Raise Project-Management Maturity and End PPM Malpractice. By Michael Vinje, PMP, Principal at Trissential

Transcription

1 Raise Project-Management Maturity and End PPM Malpractice By Michael Vinje, PMP, Principal at Trissential The word malpractice connotes sub-par performance, injury, and severe financial consequences. Most everyone associates malpractice with medicine, law, or accounting, but it is hardly, if ever, connected in anyone s mind with project management. What word other than malpractice better describes actions that lead to late, over budget, and dysfunctional processes or systems the consequences of which injure the performance of the organization? There are legal liabilities associated with projectmanagement malpractice as well. Sarbanes-Oxley regulations, for example, require timely reporting related to key systems and projects. This requirement applies to c-level executives even when the project team offers them no clear understanding of a pending disaster. Let s face it there are instances when poor project-management performance must be labeled malpractice. The responsibility for malpractice does not rest solely on the shoulders of the portfolio and project management (PPM) team, but also on c-level executives. The factors contributing to PPM malpractice either top-down from the executive suite or bottom-up from the project-management team are, in our view, associated with low project-management maturity. Raising the project-management maturity of both

2 executives and the PPM team helps the organization eliminate project-management malpractice. There are three steps to raising project-management maturity: 1. Assess the project-management maturity of executives and the PPM team across three broad indicators people, processes, and tools 2. Develop a plan to rectify maturity issues 3. Implement the plan using best project-management practices Step 1: Assessment C-level executives should be assessed on their abilities to collaborate, use information to prioritize, and establish PPM goals. Executives who exhibit high collaboration with the PPM team, base decisions on adequate data, and have sound expectations for the results of the project score high on overall maturity. On the other hand, low collaboration, inadequate data, and unreal expectations indicate low PPM maturity. To assess process maturity, we evaluate the level of support given to the PPM team by senior executives, the amount of discipline executives apply to the process of governing PPM, and the value executives place on best practices. Lack of support, little discipline, or the perception that processes are not important indicates low maturity. The assessment considers the executive s use of tools to enable decision making. Does the organization have requirements for tools and are the executives trained on the tools they are using? A lack of tools and training indicate low governance maturity. PPM managers are evaluated on their people skills those leadership and communications abilities often referred to as the art of project management. The inability to work with people, weak leadership, or lack of interpersonal skills earns managers lower ratings on the maturity scale. The assessment looks at processes

3 utilized by the PPM team. Are processes applied properly and consistently across the organization? Do these processes meet industry standards? Are there too many or conflicting processes? The assessment considers the types of tools used, how tools are configured, and the level of staff training on those tools. Trissential uses a customized version of PMI s OPM3 tool for the assessment of process maturity. We have also developed maturity assessment tools for the areas of people and project-management tools. Depending on the size of the organization, a thorough assessment can be completed in two to six weeks. Step 2: Planning Some organizations may have an across-the-board low maturity level in people, processes, and tools. Most, however, have only a few pockets of low maturity but these few can cause many problems. For example, we assessed a leading catalog and e-retailer. Executives of this company were frustrated by late, over budget, and under performing projects. The PPM teams were demoralized and felt that the organization was dysfunctional basically the right hand did not know what the left hand was doing. The assessment uncovered two areas of low maturity. Some projects were running on a six-phase project management process, and others were using a threephase software lifecycle process. The phases were out of synch and completely incompatible. The assessment also found that the senior-level executives were not prioritizing effectively, thereby assigning the PPM teams far too much work. We developed a plan for this company that: Standardized on a single PPM process across the organization Addressed the prioritization issue

4 Creating a plan to raise project-management maturity can take anywhere from 2 to 4 weeks. The total time for the assessment and planning steps averages 10 weeks. Implement the plan as a best practices project The key to the success of the third step in raising project-management maturity and ending PPM malpractice is to implement the plan as a well-run project. There are two reasons for this. If the plan is not carried out as a project, then it will simply fall by the wayside. Key elements will not be implemented as attention is drawn away by dayto-day contingencies. Implementing the plan as a well-run project is also important because the process serves as hands-on training for executives and project managers. Executives will discover that collaboration, information, prioritization, and best practices lead to consistent results. Executives will find that when they are trained and use tools they gain a window into current implementations. PPM managers see that leadership skills pay off. The correct type and number of processes contribute to less variation and a smoother running operation. Full training on properly configured tools places everyone on the same page. For executives and the PPM team, a well-run implementation may uncover fresh issues and present additional opportunities for gaining maturity. Lastly, executives and their PPM teams will discover for themselves the importance of mature governance and mature project management to on-time, on-budget, and fully operational implementations. We advise clients to bring in an outside partner for the assessment and planning steps. The organization is simply too close to the problem to properly assess root causes. Furthermore, critical comments are easier to take from a neutral party. In terms

5 of implementation, the organization can likely complete this task on its own with some outside coaching. The level of involvement of a consultant for implementation depends primarily on the areas needing development and the expertise resident within the organization. The implementation step takes anywhere from 6 to 30 months to complete. As we help companies improve, we find time and again that raising project maturity not only ends project-management malpractice, but also delivers significant value year after year. Michael Vinje is a Principal at Trissential, a consulting firm focused on business improvement. He welcomes your comments mvinje@trissential.com. ###