EPM, Microsoft Project and You

BY:  Collin Quiring

I am not a pilot, nor do I play one on tv.  However, I have a number of friends that are and I have had the joys(?) of travelling quite a bit by plane in the last few years.  I have also flown on charter flights and that is a different experience than flying commercial as well.  When I flew charter, the pilot allowed us to listen to the communication between the various control centers and he took some time to explain what the handoffs were about.  And, like every industry there are numerous acronyms and terms with their own in-house meanings.

Recently, I was on a commercial flight into Chicago.  Everything was normal and uneventful.  And then, just before landing, a few hundred feet or less, we accelerated and took off again.  We never touched the ground but we sure came close.  After a few minutes, the pilot came on and said we had “been brought in too high” and that we would try again and be “on the ground in five minutes”.  Whether or not I believe that as the real reason is for another day.  However, it definitely took more than five minutes to get back to landing – and EVERYBODY who has ever flown before KNEW THAT IT WOULD!

On the next flight, when we left the airport, on United, the pilot told us that if we listened to a certain station on the airplane provided music and talk channels we could hear the pilot and air traffic controller discussions live and unedited.  I listened to this and while I didn’t understand all the terms it was interesting and added to my learning about how the communication works.

As I often do, I tied these experiences back to Project Management.  I had two great examples of Project Management in in the space of two hours and a third example from previous experiences.  First, the aborted landing – I was in the plane, had no idea why we aborted the landing, didn’t necessarily believe the reasoning given and absolutely never believed we would be “on the ground in five minutes” (which proved true about 20 minutes later).  My trust in the pilot never wavered and I like to believe that it was the pilot’s wisdom about issues on the ground that kept us from landing (but, for all I know, the pilot didn’t put the landing gear down and that tour was screaming at us to not land).  So, the communication from the pilot after we accelerated was lacking and seemed both polished and standardized to make all sound fine.

The second example is the ability to listen to the flight communications.  I still have no control over outcomes or methods and don’t even know all of the terms being used BUT I had more of a feeling of “empowerment” and that just listening helped me better understand what was happening.  The third example is the first one I mentioned above – when I flew charter and the pilot not only allowed me to listen but explained what I was hearing and what it meant.

We hear again and again and again and again that the mantra of successful Project Management is COMMUNICATION!   And, these examples reminded me of this again as well.  The terms and acronyms that we use in Project Management have meaning to those of us that use them.  But, our team members may have no idea what we are talking about.  Also, they may not have had exposure to a Project Manager and “project-management-ese” language before.  And, if we have meetings (with or without the team) where we don’t explain the results and at least some of the reasoning to the entire team then we lose their trust.  If we don’t communicate the realistic situation then we also lose their trust – those of us who have had to circle in an airplane know that nothing happens in a mere five minutes!  This is just like telling team members or stakeholders that “we are over budget and late on the schedule, but we will catch up in time without any problems”.  Anybody who has been on a project before has every reason to doubt this statement.

I know that not everybody always knows (or should) everything about a project but the more open we are and the more realistic we are in our communication the more the team and stakeholders will trust us and that only helps our projects!

BY:  Collin Quiring

One of the mantras of Project Management is COMMUNICATION.  Study after study shows that one of the consistent reasons for failure of a project is a lack of or poor communication.  This goes for both positive and negative information.  December was spent on holidays and dealing with the fact that bad news does not get better with age.  Rather than being told there was an issue and trying to help resolve it, I have spent my time trying to understand and adjust to the effects of the issue.

I think it is human nature to try and gloss over rough edges or to avoid tough conversations about issues that will be taken negatively.  However, the statement “Bad news does not get better with age” still applies.  When somebody avoids the tough conversation they might be making life easier on themselves for the moment, but it will probably only get worse as time goes on.

I once worked with a company that had a culture of avoiding negative issues.  This was strongly encouraged by management in the way they dealt with each other and with employees.  This only meant that more money and time was spent fixing issues that had become critical and unavoidable – when they could have been addressed much sooner during the project.  Most issues were seen early in the life of the project and if those that knew the information were encouraged to speak up, rather than punished, they would have become true partners in fixing the problems.  That company would be stronger today since it would have an employee base that was “bought in” to the company and were “part of the solution”.  Instead, as the economy got weaker, and more potential issues arose, the employees ran for cover, which created more issues and so on and so on.  The same concept holds true for vendors, customers and contractors. 

We all know that 2009 was a rough economic year for many companies.  Some managers/owners have shared the bad news of financial downturn with employees – ranging from pay cuts, to cutting all “discretionary” expenses (another post on that some other time!) to forced time off without pay; or, ultimately, layoffs.  Some have kept the bad news secret and then end up at the same point.  In these two cases, the facts don’t change but the ability of the employees to help does.  Even banks have come to the realization that it is better to work out new terms with loan customers than to foreclose on every mortgage or business that they can – because it is better for everybody in the long run.

A lot of companies won’t share bad news because they fear the consequences – some real and some perception.  They want to look strong and that they are weathering the economic storm.  However, when a company knows it is having a hard time, it should go to its vendors, customers, employees and contractors and ask for help.  I know of some companies that have gone to their vendors and asked for restructured payment terms.  I know of companies that have talked with contractors and employees about modifying work or payment structures, or any of a myriad of other options.

I also know of companies that have pretended all is well and then just not paid vendors.  I know of companies that have said everything was going great and then they shut the doors.  How many of those cases would have worked out if they had shared the bad news sooner?  Yes, some companies would still go out of business, and yes, admitting a problem sometimes creates additional issues.  However, what of the reputation of the company and management when they don’t admit to issues and end up having to shut the doors?  And, what about when people eventually find out there is an issue – it may be too late to correct it at all and it is possible that a vendor that could have helped weather the storm becomes the catalyst that forces changes nobody wanted (including the vendor).

Bad news does NOT get better with age!  If a company is experiencing issues, they should be honest enough to confront it themselves and then determine a communication plan.  That plan might be to tell only tell a select few vendors, contractors or customers.  It may be that if one or two big customers pay a little faster and one or two vendors accept getting paid a little later that everybody can weather the storm together.

By: Tanya Foster

As I was reading last month’s PM Network magazine (yes, I know what month we’re in… so I’m a little behind), I came across an article titled “A Hole in the Fence”.  It’s a fairly small article, not one of the 4 or 5 pagers that I have a hard time getting through, so I decided to read it.  I was shocked by what I read!  It’s about the “virtual fence” along the US and Mexico border.  I mean I’d heard about it on the news, but I’d never really paid much attention to it.  Well… it turns out this project was scheduled to be completed by the end of 2008, and now the first phase is scheduled for completion by the end 2011!!  Wow!  Now that’s a change in plans!  So I was intrigued by the first part of the article and decided to read further to find out just what had transpired to cause this much of a delay.  Let me give you a little background before we go any further. 

Boeing was the original contractor for this large project.  They have already been paid $20.6 million for the pilot project, but DHS has announced plans to move away from the original project design, thus the three year delay.  Boeing has offered DHS a $2 million credit and has admitted that many mistakes were made that could have been avoided.  Boy… that had to be a hard pill to swallow! 

Now… on to what the president of Boeing’s Network and Space Systems, told Congress.  He stated that a “lack of communication with stakeholders contributed in large part to the project’s failure”.  So that’s what it boils down to… lack of communication and stakeholders.  If I remember correctly, two things were mentioned over and over again during my study for the PMP exam.  1) Identify ALL Stakeholders 2) Communication, Communication, Communication!  The end of the article states that DHS and Boeing are trying to avoid the same old mistakes.  I say we should learn from their mistakes and try to do a better job within our own projects of identifying all stakeholders and improving communication.