Sunday, 04 April 2010 00:00

Only A Culture of Change Will Fix Projects

Rate this item
(1 Vote)

From years of experience in recovering red projects, I estimate that only a third of all problems that affect red projects are actually on the project; the other two-thirds are in the surrounding organizations. Poor policies and procedures or lack of commitment by the customer, vendor, integrator, or organization overshadows problems on the project. Unfortunately, project managers do not have the authority, or even the influence, to address these issues. Their only course of action to complete the project successfully is to band-aid the problem. This must change if companies are going to quickly and accurately implement business initiatives.

Companies Cannot Accept Status Quo

Change is crucial. Only companies with an exceptional change management culture are going to be breakaway organizations that will be leaders in the future. Management needs to listen to project managers and instantiate changes to remove roadblocks for current and future projects. The effort and cost, of course, cannot be saddled on the project; this is an organization-wide change that happens as a parallel effort.

These corrective actions must be defined and implemented in a collaborative environment. Walls between organizations must to be removed so groups work freely and are empowered to be critical of people, processes and policies that are poisoning productivity. When a problem is identified, the corporate culture must be one where everyone joins forces to correct it. Territorial pride must give way to a company-wide team mentality to improve efficiency and remove waste.

In a recent survey undertaking by IBM to determine the differences in companies that jumped out as leaders, they questioned nearly 400 companies on various aspects of their business. The results indicated that being able to drive change was over sixty percent of their reason for a business' ability to jump ahead of its competition. IBM determined that three leadership traits were common among organizations that bolted out in front of their competition—they must be challenging, anticipating, and empowering. Leaders need to build an environment that challenges the norm and is innovative. They need to use business results to anticipate how to optimize their operations and they must empower employees to make the decisions that will drive change. This attitude is exactly what is needed to push project success rates up.

The Proper Solution

A typical scenario on a failing project is that the project team is missing essential skills. This problem is usually rooted in a policy of using internal resources over more expensive external ones. The policy is developed to keep internal resources billable. However, the cost of having people with the wrong skill set working on a project is far greater than having a competent contractor do the work. The solution is to have a policy to:

  • Train existing or hire new people with expertise in tools essential for the company success well in advance of needing them.
  • Hire temporary labor to meet short-term requirements.
  • Replace people that are unwilling or unable to learn skills matching the company's requirements.

This type of policy is difficult to implement in most companies. However, this, and follow-on projects, cannot continue to suffer the burden of poor processes and repeated attempts by project to band-aid them. The policy, and the other policies relating to it, must be changed in order for projects to succeed.

The Mechanics Are of Lesser Importance

The aforementioned survey also ranked the importance of activities as they related to a company's success in driving change. They were:

  • Culture and people change management
  • Data governance
  • Business process change

Fourth and fifth in importance, and considered mechanics rather than drivers, were program governance and project objectives. Clearly, companies leading the pack are far more concerned about accommodating change than the intricacies of a given process.

The Next Steps

So how do we start? At the top, of course. Senior level managers, from the CEO down, must warmly embracing change and develop their teams to do the same, working cooperatively between various organizations to optimize operations. No longer can they be the sole decisions maker, they must empower their employees to make decisions so the company can respond quickly to changing business environments. Without this, project statistics have little chance of improving.

Read 5272 times

Related items

  • Process Mapping

    Process is at the core of any business. It makes work predictable, repeatable, and transferable. Without it we cannot scale our businesses. However, process can be a bane to making progress. Processes that work for a $10 million company have difficulties supporting a $30 million company. Trying to scale them to a $300 million company will not only fail but not address the issues that larger companies have that were never dreamt of in a smaller organization. Processes need to be discarded, revamped, and built—all of that without creating an overburdening bureaucracy.

    Anytime you need to go someplace, you first have to know where you are. Processes are never static and your company's current state is probably far from where you think it is. Hence, the first step is mapping out you company's current state followed by defining the future state. This is more than a logical map of the process; it must also include physical maps. Whether your process is solely to provide a service (say, website development) or physical (say, manufacturing) there are logistical issues that complicate the process flow. Without fully understanding those nuances, future state processes will not reach the desired efficiencies.

    For more information about process mapping fill out the form to the left and we will get in touch with you.

  • Success vs Culture

    The other day a Latvian student contacted me for my views the connection between culture and success criteria—an important and intriguing topic. After working in Taiwan, Singapore, Korea, Japan, Israel, United States, and Canada, I wear many scars of both blatant and subtle cultural violations. I also know that within a culture one person's success is often another person's failure. So, after dispelling concerns about clicking on some random email link, I completed her survey (please feel free to take it yourself). In the process, I struck up a friendship with the student, Kristine Briežkalne, who is studying at Riga International School of Economics and Business Administration . She has some interesting views and presented me with a Venn diagram showing four frames to a project (business, client, project management, and growth perspectives) and how they intersected. As the diagram is part of her Master's thesis, I will let you ponder the how to label the overlapping areas (an eye-opening exercise).

  • Kill The White Knight

    There is a reason we do not teach classes on fixing failing projects. Many a cynic feels that we simply do not want to teach our trade, however, our reason is far nobler—we should be teaching prevention rather trying to create white knights to save the day. It is the same philosophy as building a fence at the cliff's edge rather than an emergency room at its base. Our language is replete with idioms telling us to look past the symptom and address problems at their root cause. 'An ounce of prevention versus a pound of cure' or 'a stitch in time saves nine.' Please, feel free to supply your own in the comments. Unfortunately, most of our businesses loathe this philosophy, waiting to address an issue until it is irrefutably broken.

  • Comparing Organizational Change Management Models

    A few weeks ago, I set out to write a post on the comparison of various organizational change management (OCM) methodologies and realized that would be a disservice to my readers. It would simply drag you down the path of implementation while failing to focus you on building the foundation. The pressure was too much and I have relented to numerous requests on making that comparison. The caveat is that juxtaposing these models is not comparing different varieties of oranges or even apples and oranges; we are surely comparing the peel to the fruit they contain. Hence, comparing methodologies like Kotter's model (the peel), Prosci's ADKAR (the core), and General Electric's Change Acceleration Process (the whole fruit) need a different approach.

  • The Executive-Project Manager Gap

    It was such an innocuous question, "Working on an article; what is the biggest problem you see with project governance at orgs? Can you comment?" Can I comment? Really? That is like cheese to a mouse. Where could I start—bureaucracy, draconian process, poor executive sponsorship, disengaged leaders? Plenty of fodder, because they all lead to project failure. I fired off, "Creating an over bureaucratic morass stifling innovation & implementing process instead of cultivating leaders." Then the maelstrom started and it went directly to the gap between the executives and projects managers. Naomi Caietti, Robert Kelly and I had a great conversation. Most of the thread is below.

Leave a comment

More Info on Project Recovery

Tell me More!

Please send me more information
on fixing a failing project.

Rescue The Problem Project

Internationally acclaimed

Image of RPP

For a signed and personalized copy in the US visit the our eCommerce website.

Amazon logo
Buy it in the United States Buy it in Canada Buy it in the United Kingdom
Buy it in Ireland Buy it in Germany Buy it in France
Buy it in Italy Buy it in the PRC
Buy it in Japan
Book sellers worldwide.

Upcoming Events

Other's References

Sitemap