Dynamic Project Management
By George Pitagorsky
A management consultant and CEO writes,
“I don’t want to know when a task gets done. I love clicking off checkboxes, too. That’s not management. I want to know when a task isn’t going to get done. And I want to know what changed that threw off our plan, and I want that change absorbed and accommodated for.”[1]
I want to know as soon as possible when a task is going to be late or early and why.
The Problem with Traditional Planning and Control
In our complex and fast-changing environments, a central plan managed from above using traditional project management automation is inefficient.
Relying on status reports and automated PM tools with structured periodic project monitoring and control tends to overlook the causes of delay and the need to adjust the plan more realistically.
Task lateness is generally reported after the fact, making real-time adjustments to work schedules difficult. When a task is reported as late, usually at the expected task end date, managers who rely on project management tools with periodic status reports get the news after the impact has been felt, and the tool pushes the project end date out by the impact the delay has on the critical path.
Let’s say a task is scheduled to take 5 days to complete. If the task is reported as complete after 7 days and is on the critical path, a project management tool will predict a two-day delay in the project. This simple math is usually misleading. The revised plan is flawed unless there is an analysis of the cause of the delay and an adjustment to task estimates based on the findings.
The news of task slippage or acceleration is often later than it can be. Performers generally know they will be late well before the end date or the status report date. For example, a writer or programmer has a brain freeze and is stuck for a day or two, or more. Or it becomes clear that an initial draft is a throwaway, causing a delay. Sometimes, there is the realization that the estimate is nothing more than a pipe dream.
With the right methods, tools, and attitude, variance can be known as early as possible, and a realistic recalibration of the plan can be made.
The Right Methods and Tools
What then are the right methods and tools?
We don’t want to throw out formal planning and traditional tools. We want to transform them by making the reporting and plan adjustments happen in real time. When a performer becomes aware that their task will be either delayed or finished early, letting the team know allows for a dynamic adjustment of the work. A real-time awareness of the status and predicted duration of tasks enables the adaptability needed to optimize performance. For example, successor tasks can be postponed or started early. Performers can choose to reschedule other tasks to make productive use of the available time.
To make this happen, there must be a process by which performers are expected to notify management and other performers of any change in the estimated completion time of tasks they are working on. In a small team, this can happen informally as performers and managers communicate with one another. In more complex projects, tools are needed to facilitate the process. There are several project and process management tools to support dynamic project management.
These tools allow team members to update the status of their tasks in real time and inform managers and other team members. I’ve used Monday.com, which enables immediate reporting of changes and notifications among other features. You can ask AI for a selection by querying “What is a process for having task performers report changes in task completion dates in real time?”.
The Right Attitude
Even the best tools and methods are not sufficient. There must be an attitude that accepts failure to meet a scheduled completion date to encourage candid reporting.
A work culture that punishes failure and promotes the idea that estimates determine outcomes motivates performers to postpone reporting delays or even hide them by submitting task results that are not ready for effective use because they have not been edited or tested properly. Delayed and false or misleading reporting is caused by punishing individual performers for schedule slippage. That gets in the way of the early warning and cause analysis that helps to improve estimating and performance.
Of course, we want the work to be done on schedule. Acceptance is not meant to promote a lack of caring. It is to promote a realistic attitude, to see things as they are, and to replace blaming with cause analysis and continuous improvement.
There are many causes of schedule slippage, including poor estimating, performance errors, and late predecessor tasks. Knowing the cause of slippage, we can home in on the parts of estimating and performance that can be improved. When a task is reported as running late or ahead of schedule, a comment or reason should be provided to aid in cause analysis.
How Does Your Organization Handle Human Error?
Dynamic Project Management
With the right attitude, tools, and methods, project schedules can be managed with the flexibility needed to optimize performance.
“I want to know when a task isn’t going to get done,” because we don’t want people sitting and waiting for the input they need from others. Instead, we want them to reprioritize their work so they can pick up a task that can be started and be as productive as possible. Knowing, as soon as possible, that a task is going to be completed later than planned and why enables cause analysis and dynamic schedule adjustment.
Dynamically adjusting work schedules implies flexibility, resilience, and effective communication and collaboration. It requires that team members feel safe to candidly report their status and predicted outcomes. A functional manager or performer getting the news that a predecessor task will be late or early can quickly and smoothly change their schedules, when it is appropriate to do so. The sooner team members get the news, the more effectively they can adapt.
Cause analysis enables estimate and performance improvement requires that performers not only report schedule variance but also report why the variance took place.
Acceptance, as opposed to blaming and punishment, promotes candid and timely reporting of task schedule overruns and causes.
[1] https://www.inc.com/joe-procopio/why-technical-project-management-doesnt-work-anymore/91179044
Views: 508
