Sunday, 07 August 2011 00:00

The US Congress Needs a Project Manager

Rate this item
(0 votes)

Picture Courtesy of the Christian Science Monitor

Walking onto any troubled project, guess what I hear? We are spending too much money, we cannot miss the due date, we need everything we are asking for, and it is "their" fault. My job is telling them the bad news—we need more money, we are cutting scope, and the project is still going to be late. Those are the unavoidable facts and the stakeholders need to accept them. Worse than that, I am not going to blame anyone. Blame is counterproductive. So, how does this compare to the situation with the United States Congress? In short, they do not get it. They need an apolitical, outside entity to build the recovery plan—just like we do anytime we are recovering any project.

Lack Of Leadership

The problem starts with the elephant in the room, a government devoid of leadership. Do not read political party into that statement. Leadership is simply missing, no qualifiers. I am certain congress must have a couple of people with leadership qualities; the Gang of Six comes to mind. But they are not the ones getting the press. Headlines are derived from rhetoric, arguments, and bombastic speeches rather than cooperation and compromise. Politicians need headlines to make constituents think they are doing something. The US went through weeks of proposals pushing agendas to use as fodder in future speeches for the next election. The minority and majority leaders of the House and the Senate were spineless, self-serving puppets to the next election, unable to stand up and admit the US needs to reduce scope and increase revenue. If this were my project, they would be the first to go in an attempt to get people working together.

Define The Scope

The next step is to make sure we are working on the right scope. In every bill we seem to have a new project charter—industry bailout, healthcare, budget, debt ceiling... oh, what about jobs? We need a vision and each project task needs to map to that vision. If the goal is to eliminated the deficit, balance our budget, help industry create jobs, and protect the American people from attacks (from terrorists and corporations) on their inalienable right for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness then every action must be directed that way. Granted, this is a pretty big plate. It is impossible to complete this project in a two or six year term. This is a multi-decade plan for which many of us will not live to see its completion. Yes, folks, twenty to thirty years followed by a maintenance plan—no more instant gratification and, yes, a lot of work. Our forefathers did not build this country engaging in the colonial equivalent of watching TV, eating Cheetos, and attending tailgate parties while wearing hats that resembled cheese wedges. Everyone pulled their weight and made sacrifice.

Work With The Stakeholders

Next, we need to talk to the stakeholders—the citizens of the United States, the leaders of foreign countries that want our financial and military assistance, and the countries that loan us money. All three need to sacrifice. Fewer services, higher expense, less profit. Stakeholders will need to suffice with cuts in what the government provides (from weapons and world policing, to farm subsidies and welfare), increases in the expense of services (raise taxes and international cooperation), and reduction in profit (lower interest rates). Will anyone be happy with this plan? Hardly, everyone will lose something. It is nothing more than applying the rule of triple constraints. Set a time lime, determine the financial needs in that time, and address the required budget by increasing revenue and decreasing scope.

The Current Dilemma

This seems to oversimplify a huge problem; however, it is the defined approach that is needed. Unless congress takes this simple objective approach—the process that has fixed hundreds of projects—they will not address the problem. Instead, they are embroiled in creating proposals to get headlines and garner votes from a small set of voters. They are stuck in an egotistical, aggrandizing, self-serving promotion forgetting about the country they serve. If it is true that less than 20% of the people in the US are opposed to a tax increase, why pander to them? Our congress is not beholden to the American people; they are shackled to the campaign donor. They are focused on what is good for the politician, not the stakeholders.

Standard and Poors

Just like any business with inadequate leadership, Standard and Poors appropriately dropped the S&P bond rating. They rightfully see no leadership, no cooperation, and, the coup de grâce, no one suggesting a plan to solve the problem. They look at it as I do when called in to bid a recovery job. I need one question answered, "Does the client really admit they have a problem to solve?" Without that realization the sacrifices will not be made. In Congress, we have one side blaming the other. They deliver ultimatums (i.e. we cannot increase revenue), not compromise. In other words, our "leaders" cannot make the sacrifices required to fix this problem, yet they expect everyone else to. They have turned into the best government money can buy.

On every job I take, I have one ace up my sleeve. If you do not like what I am telling you, fire me. I am not afraid to lose my job. Our congress men and women are afraid to lose their jobs. They are drunk on the beltway power. They need to revert to the basics and understand simple financial rules. Once they get that lesson, they need to learn how to lead and not be afraid to use it.

Read 13803 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.

  • Tales of an Expert Witness: Sex, Lies, and Video Tape (Part II)

    Trust relationships, certifications, and standards sound like such a safe harbor. These sound like such great words in a proposal or statement of work. How could you possibly go wrong building a trusted relationship with a customer by committing to follow a standard? In fact, this can burn you… in court.

    No one ever starts a project with the goal of ending up in court. In fact, litigation may never cross your mind; after all, you have built a trusted partner relationship. Taking a few cautionary steps, however, will make your life easier if you end up in that ill-fated litigious position. Your best chances for success come long before you enter the courtroom—even before the project starts.

  • 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.

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