4 September 2012 Leave a comment
There is a big debate in GB media this week: should the Olympics and Paralympics be treated the same, combined or be carbon copies. Aside from the practicalities (4 hour opening ceremonies and time tabling venues) Peter White (bbc.co.uk) reminded the media that there are differences and what suits a person in a wheelchair will not be a level playing field for those on two legs. The country is learning new sports (e.g. boccia). Closer integration of the games might be possible but we must acknowledge the key aspect: these games are different with different rules. It would be unfair on all competitors to try to make them the same.
Some companies and project managers make similar mistakes seeing a portfolio of projects as homogenous and trying to endorse the same methods and processes. A fundamental definition of a project is that it is a unique undertaking. In organisations, the types of project they undertake may be grouped by type and complexity to help assign effective project management teams. However, many don’t do that, they group by location or year: accidental dragooning into manageable groups.
The underlying problem with accidental grouping is the assumption that a consistent management can be applied to the projects in that group. That is where the project that isn’t quite the same can be the performance management equivalent of a land-mine: hidden, explosive and unexpectedly damaging. These land-mine projects are damaging because they go wrong, add cost, demotivate the team and upset stakeholders. Sometimes the costs of these projects can stop the business performing in other areas. If the dispute goes to law it can have a catastrophic impact on the organisation.
Therefore, portfolio and programme managers need to find a way of identifying those projects that are different: different type of delivery, different type of client, more complex, bigger or smaller teams, longer or shorter timescales, new or innovative. They need to tailor their controls and processes to manage these. This is adaptation for a situation not a licence to lose the overall controls applied.
I recognise that a number of Paralympic competitors first “qualified” for the trials that got them into their nation teams because of land-mines. While “the project that brought down the business” isn’t really on the same scale, the metaphor works. Their life has been set on a new unplanned direction that is incomparably different from their original hopes and dreams. Their success as elite athletes may be a huge achievement and entirely worth celebrating but it is not the same: the rules are different.