PM Stories: High-Risk Advocating

I was managing a project to produce a web-based application for use during a scheduled training event at a client’s site. On one side was my sponsor that was extremely eager to launch. On the other side were developers trying to create code for complex business rules. As my team struggled to get the application to behave as required, they became concerned about their ability to complete and test in time for the event. My sponsor and team were at odds over the project schedule and became adamant that their respective interests be accommodated.

As project manager, I needed to address two contradicting positions. First, my team needed to feel that their concern about the deadline was taken seriously. An unheard attitude of “we’re not going to meet the deadline” can become a self-fulfilling prophecy. I didn’t want us to subconsciously undermine efforts to succeed in order to prove that our predictions were right. My team needed to be confident that I was communicating the schedule risk appropriately.

Second, I wanted our sponsor to be confident that every effort was being made. If I simply informed them that we were projecting a schedule overrun, the sponsor would likely have implemented their own strategies to meet the date - completely understandable even if it was a long shot. I communicated status using a blend of progress (what we’ve done) with a qualitative assessment of its impact on schedule risk. Next, I laid out our forecast (what we’ll do), again with prediction of risk impact.

In the end, we didn’t launch at the scheduled event (you thought I was going to claim success?). In a way though, we were successful. The development team had flown to the client site, and both sponsor and team felt that all efforts had been made to meet the deadline. The sponsor was not caught by surprise because they had been kept up-to-date concerning risks all along. Eight hours before the event, the sponsor rescheduled the planned launch, perhaps not thrilled, but satisfied with the team’s commitment to the sponsor’s goal. Everyone ended up on the same page.

Moral: A project manager’s ability to advocate for both sponsor and team makes it possible for those with differing interests to work toward a common goal.

PM Laws: Who Defines Project Success?

When joining a project, I often ask team members to tell me a bit about previous projects. It helps me to understand their perspective on project work ... and keeps me from being (as) surprised later.

I'll ask them to tell me about a successful project and what it was that made it a success. I hear lots of reasons such as a great team, got to use new technology, build what 'I' wanted, requirements didn't change, ... When I ask why the sponsor or key stakeholders thought the project was successful, the confusion sets in. Some team members tell me that the sponsor was not happy with their successful project. More commonly, they simply don't know whether stakeholders considered the project a success or not.

This perplexes me. How is it possible for team members not to know what their stakeholders think about the project? This form of 'tone deafness' is a huge risk for project failure.
It's completely fine to be proud of the work we've done on projects, to enjoy being part of a particular team, or to get a chance to work on something really new. In the end, however, the success of any project will be defined and judged by those that initiated and paid for it. Just keeping this on the team radar goes a long way to ensure that the work being done is moving the project towards success.

So, the project you just finished ... was it a success? Says who?