PM Office Productivity – Make or buy?

Make or buy questions are a common thread in any business function that requires an extensive set of support tools to automate time-consuming manual work. This of course includes PM office management of portfolios, programs, and projects. After all, each PM team is only as effective as the collaboration tools they use to get the work done.

What is meant by “make” or “buy”? In fact, “custom” or “off-the-shelf” is a better way to express the question. The real question being, is a custom solution required/better than an off-the-shelf (OTS) solution?

With so many OTS project and portfolio management platforms to choose from, it’s easy for anyone to believe that at least one will meet their particular needs. In truth, it’s very unlikely unless the function is truly non-unique ( e.g. HR) in terms of methods used and work performed, when compared to similar functions in other companies. Project management rarely falls into this category since projects tend to vary significantly in terms of both methods used and the type of projects being undertaken from company to company. As a result, it is almost impossible to find an OTS PM collaboration system that isn’t an poor fit for team productivity.

The unavoidable truth for all those executives looking for a quick fix that can be obtained with a checkbook, is that “make” is very often the only viable option for real productivity improvement. Most OTS solutions are designed to meet the generic needs of any project in any industry. While that enables a greater number of sales, productivity is better served by tools tailored to the specific needs of the organization. When it comes to quality and productivity, OTS is a path to mediocrity.

So what about the make (custom) option? The advantage of course is getting exactly what you want and knowing exactly what you’re getting. The cost may be competitive too, given that most OTS collaboration systems are very expensive to buy and implement (configuration is often as difficult as development from scratch). On the other hand, building your own is more time consuming and it requires expertise more common to an IT organization than a PM office. If you don’t have the expertise in house, the development can be outsourced, but arrangements will need to be made for long term incremental development as your methods change and to provide ongoing support.

Looking at PM office automation from a top down holistic perspective, it’s clear that methodology and management tools must work hand in hand. Methods are the top priority, and must come first, since they define how work is done and therefore have a direct impact on quality and performance. Tools selection is lower in priority since tools simply make doing work easier and less prone to error. It follows then, that tools should be designed/configurable to meet the changing requirements of PMO methods. It also follows that improvements to methods will often necessitate improvements to the tools that support them (hence the need for the long term commitment from custom developers mentioned above).

Looking at automation from the bottom up, it’s evident that simplicity and ease of use are critical to success. Complex environments with multiple application platforms make training, maintenance, the distribution of work, and data integration and reporting more difficult to manage. When users are required to move in and out of different applications to make progress, they become frustrated and less productive, defeating the purpose of automation. In most cases some mix of enterprise and desktop platforms will be needed, but the total solution should be kept as simple and elegant as possible to reduce the potential for failure.

No matter what direction you take, a successful productivity system offers significant cost savings and increases in both speed and competitive advantage, but only when well planned and executed. Additionally, most of the value is realized via incremental improvements over time and not upon delivery of the initial system.

Some things to consider before you begin: Why are you asking the question, make or buy?

• What is the scope of the problem/opportunity being addressed? Do you need a complete system redesign or would some limited or specific improvements achieve most of the gains you’re seeking.
• What constraints (cost, duration, strategic alignment, …) will be applied to any given solution you identify?
• How detailed and specific are existing management methods (steps, forms, templates, reports, …)? As methods evolve, the need for customized tools increases.
• How flexible can you be with respect to existing methods and where?
• Do you have a well formed evolution plan for the organizations that will utilize or be impacted by the solution you implement?
• What ancillary methods/systems will  your solution be required to support and how?
• What off the shelf tools are available in the market?
• What resources and technologies can you draw upon to develop (and maintain) custom solutions?

It will pay huge dividends to begin with a detailed and well vetted list of system requirements. Just like any development project, it’s critical to prioritize each in terms of cost and payback. Use those requirements as input to a high level design that seeks to identify the best approach for realizing the system considering OTS and make options for each component in addition to the system as a whole. However comprehensive the list of requirements, start small – don’t try to boil the ocean. Since most of the real productivity gains will be realized when making post implementation improvements, it makes sense to start with a small first offering.

In summary, while most PM office organizations don’t have the skilled resources needed to develop and maintain a best in class productivity system, a custom (not OTS) solution is the only viable option to long term productivity gain. To effectively drive both quality and productivity the solution must be designed to support the requirements established by PMO methods and change as methods change.

The beliefs expressed above form the basis for PMOSoft’s PMIQ quality and productivity platform. PMIQ is the custom solution that each PMO needs. It provides tools to manage both PM office methods and collaboration and/or productivity tools that support project management in alignment with your own methods.

PMIQ supports ongoing improvements to both methods and tools while PMOSoft provides the long term expertise to help each client PMO improve and maintain their system over time.

Please visit us at http://pmosoft.com to learn more.

Sharing the Stage to Win in Project Management

What kind of manager are you, theory X (TX) or Y (TY)? As we all learn at some point in our education, TX generally assumes that employees are shiftless and lazy, and will only work if they’re forced to do so. TY on the other hand assumes that all employees want to do a good job, and if given the responsibility, authority, and tools to get the job done, they will devote themselves to the best outcome they can generate.

In reality, of course, things are never this binary. Any group will have some people that generally fit the TX profile and others who better align to TY.  It’s the job of each manager to extract the maximum value from the teams they manage, and within the framework of project management, that requires more than their obedient follow through on assigned tasks (i.e. TX). It requires each team member’s best research, critical thinking, and independent action towards the best possible project outcomes. In short, they have to own the problem right along with the PM. It is the PM’s job to make sure they’ve identified resources that can and will do just that.

Getting the best work from a team necessarily means placing trust in each team member. PM’s with a proclivity to “play the hero”, will often claim that project responsibility falls squarely on the their shoulders alone, but such statements smack of a TX mentality. The PM hero will often shoot from the hip, make decisions in a vacuum, and under utilize team members by limiting them to assigned tasks and not utilizing them as subject matter experts in planning and decision making efforts. While it’s true that the PM is ultimately accountable for project outcomes, those with highly developed management skills will involve their team members in identifying what needs to be done and providing expertise in decision making, as well as actually doing all the work. This level of engagement is important since projects, in addition to meeting business requirements, also have a significant impact on team building, professional development,  and employee on the job training for employees and partners.

So what does it mean to “share the stage”?  It means, making important delegations that challenge team members, helping them to exceed those challenges, and then giving them the credit when they do. This behavior builds leadership skills for tomorrow and motivates employees to do their best work for the PM. It motivates them to work with the PM again whenever the chance arises. Employee satisfaction improves when team members are given the chance to have an impact and are recognized for good work. Gallup (the poll production company) made the connection years ago that customer satisfaction follows in a direct correlation to employee satisfaction, so there is a direct impact on customer loyalty. OK, all good stuff, so what’s in it for the PM.

Well here’s the odd part – the part that doesn’t really seem logical. The good  guys really do win in the end. Although it’s hard for some the get their heads around (you know them), when someone takes on a management role, it becomes less about them and what they do personally, and more about what they are able to accomplish through others. While the PM was busy delegating all the interesting work to team members, selflessly helping them win the glory, and openly praising their efforts, all eyes above were fixed on the PM. Why? Their team was well motivated, engaged, and productive. They obviously selected the best and used them wisely because project outcomes were very good and  this was highlighted when the PM personally took steps to praise the great work done by key team members in project reports. In general, this PM seems to be creating win-win scenarios in every direction.

I heard it best stated in an old AMEX advertisement where the young restaurant owner says, “My father told me, you can do anything you want to do – you just can’t do it alone.” Absolutely right – you need the team. PM’s who don’t realize that, won’t get the best their team has to offer, and all project related outcomes will suffer.

PMOSoft provides the PM Office information and quality management systems (web applications & procedures) and consulting expertise needed to achieve the PMO mandate in as little as 3-4 months.  Please visit us at http://pmosoft.com to learn more.

Introducing the Project Maturity Management System (MMS)

I recently read that “fewer than half” of senior executives are satisfied with their PM office performance, and as a result, most plan to scale back their PMO/Project Management funding in 2009 by as much as 60%. Go figure. What would the logic be? My organization is underperforming, so in response, I’ll cut their budget. Is that going to solve the problem?

It’s not hard to believe the initial metric regarding the level of executive dissatisfaction, but I can’t buy that the metric on budget cuts (if accurate) is in any way related. I prefer to assume that most executives make better investment decisions. Of course, it’s more likely that these metrics were designed to create an impact, rather than gathered in a noble effort to further management as a science. Especially when you consider that the site making the claim was focused on PM Maturity.

Despite my issues with their metrics, I do agree with their overall position. Management maturity is a topic long overlooked in many IT / technology organizations. Just to make sure we’re on the same page, maturity goes hand in hand with implementing quality standards. The hard reality is that the repeatable quality they seek, cannot exist in the absence of standards, and as a result, project under-performance is more likely than not.

The consistent exceptions to the rule can be found in companies providing products/services to the medical industry or to European companies, since these markets require their suppliers to conform to stringent management and production standards (e.g. ISO 9001, ISO 13485). It’s compelling that almost all companies who adopt such standards, will subsequently extend their use beyond customer deliverable organizations (e.g. to IT operations), changing the way they do business in all internal organizations. Why? Because standards work. They drive operational consistency and give management and employees the organizational and operational control they need to improve their performance, and by extension, their outcomes.

So what’s the catch? If standards are the answer, why isn’t everyone doing it. Perhaps the biggest obstacle is that the time and cost associated with standards definition, implementation, training, and change management can be significant. Additionally, the change management component is critical to success and requires some rather sophisticated management skill to achieve. As a result, most successful organizations will bring in outside experts to drive system definition and implementation (good call).

Additionally, implementing a quality management system is only the beginning, since ongoing QA oversight (compliance audits, standards improvement) must also be established and maintained. Most organizations will implement their initial system from scratch, and manage it manually, without the benefit of time saving tools. This is where a maturity management system (MMS) can help.

Maturity Management System Fit

A MMS combines the quality management system (QMS) and information management system (IMS) into a single organization wide collaboration platform. It makes operational data available to all authorized team members from wherever they work. 

The QMS component supports the activities and data associated with the creation and maintenance of standards documents and standards improvement activities. As a result, many of the required QMS tools and procedures are delivered right out of the box, so you don’t have to start from scratch.

Similarly, the IMS component provides the data capture and management tools needed to run the operation (i.e. following operational procedures) in compliance with the standards laid out in the QMS. Again, some common procedures and templates may come out of the box (with change control allowed).

On the whole, an MMS provides a framework of tools to support “standards based operations automation”, while leaving the operating team the flexibility needed to customize/improve how the work is done. The goal of the MMS is to cut the time and cost of startup maturity efforts in half, increase operational efficiency, and enforce quality standards.

In order for an MMS to be effective, it must be tied to a specific function like PM office, supply chain management, software development, … By keeping the breadth of the management task contained, the MMS is better positioned to offer more in the way of common procedures, templates, and tools out of the box. Common procedures, templates, and tools, are defined as those that would apply equally well to all organizations of a specific type (e.g. supply chain), no matter what company/industry. In this way, it may be possible over time to offer a generic system that could approach “best-in-class” right out of the shrink wrap. A compelling possibility.

The term, Maturity Management System, was coined at PMOSoft to describe the PM Information and Quality (PMIQ) platform, used in PM office management, but could be generalized to any type of corporate function as described above.

PMOSoft provides the PM Office information and quality management systems (web applications & procedures) needed to achieve the PMO mandate in as little as 3-4 months. Please visit us at http://pmosoft.com to learn more.