Showing posts with label project management. Show all posts
Showing posts with label project management. Show all posts

Friday, December 2, 2022

Project Management without the Leadership Seminar



The Back Story


5th Grade:

The Superintendent of Schools came in as a guest
teacher to teach a science class.

He began the process of who would be working on which
science projects--This with no knowledge of the students' abilities, preferences, or social interactions.

I raised my hand for. "Who wants to do the report on
volcanoes?" I was selected.

Then, he announced that I should really work with someone
on this project. [Wrong. Unnecessary] He then proceeded
to seek an interested person, then chose one of my classmates to be my teammate.  I would have chosen someone else.

3 major management blunders before he finished.


I've discussed this in part in another articles in 
LinkedIn posts.

1. When you assign someone to head up a project, assign the person who is most capable to head up the project.

2. If you don't know who that person is, find out.

3. Let that person choose his or her team That person knows which co-workers are best able to handle the different aspects of the project.

4. Do not, and I cannot emphasize this enough, do not add
to or subtract from the team.

5. Do not allow others outside the team to manipulate their
want onto the team regardless of strategy. Especially when
that person's boss comes to you to offer the services of that
person [that the boss wants to get rid of for a while & shunts them off onto you & the project leader.]

6. Do not allow other bosses to borrow people from the project. And if you are a more high big boss [sic] don't approve the request from the little boss.

This should help toward tidying up the problems
in the operation.

Best wishes,

Slim

Box 33
Pen Argyl, PA 18072

Copyright © 2022 All rights reserved

Sunday, December 22, 2019

Virtual Teams: A Vital Shift in Business



As the discussions swirl around us, they only touch on the periphery of the transformations of how we will be doing business.

It is virtually impossible to do business the old-fashioned way. Remember? Assemble qualified people in an office on an upper floor of an office building in the city.

High button shoes, pince-nez, and pocket-watches.

Now, talent is spread around the country and around the world.  Today, assembling talent is done in a virtual environment.  And team building has new challenges.

I wrote an article "Teamwork if for Teams"  But to be fair, I still have pocket watch.  Now, you need  to know what I can scarcely imagine.  Hence:

Myths V. Fact
The Virtual Truth

A Free Webinar by Virtual Team Builders



Sincerely,


Slim.

Tuesday, August 23, 2011

You Can't Lead if You Can't Manage 2.0

 


In a previous monograph, I detailed the handling of a problem management is required to deal with all the time.

That problem ostensibly focuses on the non-performer.  Actually, it focuses on the non-performing manager.  It illustrates how someone who knows how to manage does, and why he is considered a leader.

That example was limited to a team working on a project.  Now, we will focus on a higher level of activity.  Team leaders working on different projects.

In order to do this, we must create an analogy.  This time, however, we cannot use Athos, Porthos, Aramis, and D’Artagnan.

This analogy involves Wolf Blitzer, Candy Crowley, the fictitious Odious Thudpucker, and the big, important boss, Phil A. Bilgewater.

First, I will put two qualified individuals on display.

Wolf Blitzer and Candy Crowley are working on different stories at opposite ends of a large table.  Ms. Crowley is getting information together for a story.  She gathers what she needs, stands up, and says,

“Well, I’ve got what I need.  I’m going to head downtown to interview the Mayor; I should be back by three o’clock.”

“Good luck,” Mr. Blitzer says.

“Thank you,” Ms. Crowley says, and leaves.

The following day, Mr. Blitzer is still working on his story.  At the other end of the table is Odious Thudpucker.  Odious is gathering information for his story.  He gathers what he needs, stand up, and says,

“Well, I got what I need.  I’m gonna go interview the Mayor.  But first I’m stoppin’ off to talk to the director.  I wanna keep him in the loop.  Then, I’m gonna stop by and talk to the fact checkers, them I’m gonna go interview the Mayor.  I should be back by about three.  I may stop for a samwich, I dunno.  How you doin?  Okay.  If you need any help, I’ll be back around three.  Well, I guess I better go.”

He leaves.

Now, Wolf Blitzer, Candy Crowley, and Odious Thudpucker all have their assignments.  In plain English, however, Odious is no good.  He was hired by Mr. Bilgewater.  Bilgewater is no good at his job, either.  So, he calls a meeting and tells the three they all must attend.  This disrupts Mr. Blitzer’s and Ms. Crowley’s work.  Mr. Bilgewater tells them, “This is important.”  What he means is, “I think I am important.”  They all attend.

Mr. Bilgewater discusses the visioning process, shared vision, the importance of avoiding groupthink.  He discusses the importance of consensus building, which is really groupthink you paid a consultant to build.

In order for things to go more smoothly and to improve the quality of the journalism, Mr. Bilgewater is going to have Odious work with Ms. Crowley.

Ms. Crowley doesn’t say anything.  She knows that Odious Thudpucker is no good at his job.  Nor is Mr. Bilgewater.  She knows she will be doing Thudpucker’s job for him.  She knows he will junk up her report.  However, she bites the bullet and goes along with it.

This is what Ms. Crowley knows:

If Thudpucker’s story comes off well, he will take the credit.

If Thudpucker’s story fails, he will blame her.

If her story comes off well, Thudpucker will take the credit.

If her story fails, Bilgewater will hold her responsible—After all, “I had Odious Thudpucker work with you on that story to help you.”

When her story fails, Odious Thudpucker defends her to Mr. Bilgewater.

“It isn’t all Candy’s fault.  I had some good ideas and suggestions but I hesitated to push them.  I didn’t really feel comfortable making too many suggestions to help Candy improve her story.”

Mr. Bilgewater looks to Ms. Crowley.  “The purpose of having Odious help you was for you two to work as a team.  You should be more receptive, open to the ideas of others.  Let’s not have this again.”

Well, a string of disasters would have ensued.  However, Mr. Bilgewater has a boss.  His boss, Mr. Hammerhead reads my blog.  Not that he must.  He already knows this stuff.

He calls Ms. Crowley, Odious Thudpucker, and Mr. Bilgewater into his office.  He wants an explanation about this new arrangement.  He does not direct his question to Ms. Crowley.  He looks at Odious Thudpucker and Mr. Bilgewater.

Odious know his stuff.  He isn’t going to try to pull any fast ones with Mr. Hammerhead.  He has plan B. ready.  Throw Mr. Bilgewater under the bus.

Mr. Bilgewater knows what to expect.  He defends his decision.

“I am trying to build consensus.  I want my people to work as a team.  I learned this stuff at the Really Big, Important Seminar we had here last year.”

“Shut up, Bilgewater.”

“Yes, Sir.”

“From now on, Ms. Crowley works on her stories.  Mr. Blitzer works on his stories, and Odious Thudpucker works on his stories.  Got it!”

“Yes, Sir.”

“That was not a question.  Meeting over.”


Now, this is the point at which the critics see their opportunity to barge in and shift the focus to advance their agenda.

Two heads are better than one.  One person can’t do everything.  People need other people to help them.  People, people who need people.... You get the idea.

However, that is not the point of this presentation.

Wolf Blitzer has a story to work on.  He has a researcher look up information.  He has a fact checker check facts. He has an assistant go to the film department to get some file videos.  He puts his story together.

Candy Crowley has a story to work on.  She has a researcher look up information.  She asks a fact checker to check facts.  She asks an assistant to get some video from the files. She puts her story together.

Now we come to Odious Thudpucker.

Odious has a story to work on.  He needs research.  His demands are not merely vague they are confusing.  The researcher digs up the information he knows will be needed for the story.  Odious criticises his assistant.  He decides to get the information himself. Odious has the fact-checker check certain facts.  The facts he wants checked are not in question.  The ones that are, he tells her not to bother checking.  He sends an assistant for video from the files.  He doesn’t like the videos.  He gets some himself.  He gets a clip of young women in bikinis, people at a bar drinking vodka, and a car-chase scene.  This, he knows, will hold the interest of the audience.  His staff is rushed, pressured, confused, overworked, and feels a deepening resentment for Mr. Thudpucker and for Mr. Bilgewater who can’t manage and certainly can’t lead.

Wolf Blitzer’s story is a success.

Candy Crowley’s story is a success.

Odious Thudpucker’s story is a disaster.

Mr. Hammerhead can now deal with the problem.  He calls everyone into his office.  I can assure you this is not a meeting.

“What happened?”

“My staff.  I’m new. They question my ability.  They challenge my authority.  They aren’t team players.”

Bilgewater chimes in, “That’s what I was talking about, Mr. Hammerhead. Team building, consensus building, shared vision—“

“Shut up.”

“Yes, Sir.”

“You have the best researchers.  You have the best fact-checkers.  You have access to the best video files.  There is no excuse for this disaster you call a project.  This will not happen again.  You can go back to work.  Bilgewater, you stay.”

“Yes, Sir.”

Everyone leaves except Mr. Bilgewater.  When everyone leaves, Mr. Bilgewater looks at Mr. Hammerhead and asks, “Are you going to fire Thudpucker?”

“No.”

“Do you want me to fire Thudpucker?”

“No.  I am not going to fire Thudpucker.  I don’t want you to fire Thudpucker.  I am going to have the new big boss fire Thudpucker.  Clean out your desk.”

Now Mr. Hammerhead can justify his decision to the people upstairs.  Mr. Hammerhead hires a new big boss.  The new big boss replaces Odious Thudpucker with a qualified journalist.

Sincerest regards,

Slim


PS.  I am not Paul Harvey.  However, I am open to becoming a paid commentator, columnist, or blogger. If you’ve found anything I said to be helpful, please don’t hesitate to send me one of those tricked-out laptops and to tuck a few dollars into the envelope along with the thank you note.





Copyright © 2011 Slim Fairview
All rights reserved.






Friday, July 29, 2011

A Brief Word About Project Management

The main difference between a project manager and project management is [for those who understand management] the difference between having someone in charge and having everyone in charge.

Projects will get managed, albeit poorly, without a MANAGER.

Some companies don't want to pay for one.

Other companies want someone to assume the responsibility if there are problems.

Nature abhors a vacuum--some individuals manage by default. 



Are we talking about Hiring a Project Manager? Project Manager Wanted.... or about assigning someone to manage the project. 



"We're putting you in charge of the project. [Oh ,boy!]  You don't have any authority over anyone in charge of any aspect of the project, you're just a sort of errand boy. I am putting you in charge because I lack the (real) authority, confidence, and ability to manage those guys, so I am letting them run amok and they need a flunky. You're it."



Real life is not pretty. 



If you can't fire anyone, you are not the Project Manager. 



Internal promotions negate any authority imputed to the manager of a project. 



 Or as I like to say....

"Everybody knows what everybody knows." From the Quotations of Slim Fairview (c) 2011

 

Regards,

 

Slim 

slimfairview@yahoo.com



Copyright (c) 2011 Slim Fairview

Thursday, May 5, 2011

GroupThink 2.0

I sat on an economic development committee for over two years. In that time, I observed a group of people, some professionals (CEO banking), economic development, etc. and community people. (Business people.)

I observed the group. There was no group think. It looked like someone trying to herd cats.

After two years of attempting to stimulate investment, attract business, deal with green fields and brown fields, we finally had the opportunity to entertain a state official of the department that hands out grant money. (It's their job to give money away.)

We put on a great presentation, tour, helicopter, luncheon, the works. We got shot down--unceremoniously. (As Mrs. Slocum used to say, "How ignimonious" sic)

Upshot. "We give money for projects, not plans."

They licked their wounds. Still, they did not accomplish much.

On another committee, (Finance committee of a government programme.) I opined on moving funds into technology related projects. Website development, improvement, etc. People listened to me. We voted, agree--unanimously--funds were moved. Subsequently, the web presence and technology use became vital. We were that much ahead of the game.

Group think is a result of consensus building which was a consequence of the absence of leadership. Too, an absence of followship.

I addressed that issue in another discussion where a budding expert was giving examples of how he/she helped groups avoid group think. In short, this individual encouraged group think.

It is somewhat disheartening to watch (as I watched the members of that economic development committee), people discussing the same issues that had been discussed, have been discussed, are being discussed and will continue to be discussed.

I've studied groups, been in groups, been in a group that studied itself, worked in groups, on committees, on a committee to form a committee to set up a programme to form committees, and I dissected the different structures used handle projects and explained why each does not work. However, as I am adamant in my opposition to articles that are descriptive and not prescriptive, I also set up an organisational chart that will work for one of my ppt. presentations.

As I read in clever book on management just the other night (While waiting for my cat to come home) Come Together: The Business Wisdom of the Beatles by Richard Courtney and George Cassidy.

"Parks are full of statues erected to honour leaders. There are no statues erected to honour committees."

"This too shall pass."

In the heat of battle, no one turns to a committee. Everyone looks to a leader. See who they are looking to. That is a leader. That is the leader.

In my much younger days, when I took a holiday job while I was working on a novel, the VP came in, furious, because the department was in a chaotic state. For the second time. He asked my supervisor,

"What do we have to do to get this straightened out?"

My supervisor looked to me. The VP looked to me. I had a second operation (holiday) up and running the following day. And I was not even an actual employee of the company. Only a holiday temp.

The VP did not say, let's form a committee to find a solution. I did not receive a smiley face key chain.

The flip-side to one aspect on group think is that people propose new ideas, however, 1. due to group think the ideas are rejected; 2. due to a lack of ability demonstrated by several members of the group, the new idea is rejected; 3 lack of ability of the "leader" the idea is rejected; there is a divisiveness among the group (for and against) we move into the mode of consensus building and the new idea is watered down to where it is palatable....

However! The biggest problem with respect to "group think" is hiding in plain sight. The word "group". In addition, if you do "win over" the other members of the group and all embrace your new idea you end up with [wait for it]

GroupThink 2.0

Now you have two conflicting ideas at play. 1. Getting rid of Group Think and 2. Consensus building. On the corporate level, you have Risk Management and Risk Assessment. There is a cost-benefit analysis that new ideas must go through.

Finally (or not) there is the needy member(s) of the group who, after having an idea rejected, refuse to accept that the idea was rejected on the basis of a lack of merit, but who feel personally demeaned, diminished, marginalised and so on.

A greater reason that people do not propose new ideas is a personal one--the lack of ability to make objective assessments.


Regards,

Slim

Mail slimfairview@yahoo.com


Copyright (c) 2011 Slim Fairview

Monday, April 25, 2011

The Paradox of Cobb's Paradox

Needless to say, I Googled Cobb's Paradox.

My first impression is that it is based on the assumption that we know why projects fail.

Assuming we do know why projects fail, do we know why this project failed?

Assuming that we know why this project failed, could we have known why this project would have failed.

Assuming that we know why this project would have failed, was there anything we could have done about it?

Assuming that we know why this project will fail, is there anything we can do about it?

Assuming we know why this project will fail, why do we go ahead with the project?

Here is the real paradox:

Knowing that we know Cobb's Paradox, and assuming it is valid, why do we continue to discuss Cobb's Paradox?

Knowing that we know Cobb's Paradox, and assuming it is invalid, why do we continue to discuss Cobb's Paradox?

Discuss.

Regards,

Slim

ps. This material will be on the final exam.


Mail Slimfairview@yahoo.com


Copyright (c) 2011 Slim Fairview

Monday, April 18, 2011

The Unforeseen in Project Management

"There are no unintended consequences--only unwanted consequences." Slim Fairview

If you have assembled a team that includes people with experience, you can minimize the unknown unknowns.

Perhaps what you mean are the unforseeables that can't be foreseen. Don't let what may happen complicate the task at hand. Too many people, (Me included) have worried about what might happen that they create problems for them selves that would not have happened it they'd been doing their jobs in the first place instead of worrying. (There is a sentence in there, somewhere, some assembly required.)

Needless to say, when the problem comes up, they declare it the result of an unknown unknown. Don't worry about it.

Assemble a team with people who have experience. (In different areas.) Keep a network of people who've had to work in crisis management situations. (It needn't have been a big crisis, the thought process is the same.)

Then get back to work. If something should crop up, (dare I say it) call a meeting.

A Small Meeting. One with a few people skilled in the particular area of contention.

Now, it should be just about tea time across the pond, enjoy a glass of chateau Fleet Street, and remember the admonition of Horace Rumpole: Never ask the witness a question unless you yourself know the answer.

Regards,

Slim


Mail slimfairview@yahoo.com