivation. Secondly, and therefore, management is not, even in intention, separable from its own intentions and desires: its policies express them. Thirdly, management is not normally aware of the conventional nature of its intellectual processes and control procedures. It is accustomed to confuse its conventions for recording information with truths-about-the-business, its subjective institutional languages for discussing the business with an objective language of fact and its models of reality with reality itself." (Stanford Beer, "Decision and Control", 1994)

"Without some element of governance from the top, bottom-up control will freeze when options are many. Without some element of leadership, the many at the bottom will be paralysed with choices." (Kevin Kelly, "Out of Control: The New Biology of Machines, Social Systems and the Economic World", 1995)

"Management is a set of processes that can keep a complicated system of people and technology running smoothly. The most important aspects of management include planning, budgeting, organizing, staffing, controlling, and problem solving." (John P Kotter, "Leading Change", 1996) 

"The manager [...] is understood as one who observes the causal structure of an organization in order to be able to control it [...] This is taken to mean that the manager can choose the goals of the organization and design the systems or actions to realize those goals [...]. The possibility of so choosing goals and strategies relies on the predictability provided by the efficient and formative causal structure of the organization, as does the possibility of managers staying 'in control' of their organization's development. According to this perspective, organizations become what they are because of the choices made by their managers." (Ralph D Stacey et al, "Complexity and Management: Fad or Radical Challenge to Systems Thinking?", 2000)

"Success or failure of a project depends upon the ability of key personnel to have sufficient data for decision-making. Project management is often considered to be both an art and a science. It is an art because of the strong need for interpersonal skills, and the project planning and control forms attempt to convert part of the 'art' into a science." (Harold Kerzner, "Strategic Planning for Project Management using a Project Management Maturity Model", 2001)

"The premise here is that the hierarchy lines on the chart are also the only communication conduit. Information can flow only along the lines. [...] The hierarchy lines are paths of authority. When communication happens only over the hierarchy lines, that's a priori evidence that the managers are trying to hold on to all control. This is not only inefficient but an insult to the people underneath." (Tom DeMarco, "Slack: Getting Past Burnout, Busywork, and the Myth of Total Efficiency", 2001)

"Management can be defined as the attainment of organizational goals in an effective and efficient manner through planning, organizing, staffing, directing, and controlling organizational resources." (Richard L Daft, "The Leadership Experience" 4th Ed., 2008)

"In a complex society, individuals, organizations, and states require a high degree of confidence - even if it is misplaced - in the short-term future and a reasonable degree of confidence about the longer term. In its absence they could not commit themselves to decisions, investments, and policies. Like nudging the frame of a pinball machine to influence the path of the ball, we cope with the dilemma of uncertainty by doing what we can to make our expectations of the future self-fulfilling. We seek to control the social and physical worlds not only to make them more predictable but to reduce the likelihood of disruptive and damaging shocks (e.g., floods, epidemics, stock market crashes, foreign attacks). Our fallback strategy is denial." (Richard N Lebow, "Forbidden Fruit: Counterfactuals and International Relations", 2010)

"Almost by definition, one is rarely privileged to 'control' a disaster. Yet the activity somewhat loosely referred to by this term is a substantial portion of Management, perhaps the most important part. […] It is the business of a good Manager to ensure, by taking timely action in the real world, that scenarios of disaster remain securely in the realm of Fantasy." (John Gall, "The Systems Bible: The Beginner's Guide to Systems Large and Small"[Systematics 3rd Ed.], 2011)

"Without precise predictability, control is impotent and almost meaningless. In other words, the lesser the predictability, the harder the entity or system is to control, and vice versa. If our universe actually operated on linear causality, with no surprises, uncertainty, or abrupt changes, all future events would be absolutely predictable in a sort of waveless orderliness." (Lawrence K Samuels, "Defense of Chaos", 2013)

"The problem of complexity is at the heart of mankind’s inability to predict future events with any accuracy. Complexity science has demonstrated that the more factors found within a complex system, the more chances of unpredictable behavior. And without predictability, any meaningful control is nearly impossible. Obviously, this means that you cannot control what you cannot predict. The ability ever to predict long-term events is a pipedream. Mankind has little to do with changing climate; complexity does." (Lawrence K Samuels, "The Real Science Behind Changing Climate", LewRockwell.com, August 1, 2014) 

IT: Asset (Definitions)

[process asset:] "Anything that the organization considers useful in attaining the goals of a process area." (Sandy Shrum et al, "CMMI: Guidelines for Process Integration and Product Improvement", 2003)

[organizational process assets:] "Artifacts that relate to describing, implementing, and improving processes (e.g., policies, measurements, process descriptions, and process implementation support tools). The term process assets is used to indicate that these artifacts are developed or acquired to meet the business objectives of the organization, and they represent investments by the organization that are expected to provide current and future business value." (Sandy Shrum et al, "CMMI: Guidelines for Process Integration and Product Improvement", 2003)

[process asset:] "Artifacts that relate to describing, implementing, and improving processes (e.g., policies, process descriptions, guidance, examples, aids, checklists, project closeout reports, metrics data, and training materials). The artifacts meet the organization’s business objectives, and represent investments expected to provide current and future business value." (Richard D Stutzke, "Estimating Software-Intensive Systems: Projects, Products, and Processes", 2005)

[organizational process assets:] "Any or all process-related assets, from any or all of the organizations involved in the project that are or can be used to influence the project's success. These process assets include formal and informal plans, policies, procedures, and guidelines. The process assets also include the organizations’ knowledge bases such as lessons learned and historical information." (Project Management Institute, "Practice Standard for Project Estimating", 2010)

[organizational process assets:] "Any or all process related assets, from any or all of the organizations involved in the project that are or can be used to influence the project's success. These process assets include formal and informal plans, policies, procedures, and guidelines. The process assets also include the organizations' knowledge bases such as lessons learned and historical information." (Cynthia Stackpole, "PMP Certification All-in-One For Dummies", 2011)

[IT assets:] "Tangible deliverables created during the course of an IT project that can be used in other similar projects. Examples include design, software code, or a testing scenario." (Janice M Roehl-Anderson, "IT Best Practices for Financial Managers", 2010)

[organizational process assets:] "Plans, processes, policies, procedures, and knowledge bases specific to and used by the performing organization. " (Project Management Institute, "The Standard for Portfolio Management" 3rd Ed., 2012)

[organizational process assets:] "Plans, processes, policies, procedures, and knowledge bases that are specific to and used by the performing organization." (For Dummies, "PMP Certification All-in-One For Dummie", 2nd Ed., 2013)

[Software assets:] "software tools needed to manipulate the organization's information to accomplish the organization's mission." ( Manish Agrawal, "Information Security and IT Risk Management", 2014)

"Data contained in an information system; or a service provided by a system; or a system capability, such as processing power or communication bandwidth; or an item of system equipment (that is, a system component - hardware, firmware, software, or documentation); or a facility that houses system operations and equipment." (William Stallings, "Effective Cybersecurity: A Guide to Using Best Practices and Standards", 2018)

"Any item that has value to the organisation." (ISO/IEC 27000:2012)

Strategic Management: Defining the Strategy

In a previous post an organization’s strategy was defined as a set of coordinated and sustainable actions following a set of well-defined goals, actions devised into a plan and designed to create value and overcome an organization’s challenges. In what follows are described succinctly the components of the strategy.

A strategy’s definition should start with the identification of organization’s vision, where the organization wants to be in the future, its mission statement, a precise description of what an organization does in turning the vision from concept to reality, its values - traits and qualities that are considered as representative, and its principles – the guiding laws and truths for action. All these components have the purpose at defining at high-level the where (the vision), the why (the mission), the what (the core values) and by which means (the principles) of the strategy.

One of the next steps that can be followed in parallel is to take inventory of the available infrastructure: systems, processes, procedures, practices, policies, documentation, resources, roles and their responsibilities, KPIs and other metrics, ongoing projects and initiatives. Another step resumes in identifying the problems (challenges), risks and opportunities existing in the organization as part of a SWOT analysis adjusted to organization’s internal needs. One can extend the analysis to the market and geopolitical conditions and trends to identify further opportunities and risks. Within another step but not necessarily disconnected from the previous steps is devised where the organization could be once the problems, risks, threats and opportunities were addressed.

Then the gathered facts are divided into two perspectives – the “IS” perspective encompasses the problems together with the opportunities and threats existing in organization that define the status quo, while the “TO BE” perspective encompasses the wished state. A capability maturity model can be used to benchmark an organization’s current maturity in respect to industry practices, and, based on the wished capabilities, to identify organization’s future maturity.

Based on these the organization can start formulating its strategic goals – a set of long-range aims for a specific time-frame, from which are derived a (hierarchical) set of objectives, measurable steps an organization takes in order to achieve the goals. Each objective carries with it a rational, why the objective exists, an impact, how will the objective change the organization once achieved, and a target, how much of the objective needs to be achieved. In addition, one can link the objectives to form a set of hypothesis - predictive statements of cause and effect that involve approaches of dealing with the uncertainty. In order to pursue each objective are devised methods and means – the tactics (lines of action) that will be used to approach the various themes. It’s important to prioritize the tactics and differentiate between quick winners and long-term tactics, as well to define alternative lines of actions.

Then the tactics are augmented in a strategy plan (roadmap) that typically covers a minimum of 3 to 5 years with intermediate milestones. Following the financial cycles the strategy is split in yearly units for each objective being assigned intermediate targets. Linked to the plan are estimated the costs, effort and resources needed. Last but not the least are defined the roles, management and competency structures, with their responsibilities, competencies and proper level of authority, needed to support strategy’s implementation. Based on the set objectives are devised the KPIs used to measure the progress (success) and stir the strategy over its lifecycle.

By addressing all these aspects is created thus a first draft of the strategy that will need several iterations to mature, further changes deriving from the contact with the reality.

Project Management: Planning Correctly Misundersood I

It is sometimes helpful to take a step back, observe, and then logically generalize the extremes of the observed facts; if possible, without judging people’s behavior as there’s more to it as the eyes can perceive. In some cases however one can feel that the observed situations are really close to extreme. It’s the case of some tendencies met in project planning - not planning, planning for the sake of planning, expecting a plan to be perfect, setting a plan as fix, without the possibility of changing it in utile time, respectively changing the plan too often.

There are situations in which it’s better to be spontaneous and go with the flow. Managing a project isn’t one of these situations. As Lakein’s Law formulates it succinctly: “failing to plan is planning to fail”, or paraphrasing Eisenhower (1) and Clausewitz (2) - plans are useless as no plan ever survived contact with the enemy (reality), but planning is indispensable - as a plan increases awareness about project’s scope, actions, challenges, risks and opportunities, and allows devising the tactics and logistics needed to reach the set goals. Even if the plan doesn’t reflect anymore the reality, it can still be adapted to fit the new requirements. The more planning experience one has the more natural it becomes to close the gap between the initial plan and reality, and of adapting the plan as needed.

There’s an important difference between doing something because one is forced to do it and doing it because one sees and understands the value of planning. There's the tendency to plan for the sake of planning, because there's the compel to do it. Besides the fact that it documents the what, when, why and who, and that is used as a basis for action, the plan must reflect project’s current status and the activities planed for the next reporting cycle. As soon a plan is not able to reflect these aspects it becomes thus in time unusable.

The enemy of a good plan can prove to be the dream of a perfect plan (3). Some may think that the holy grail of planning is the perfect plan, that the project can’t start until all the activities were listed to the lowest detail and the effort thoroughly assigned. Few plans actually survive the contact with the reality and there can be lot of energy lost by working on the perfect plan.

Another similar behavior,  rooted mainly in the methodologies used, is that of not allowing a plan to be changed for a part or whole duration of the project. Publilius Syrus recognized more than two millennia ago that a plan that admits no modification is a bad plan (4) per se. Methodologies and practices that don’t allow a flexible way of changing the plan make no service to projects. Often changes need to occur immediately and not at an ideal point in time, when maybe the effect is lost.

Modern Project Management tools allow building the dependencies between the various activities and it’s inevitable that a change in one place will cause a chain reaction and lead to a contraction or dilatation of the plan, and this can happen with each planning iteration. In extremis the end date will alternate as the lines of a seismograph during an earthquake. It’s natural for this to happen in projects in a first phase, however it’s in Project Manager’s attribution to mitigate such variations.

The project plan is a reflection of the project and how it’s managed, therefore, one needs to give it the proper focus, how often and how detailed required.

Referenced quotes:
(1) “In preparing for battle I have always found that plans are useless, but planning is indispensable” (Eisenhower quoted by Nixon)
(2) “No plan ever survived contact with the enemy. ” (Carl von Clausewitz)
(3) “The enemy of a good plan is the dream of a perfect plan.” (Carl von Clausewitz)
(4) "It's a bad plan that admits of no modification." (Publilius Syrus)

Project Management: Planning Correctly Misundersood II

Even if planning is the most critical activity in Project Management it seems to be also one of the most misunderstood concepts. Planning is critical because it charters the road ahead in terms of what, when, why and who, being used as a basis for action, communication, for determining the current status in respect to the initial plan, as well the critical activities ahead.

The misunderstandings derive maybe also from the fact that each methodology introduces its own approach to planning. PMI as traditional approach talks about baseline planning with respect to scope schedule and costs, about management plans, which besides the theme covered in the baseline, focus also on quality, human resources, risks, communication and procurement, and separate plans can be developed for requirements, change and configuration management, respectively process improvement. To them one can consider also action and contingency planning.

In Prince2 the product-based planning is done at three levels – at project, stage, respectively team level – while separate plans are done for exceptions in case of deviations from any of these plans; in addition there are plans for communication, quality and risk management. Scrum uses an agile approach looking at the product and sprint backlog, the progress being reviewed in stand-up meetings with the help of a burn-down chart. There are also other favors of planning like rapid application planning considered in Extreme Programming (XP), with an open, elastic and undeterministic approach. In Lean planning the focus is on maximizing the value while minimizing the waste, this being done by focusing on the value stream, the complete list of activities involved in delivering the end-product, value stream's flow being mapped with the help of visualization techniques such as Kanban, flowcharts or spaghetti diagrams.

With so many types of planning nothing can go wrong, isn’t it? However, just imagine customers' confusion when dealing with a change of methodology, especially when the concepts sound fuzzy and cryptic! Unfortunately, also the programmers and consultants seem to be bewildered by the various approaches and the philosophies supporting the methodologies used, their insecurity bringing no service for the project and customers’ peace of mind. A military strategist will more likely look puzzled at the whole unnecessary plethora of techniques. On the field an army has to act with the utmost concentration and speed, to which add principles like directedness, maneuver, unity, economy of effort, collaboration, flexibility, simplicity and sustainability. It’s what Project Management fails to deliver.

Similarly to projects, the plan made before the battle seldom matches the reality in the field. Planning is an exercise needed to divide the strategy in steps, echelon and prioritize them, evaluate the needed resources and coordinate them, understand the possible outcomes and risks, evaluate solutions and devise actions for them. With a good training, planning and coordination, each combatant knows his role in the battle, has a rough idea about difficulties, targets and possible ways to achieve them; while a good combatant knows always the next action. At the same time, the leader must have visibility over fight’s unfold, know the situation in the field and how much it diverged from the initial plan, thus when the variation is considerable he must change the plan by changing the priorities and make better use the resources available.

Even if there are multiple differences between the two battlefields, the projects follow the same patterns of engagement at different scales. Probably, Project Managers can learn quite of a deal by studying the classical combat strategists, and hopefully the management of projects would be more effective and efficient if the imperatives of planning, respectively management, were better understood and addressed.

Strategic Management: Leadership (Just the Quotes)

"Such cases also occur in strategy, since strategy is directly linked to tactical action. In strategy too decisions must often be based on direct observation, on uncertain reports arriving hour by hour and day by day, and finally on the actual outcome of battles. It is thus an essential condition of strategic leadership that forces should be held in reserve according to the degree of strategic uncertainty." (Carl von Clausewitz, "On War", 1832)

"Do not confuse objectives with methods. When the nation becomes substantially united in favor of planning the broad objectives of civilization, then true leadership must unite thought behind definite methods." (Franklin D Roosevelt, 1937)

"No amount of study or learning will make a man a leader unless he has the natural qualities of one." (Archibald Wavell, "Generals and Generalship", 1941)

"Leadership is interpersonal influence, exercised in a situation, and directed, through the communication process, toward the attainment of a specified goal or goals." (Robert K Tanenbaum, "Leadership and Organization", 1961)

"The leadership and other processes of the organization must be such as to ensure a maximum probability that in all interactions and all interactions and all relationships with the organization each member will, in the light of his background, values, and expectations, view the experience as supportive and one which builds and maintains his sense of personal worth and importance." (Rensis Likert, "New patterns of management", 1961)

"Leadership is lifting a person's vision to higher sights, the raising of a person's performance to a higher standard, the building of a personality beyond its normal limitations." (Peter Drucker, "Management: Tasks, Responsibilities, Challenges", 1973)

"A leader is one who, out of madness or goodness, volunteers to take upon himself the woe of the people. There are few men so foolish, hence the erratic quality of leadership in the world." (John Updike, "They Thought They Were Better", TIME magazine, 1980)

"Leadership cannot really be taught. It can only be learned." (Harold Geneen & Alvin Moscow, "Managing", 1984)

"Leadership is practiced not so much in words as in attitude and in actions [...]" (Harold Geneen & Alvin Moscow, "Managing", 1984)

"Leadership is the very heart and soul of business management." (Harold Geneen, "Managing", 1984)

"With the changes in technological complexity, especially in information technology, the leadership task has changed. Leadership in a networked organization is a fundamentally different thing from leadership in a traditional hierarchy." (Edgar Schein, "Organizational Culture and Leadership", 1985)

"A leader must have the courage to act against an expert's advice. (James Callaghan, The Harvard Business Review, 1986)

"The very essence of leadership is that you have to have a vision. It's got to be a vision you articulate clearly and forcefully on every occasion. You can't blow an uncertain trumpet." (Theodore Hesburg, TIME magazine, 1987)

"Leadership is always dependent upon the context, but the context is established by the relationships." (Margaret J Wheatley, "Leadership and the New Science: Discovering Order in a Chaotic World", 1992)

"We have created trouble for ourselves in organizations by confusing control with order. This is no surprise, given that for most of its written history, leadership has been defined in terms of its control functions." (Margaret J Wheatley, "Leadership and the New Science: Discovering Order in a Chaotic World", 1992)

"All great leaders have understood that their number one responsibility is cultivating their own discipline and personal growth. Those who cannot lead themselves cannot lead others." (John C Maxwell, "Developing the Leader Within You", 1993)

"In effective personal leadership, visualization and affirmation techniques emerge naturally out of a foundation of well thought through purposes and principles that become the center of a person's life." (Stephen Covey, "Daily Reflections for Highly Effective People", 1994)

"The problem with most leaders today is they don't stand for anything. Leadership implies movement toward something, and convictions provide that direction. If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything." (Don Shula, "Everyone's a Coach: You Can Inspire Anyone to be a Winner", 1995)

"Leadership is knowing what to do next, knowing why that's important, and knowing how to bring the appropriate resources to bear on the need at hand." (Bobb Biehl. The on My Own Handbook, 1997)

"The basis of leadership is the capacity of the leader to change the mindset, the framework of the other person." (Warren Bennis, "Managing People is Like Herding Cats", 1997)

"Too many companies believe people are interchangeable. Truly gifted people never are. They have unique talents. Such people cannot be forced into roles they are not suited for, nor should they be. Effective leaders allow great people to do the work they were born to do." (Warren Bennis, "Organizing Genius: The Secrets of Creative Collaboration", 1997)

"An effective leader leaves a legacy; they leave their footprints on the road for others to follow. A good leader develops themselves and they develop others. They bring people together rather than divide them." (Joseph O’Connor, "Leading With NLP: Essential Leadership Skills for Influencing and Managing People", 1998)

"Good leaders are ethical, responsible and effective. Ethical because leadership connects you to others through shared values. Responsible because leadership means self-development and not simply giving orders, however charismatically, to get others to do what you want. Effective because shared values and goals give the strongest motivation for getting tasks done. There are no guarantees, but this sort of leadership will bring you closer to people and give you the greatest chance of success." (Joseph O’Connor, "Leading With NLP: Essential Leadership Skills for Influencing and Managing People", 1998)

"Leadership comes from our natural striving to constantly reinvent ourselves. You do not need external permission to be a leader. Nor do you need any qualifications or position of authority. Leadership does not depend on what you do already. Many people in positions of authority are not leaders; they may have the title but not the substance. Others have the substance, but no title. Leadership comes from the reality of what you do and how you think, not from your title or nominal responsibilities. Leadership blooms when the soil and climate is right, but the seed comes from within." (Joseph O’Connor, "Leading With NLP: Essential Leadership Skills for Influencing and Managing People", 1998)

"Leadership has long been associated with authority - we tend to concentrate on the leader, to think of them as innately superior in some way, and take the followers for granted. But formal authority is only one possible part of leadership. Many leaders do not have it. In some cases, perhaps ‘companionship’ better describes the relationship between leader and followers." (Joseph O’Connor, "Leading With NLP: Essential Leadership Skills for Influencing and Managing People", 1998)

"Leadership is about inspiring people through a shared set of values." (Joseph O’Connor, "Leading With NLP: Essential Leadership Skills for Influencing and Managing People", 1998)

"Good leaders make people feel that they're at the very heart of things, not at the periphery. Everyone feels that he or she makes a difference to the success of the organization. When that happens, people feel centered and that gives their work meaning." (Warren Bennis, "Managing People Is Like Herding Cats", 1999)

"Making good judgments when one has complete data, facts, and knowledge is not leadership - it's bookkeeping." (Dee Hock, "Birth of the Chaordic Age", 1999)

"The most dangerous leadership myth is that leaders are born — that there is a genetic factor to leadership. This myth asserts that people simply either have certain charismatic qualities or not. That's nonsense; in fact, the opposite is true. Leaders are made rather than born. And the way we become leaders is by learning about leadership through life and job experiences, not with university degrees. (Warren Bennis, "Managing People Is Like Herding Cats", 1999)

"The aim of leadership should be to improve the performance of man and machine, to improve quality, to increase output, and simultaneously to bring pride of workmanship to people. Put in a negative way, the aim of leadership is not merely to find and record failures of men, but to remove the causes of failure: to help people to do a better job with less effort." (W Edwards Deming, "Out of the Crisis", 2000)

"The higher you want to climb, the more you need leadership. The greater the impact you want to make, the greater your influence needs to be. Whatever you will accomplish is restricted by your ability to lead others." (John C. Maxwell, "Leadership 101: What Every Leader Needs to Know", 2002)

"The true measure of leadership is influence - nothing more, nothing less." (John C Maxwell, Leadership 101: What Every Leader Needs to Know, 2002)

"Leadership is seeing the possibilities in a situation while others are seeing the limitations." (John C Maxwell, "The 21 Irrefutable Laws of Leadership", 2007)

"Personal and organizational effectiveness is proportionate to the strength of leadership." (John C Maxwell, "The 21 Irrefutable Laws of Leadership", 2007)

"The ability to plan for what has not yet happened, for a future that has only been imagined, is one of the hallmarks of leadership." (Warren Bennis, "Organizing Genius: The Secrets of Creative Collaboration", 2007)

"The most powerful demonstration of leadership is not a clenched fist of brute force but an open hand of humble assistance." (Mike Huckabee, "From Hope to Higher Ground", 2007)

"Leadership is the capacity to influence others through inspiration motivated by passion, generated by vision, produced by a conviction, ignited by a purpose." (Myles Munroe, "Charge: Finding the Leader Within You", 2008)

"Listening to the inner voice - trusting the inner voice - is one of the most important lessons of leadership." (Warren Bennis, "On Becoming a Leader", 2009)

"A leader’s most important job is creating and constantly adjusting this strategic bridge between goals and objectives." (Richard Rumelt, "Good Strategy Bad Strategy", 2011)

"Hope without a strategy doesn't generate leadership. Leadership comes when your hope and your optimism are matched with a concrete vision of the future and a way to get there. People won't follow you if they don't believe you can get to where you say you're going." (Seth Godin, "Tribes: We need you to lead us", 2011)

"Leadership requires creating conditions that enable employees to do the kinds of experimentation that entrepreneurship requires." (Eric Ries, "The Lean Startup", 2011) 

"Restructuring is a favorite tactic of antisocials who have reached a senior position in an organization. The chaos that results is an ideal smokescreen for dysfunctional leadership. Failure at the top goes unnoticed, while the process of restructuring creates the illusion of a strong, creative hand on the helm." (Manfred F R Kets de Vries, "The Leader on the Couch", 2011)

"When organizations are unable to make new strategies - when people evade the work of choosing among different paths in the future - then you get vague mom-and-apple-pie goals everyone can agree on. Such goals are direct evidence of leadership's insufficient will or political power to make or enforce hard choices." (Richard Rumelt, "Good Strategy Bad Strategy", 2011)

"Sustainable leadership does no harm to and actively improves the surrounding environment." (Andy Hargreaves, "Sustainable Leadership", 2012)

"The exercise of true leadership is inversely proportional to the exercise of power." (Stephen Covey, "The 8th Habit: From Effectiveness to Greatness", 2013)

"The leader is one who mobilizes others toward a goal shared by leaders and followers. [...] Leaders, followers and goals make up the three equally necessary supports for leadership." (Garry Wills, "Certain Trumpets: The Nature of Leadership", 2013)

"Ultimately, leadership is not about glorious crowning acts. It's about keeping your team focused on a goal and motivated to do their best to achieve it, especially when the stakes are high and the consequences really matter. It is about laying the groundwork for others' success, and then standing back and letting them shine." (Chris Hadfield, "An Astronaut's Guide to Life on Earth", 2013)

"And when a leader embraces their responsibility to care for people instead of caring for numbers, then people will follow, solve problems and see to it that that leader's vision comes to life the right way, a stable way and not the expedient way." (Simon Sinek, "Leaders Eat Last: Why Some Teams Pull Together and Others Don't", 2014)

"Most leadership strategies are doomed to failure from the outset. As people have been noting for years, the majority of strategic initiatives that are driven from the top are marginally effective - at best." (Peter Senge, "The Dance of Change: The challenges to sustaining momentum in a learning organization", 2014)

"Truly human leadership protects an organization from the internal rivalries that can shatter a culture. When we have to protect ourselves from each other, the whole organization suffers. But when trust and cooperation thrive internally, we pull together and the organization grows stronger as a result." (Simon Sinek, "Leaders Eat Last: Why Some Teams Pull Together and Others Don't", 2014)

"The more intentional you are about your leadership growth, the greater your potential for becoming the leader you're capable of being. Never stop learning." (John C. Maxwell, "The Leadership Handbook", 2015)

"Leadership is not about being in charge. Leadership is about taking care of those in your charge." (Simon Sinek, "Together is Better: A Little Book of Inspiration", 2016)

"The traditional approach to leadership values decision-making conviction and consistency; good leaders 'stick to their guns'. By contrast, the emerging approach recognizes that in fast-changing environments, decisions often need to be reversed or adapted, and that changing course in response to new information is a strength, not a weakness. If this tension is not managed wisely, leaders run the risk of seeming too rigid, on the one hand, or too wishy-washy on the other." (Jennifer Jordan et al, "Every Leader Needs to Navigate These 7 Tensions", Harvard Business Review, 2020) [source]

"Leadership is a potent combination of strategy and character. But if you must be without one, be without the strategy." (Norman Schwarzkopf)

"Leadership is the capacity to translate vision into reality." (Warren Bennis)

"Leadership means that a group, large or small, is willing to entrust authority to a person who has shown judgement, wisdom, personal appeal, and proven competence." (Walt Disney)

"The first responsibility of a leader is to define reality." (Max DePree)