The Global Project Managers toolkit

As you venture forth on a multinational project delivery, what tools you need to increase the chances of success?
As soon as you start to cross borders, the geographic and cultural separation mean that the trusted team management techniques such as "Management by walking around" and "the team that drinks together, thinks together" no longer apply.

Project Management.

A management process is essential for the success of any project. Let's face it: most Financial Services companies are very good at transactional execution but major projects are not their strong point. Project management is not about what you need to do on the project (see development methodology below) but how you control it:
•    Setting the scope and the business case for the project.
•    Identifying the tasks to be performed during the project, controlling the resources, managing the deliverables and quality.
•    Managing changes to the scope of the projects and risks.
•    Having gateway checkpoints and audits of the project.
•    Ensuring that the project meets the requirements, stays within budget and delivers the benefits.
Project management methods such as Prince2 and PMP are built around the core of the Executive Sponsor and the Project Manager. The Sponsor leads the project, makes the big decisions and assigns business resources the project needs. The project manager plans the project and is accountable to the business for the project delivery and achieving the benefits.
Software vendors and consultancies will, of course, offer to do the project management but Prince2 is very specific that the PM should not be from the supplier as they will ultimately be accountable to the supplier not the business, and introduce "lock in" with one supplier. Project management should anyhow start before the supplier is selected.
An international rollout may need broader programme management –providing strategic control of subsidiary projects such as the RFP process, software delivery and business change by country. Treating a multinational project as a programme can allow local project management and local accountability for achieving benefits.

Development Processes

There are broadly two types of development or implementation process:
The first, Waterfall - or "Big Design Up Front" – concentrates on gathering requirements at the start of the project, before going on to the traditionally more expensive design and programming stages.
The second, iterative processes, are widely seen as more suitable for package implementation and where there is business change going on in parallel, with requirements evolving through the project. They use prototyping, rough cut of configurations of a package, and pilots to test assumptions and refine the requirements. Each iteration can be seen as a mini project, which has a better chance of completing successfully and with measurable benefits coming out from each cycle.
The most highly iterative methods, such as scrum and extreme programming, where users and programmers are locked together in intense brainstorming and prototyping sessions, could be seen as less suitable for international projects because of the need for the team to be co-located, defining complex requirements like lease accounting and considering the collegiate requirements of different business units.
The implementation method is distinct from the project management. Where you are working with a supplier it is often best to use their methodology will be geared towards defining the specific deliverables for their system configuration..

Business Process Management

Many large organisations, particularly with manufacturing origins, will have their own Business Process Management or Re-engineering methodology – such as Toyota and Six-Sigma at GE. These are built around scientific calculation of the value each step adds to the end product. Many of these will be difficult to apply to financial processes – let's be mischievous and ask what value Credit add to a deal? – although Citibank in the eighties embraced the concept of "the bank as a factory".
In practice for systems enabled business change it will be better to build process redesign around best practice workflows provided by the systems supplier.
With a multinational implementation a single "cookie cutter" standard process can be difficult to impose, because of regional requirements, the different sizes of each business, and even particular individual talent.
But what is more important than the one-off process design is to develop a culture of continuous improvement across the operation with international sharing of best practice.

Collaboration Tools

Initial face to face team meetings are essential to build up trust and understanding at the early project stages. For teams that are dispersed for their day to day work it is important to use collaboration technology to keep them together virtually.
Audio conferencing (with local dial in numbers to cut down on cost) can be enhanced by web conferencing (using tools such as Webex or GoToMeeting to view presentations, whiteboards and even application demonstrations). Videoconferencing using webcams will work with these – up to a full telepresence if project budgets are that big.
Instant messaging is not just for teenagers and helpful to ping a quick question to a distant colleague. Email, although pervasive, is not best for project communications with long and intertwined email exchanges hard to follow. A central project document storage, intranet (shared within the organisation) or extranet (giving access to suppliers as well) provides a common project "knowledge base". Web based document storage or a Wiki (based on the technology behind Wikipedia) are now common solutions. Microsoft SharePoint 2010 adds the ability to have simultaneous editing of Office documents, publish and track project plans, create web based databases and even workflows from Visio diagrams.
And for the future, look at the demonstration Google Wave – think of a combination of instant messaging, email and a wiki.

Technology

For the global system itself what help is there from the technology? Microsoft's dotNet and rival J2EEE application development provide support for the basic number and date formats. But architectural solutions for the all the "multi" stuff has to come from the system design.
A web based application will certainly greatly assist with the deployment of the system over long distances than an older "thick client" PC application would allow. The amount of data displayed on the screen is improved with modern design and improved features like "type-ahead" make many web applications a richer experience than PC desktop programs.
Highly modularised service oriented applications speed system configuration by having "building blocks" to quickly support particular requirements. You also use web "applets" components to tailor your own screens and dashboards.
Virtualisation frees your application from being tied to particular hardware and servers. Software as a Service (SaaS) allows you to get software on a "pay per use" or utility model. If the software supports your needs this can be a quick way to set up and test software. On-going costs may come out higher in the long run but you are insulated from many of the hassles of in-house IT such as upgrades, and if things don't work out you have not lost the upfront investment! Make sure that SaaS software supports multinational requirements and don't forget that although it simplifies the technology delivery it doesn't take away any of the complexities of Business Process changes needed.
The logical conclusion of this is cloud computing, highly virtualised, highly scalable, internet based software. One note of caution is hidden in the terms of service of Amazon Web Services: "We strive to keep Your Content secure, but cannot guarantee that we will be successful at doing so, given the nature of the Internet. Accordingly... you bear sole responsibility for adequate security, protection and backup of Your Content and Applications."
Of course, while these tools can assist your international projects, in themselves they will not assure success. When combined with experienced practitioners they can leverage skills, reduce project risks and greatly increase productivity.
© Nic Evans 2010.

It's time to kill big IT contracts

"I've met many programme directors who've said 'I'm doing a £100m programme', I say 'I feel very sorry for you'"

Phil Pavitt - the man in charge of the UK government's largest IT outsourcing deal - believes Whitehall needs to end its love affair with supersized IT contracts.

See the interview on Silicon.com : http://bit.ly/bRj2wU

I have a cunning plan..

Building your project plan is the most critical step in any project. Your plan is the basic way of measuring the progress of the project - and if you can't measure it you can't manage it. If your project is to be successful it must start with a solid plan. Much of comedy of BlackAdders sidekick and servant Baldrick lies in the unachievability of his "cunning plans" and are there lessons to be learned from the succinct communication of his plans?
But how can we access the quality of the project plan before execution - or before it goes pear-shaped? Here are my "top three"

• Completeness. Has everything been included? The best way to validate is through product based planning. You take the deliverable product and simply break it down into its component parts and assemblies (where there is some effort to put the parts together). So when planning a conference one area will be preparation of conference documentation - made up of component handouts for each session with the extra item of assembling the handouts into the conference binder. There should be activities corresponding to each component part and assembly.
• Accuracy. As well as requiring a reliable basis for estimating the effort required for each task the accuracy of the interdependance of tasks and resources is critical. So a simple plan (below) to code and test a simple client-server not only requires the accurate estimation of each task - overrun of any task will cause a delay to the whole project -  but also the accurate scheduling of resources. The resource to perform task 2 needs to be available immediately task 1 completes to meet the schedule. Overruning task 1 will waste the time for the resources committed for task 2 - which may also be the same resources for coding in task 3? If the complexity of the data needed is underestimated that will extend not just the database setup but the middle tier, the user interface and testing. 

• Socialising the plan. Most importantly the plan needs to be checked and committed to by everyone involved in the project. Too often the gantt chart will be produced by the PM - probably in Microsoft Project - and emailed out. However how are responses expected? Is there any narrative? Is there a list of assumptions used? Does everyone has the skills to use MS Project or even the software? So the ownership of the plan - and more importantly the committment to the plan and its accuracy- remains with the PM. Any mistakes remain the PMs problem. "I don't understand how the PM estimated this task so if I take longer then it's the PMs fault."
  To get commitment and belief in the project plan it needs to be "socialised" and fully communicated to get ownership by everyone involved. This communication needs innovative approaches - See Geof Lorys great "Lego My Schedule" and John Estrellas "How to create visual project timelines". But more importantly don't just depend on gantt charts; use narratives, brainstorming, risk workshops, feedback surveys or any way you can to get a true two way dialogue going to build trust and group committment. 

Lets Do The Risk Warp Again

In this trilogy of blogs (triblogy?) we have been seeing how some basic intuition and understanding of projects can lead us to manage and master risks. Dont think all these charts and graphs are any great theory - they are just a graphic representation of common sense!

Having understood the "cone of uncertainty" let us see what we can do to reduce uncertainty by warping it - bending the rules of project management.

Lets look at bending it three ways:

• Firstly let's reduce the long period between the user saying what they want - Requirements Specification - and being able to get a finished product and saying "Yes - That's It!" - Delivery Acceptance.
• Then let's compress the process to get to the requirements.
• And then let's compress the design and development process.

How?

• Use iterative and prototyping approach - "So is this what you mean?"
• By getting the user and the developer together - to avoid the risk of misunderstanding so well illustrated by the Tree Swing Design cartoon.
• By breaking the process down into small steps.

While this is has the characteristics of an Agile approach, many of these concepts have been around a long time. Iterative methodologies grew up in the eighties when PC development tools and 4GLs allowed programmers to design databases with the screens and reports in hours rather than weeks. They could talk straight to users and show them the programs to get feedback on the spot.

This develops into Agile methodologies where:

• Product definintions and requirements get cut down to brief "User stories"
• The requirements and design specification are replaced by scrums of colloboration between users and developpers
• Rapid development techniques allow the deliverables to be demonstrated to get rapid confirmation of the design

What does all this do to the Cone of Uncertainty?
Well the risk reduces:

• the time between design and acceptance is reduced.
• The risk will increase again at the start of each new iteration stage.
• The initial risk is also cut down because the early stages of definition are reduced to a high level description of what each stage is going to address.
• There is still some final acceptance. But this is reduced to what I would call integration acceptance - confirming that the deliverables from each stage work together.

So our Cone of Uncertainty is warped into the Christmas Tree of Collaboration!

What have we got to loose?

Let's develop some consequences of the cone of uncertainty - in particular the high risk and uncertainty at the start of the project.

All is not lost down the cone of uncertainty. Although the inaccuracy is high at the start, the stakes aren't high because you have no investment in the project.

We're talking here in general terms about a typical project.

You could see scenarios where you have to have investment or commitment right up front; where, say, you are committed to a fixed price delivery or have to meet some absolute deadline like a regulatory change (although in

such cases you would have requirements specified so you would be some way down the curve already).

If we look at the spending through the project (Shown in the second chart of cumulative expenditure - with the steepness of the curve showing the "Rate of Spend" ):

• Spending doesn't really start in earnest until you get into the main development phase of the project - when construction starts or the programmers start to cut the code.
• That's the point too where most of the project capital expenditure gets made, such as purchases of hardware and licences for the production environment.

If we put together the risk and the cost we end up with the Value at risk - or to put it in plain English -"What have we got to loose?"

This goes from the start of the project when the risks are highest but the investment is low. The value at risk then rises steeply as we progress; the spending rockets while the uncertainties and risks are still significant. As we reach the home straight the risk decreases. You will see that I haven't taken it down to zero when the project is delivered. Most phased project payment schedules will have a "retention" at the end to cover those snags that come up after delivery.

(Try that the next time you call out a plumber to fix a leak - "I will pay you 90% now and the rest when it has stayed dry for a month")

Let us not forget too, that for the user, delivery acceptance is only the start of the benefits that will come from the project, which will have risks too.

So what does this all mean for project risk management?

• If the project is going to fail it is best to let it fail at the start - and your early risk assessments should consider this.
• You need to have gateway reviews at the start - for assurance you have the governance in place.
• You then need to have reviews at the start of any project phase where the value at risk is going to increase.
• And you need to have project assurance all over the project through the main build/development phase when the value at risk peaks.

This, of course, assumes complete honesty and assurance that each phase is complete with the quality needed. So what if you start development -with its high spend rate - when in reality the requirements aren't fully defined? Well the simple maths says that you should apply the higher rate of uncertainty during the requirements specification to the higher spend during development and the value at risk suddenly rockets!

We've seen how by taking a few generalisations about a project we can quickly infer a lot more about the risks of a project. Let's go on to think about how we can bend some of these rules to our project advantage..

Planning Uncertainty

I came back to Mike Cohn's great book on Agile Estimating and Planning. The Agile Manifesto that values responding to change over following a plan doesn't at first seem to warrant a whole book on planning. It still needs to be done - as well illustrated by his quote :

"A good plan violently executed now is better than a perfect plan executed next week." - General George S. Patton

The book starts with a useful tool for any project manager - "Cone of Uncertainty":
This clearly shows what we all know:

At the start of the project, when we don't know exactly what needs to be done, our estimates for the work to be done are the least accurate.

Unfortunately for the hapless Project Manager it's at start of the project, when the business case for the project is being prepared that accurate estimates are most needed!

Different authors give different vertical scales to this cone of uncertainty, with the upper extreme of estimate accuracy (or should I say inaccuracy?) varying between 1.4 and 4. Some (as I have) also skew the uncertainty toward the high end - on the basis that most things get more complicated, rather than easier than expected.

So what are the lessons for the project manager as he gets drawn into the Cone of Uncertainty?

• It is essential to communicate to the project board and stakeholders that the initial estimates are inherently less accurate.
• It is good advice that project managers should always qualify any estimates with a probability: "There is a ninety percent chance this phase will be delivered ontime" - although you may get a reputation for avoiding commitment to deadlines if you do this too much!
• It shows that the milestones/project checkpoints, particularly before the start of detailed design and development, are essential steps to re-estimate costs and the business case, before committing to the increased expenditure as you get down to detail.
• If you have a project contingency budget to cover this early uncertainty you may need to review that contingency as the estimating improves, so it doesn't get spent "covering up" other issues that arise later.
• It is not an excuse that you should leave all estimating until the end of the project so it will be 100% accurate!

Passing the point of no return

Pilots will know that when you are taking off there is a speed called V1. The plane has reached such a speed that there is not enough runway ahead of you to stop. So you are committed to take-off. Unfortunately V1 is usually less than V2 - the speed at which the plane can safely get off the ground. Any change after passing V1 – like a critical engine failure - can be catastrophic.

Many projects will feel like they have a similar point of no return. You have spent so much of time, effort, money and emotional investment that you have to go on. Going back to your old process may no longer an option: it is out of support or it won’t support new statutory requirements.
So what can you do if your project starts to fail after it has built up such a momentum?

Firstly Avoidance: your project management should have identified the risks before they happen, and mitigated them – a four engine plane is inherently safer that a single engine plane.

Secondly Act Decisively: A crew faced with an engine failure on take-off has to act quickly. They will have rehearsed the routines in simulators. Faced with a real situation they act in a split second. Can your project objectives and business case be quickly reconfigured so you still have a viable configuration? Throw out the catering trolleys to reduce weight for take off! But you can only act decisively if you have identified the risk.

If You Can, Stop. It is better to run off the end of the runway than to try to take-off without enough speed.

Finally Learn Lessons. All Air Incidents must be reported. There should be no fear of victimisation. Spin, cover-up or denial will only cause future catastrophes. If the crew followed procedures then they have nothing to fear. "Sully" Sullenberger, the US Airlines pilot who put down his crippled plane on New York’s Hudson River became a national hero. A project failure should lead to a process improvement.
A bank that bought PCs to re-equip its branch network found they were underpowered for the teller application when it was delivered. They could have sold them immediately to recover some cost but that would have realised an accounting loss. So the PCs sat in a warehouse for three years until they could be quietly scrapped. Was that the right outcome for me as a shareholder?

Risky Business

Here's a great white paper on project risk assessment in the context of corporate risk appetite.

http://www.projectperfect.com.au/white-paper-a-different-view-of-project-risk.php?b3note=riskmat

Unfortunately it doesn't extend onto management of project risks.

The Office Of Government Commerce also has some really useful risk potential assessment tools and techniques . They even have the spreadsheets set up to save you the math!

It just a shame that too many UK public projects don't stick to these principles. It is a major victory for common sense, the UK tax payer and for students of project management that Gateway Reviews are now published under Freedom of Information.

Whatever your views are on Prince2 there can be no doubt that its approach to project risk management is a sound framework. It will be interesting to see how the new guidance for Directing Successful Projects with PRINCE2 2009, aimed at project executives and sponsors, will clarify the project directors vital role in risk management.

How long will it be before this guidance has an impact on the Gateway Reviews?