Resource management: everyone is suffering

I was speaking at a PMI conference in Sweden, last March, which gave me the opportunity to sit in on a number of other sessions. This one is all about resource management, given by Peter Kestenholz.

If you are to be successful, you must have the right number of skilled people.

If you are to be successful, you must have the right number of skilled people.

A straw poll of attendees at the presentation found:

  • all work in a matrix organsiation;
  • 30% have clear resource management process;
  • 20% have tools to support resource management;
  • only 2% have been trained on the process and tools.

All of them had BIG issues with how resource management worked (or more accurately, didn’t work)  in their organisations. Some ignored it and others had enormous spreadsheets to try and get a grip on the issue of making sure the organisation has the resources to do the work that needs doing. By enormous, I mean at the limit of Excel as a tool. Yes, most use spreadsheets. It sounds dreadful!

Way back in 2010, Forrester said that there was a significant increase in investment of PPM tools specifically to:

  • Obtain an accurate view of resource usage;
  • Manage investment aligned to strategy.

Today, Gartner says the need for resource management is still one of the top three reasons companies invest in PPM tools. Not a lot has changed. The vision of many senior managers is that they should be able to “drill down” to get any information they need at the level they need it. . . . but few can do this.

Peter has been involved in helping a lot of organisations tackle the “resource issue” and went through a number of things to consider, namely:

  1. Have an executive sponsor define the business requirements for resource planning and transparency. Understand the rationale. Without this, don’t bother any further as this drives everything else.
  2. Be clear on what you mean by resource capacity. Net? Gross? Overtime? What is a FTE? What formula will you use for any calculation of resource capacity?
  3. Ensure, a person can have many skills associated with him/her.
  4. HR should own the Organisation Breakdown Structure; hold them to account for keeping it up to date. An out of date structure will break your process. Ensure any tooling can cope with the continuous churn of organisation structures and people allocations.
  5. Decide how many different jobs a person can be forecasted to work on. Be clear if people can be asked for by name? by role or by skill (or  any of these).
  6. Get rid of your spreadsheets! However, people are used to using these, so consider tools with a similar (and hence familiar) look and feel.
  7. Ensure your approach deals with leavers and joiners. For example, be able to forecast a person’s assignment even though they haven’t joined the organisation yet.

You can read more about enterprise wide resource management and tooling in Part 3 of The Project Workout.

What is a “stage-gate”?

More management jargon?

Do you come across people using the term “stage-gate”? If so, are you sure they really understand what they are talking about? Do they understand what this term means and where it comes from? All too often, I find people use as the term as yet another piece of management jargon and don’t really understand it (just like “workstream”!)

This is the type of muddle people come up with:

Example A starts well, in that there are a number of stages depicted. Unfortunately we know nothing about where the decision points are. Where does the project start or end? Also, the stages are called “stage-gates”, further confusing things.

Bad practice A

 

Example B has the same issues as example A except that a number of decision points have been added. This, however, doesn’t clarify matters much, for example, is stage gate 1, the first stage of the project or the activity before the project starts?

Bad practice B

 

Example C has all the issues raised in examples A and B, except in this case it seems the decision points (gates) are labeled as “stage-gates”.  I wonder what the stages are called – gate-stages? Notice the numbering, which infers that the “gates” are decisions at the end of a stage, rather than decisions to start a new stage.

Bad practice C

Where it came from.

“Stage-gate” is actually a registered trademark devised by Robert Cooper, to describe his stage-gate process for new product development. If you do a web search for R G Cooper or “stage-gate” you’ll find lots of good articles. If you read them, you’ll see that there is no such thing as a “stage-gate”; it is simply the name he gave to his new product development process.  Like my own work on project management, he talks about “gates” and “stages” as being different but related.

Depicting frameworks
In the Project Workout I use circle, arrow and diamond icons to ensure that the above mistakes do not happen. This form of iconography is now enshrined in the latest British Standard (BS6079 Part 1). If you haven’t seen it, then you really should get a copy.

  • A circle depicts activities which happen before a project starts or after it is completed.
  • A diamond represents a gate.
  • An arrow represents a stage.

Like this extract from a figure in the Project Workout:

Extract from the Project Workout.

 

Summary

So, if you are designing a project lifecycle for your project, don’t fall into the real-life traps highlighted in the bad examples above above; make sure you understand the difference between a gate and a stage; avoid “stage-gate” (you may have to pay royalties!) and make sure your depiction of the lifecycle is clear and unambiguous.

More help?

  • Book: Chapter 3 of the Project Workout tells you all about project lifecycles, helping you to design one that works for your situation. Chapters 5 to 11 describe the detail for each stage and then in Chapter 12 it tells you how you can tailor it.
  • Articles: You’ll also find some articles you can download from the community pages of my projectworkout.com site.
  • Video: Here is a video taking you through the project lifecycle in the Project Workout
  • Click for yourself: you can investigate the model in the video above yourself. Go to the community pages in my projectwout.com site.
  • Another blog on the topic:Lifecycles and fuzzy back-ends.

Change, communications and sponsorship

Since the Project Workout was first published, I have advocated projects as the vehicles for achieving strategic objectives or as I often say, projects are the vehicles of change. When I first wrote this in the late 90s, most people were still focused on deliverables and outputs, but, I am pleased to say the drive to towards benefits driven project management as standard is gaining momentum. This blog picks up on Steve Delgrosso’s views.
PMI’s Pulse of the Profession reviews are really starting to focus on the outcomes from projects being the most critical thing from senior management a senior management viewpoint (hurray!). Steve DelGrosso, from PMI, gives his views on what the priorities need to be, if organisations are to keep pace with the escalating rate of change. In his view, these are:

  • Priority One – communications
  • Priority Two – sponsor engagement

This mirrors McKinsey’s Colin Price’s findings about the essential role of the project sponsor in his book, Beyond Performance Management. It also mirrors the view that to be effective, senior management must not only have a vision, but also be able to communicate it.
A look at PMI’s research shows that organizations report that only 52 percent of their strategic initiatives are successful. The failure of strategic initiatives has a significantly greater financial impact than just project failure: they say that nearly 15 percent of every dollar spent on strategic initiatives is wasted–US$149 million for every US$1 billion spent. By comparison, PMI’s 2014 Pulse of the Profession® study finds that US$109 million is wasted for every US$1 billion invested in projects.

So, not much seems to have changed since David Munt, founder of GenSight, did a similar study in 2002. His research suggested between 35 and 50 per cent of all investment is directed to unsuccessful projects and that about 30 per cent of project investment by FTSE 100 organisations in 2000 actually destroyed shareholder value!
Strategic initiatives are the programmes and projects though which an organization’s strategy is implemented. By their nature, strategic initiatives drive change to transform an organization from current state to future state.
Failed projects can result in huge financial losses for an organization, but a failed strategic initiative has an impact far beyond just the costs of the initiative. When an organization embarks on change, it’s likely that systems, processes, vendors and perhaps even the overall organizational mindset (or mission) will be impacted. Failure to successfully enable sustainable change can lead to an organization losing its competitive advantage.

Select the right projects to support your strategy Selecting the right projects will help you achieve your objectives by realising benefits which support your strategy.

Select the right projects to support your strategy

I have a feeling there will be a lot more blogs on this topic as it challenges the prevalent “iron triangle” or “triple constraint” view of project management, and builds on it. Developers of standard and proprietary methods take note! In the meantime, have a look at The Project Workout, Chapter 3, page 50 and Chapter 15, page 198, in particular.

Lessons from history

Korean fortressIf you read about the history of “project management” you will usually be told how it emerged in the early twentieth century in response to particular needs (blah blah blah).

However, at an ISO meeting last week, in Sweden, the South Korean delegate, Young Min Park,  brought us all to heel by showing a video. Basically, he took ISO 21500 (Guidance on project management) and mapped it against the historical records of the construction of Hwaseong Fortress in Korea . . . and he found that most of the processes described in ISO21500 were practiced all those years ago . . and there is documentary evidence to support this (have you done your post-project review yet?).

His video is a delight and shows that it is the practices that matter, not what we call them (although as you all know, having consistent words does help communication!). So sit back and enjoy the video; it’s only four minutes long, but is derived from the detailed project management records still held in the Royal archives in Korea.

Video: Historical project tells about project management

My thoughts:

Getting (and holding onto) your resources

The University of Southern California analysed 165 teams in a number of successful organisations to assess the effectiveness of team-work. Two reasons for teams failing to deliver were found:

●  Project objectives were unclear.

●  The right people were not working on the project at the right time.

In looking for solutions to these two issues, they found that using a ‘projects approach’ gave significant benefits in clarifying objectives (which is just as well or it would conflict with the message in the Project Workout!). On the question  of resources, they found  that having  visibility  of available resources and obtaining commitment for the required resources was key. In other words, if you haven’t got the right people at the right time (numbers and skills) you can’t expect to complete your project. It’s all rather obvious, isn’t it?

You need ALL your resources to succeed.

You need ALL your resources to succeed.

As I suspect many of you know, obtaining resources and holding on to them can be very problematic, especially in functionally oriented organisations, where the balance of power  is  firmly held  by line  management. In  these circumstances, resources are often committed to projects on the basis of good intention, rather than on good information. Consequently, they can be withdrawn by the owning department, at whim,  if it believes that its own need is greater than that of the project. The result is that resource and skill shortages do not become apparent until they are a problem.

An effective method of resource allocation and commitment is needed, therefore, which meets three conditions:

  • Condition 1 – you have a clear view of how resources are being consumed on a project by project basis.
  • Condition 2 – you have visibility of the resources available, or soon to be available, within the forecasting horizon of your organisation.
  • Condition 3 – commitment of resources should be based on clear information and forms the basis of an ‘agreement’ between the departments providing the resources and the projects consuming the resource.

Meeting these conditions will enable you to anticipate potential resource conflicts before they become a problem. How do you do that? Well, it all relies on how the governance for your organsation is designed, the project manager cannot normally solve this one.  I’ll cover this in later blogs, but in the meantime, you can find out more about resourcing in Chapter 16 of the Project Workout.

Project management excellence is not enough

Beware of doing too many projects, even if they do fit your strategy and have a good business case.

Beware of doing too many projects, even if they do fit your strategy and have a good business case.

The opening plenary sessions of the 2013 Gartner PPM and IT Summit in London, set the tone for a mind-set shift in how Gartner looks at “IT management”.  To date they have focussed in on “IT” and the “CIO”, and, in my view, perpetuating the gap between what they term “IT” and the “Business” . This year, to my delight, they were starting to talk about “the business” and IT’s part in it. It’s a brave thing to do, but the right thing to do. Most organisations still have their IT split off as separate organisational units ,with a separate strategy and loads of money, which tries to work out what “the business” wants and then all too often fails to meet those expectations. What is guaranteed though, is if you give an IT department money, they will spend it all, even if the business need is unclear. . . . that’s the “business’” fault!

Mike Langley from PMI was a key note speaker and gave his view on the all important question of “how do we ensure our (IT) projects fit our strategy?”  Notice I put “IT” in brackets – the department is irrelevant as we want all our projects to align with strategy . . . don’t we?

Mike based his talk on PMI’s recent “Pulse of the profession” survey.

We are all familiar with “strategy” and “execution” (sorry for using the “e” word, but when at an American conference, you can’t get away from it!).  The story is that the business leaders set the strategy and then the “business” implements it. If it goes wrong, it’s usually the fault of the business and their dreadful requirements and poor implementation!  What new research for Harvard Business Review is now talking about is that implementation is part of strategy and we should not separate them. (look out McKinsey and Bain!.) After all, if your strategy doesn’t include how to implement itself, then it’s a poor strategy.  The new buzz words for making this happen is “portfolio management”. This is a discipline of making sure that the programmes, projects and other activities that a business decides to do are the rights ones in terms of strategic direction, fit and balance in terms of risk and skills use. It’s all about selecting the right projects.

Mike says his research shows that organisations which are good at portfolio management are more agile, and have better project outcomes. Portfolio management is integral to how the top level leaders want to manage their business; it’s an integral part of business planning. Traditional business planning adds up costs of departmental budgets, checks against revenue and makes sure there is “interlock” if different departments need to work together.  Usually this is done a year or so in advance and is therefore totally pointless for organisations in fast moving environments. It is however a neat and simplistic way to blame people when things go wrong or costs to much. Hence, getting portfolio management working right is as much to do with mind-set as having the processes, systems and operating model.

Getting this right, means organisations can continuously tune their plans, not be tied to outdated annual budgets and use their people and money where the benefit is most attractive.  The money will follow the business need, not the department doing the work. Now that is what I call true organisational agility and if you have read the Project Workout, it will be very familiar to you.

This isn’t new as a concept, but it is something many organisations struggle with.  Have a look at this article: Excellence is not enough from the Project Workout “articles” web page.

The secrets of successful programmes

CranfieldI recently went to the International Centre for Programme Management (at Cranfield) for a forum on learning and knowledge management  and as part of that we were given a white paper called “Beating the odds – the secrets of successful programmes”.

The white paper describes the findings from a recent two-year study of 21 major programmes of many types, with varying levels of success in a wide range of organisations in Europe. Those findings explain many of the causes of the differeing levels of programme performance and how business leaders can improve the success rate for their own organizations.

Seldom do I read an article or paper with the words “Yes, yes, yes” ringing in my head. It is packed with useful insights and wisdom, gleaned for the programme teams who took part in the study. The wisdom in this paper won’t be found in methods and processes, they are more about how experienced and skilled people apply them and the issues they face.

I recommend this to any person who considers themselves to be (or aspires to be) a business leader. As expected, there is lots about vision, strategic alignment, business readiness, foggy objectives, stakeholder engagement, business cases, planning and behaviours. If, as a business leaders, you believe you have a great strategy, then good for you. On its own, however, that is not enough. You need to be able to convert your vision and your strategy into action on the ground. Do you have the right mind set, tools, methods to do this?  Read this article and decide for yourself.

This is the executive summary:

  1. Strategic alignment. From the programmes studied, those identified as integral to the future business strategy were all at least partially successful. It could be concluded that the ‘positive’ nature of the programmes’ intentions meant that there was little stakeholder resistance to the initiative and hence the organisation was able to deploy its most capable resources. Senior management and executive involvement was sustained throughout the programme. Conversely those programmes that had primarily ‘reductionist’ intentions, e.g. restructuring to reduce costs or eliminate inefficiencies, were less successful. Executive involvement in the programmes was weak and stakeholders’ commitment quickly waned.
  2. Need and readiness. Interestingly and perhaps counter intuitively, in most of the successful programmes the need was ‘high’ – clearly recognised as a business priority – but initially the readiness was ‘low’. In these the argument for investment and change was endorsed at executive level and time and effort spent at the start to achieve the buy-in of the rest of the organisation and develop the ability to undertake the changes. In the majority of those that were partially successful the readiness appeared to be ‘high’ as well as the need. Why they were not entirely successful is best explained as over-ambition or even over-enthusiasm; rather too many optimistic assumptions were made at the start with little assessment of the potential risks involved.
  3. Value drivers,benefits and business cases. The more successful programmes were also based on a clear strategic driver plus a strong financial business case. Those with weaker strategic drivers but good financial cases gained less commitment and were usually less successful. Very often financial benefits were overestimated, while the risks and the problems in making the changes were underestimated, perhaps because realistic estimates might have made it difficult to secure funds and resources. During the programme, as the scope becomes clearer, this inevitably leads to changes to the costs involved and the benefits that can actually be delivered, but only a minority of organisations revisit the business cases as programmes evolve.
  4. Foggy objectives. Programmes cannot be fully planned in advance and have to adapt to both changing business conditions and programme achievements. This is not necessarily a comfortable position for senior management and requires a knowledgeable, accountable and empowered governance group to oversee and, where necessary, adapt the programme. Rather than decrease during the programme, uncertainty can often even increase, especially due to changes in the external environment.
  5. Planning. Some organisations thought they may have ‘over-planned’ things at the start, due largely to the demands of some stakeholders for detailed plans, which were then not really used. However, the planning activities were seen as essential to bring stakeholders together and for reconciling their different priorities and interests. The process of planning was more important than the plans produced and helped address many of the initial uncertainties.
  6. vision and stakeholders. Having a clear vision of the intended future business and organisational models and then allowing compromises and trade-offs in the detail of how they are implemented, is more likely to achieve stakeholder commitment than imposition. The successful transformation programmes usually addressed the organisational, people and capability aspects first, before dealing with the process and technology aspects. The less successful tried to do the reverse.
  7. Learning and un-learning. Most ‘strategic’ programmes require the development or acquisition of new capabilities and knowledge in order to be carried out successfully. Management generally underestimate how much has to be learned by the organisation and individuals to define, manage and implement a major programme. Introducing new ways of working may also require considerable ‘un-learning’ by large numbers of professional people – not easy to achieve without actually removing the old processes. If the programme relies heavily on the capabilities of suppliers (especially IT suppliers), they may exert undue influence over what is done – the scope and achievable benefits – rather than on how the programme can be successfully delivered.
  8. Realising the benefits. Most business change programmes involve at least two distinct and different phases – first to create a new capability and second to exploit it. In most of the cases the new capability, for example a global HR database or Finance & Accounting Service Centre, was created, but not always used effectively, hence the benefits achieved were often less than those originally envisaged. While creating a new capability can be done ‘off-line’, separately from business as usual, using and exploiting it often competes with other operational priorities or can have negative effects on other aspects of operational performance, as was observed in some of the cases.
  9. Organisation and governance. Programme governance structures and staffing profiles are likely to change significantly over the life cycle. There seem to be three basic approaches to organising programmes: (1) a separate task force, (2) as part of business-as-usual (BaU), or (3) a combination (matrix). Not surprisingly the last of these proves most problematic. Some programmes have dedicated change managers, others have senior managers assigned to the programme, but they can find it difficult to reconcile achieving change at the same time as sustaining performance. Running change programmes in parallel with BaU causes tensions within the organisation and a clear statement of priority for which takes precedence is essential.
  10. Portfolio management. Few organisations, as yet, have the capabilities in place to manage multiple concurrent programmes with varying levels of uncertainty, competing for the same resources over extended periods. No organisation in the study had an effective mechanism in place for managing a combined large portfolio of ‘strategic’ programmes and more traditional projects – although some are trying to address this issue. Managing multiple programmes (Programme Portfolio Management) requires an additional governance structure or regular strategic and operational review and reconciliation at executive level especially if there are programme inter-dependencies or contention for critical and scarce resources.

Do you want to know more?

Cranfield had very kindly let me make the full article available to you here

So why was I saying “yes, yes, yes,” to myself? Many of the lessons are embedded in the Project Workout:

  • vision, strategic alignment: are covered in the gated approach to projects, from the very beginning(Chapters 3 to 11)
  • portfolio management is covered in Project Workout as “Business Programmes” in Chapters14 to 17.
  • business readiness,is a prerequisite for Project Workout’s Ready for Service Gate (page 118)
  • foggy objectives,are discussed in Chapter 12, along with other types of “Eddie Obeng” projects
  • stakeholder engagement,is covered in Chapter 19 as well as threaded throughout the book
  • business case, is at the heart of the Project Workout’s business led approach
  • planning in Chapter 19
  • behaviours are covered in Chapter 18

Of course, in the “real world” these are not isolated activities but happen in a complex network of cause and effect and that is why it is all so difficult to do in practice.

What to do about ineffective sponsors

The sponsor's behaviours set the tone for everyone but are they always beneficial?

The sponsor’s behaviours set the tone for everyone but are they always beneficial?

Research from Scott Keller and Colin Price (McKinsey’s) in their book,”Beyond Performance: HowGreat Organizations Build Ultimate Competitive Advantage,” points to programme or project sponsorship as being the most critical factor in achieving project success. I agree with them. Unfortunately in organisations with low maturity in programme and project management, this role is often  totally missing, misunderstood or the behaviours promote the wrong outcomes. This doesn’t seem to be an uncommon problem. But what can you do about it? One writer, Peter Taylor, proposes that a PMO could act as a surrogate “sponsor” and be used to help senior executives understand and perform that role better.

Have a look at his full article here, and see what you think.

Now imagine, if sponsorship was done well, what a difference that would make: programmes and projects would link to strategy, be prioritised on the basis of business benefit and only done if the need or opportunity is compelling . . . even if money is left over in the annual budget!!! Perhaps we could even go as far as the funds being assigned to the projects themselves, rather than to departments (cost centres) doing the work; now there’s a thought. CFOs, pay attention! Also consider, how can “portfolio management” work, if the role of the sponsor is not understood?

Let me know your thoughts on this. Are the programme and project sponsors in your organisation effective? If so, how did you achieve that? If not, how are you tackling the problem? I think that this is one of the great challenges to improving programme and project performance; there is only so much the “middle” can do, the “top” needs to play their part too.

See also my blog, “Enemies within” in which I argue senior management get the peformance they deserve. Controversial, eh?

Is your parrot (I mean project) dead?

A risk register is sometimes not enough.Dead Parrot

Projects are not simple things to manage, even when there is a book, like the the Project Workout, to help you.  So, how do you know if your project is “healthy” and likely to meet the business objectives it was set up to achieve? How do you know it’s not well and truly dead, like the proverbial Monty Python parrot?

Well, a quick look at the risk log may help, together with a view on the issues. The schedule plan updates should show you how you are doing against your baselined plan. (what do mean you don’t have a baseline?)

These are all good ways to gain a feel; they are your day to day instruments. Sometimes, though, it’s good to rise above all the detail of methods, tools, reports and logs and consider in an holistic way, “Will this project really do what we need?”.

The Project Health Check

This is where the project health check comes in. It asks five searching question on each of the following areas of project management:

Project plan
Resources
Ownership
Justifiable case
Expertise
Clear solution
Targeted control

If anyone of those is not adequately covered, then your parrot may indeed be dying.

Let’s have a look at the output from an example:

Example of an output from the Health Check

Example of an output from the Health Check

Overall the tool’s analysis suggests the project is medium risk. Well, you might say, that’s ok, isn’t it? However, if you look at the problem areas you can see they relate to:
Solution – we don’t know what we’re building
Resources – we haven’t got anyone to do whatever it is
Expertise – we don’t fully have the expertise we need.

Now this cluster makes sense. All the management stuff is okay, but if we haven’t got the expertise for the specialist work, then perhaps that’s why we don’t yet have a solution. Also, if there is no solution yet, you can’t really know what resources you need.

So is it okay? If you are in the investigative stages of the project then, yes, you could be okay, assuming you take action to fill the gaps. If however, you are in the development stages or later, then your parrot is probably going to die.

As with all these types of tools, they are there to help you think and self-delusion in answering the questions will reinforce any delusional opinions. For that reason, it’s often good to do this type of assessment in groups and gain a consensus; the value of the discussion will far out weight the paper result.

When would you use this?

I suggest that you use at as an input to every gate decision to provide the decision makers with a summary of the ares which need attention. You can also do it “ad-hoc” in response to any concerns which have been raised.

Is it worth it?

Yes. One company I work ed with employed some consultants to review 12 of their most critical projects. The consultants used their own, very extensive, tools and check lists. When they’d finished their work they took this tool and applied it to all twelve projects. The found a full correlation. In fact, they said if the company had applied this tool first, as a filter, they could have saved 60% of the consulting fee as most of the projects were fine.

You can find the tool in the CD which accompanies the Project Workout.

Functional thinking destroys business value

In my blog, Enemies within, I highlighted 10 reasons why projects continue to

People get cross with each other and, often, it's not their fault.

People get cross with each other and, often, it’s not their fault.

fail, despite all the methods, standards and training we throw at our people.  basically business leaders get the project performance they deserve as most inhibitors are institutional. This is what I said:

Functional thinking – not taking the helicopter, the organisation-wide view. This often happens when executives’ or individuals’ bonuses are based on targets which are at odds with the organisation’s needs, e.g. sales bonus rewarded on revenue, regardless of profit or contribution.

Let’s look at another aspect of this – cost management.  Most organisations set their annual budgets, top-down, based on an expectation of revenue and costs. The costs then trickle down to cost centres and managers of departments of functional specialists, or other segments of the organisation They have a budget for the year to work within. Sounds familiar? On top of that we put time recording and ever more rigorous (onerous?) procurement systems – after all, we must be hard nosed business people and make sure we only spend what is needed. Finance people then monitor the costs and do all sorts of jiggery-pockery to deal with their fiscal needs, accruals, internal transfers, prudence concept etc.

All this budget setting is done for a financial year, 12 to 15 months in advance.

Actually, that approach can work well for steady state bureaucracies, where next year tends to look rather like last year. It is what most people are familiar with and yet, how many people, nowadays, work in such a predictable, steady state organisation?  What if you are in a fast-moving, unpredictable sector where you are not sure what will make up your order book and what mix of resources you will actually need? They also realise that they need to deal with cross-functional projects and so they “interlock” the demands of the projects with the cost centre budgets.

A budget set to  12 to 15 months in advance on this basis looks rather optimistic. So what happens is this:

  1. department managers spend their all budgets (so they don’t lose it next year) regardless of the overall business need – after all they are targeted on their cost spend.
  2. projects get starved of resources, as the mix of resources and costs change as work is won (if customer facing) or initiated (if for internal transformation). This can be despite the “project budget” having enough funds, as all too frequently the departmental budget takes precedence.
  3. project managers get cross with functional managers who unilaterally withdraw their resources, despite the project budget being adequate
  4. department managers get cross with project managers for not predicting exactly what they will need up to 12 to 15 months in advance.
  5. it becomes a blame game
  6. the company and customer suffer

Managers:

  • who exceed their budgets are told they are bad managers
  • who undershoot their budgets are told they are bad at forecasting
  • who hit their budgets are told the budget was probably not stretchy enough.

So how can you deal with this?  The first thing is to realise that the above scenario describes a matrix organisation, where resources are shared across many projects and business activities. If you have a matrix organisation, the controls of the simple bureaucracy (cost centres) are totally inadequate – you need to have a full, matrix infrastructure in terms of portfolio, programme and cost management and for resource planning and assignment:

  1. Manage the business across the organisation not down the cost centres
  2. Allocate budgets and funds to projects (or other cross-company entities) not to cost centres.
  3. Create governance which crosses, the organisation, taking power off the costs centre managers
  4. Only give cost centre managers funds for training, management, holidays, sickness etc.
  5. Have a rolling monthly forecast, spanning financial years (“interlock” resets half yearly or even quarterly of often not enough).
  6. Let any person work on any work, anywhere in the company.

Done right, you will have a flexible, self correcting organisation, which is simpler to run and focused on business value not discrete costs centres. You will have tipped the balance of power away from the “silo” cost centres towards managing business value across the organisation.

Want to know more?

See the Project Workout, 4th edition:

  • Chapters 14 and 15 on matrix governance
  • Chapter 16 on resourcing
  • Chapter 17 on matrix systems to make it work