Audits and assurance. What’s the difference?

What is the difference between an “audit” and “assurance?

I was recently asked, “What is the difference between an “audit” and “assurance”? I like simple questions like this as they can tease out a lot of hidden meanings and misunderstandings. These two words are used frequently and in many different contexts; most of the time people understand what is meant . . . but not always. It is only when the question is asked, that you have to put your brain in gear and start thinking.5-going-ok

As project management has grown as a discipline, a lot of organizations have come up with their own definitions or uses of these words, which were already in use in other disciplines. The terms are often qualified such as:

  • Business assurance – checking the project is viable in business terms
  • Technical assurance – checking the solution is the right on and will work
  • User assurance – checking users get what they need.
  • Quality assurance – ensuring standards and procedures are used
  • Configuration audit – keeping track on all the bits of the solution
  • Financial audit – checking the financial figures reflect reality

You also find the word “review” is often tacked on to “assurance”, hence “assurance reviews”, which can add whole new dimension.

What do the words mean?

It is always a good idea to use words which have a commonly understood meaning, as it makes communication and understanding so much easier. Most people don’t have the time or inclination to understand jargon and nuances which are used to make academic distinctions. Dictionaries are the guardians for this and so, do use them; here are some dictionary definitions of the words:

  • Audit: 1) an official examination of accounts 2) A systematic review or assessment of something.
  • Review: a formal assessment of something with the intention of instituting change if necessary
  • Assurance: positive declaration that a thing is true.

“Audit”, being associated with financial accounts and independent auditors, has an “official” connotation; audits are usually planned, formally undertaken events. In the case of financial audits there are very strict rules on how they are conducted. People are often very wary when told the auditors want to see them; they often think in terms of “passing an audit”. Personally, I have found in healthy companies people welcome audits as it gives them a chance to raise issues which they have found intractable.

“Review”, on the other hand can have a softer meaning, more “helpful” meaning and can imply less formality, although this is not always the case. PMOs often use “review” so as not to scare people! This is how accountants use the terms:

  • Audit — an intensive examination with the highest level of assurance.
  • Review — some analytical procedures conducted with limited assurance

“Assurance” is different, you can have an “audit” or a “review” but you do not have “an assurance”. It is more of a state; you are assured that your project will meet its business objectives. Audits and reviews are simply two forms of assurance related activity.

Where does risk fit into this?

The terms “risk” and “audit” are often linked; Risk based internal audit (RBIA) is an internal method which is primarily focused on the inherent risk involved in the activities or system and provides assurance that risk is being managed, by the management team, within the defined risk appetite level. It has had a very high profile since the collapse of companies like Enron and the introduction of Sarbanes Oxley in the USA. In this connection, you’ll probably come across what is often termed “three lines of defence”:

  • 1st line: business operations, who own and manage risks; risk and control in the business, ensuring the identification and treatment of risk is built into standard management practices.
  • 2nd line: oversight functions, who design policies, set direction, introduce best practice and ensure compliance to ensure the whole management effort works as an integrated whole.
  • 3rd line: independent assurance providers such as internal audit and external assurance providers.

So what can you do in practice?

So what does this all mean for you in a programme and project management context? As always, it depends. You are likely to have this problem if you are responsible for a company-wide programme and project method or if you are responsible for a major programme. If you are a programme o project sponsor then “assurance” is a key aspect of your role. You will be the one asking for audits and reviews . . . although your senior management may also call for them.

In a company context, check how the terms are already used; make contact with the internal audit department and the risk group and work with them. In a programme context, decide how much you want the programme to be driving audits and reviews and how much should be driven externally, always remembering that at a programme level, you’ll need to fill any gaps in corporate capabilities. If there is no corporate audit or review capabilities, the programme team will have to design everything, except the 3rd line of defence assurance, themselves.

 

Case study

Here is how I approached it in one major company:

The programme and project management method included roles definitions which included assurance and risk management accountabilities. There were three supporting procedures relating to these:

  1. a single risk management procedure for use at any level in the programme from work package upwards.
  2. A procedure for auditing a programme or project;
  3. A procedure for reviewing a programme or project;

The programme and project management risk procedure dovetailed into the corporate risk management process, using the same terms and activities (based on ISO 31000). This ensured ease of transfer of risks across boundaries and simpler tools support.

The audit procedure was based on group internal audit’s formal auditing process. This was only used on major programmes which had their own quality and assurance departments. By mirroring group internal audit’s approach we ensured that the method could not be challenged, ensuring that the findings and recommendations were the focus.

The review process was designed to be used by programme and project management practitioners, not directly involved in the work, to review the work of others, based on a brief given by the sponsor. It was simpler and quicker than an audit as it took a less formal approach and was supported by (but not limited to) check-lists and tools.

Do poor project sponsors drive failure?

I was speaking at a PMI conference early in Sweden in March, which gave me the opportunity to sit in on a number of other sessions. This one is all about programme and project sponsorship. It is a topic close to my heart and one I have blogged on before and no doubt will again . . . but is is a topic that business leaders actually care about?

In programmes and projects, sponsorship is not like sponsoring Tom to run a Marathon. Do too many business leaders believe it is someone else's job?

In programmes and projects, sponsorship is not like sponsoring Tom to run a Marathon. Do too many business leaders believe it is someone else’s job?

On the point of sponsorship, here are the key messages Peter Taylor gave out at his presentation on sposorship:

  • 85% of organisations had sponsors in place
  • 83% of organisations don’t train/support/guide sponsors
  • 100% of respondents believed that having a good sponsor was key to project success.

PMI’s recent Pulse of the profession showed that those organisations with active sponsors are more likely to have better project outcomes. This is supported by Colin Price’s research (McKinsey). Standish believes ‘The most important person in the project is the executive sponsor. The executive sponsor is ultimately responsible for the success and failure of the project’. I agree.
BUT most spend business leaders spend less than 5% of their time on sponsor related activity, yet this is all about making change happen – leading change. . . . and mismanaging change is the commonest reason CEOs get fired.
If you look at project failure, six reasons are cited and the top FOUR of those come under the accountability of the sponsor.

  • 40% Unrealistic goals
  • 38% Poor alignment of project and organisation objectives
  • 34% Inadequate human resources
  • 32% Lack of strong leadership
  • 21% Unwillingness of team members to identify Issues
  • 19% Ineffective risk management

So despite all this wealth of research and learning, many business leaders continue to ignore the issue or treat it informally. Everyone says they believe it is critical to project success and yet:

  • Sponsors are not ‘trained’ to be effective
  • Sponsors do not have the ‘time’ to be effective
  • Sponsors are just expected to ‘know’ how to do the job.

Is that right?
Is it even worth bothering about?

Peter then showed some broad-brush estimates of the value of good sponsorship:

  1. Meeting Project Goals +29% variance with good sponsorship in place
  2. Project Failure -13% variance without good project sponsorship in place

So if you have a £1bn portfolio, the range of benefits and costs is:
+ £290m
– £130m
Peter argues that those figures are certainly worth thinking about.I certainly agree. I also wonder that if senior leaders are only spending 5% of their time on sponsorship, what are they actually doing and who do they think is looking after the future of the business?

You can see Peter’s paper here – Project managers are from Mars, project sponsors from Venus

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?

Defining your projects

The most important thing to is know WHY you want a project.

The most important thing to is know WHY you want a project.

Let’s follow on from last week’s blog on success and see what you can do to see if you are taking on board the messages. Successful projects need to lead to successful business outcomes and unless a project is adequately defined, it is unlikely to achieve anything, except perhaps a hole in your budget. Take any project that you are associated with and check that it is satisfactorily defined:

  • If you don’t know why you are doing the project, consider terminating it.
  • If you don’t know what you are delivering, regard your costs and timescales as unstable and your risk high.
  • If you don’t know when it will be done, carry out more investigations until you do know.
  • If you don’t know how you will approach the project, regard risk as high and investigate further.

“Project Definition” is a term used in The Project Workout, alternatives include:

  • Project Initiation Document or Dossier (PRINCE2)
  • Project management plan (PMI, APM)

Use this checklist to review any projects currently in progress.

  • Has a project definition been written, reviewed by the stakeholders and approved by the project sponsor?
  • Do the scope and objectives of the project meet the needs of the business?
  • Have the benefits been fully assessed and quantified wherever possible?
  • Do the benefits match the needs?
  • Have all significant risks been identified, categorised and taken into account in the plan and business case?
  • Has a comprehensive and satisfactory work breakdown been developed?
  • Does the work breakdown reflect the deliverables to be produced?
  • Are all key logical relationships between projects and activities clear?
  • Has the plan been developed to minimise or offset the risks?

The only way a project can be delivered is through its deliverables. For each deliverable check:

  • is the deliverables relevant and feasible both to produce and use?
  • Have quality criteria been established?
  • Is it clear who is accountable for preparing each deliverable?
  • Is it clear who will review the deliverable prior to acceptance?
  • Is it clear who will approve each deliverable?
  • Has sufficient time been allowed for reviewing/amending each deliverable?

For more on this see The Project Workout, Part Four which takes you through project set up and gives you some templates you can use.

Whose success is it?

In my “enemies within” blog, we looked at how management get the project performance they deserve. In that blog we explored the important role of the programme and project sponsor in making sure that an organisation’s programmes and projects succeed. But what does “success” mean? Success is too often interpreted through the differing eyes of stakeholders.

Successful project management ensures the delivery of a specified scope, on time and to budget (PMI’s triple constraint). It is related to how efficiently a project is managed. This should be assessed during the project closure review, documented in a project closure report and measured by timeliness of delivery milestones, adherence to budgets and quality. This is commonly associated with the role of the project manager.

A successful project realises the business benefits it was set up to achieve as stated in a business case. It is related to the effectiveness of the project in meeting the objectives set. The post implementation review (post-project review) assesses this. Measures of success here must be indicative of the business objectives being achieved. This review therefore has to happen some time after the output of the project has been put into use. It is associated with the role of the project sponsor.

A successful organisation drives towards its strategic objectives while fulfilling expectations of shareholders, managers, employees and other stakeholders. Measures for this are at a corporate level and should be financial and non-financial, such as a balanced score card. This is associated with the role of the chief executive.

A project which has been successfully ‘project managed’, however, may actually deliver little of value to the organisation. Further, a ‘successful project’ may not further the strategic objectives of the organisation, as its objectives may be out of alignment organisations seeking to optimise their total portfolio of projects through the effective combination of project management, sponsorship and portfolio management. A failing company can be full of ‘successful project management’ and ‘successful projects’ all driving in different directions.

The PMI’s recent report, Pulse of the Profession 2013, has actually picked up the above themes, so may this will help senior business leaders realise the potential that effective and efficient project management has to drive their organisations.

Gartner goes one step further and state that organisations which grasp this first will have a enhanced competitive advantage over the others.

Whatever you do must help you move towards your strategic objective. Otherwise there's no point.

Whatever you do must help you move towards your strategic objective. Otherwise there’s no point.

References:

Enemies within – why it doesn’t work

Far too many projects fail.

Far too many projects fail.

Project management, in the modern sense, has been with us a long time now. Some people have spent most, if not all their careers engaged in it in one form or another. Research and anecdotal evidence, however, seems to indicate that we still don’t “get it”. Reports continue to be written on “causes of project failure”. Eminent committees are set up to “get to the root of the problem”, international and national standards are created and yet:

  • we still see failure.
  • we still see organisations which ignore the benefits.

Why is this? If I could answer that, then I would be able to charge massive consulting fees! The question is rather like that posed in “Hitchhikers guide to the galaxy” asking, “What is the meaning of life?”  As we all know, the answer is “42” – which doesn’t help us one jot. If I ever came across anyone who knew the solution to stopping “project failure”, I would be very skeptical.

So why can’t people grasp the significance and advantages of business-led project management? We have:

  • lots of good books – like the Project Workout!
  • National and international standards such as BS6079 and ISO21500
  • Leaned societies, like the APM and PMI
  • Conferences galore

Actually, when the Project Workout came out in 1997 it was probably the first to put project management in a business context; earlier books were focused on project management techniques.

Cover all four basesBack to the topic! Having good methods and process supported by good tools and systems with clear accountabilities is necessary but not enough. The critical difference comes from an organisation’s culture; how they behave and their values. Give me the right culture and mediocre process over poor culture and brilliant process, any day. Organisations where project management “doesn’t work”, are likely to have a culture which actively prevents it from working. For example, for project management to be effective, we need more than just good project managers; for example:

  • project sponsorship is vital if the projects are to be linked to strategy
  • portfolio management (called business programme management in the Project Workout) is necessary to balance risk and choose those projects which will get you towards your strategic intent faster
  • finance systems, which enable project sponsors, managers and teams to see, their operational figures “live”
  • resource management so you can take account of constraints in choosing and implementing your projects.

Hunter Thompson, in 1970, said “In a democracy, people usually get the kind of government they deserve and they deserve what they get.” In this he blames the people in a democracy. Organisations, however are not democracies and so I would turn that quotation on its head:

Senior teams get the project management performance they deserve“.

The CEO sets the culture and “the way they want to run their business” and the following list indicates where the culture and values promote failure, rather than success. Running a project is difficult enough, but we often make it more arduous than it need be by creating problems for ourselves. Here are a few examples:

  1. Reorganising – either the company or a part of it. Tinkering with your structure is usually NOT the solution to your problems, it just confuses people. If you are a senior executive, however, reorganising is a great way to hide non-delivery!
  2. 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.
  3. Having too many rules – the more rules you have, the more sinners you create and the less happy your people become. Have you ever met a happy bureaucrat?
  4. Disappearing and changing sponsors – without a sponsor there should be no project. Continual changing of the ‘driver’ will cause you to lose focus and forget WHY you are undertaking the project. Consider terminating such a project to see who really wants it!
  5. Ignoring the risks – risks don’t go away, so acknowledge them and manage them. If I said that a certain aeroplane is likely to crash, would you fly on it? And yet, every day executives approve projects when a simple risk analysis shows they are highly likely to fail.
  6. Dash in and get on with it! – if a project is that important, you haven’t the time NOT to plan your way ahead. High activity levels do not necessarily mean action or progress.
  7. Analysis paralysis – you need to investigate, but only enough to gain the confidence to move on. This is the opposite to dash in and ignore the risks. It is also a ploy used to delay projects: ‘. . . I haven’t quite enough information to make a decision, just do some more study work.’
  8. Untested assumptions – all assumptions are risks; treat them as such.
  9. Forgetting what the project is for – if this happens, terminate the project. If it is that useful, someone will scream and remember why it is being done.
  10. Executive’s ‘pet projects’ – have no exceptions. If an executive’s idea is really so good, it should stand up to the scrutiny that all the others go through. He or she may have a helicopter view, but might also have their head in the clouds.

I’m sure you can add to that list, so please do, by adding a comment. Over the next few months, I’ll investigate a number of the above symptoms.

In the meantime, you can find out more about these from The Project Workout (4th edition):

  • lessons on what works: Chapter 2
  • enemies within – page 41
  • sponsorship: Chapter 4
  • portfolio management: Chapters 14 and 15
  • resource management: Chapter 16
  • finances: Chapter 17

Be a nut, be a leader!

Leadership

A leaders on his or her own is useless. There must be followers and the “first follower” is the most important, if change is to happen.

Do you think leadership is glorious? Is change totally dependent on the
leader? Do you think if a person looks ridiculous, they aren’t a leader?
Have a look at this video from Derek Sivers, I think you’ll enjoy it . . . and you might change your views on leadership:

See the Dancing Guy video.

So what’s the bottom line?

  1. If you are a version of the shirtless dancing guy, all alone, remember the importance of nurturing your first few followers as equals, making everything clearly about the movement, not you.
  2. Be public. Be easy to follow!
  3. But the biggest lesson here – did you catch it? – Leadership is over-glorified
  4. It started with the shirtless nut, and he’ll get all the credit, but it was the first follower who transformed a lone nut into a leader.
  5. There is no movement without the first follower.

We’re told we all need to be leaders, but that would be really ineffective. The best way to make a movement, if you really care, is to courageously follow and show others how to follow. So, when you find a lone nut doing something great . . . .

Have the guts to be the first person to stand up and join in.

Source: Derek Sivers; www.sivers.org

PPM but not as we know it – learn from the Romans

Emperor Sponsus - visionary and leaderI am sure you’ll want to go home, put your feet up and forget about your programmes and projects for a while . . . but what if withdrawal symptoms set in and you have that urge to peek at your Blackberry or just take a look at that last report . . . help is at hand with a book extolling the virtues of programme and project management on the scale of the Roman Empire. Follow Emperor Sponsus on his path to glory and the trials and tribulations of general Marcus Projex Magna as he struggles to turn Sponsus’ vision into a reality.

This is programme management that you won’t learn about at Saeed Business School’s BT Centre for Major Programme Management in Oxford, nor from PMI or APM or MSP, nor anywhere else, for that matter.

Click here to download your cartoon book: How Rome was lost