Sunday, 29 August 2010 00:00

The Failure in Gating Processes

Rate this item
(0 votes)

Gate with a stop sign

The policy reads, "Before you can proceed, the PMO needs to approve the design gate." So, you begrudgingly wind down the project so the slowest members of the design team can catch up. A week, maybe two, sometimes even more flash by. The rest of the project team starts finding work on other projects. Once the PMO finally gives the project the green light, you will need to wait for people to complete those other tasks before they can focus on your project. Precious time is lost.

Why Are We Using Gates?

I am not claiming to have done an anthropological study, but I can make an educated guess into origins of this practice. I can imagine a project team making a decision to start building some part of a product prior to completion of the entire design. They felt comfortable that designs were complete enough to start building and they accepted the risk of some rework. Unfortunately, there was a fundamental design flaw and the rework was significant. Senior managers or the customer got upset and required their review and approval prior any major work proceeding. Voilà, the gate was born.

Poor Management

Often justified as being a method to ensure management is engaged with the project, I see gates as a way to ensure that management is anything but engaged. It creates a mentality that management does not need to monitor progress, drop in on meetings, talk to team project team members, or any of the practices that good leaders and managers do to ensure they can spot problems early. Instead, gate processes create an atmosphere where managers feel justified in ignoring the project, since every couple of months the project will stop and wait for them.

Gate review meetings then become a game where project managers try to get their projects to pass the gate without any hassle—minimizing troubles as to avoid management attention. Attention brings "help" from people unfamiliar with the intricacies, interrelationships, and individuals in the project.

Now, besides trying to reassemble the team, the project manager needs to assign them work from task force assigned to fix the project. A task force that assigns works instead of doing work.

Hurry Up And Wait

The effect on the project team is immense. Stopping work to wait for a bureaucratic process destroys the team's sense of urgency. If the project can wait for a group of managers to approve its progress, especially if they have little background in the project's domain, then the project can wait for the team members to do other work. The project team loses interest in completing tasks quickly as the energy and excitement slowly dwindles. Any concept of urgency is lost and team members take a lackadaisical approach to completing their tasks.

What Was I Doing?

To make matters worse the team needs to remain billable, so they are assigned to new tasks. These are necessarily off the project, since it is waiting for gate approval. Besides the inherent slowing of the project brought on by multitasking, the break in the project means that people need to refocus repeatedly on various tasks. The distraction and lack of continuity removes people's ability to concentrate on the product and mistakes increase. Worse, fine points in the product are lost. The quality decreases and the customer gets frustrated.

Missed Opportunity

Gates prohibit work in the follow-on phases until all other work catches up. Yet, allowing some work to proceed shows areas of weakness long before other groups have wasted time with a faulty design. This is the concept behind prototypes, mock-ups, wire frames, and iterative processes, such as agile. By allowing given areas to move ahead, designers, builders, and customers can judge the validity of a concept and use semifunctional tangible product to determine its usefulness. Therefore, gates remove valuable exposure of the product to the customer.

Stakeholder Engagement

The solution is better stakeholder engagement. Monitoring and experiencing the project, its progress, risks, and challenges as they appear, rather than quarterly, removes the need for gates processes. This is one of the powerful advantages of an agile methodology. Management is continuously apprised. The update does not even wait for the end of the iteration, it happens in the daily scrums.

However, I am not simply being an agile bigot (although I am one). I am highlighting one of the many ways that senior management causes more problems for projects than they have solved. The process of managing and the art of leadership are lost as people struggle climb the ladder and promote themselves.

Read 8938 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.

  • 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.

  • Disband Your PMO

    After nearly 30 years of project work, I struggle to understand the role of a project management office (PMO). Even though, I have written of the pros and cons, and read a plethora of articles, opinions, and how-to guides little has been done to convince me that the PMO is reducing project failure. It seems to be nothing more than a tool to fill a void in leadership? Even the acronym, which is so widely thrown around, has little meaning as the "P" has no less than four meanings. It is an executive's crutch for their lack of understanding in how projects work. These, like other, unattended holes in the corporate accountability create opportunities for new and greater bureaucracies and empires that further obfuscate accountability.

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