Death by Band-Aid

Working in the industry I've noticed a few things. People always look at Band-Aids vs. Solutions. Even within the realm of project management or some might say particularly in the world of project management.

Classical Band-Aids:

• Communication is poor, instead of increasing frequency and quality of interaction an often response is to document it.
• Schedules are slipping consistently, so lets through more people/money at it.
• Morale is low, let's give em the pep talk and a hand shake, a pat on the back, and tell them to soldier on.

Sound familiar? Of course it should these wouldn't be "Classical" Band-Aid approaches to business issues if they weren't seen often enough to approach cliche.

So why Band-Aids over a solution? Why?

Solutions are:

• Expensive
• Complicated
• Often Embarrassing

How so?

Band-Aids are easy. Low Hanging fruit in the consultant world. Often picked to show immediate gains and validate hypothesis. But cutting to the root of a problem or issue takes more effort, more commitment, and lastly ownership and the last thing anyone wants to do in the "corporate" world is own up to a failing in their organizational operations.

Expensive - Solutions often mean paradigm (yeah I used the word paradigm) shifts in how they approach the issue/problem. These changes mean re-training, resistance and sometimes buying new machines, software, and people. All daunting prospects. How does all this stack up if we can go to the classical Band-Aid of saying ok we need to document this...

Complicated - Solutions at least good ones are end to end endeavors. They address a business problem/issue end to end. They aren't stop gaps. This means it crosses over organizational silos, human capital relationships, and the political barriers in addition to their overall pure business impact. Honestly who wants to step on the feet of the powers that be to solve a business problem that has been affecting the higher ups but obviously has been assumed as "nature of the beast". It doesn't get much more intimidating than that.

Embarrassing? How so? In order to solve a problem you must admit that there is a problem to begin with. Telling a "C" Level exec that his decision to adopt a particular stance on technology is killing his competitive advantage is the nightmare for any management type and similarly a line engineer telling his co-worker in production that their process may not be revealing the end all to the products woes.

So what to do what to do?

Get over it.

An unpopular viewpoint I am sure but I didn't join the the workforce to be popular. I have tons of friends. I joined to workforce to solve problems and provide an unquestionable value proposition. I leverage Project Management and Scientific Management principles to enact such solutions. Sometimes it casts light to places where others would rather remain within the umbra and there are consequences for that, I bear many a scar from such altercations. But it changes nothing. Solutions not Band-Aids are what is called for in times of doubt and uncertainty.

You don't go to the hospital with abdominal pains and say "My insides feel funny? Can you slap a "Band-Aid" on me doc? I think I can handle it"

You wouldn't want that doc to say "Oh I've seen this 1000x no problem, here's a Band-Aid call me if it gets worse"

Call me crazy but I would be looking for like "Ok. Let's see tell me the syptoms, when did it start, how intense, and I am going to assume you want me to fix this, ah ha based on this I think you have a ruptured appendix. I am going to schedule surgery to fix this... I hope you have insurance... ;p "

What's the alternative, soldier on and die a septic death? Pass.

Solutions are much more desirable than a slow agonizing death.

The video is from Heartbreak Ridge(1985) I thought it appropos.

-Optimal Optimus

Situational Awareness

Many people talk about Situational Awareness but few people understand it.

To me its really like the Matrix concept of "Bullet Time" the ability to move or respond to stimuli far beyond normal ken. Everything moving in "Slow Motion"

How does that apply to project management?

Simple PM's serve as the situational awareness for an organization. We should be able to perceive stimuli and respond faster than humanly thought possible. Our processes should support this dynamic.

Situational Awareness is analogous with Clarity of Vision, that people who have experienced high pressure and intense situations and triumphed have related that it was as if you could see everything and it was all moving in slow motion and it felt right.

Project Management should provide that clarity that awareness that no matter how risky or how chaotic that the right move the most expeditious move is clear and ready to be taken.

That's how important situational awareness is.

I included a little "Matrix Bullet Time" for an example.

-Optimal Optimus

Process is a side effect of Communication not the other way around!!!

PROCESS PROCESS PROCESS

The more often than not battle cry of the Project Manager.

PMBOK teaches process and standards...
SCRUM is a process...
SO is XP...
SO is waterfall...

So what's the big deal? That means process is important right? Wrong!!!

Process is a child of communication. In an environment where there is little or no communication or mutual understanding of business objectives process is typically viewed as a liability because there is no context associated to how it will improve the business.

Conversely communication does not happen initially in a process environment it happens as organizations and individuals interact and identify areas for which they can agree upon and identify economies of scale. The interactions and communication ideally are identified and then held as a standard to be met or reproduced creating a "Process".

This is why I always cringe when I hear a PM say the solution is to create a process when the true answer is the PM needs to create a "dialogue" (read here communication) between the business objectives and the teams working on them and identify what is acceptable to both entities. Based off of the outcome of the dialogue then the process can be identified and followed.

PM's should never be in the business of bringing process to an organization but in the business of creating dialogues that allow an organization to build its own processes.

Ya Savvy?

-Optimal Optimus

Scrummtastic!!!

So I am now a newly minted Certified SCRUM Master!!!

Do I feel any different? Have the Project Management gods opened up their pearly gates and blessed me with a glimpse of arcana that will revolutionize my organization?

One word? No.

For those of us just joining the blog, I am not big on the seemingly growing trend of Methodology Fundamentalists growing out there and just like their Religious counterparts, they only seem to make things more difficult than they really are.

Just call me a secular bastard but bottom line it there are things that we can do in project management in business that take all these tools these methodologies and apply them judiciously and where appropriate to make significant gains.

Bottomline:
Results matter. How we get there whether pure XP, Scrum, Waterfall, Ninja Techniques from the Black Scrolls of Mu; Ship the product with minimal bugs/issues within expectations and everyone busts out the stoagie and we go home with the prom king/queen WOOT!!!

That said am I glad I took the training? Absolutely. It opened up some areas for improvement and experimentation to the hybrid model I have been employing . Will I sport the credential? Damn Skippy!!!

Above is probably one of the best pictures of the Agile Methodology I have seen to date. (I found it in a google search)

Image - 2008 ENVISAGE Technologies Corp.
1441 S. Fenbrook Lane - Bloomington, Indiana - 47401 - 812.330.7101

- Optimal Optimus

Respect. Recognize!!!

So I participate on a couple of forums regarding project management and I answered a question regarding respect.

Not very well written but I decided to post it here as being a PM basically means you need to cultivate a lot of respect fast in order to be successful.

I know this breaks the Fighter motif I have has the last couple of posts but. Well things change.

-Optimal Optimus


In my experience it all comes down as to what respect is defined as in the organization or between individuals for that matter.

Because I am the manager you must respect me... (does not cultivate respect)

Because I am talking you must respect me and not talk over me (does not cultivate respect)

Because you work for me (does not cultivate respect)

Respect IMHO comes from mutually seeing each other as equals and communicating as equals without preconceived notions of superiority or influence whether or not they may be there circumstantially.

Everyone here is the same we are trying to provide a solid product with great value proposition (respectable)

Everyone here has opinions and insights we may not all agree but if you have insights and opinions lets make sure they a rationally supported and are in line with our business goals (respectable)

I need you to attend this meeting, based on my understanding of business needs and what the meeting represents it should prove beneficial to our objectives (respectable)

I want us to take this approach because it supports our organization in this manner and is in line with the majority of our organizational operational units.(respectable)

It's a matter of engaging your team, empowering them, respecting them as professionals. Not ordering them about. You don't have to be a manager to have respect, nor should you as a manager abuse the respect your title bestows upon you.

If anything Respect is a commodity that is earned by trust and honesty and openness of intent than anything else and whose value as emotional and sub-context currency is immeasurable.

If you are gonna play... better know the game.

So in keeping with the Project Management meets competitive sport fighting motif, I have decided to tackle the concept of does a project manager need to have technical expertise/industry experience to manage projects effectively.

For me the answer is surprisingly… No. But wait there's a caveat to that answer…. Can a project manager manage a project without intimate technical/industry experience? Yes, but will they be as good as a project manager with the technical/industry experience… No.

But why?

There's the rub. In the fight game there is a saying "Ring Time is Golden".

What the hell does that mean?

It means that fighters that have logged "Ring Time" hours or have fought actual fights possess as strategic advantage to a fighter without.

Well what about all that sparring and training? Wouldn’t that help a fighter without the "Ring Time"?

Yes, they would.

But when it comes down to business and a fighter's business is winning a fight in the ring, in front of a crowd. No amount of sparring or training prepares you for the cheers of the crowd, the pressures of your family, the tunnel vision, and the myriad of psychological challenges that a fighter takes on, on top of the physical combatant. This isn't to say that some fighters sheer physical prowess and skill can compensate for a lack of "Ring Time" but ask any serious fighter out there, the smart money is on the guy with the best "Ring Time".

Being there. Knowing the rules of the ring. Controlling the anxiety, mitigating the affect of personal factors, possessing the clarity and singularity of purpose to fully leverage your training and experience is what makes a great fighter and similarly a great project manager.

I chose the opening for "The Contender: Asia" which centered around Muay Thai in which several rising stars in the professional Muay Thai circles were contestants in competing with very well known names in the Muay Thai champion fighters. And as I expected the more experienced fighters rose to the occasion and the other fighters with less experience, less ring time fell to the affects of the pressures of the ring. Some couldn’t reign in their personalities, some their lives outside the ring, their health, and in the end the last 5 fighters were all veterans of the Muay Thai ring. No accident. Ring Time is golden

Technical and Industry experience equate to having the tools talent and sense of situational awareness that can take a good project manager and makes him one that can in "Jedi" like fashion see the future improving response/reaction times making things seem effortless or even scripted. It is rare sight to see but a beautiful to behold.

So to boil it all down. A Project Manager can manage any project but when the stakes are high and they often are, its always best to go with your "game face on" and in order to have a game face you have to know the game. Knowing the Game means you have been there before and you didn’t choke. You rose to the occasion, faced the challenges with poise and composure and sent them all home packing. It takes a project manager with that situational awareness… that "ting Time" to make it happen. So if you are in the game for blood best have some quality ring time under the belt.

- Optimal Optimus

Lean In...

So I was looking for some more topics to touch on in the blog. After some thought I decided to go with dealing with change.

Not too long ago I attended a PMI Component Conference with Bob Young one of the founders of Red Hat Linux, acting as the final keynote speaker. The topic of his keynote speech was "How the Internet will kill us all" which would have been more aptly named "Lean In or Get Out".

So what does that have to do with Project Management?... Tons.

Project Management from my perspective is all about expectation management and expectations often change, embracing this change or "Leaning In" to the changes as opposed to fighting them goes a long way to ensuring responsive and effective operation.

Often we spend a lot of energy trying to fight change as opposed to seeing it as an opportunity to improve or gain a better understanding of situations for gains in the long run. It is part of the human condition to view everything with a personal filter on the situation, it’s a developed skill to be able to separate one from that filter and look at things rationally.

Change is to business as breathing is to life one cannot exist without the other. Markets evolve, needs change, expectations are met or adjusted all a reality of doing business. The question we face is are we going to take this reality in and look for opportunities to move forward and realize gains or do we close ourselves off and pray that the change passes by and stagnate.

I opt for the embrace. I am a trained project manager, I am familiar with many styles and tools to effect my trade but I never allow myself the false luxury that my experience gives me a "fool proof" solution. Granted I have more than a few principles I try to follow but when the tires hit the pavement I am always looking for where the road is going and how my tires will grip the road, always discerning whether or not I have to take a pit stop and adjust the tread I have on for the road ahead.

I "Lean In". Not only am I a trained project manager but I am a trained fighter and "Lean In" has another meaning . In a fight everything is constant change. Combatant shift and feint changing the scope of the fight in hopes of putting their opponent off balance. "Lean In" is something that a judicious fighter employs when he accepts some of the "change ups" an opponent and turns it to his advantage, typically by leaning in to an oncoming strike robbing it some of its power or effect to deliver a telling counter strike or to begin a series of offensive strikes in hopes of defeating the offending party.

The alternative? Staying still? That gets you knocked out.

-Optimal Optimus

Glory? Good or Bad?

There are a lot of things that bother me when I approach an organization in an engagement ; first and foremost is an organizations understanding of "glory" or what it should be doing.

I think there are 2 kinds of "Glory"…. Good and Bad.

As I have often being accused of being negative let's start off with the BAD…

In the pursuit of glory, individuals often begin to think of it as their own and this is not an optimum situation . People tend to tunnel vision their careers to their own narrative. It is this "Their Own" concept that makes the pursuit of glory negative.

How so? When we are hired by an organization we are hired to perform for them not for ourselves. Their goals as dictated by management, their direction, If we are lucky we get to influence that direction but ultimately it is still theirs. This "Own" concept some individuals build up in their minds works in contradiction to the we are here to make real the organizations wishes dichotomy. It is this break in perspectives that causes inter-organizational strife. Groups of individuals begin to push their own agendas over the needs and concerns of the overall business organization. In the end this kind of glory seeking attention yields chaos and frustration.

Well it sounds as though glory in any sense of the word is bad? How can it be a good thing?

It’s a matter of perspective. What is "Glory" ? If "Glory" is simply self gratification of individual aspirations then that is small and petty and frankly pathetic. If the concept of "Glory" centers around the betterment and sustainability of the greater good in this case an organization's well being and not any one individuals' then it’s a concept that should be lauded and encouraged. The concept of the well being of the whole vs. the needs of the one and achieving excellence and thereby attaining "Glory" should be what everyone working for an organization that we don't own or control should aspire to. Do not take me for someone who doesn't seek the adulation of his peers, because I do, but I am not one to sacrifice the well-being of an organization for a personal win.

Entrepreneurs, business owners, they get the lions share of glory because they put up the risk. The peons (us employee, contractor types) we get to help and if we are good at it they recognize us for our efforts. The act of posturing and grabbing for power is unprofessional and counter productive to the "Long Game". It's not about you its about what you bring to the table and how it keeps food there, not how "shiny" you can make yourself with shadow games and political ploys.

The clip is from the movie 300. Its important to remember that the Spartans (at least theatrically) were striving to be an example to the rest of Greece to stop their petty squabbles and individual bids for power and unite for a greater good. To stand for freedom blah blah blah... I leave you to draw your own conclusions.

- Optimal Optimus

"The Long Game" vs. "The Short Game" ... "Striker" vs. "Grappler"

So here's the second post… the Long Game vs. the Short Game in Project Management. Its been my experience that many organizations suffer from myopia. The reality is that as a professional in Project Management and Management in general the role we must play requires us being able to clearly see "The Road Ahead" for good or ill and travel the road efficiently and effectively.

Its not an easy issue to tackle. Individuals who suffer from "management myopia" typically speaking, lack the ability to discern that it is a problem. When someone brings it up an issue that requires forethought or foresight they dismiss the issue as "nebulous" or "chasing ghosts". So what to do?

I really don’t have much of an answer for this but here it goes…

… I try and explain the problem in analogies.

"The Long Game"… problem here is I don’t play golf so I will put in a MMA terms. The long game is the "strikers" game. You engage with your opponent a distance. You read his movement, look for weaknesses, opportunities to strike your foe for maximum effect all at a distance. The skill sets used rely heavily on seeing everything with little or no contact while remaining maneuverable so as to predict or by your efforts lead your adversary into a situation where you can win the exchange. Mistakes can be costly, catastrophic mistakes lead to an early KO, but small mistakes say misjudging a punch but keeping your guard up allow you to take a little more and may allow you to reposition for a solid counter, because of distance you have a greater margin of error.

"The Short Game" or "Grapplers" is similar in that it’s a struggle/contest in MMA, but fundamentally different. Instead of reading at a distance you are intimately entwined with your opponent. The reading is done in subtle shifts in weight as the both of you jockey for position and in the brief instances between knees, fists, and elbows fly at your noggin. There is little time to try and predict movement and the stakes are higher when you try to apply your energy to win the engagement. In the "Short Game" the margins are smaller and against a skilled opponent its one mistake and that’s game. In less than it takes to blink your eyes you find yourself in a short arm bar or a triangle choke and all the pain, torture, and agony you faced as you trained and prepared for this fight get flushed down the tubes and all that is left is to go home broken and defeated and possibly crying.

That sounds awfully grim right? It is. Getting in the ring is grim business and when you’re the project manager or a manager in charge of projects that will play a heavy party in your organizations financial well being, well that’s grim business too.

SO does that mean I should focus on my "Long Game" and ignore my "Short Game", does one have more value than the other?

The answer is simple no. You need both.

If your "Long Game" is good you can defeat your opponents from afar without them touching you, but typically you face adversaries who are more than up to the challenge. The idea here is you wouldn’t have taken the risk to fight if the guy was a complete tomato can the purse/rewards wouldn't be worth the time.

So that means you have to leverage your "Long Game" to pound on your opponent softening him up so that if and when it comes down to the "Short Game" you can defeat him readily as you increase your margins in the aggregate and improve your probability for victory.

In business speak it means you move "strategically" (Long Game) and get buy in, solve the big problems, position yourself for maximum effectiveness ahead of time. Eventually you are faced with the "tactical" (Short Game) realities of your operational problem space, here because you set up the problem with your "strategy" you have more options "tactically" to finish and reap the rewards of success.

BTW the clip is from UFC 77 Anderson Silva a Muay Thai/BJJ fighter "Striker and a Grappler" highly skillful at both and he happens to be the champion in a very competitive bracket.

- Optimal Optimus

Project Management… Science or Crusade? Red Pill or Blue?

So this is my first post on R-Cubed Project Management and I thought long and hard about what the first rant would be because that’s really what I am doing here, ranting. I decided to go with a Matrix/Transformers motif ergo the little YouTube snippet with the apropos Red Pill "Truth"/Blue Pill "Blind Faith" dialogue; Project Management Methodologies/Tools/Processes...Science "Red Pill" or Crusade "Blue Pill".

Being a project management professional for the last 10 years I have seen my fair share of project management flavors of the month: Agile, PMBOK, LEAN, XP, Scrum, etc. What gets me standing on a soap box is that these PM Tools, (cause that is what they are tools) come complete with pushy evangelists and "over-internalizing" chest thumping adopters.

Instead of looking at the problem space that an individual organization faces and what tools that the scope of the project management profession has developed i.e.: Agile, Scrum, XP, LEAN, PMBOK. These so-called "practitioners" adhere blindly to a methodology or worse a PM Tool Suite thinking that it will miraculously solve all of their operational woes. Nothing could be further from the truth.

There is no magic bullet or cure to project management or management/leadership in general. The only thing I can think of that would come close to a cure for project management/leadership woes is to look at it scientifically as opposed to taking it on like a crusade.

Selling Agile processes is not project management.

Identifying how applicable and how Agile processes can be implemented and thereby prove a value add is project management. The idea that having multiple iterations and weekly meetings is not being "Agile"; its simply having multiple iterations and weekly meetings. Thinking that any one methodology or any particular part of a "methodology" means you are doing it 100% is dangerous ground to stand on and since being in Project Management means you try to find the least dangerous ground to stand on, it would make sense to pause and re-evaluate such decisions.

Science or "Scientia" in the latin means "to Know" which later spawned the Scientific Method meaning "to know" via the practice of observation and experimentation. This concept has a couple implications on this issue:

• It takes away the marketing pull of Methodologies/Canned Workflow Tools as a panacea for Project Management.
• It applies a reason/rational approach to how we make our management decisions this includes what methodologies/processes/tools we adopt.

Applying a scientific approach divests us of the emotional clamor of "crusades" to handle projects in an "Agile" fashion or a "Lean" process. It allows the Project Manager or decision maker to evaluate the methodologies/tools/processes to make decision on what makes best sense to solve the business problem. After all we are in the business of business not thumping the latest management mantra. Just because an expert says that true blue Agile works best at XYZ company doesn’t mean that true blue Agile will work for yours. It may take a hybridization of different methodologies, tools, and processes to get it just right for the decision maker and their organization.

Crusades, generally speaking have rarely ever been a good idea because a crusade takes rationality out of the equation and replaces it with faith. Effectively saying "who ever believes hard enough will win out in the end". It's rings with the tone of "God Wills it". I don’t presume to know the "Will of God" or to speak for him. I will however take my "God-given" brain and apply rational thought to my selection of methodologies, tools , and processes to solve the business problems presented to me, because it makes sense and not because the "Agile" gods will it.

-Optimal Optimus