Don’t tell me how it’s done, just show me the results

Bridging the gap between knowledge and practice as viewed by practitioners and senior management

By Prof. Ajay Parasrampuria

Global standards and methodologies for project management are gaining  recognition in the Indian corporate world. This is based partly on assumptions of a mutually informing relationship between standards and effective performance. But there are several obstacles—both practical and ideological—that is holding back progress on the adaptation of these standards. For example, there is no research or data that supports this assumption about standards and performance and many practitioners have started questioning the link.

There have been various occasions where I have taken the opportunity to advocate (and at other times enforce) the value of using global standards of PM to senior management across various organizations.  Many among them didn’t really care about these standards as long as the project results are achieved. Of course they had legitimate concerns about today’s tough economic conditions. They also expressed fears about their project teams being able to achieve the results out of squeezed resources without effective project management.  It was during these discussions that I noticed what their body language was really saying: ‘‘Don’t tell me how it’s done, just show me the results’’.

To go to the heart of the matter, I thought I should examine the underlying attitudes that I believe are today undermining efforts regarding the standardization of project management practices:

1. Senior management resistance to project managers’ involvement in practices usually relates to matters of strategy, project definition, project integration and communication. The expectation here is that project managers are supposed to only focus on the monitoring and control of cost and time resources. The view here is that project management is no more useful than its ability to deliver results as a control mechanism.
2. To be rated by senior management as top performers, project personnel are expected to avoid overt involvement in activities that might be interpreted as encroaching upon the territory of general management such as strategy. PM is expected to deal only with technically/tactical aspects.
3. Recent research studies indicate that there is less than 50% agreement on the importance of knowledge for project personnel in areas of strategy, requirements management, integrative management, and performance measurement and information management.  The same study also reported that use of practices in these areas, and in stakeholder management, is likely to translate into lower perceptions of project management performance by senior managers. (This would be perhaps due to lack of awareness and understanding of program management discipline, among senior management).

I could immediate relate the above observations to my own experience IT services space, which is really no different. As the strategic aspects (front end definitions) of the projects including dealing with customer interface is managed by the Delivery Manager and or Account/Engagement Managers, there is little or no role left for the Project Manager during the sales process.  Commitments made during this process (including time, scope, cost and quality) have to be now managed by the PM. When such managers are trained, coached and mentored on application of PM standards in their context, there is a conflict among them. The current context has defined a limited role for a PM and it heavily overlaps with that of a project lead.  (Please note the distinction I am trying to mark between Project Leader and Project Leadership).  Another aspect is that their managers (manager of project managers) and bosses neither know, nor are interested in knowing the standards and its value. This leads to a conflict that, Project Managers don’t relate to the relevance of the standards, in their current organizational context.

For the current role definition of the Project Manager to evolve with the emerging context (PM is not just delivery but benefit realization), we must stop condoning typical “water cooler” prejudices such as “Project Managers are just glorified technicians or are no better than technical managers.” Of course this is a classical conflict which needs to be understood, resolved and is another topic for discussion.

Coming back to ‘‘Don’t tell me how it’s done, just show me the results syndrome’’, we need to overcome this bridge and move beyond “knowledge” and work on the “practice” (performance outcomes), but what is a practice (see table below)?  I have seen numerous practitioners, trainers and consultants who have nothing to say beyond processes (knowledge) and I always wonder if they ever used the processes themselves in as equal rigor as what they profess now (well yet another topic for discussion).  Lastly, this is one bridge that needs to built from both end and we will keep our fingers crossed that there no small gaps left behind during integration. Just Mind the GAP!

The table below lists some of the differences between process and practice; the need of the hour is to go beyond the processes and knowledge and focus on the practice to bridge the gap between the value perceived by management and practitioner.

It would be interesting to hear from other practitioner on their views and thoughts on the subject.