Enterprise Navigator

Aggressive but Achievable -- The University of Utah PPM Story

If you have not done so yet, please register for the upcoming Webcast we'll be hosting on June 3rd with Rene Weston-Eborn, an assistant director and the IT portfolio guru at the University of Utah. The U of U has over 25,000 students and is recognized for its active research programs, particularly in the medical fields. Needless to say, higher education thrives on a strong technology base, so making sure that IT is managed effectively is a key element of a successful university.

I'll be conducting a live interview with Rene to explore the combined portfolio and project management initiative that she has been so deftly guiding. I think this format is much more informative and digestible for participants compared to a straight-up presentation. Expect to hear a truly impressive success story about what can be accomplished with enough support, drive and leadership, interspersed with witty banter and supporting visuals -- now really, what more can you ask for? Oh alright, we'll provide some Q&A time as well; perhaps we can even work in a few thoughtful queries as part of the interview itself.

Rene put a lot on her plate with this endeavor; in conjunction with consolidating several disparate and overwhelmed IT groups into a single centralized entity, there was much to be done to establish a formal project management methodology for the campus, develop a portfolio management program for decision support, implement a PPM platform so everything was in one tool (see if you can guess which one), define the portfolio of services to help manage operations, and create a Portfolio and Project Management Office (PPMO) to help implement and manage it all.

Oh, did I mention this was all done simultaneously?

Just pulling off one or two of those efforts would be considered a resounding success by most. Clearly, there is much to be learned from this experience, so I look forward to having you join us for this exciting discussion -- 10:00 AM central time; don't be late!

Is CPM as Critical as It Used to Be?

You might suspect that Critical Path Methodology (CPM) has a particularly honored place among the cobwebs of my intellectual closet. CPM and I grew up together; I figure I have several thousand hours invested in intimate relations with CPM, either building, breaking, fixing, reviewing or managing the execution of various and sundry schedules. Through the years I have also become increasingly aware of its limitations and weaknesses. Thus, my initial close bond with CPM has grown more distant. I would not go so far as to characterize it as familiarity breeding contempt, but rather as B.B. King laments, the thrill is gone…

Here's a bubblehead factoid for you: did you know CPM practices were born from sorting out the complexities of building the first nuclear submarines? It would be an understatement to say that there were some intricate design and coordination issues associated with cramming a hundred sailors into a five hundred-ton tube along with four thousand tons of hot, sharp, poisonous, radioactive, high frequency, high voltage, high pressure or highly explosive 'stuff.' But, Rickover's team somehow managed to figure it all out and using CPM was no small part of the solution.

For the last 50 years since then, CPM has come to be regarded as the overwhelming standard for project scheduling, particularly in cases where task sequencing is of paramount consideration. Many a ship, bridge, skyscraper and refinery owe their final status of 'on time and within budget' to a well-managed CPM schedule, keeping a meticulous eye on critical path activities and rigorous earned value analysis. And in situations such as those, CPM is as valid today as it ever has been. Little has come along since to displace the reign of CPM, with the possible exception of the small but persistent following of critical chain proponents, which just extends CPM principles.

But I am beginning to question whether CPM is still the best approach for managing so many of today's activities in knowledge-based, multi-tasking, resource-constrained environments. I have witnessed my own frustration and that of countless other project managers who attempt to build and manage CPM schedules 'the way it's always been done' for engineering, software development, process improvements, and similar increasingly fuzzy endeavors that can literally defy logic. Added to this is the time wasted trying to coerce CPM into unnatural acts when managing the portfolio of countless and largely unrelated operational activities that make up the majority of the organizational workload.

CPM has as its basis a set of straightforward mathematical calculations, a handful of business rules, and remarkably few constraint and relationship components. Anyone who has ever scratched out a manual forward pass/backward pass calculation on a certification exam knows pretty much all there is to know about CPM fundamentals. CPM has a certain je ne' sais quoi, a simple elegance to its technique.

Unfortunately, the very aspects that allow CPM to adroitly address the requirements of a fairly rigid, sequence-driven project scenario also become its Achilles Heel; its lack of elasticity becomes painfully apparent when attempting to reflect non-linear, shape-shifting work management environments.

It is like trying to model an amoeba with a set of Tinker Toys. Simple parts, fixed angles and predefined connectors are great for building a rigid symmetrical framework, but they lack the flexibility and options required to reflect the imaginative, dynamic and free-flowing approaches now being applied to address the ambiguity of so many of today's unique project challenges.

While you may be able to torture CPM enough to initially reflect an agile-based or otherwise structurally flexible plan, does that schedule really help or become more of a burden once the fur starts flying and calculations start manipulating things according to their rules rather than your reality? Alas, if all you have is a hammer…

Part of this stems from the practice of trying to habitually enforce CPM logic where logic does not really exist. I cannot yet ascertain whether it is an inherent genetic flaw or learned behavior, but when it comes to scheduling, most of us project manager types display OCD symptoms that increase commensurate with the level of formal PM training we receive. These days, we must learn to let go and free our minds to focus on what is really important.

I am not suggesting that we toss CPM to the wayside by any means -- it still has its prominent place. But I do think there is something to be said for chilling out just a bit when it comes to how it is being applied.

For example, given a particular two-week long activity, is there really hard sequencing that exists between the eight or nine underlying tasks that must be done, or are relationships being inserted simply out of expedience, compulsive ritual or the intense need to paint an illusion of control? "Whaaat! Are you suggesting that tasks just be allowed to lay there, all unstructured and willy-nilly, smashed against the Time Now line like bugs on a windshield!?"

Sure -- why not? Better yet, why not just skip even putting them in the WBS? Often a simple to-do list with due dates will work just fine. Do you really think your team is just going to freeze up from lack of guidance because their tasks are not on the schedule? Do think they even look at your schedule?

When faced with a nebulous work management situation, sometimes it is better to deal with some intentional vagueness about the details rather than spending all your time building and rebuilding non-existent relationships or constraints for the sake of achieving "logic closure."

Hey, just think about it.

Celebrate! It's Middle Management Appreciation Day

(…we also celebrate this as the 100th posting on the Enterprise Navigator; thanks to all the loyal readers out there for your continued patronage!)

I hereby declare today (whatever day it is you are reading this) as Middle Management Appreciation Day. There isn't one yet -- I checked.

Most everyone else has a day, or sometimes a whole week of recognition, but the much maligned, abused and often ridiculed ranks of the middle manager have been underappreciated and ignored for far too long. It is high time that those stuck between 'an executive and a staff place' receive the acknowledgment and praise that they rightfully deserve before the rest of them are laid off.

There is a special place in my heart for MMs. I've worked with many hundreds of them in a lot of different organizations and have been there myself, so I feel reasonably qualified to elucidate and appreciate their plight. Whether packing the title of a junior vice president, director, senior manager, program manager or assistant deputy undersecretary, those in middle management are the unsung heroes of the organization chart and a critical part of any going concern.

These brave souls are the leaders who must accept executive edicts and turn them into workable solutions, come hell or high water -- frequently setting aside their own, often brilliant initiatives to make way. No matter how aggressive or dubious the challenge, MMs have to muster up some twisted mental logic that first allows them to make sense of the idea, and then convince themselves to get firmly behind it (all in the span of time it takes to walk from one meeting to the next).

As if that alone were not enough, they must also devise a plan for how to do the impossible, strap on an inspirational attitude, and rally their troops to deliver. Middle managers are not allowed to show any hint of incredulity or explain to their boss why their proposal can't be done within the constraints placed upon them -- instead, they are expected to simply nod enthusiastically and 'just find a way.' Yet, the MM must endure endless grousing from their own managers and staff as to why the whole idea is stupid and/or unworkable, while patiently diffusing each argument with coaching skills reminiscent of Ditka, Shula, Lasorda or Bryant.

Some consider MMs to be overpaid bureaucrats, but upon closer examination the real story begins to unfold. Middle managers cringe with disgust every time a politician or pundit uses the term "working class." One thing MMs know for sure is that no one is referring to them -- as if whatever they slave away at twelve hours a day and half the weekend is something other than work. Since they put in five thousand hours a year and hardly ever get to use all of their vacation, the seemingly decent salary is deceptive; once the math is done, the typical MM only makes about twenty-two bucks an hour. Regardless, MM's are the 'tweeners of the earnings brackets; they get no 7-digit salaries, bail-outs, parachutes, preferred stock options, perks, outrageous bonuses, or special income tax credits or shelters -- they just pay for everyone else's.

Of course, many middle managers aspire to making the top executive ranks, so as the family sleeps they are up late working on that MBA or doctorate -- even though the probability of breaking through are about the same as going from making the college team to playing in the pro's. Through it all, most middle managers maintain their poise, are fiercely loyal, politically correct, snappily dressed, rarely complain, take pride of their accomplishments, and are terrified of failure.

So, if you are a middle manager, my hat goes off to you; you are the salt of the corporate world and more important than anyone recognizes. If you are not one, why not give your middle manager a hug -- unless of course they are the HR director. Whether you are an executive, supervising manager or staff, be thankful for your middle manager; they insulate and shield you from all kinds of bad stuff and enable your working world to spin. Bring them a double mocha café latte to the next meeting you have with them, and take extra care not to put a door ding in the Lexus or Infinity next to you in the garage. Most of all, for all you that have MM aspirations, be careful of what you wish for.