Career and Professional Development (CSD)

A Four-Part Series

By Aaron J. Shenhar

PART 4: THE NEW ADAPTIVE PROJECT MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK

Based on our research we suggest changing the paradigm of project management and accepting things as they are. The new framework is success-focused, flexible, and adaptive, and we can simply call it the “Adaptive Project Management Model;” it differs from the traditional approach in several ways, as shown in Table 1

According to this model projects are not just a collection of activities that need to be completed on time. Projects are business-related processes that must deliver business results. They are not predictable or certain. Rather, they involve a great deal of uncertainty and complexity, and they must be managed in a flexible and adaptive way. Planning is not rigid, fixed, or done once and for all; instead, it is adjustable and changing, and as the project moves forward, re-planning is often appropriate or even unavoidable. Project management styles must adapt to the specific project and its requirements, and one size does not fit all. While this approach represents a shift in thinking, it is inevitable to meet today’s organizational challenges. While no framework could provide all the answers, we believe that every organization can significantly improve its business results and achieve more homeruns from its projects if it will consciously apply the adaptive project management frameworks.

One final word: We do not suggest, however, eliminating the traditional approach. Rather, we are building on it. Many elements of traditional project management continue to be useful; yet, the overall approach will be augmented. As established by the conventional approach, each project must have a work breakdown structure, a schedule, a budget, an organization and a process. All those are necessary building blocks for well-organized successful projects. These building blocks will only form the baseline to leading the project in a flexible way. Not only do projects have to monitor and review their progress, they must periodically examine the need for the product and the customer’s position. Are the initial assumptions still valid? And if not, what adjustment does the project have to make in order to guarantee better success. Furthermore, in many projects it is impossible to build a clear and detailed plan. The uncertainty involved is simply too high to enable creating a clear project plan with all its bells and whistles. Instead, companies must initiate pilot programs, namely, small-scale efforts that will help remove some of the unknowns before the company can commit to the major large effort. In other situations, managers must create product prototypes that will be tested by customers before the final product requirements are set and determined.

In sum modern projects involve a great deal of uncertainty and complexity, as well as other constraints such as time, political pressures, economical risks, and many others. Each project is unique and it has to be managed it its own way that best fits it unique characteristics, risk and complexity. Only after companies learn how to manage projects in an adaptive and flexible way, will projects become the powerful competitive assets that they can be.

PART 1: THE PROJECT MANAGEMENT OPPORTUNITY

PART 2: WHY MANAGING A PROJECT BY THE BOOK IS NOT ENOUGH

PART 3: WHAT IS MISSING IN TRADITIONAL PROJECT MANAGEMENT

A Four-Part Series

By Aaron J. Shenhar

PART 3: WHAT IS MISSING IN TRADITIONAL PROJECT MANAGEMENT

As mentioned in the previous article, the current, standard, and formal approach to project management is based on a predictable, fixed, relatively simple, and certain model. It is also generally decoupled from the changes in the environment or the business needs; once you created the project plan, this plan sets out the objectives for the project, and the project manager must execute the plan, using a “management-as-planned” philosophy. After the project is launched, progress and performance are assessed against the plan and changes to the plan should be rare, and if possible avoided. Consider the following two major drivers of project management today:

The triple constraint: Project managers see their job as successful when they are able to complete the project on time, within budget, and achieve performance (or requirements) goals. This has famously been named “the triple constraint” (or “iron triangle”) of project management and deviations from it are seen as a negative sign, which must be prevented or corrected.

One size fits all: Many executives and managers assume that all projects are the same, thus suffering from the “project is a project is a project” syndrome. They expect to succeed by simply following a standard set of activities as outlined in the conventional project management books, which currently do not include guidelines for distinction among projects and for selecting the right approach for the right project.

In their struggle to keep projects on track, both executives and teams get frustrated when they are trying to fulfill unrealistic expectations of stability. Worse, in their effort to focus the project on the triple constraint, project teams often lose sight of the business rationale behind their projects, that they must satisfy a customer and achieve business results, and not just meet project requirements. And when they try to follow a standard set of rules for all projects, they often employ the wrong approach to their specific project.

The classical drivers of project management are no longer enough for today’s business environment. The traditional model fits only a small group of today’s projects. Most modern projects are uncertain, complex, and changing; and they are highly impacted by the dynamics in the environment. Virtually every project we studied underwent changes that were unpredictable upfront, and none of the projects was completed exactly as planned. Furthermore, as we found, projects differ in many ways, and “one size does not fit all.” In order to succeed, projects must be adjusted to the environment, task, and goal, rather than stick to one set of rules.

PART 1: THE PROJECT MANAGEMENT OPPORTUNITY

PART 2: WHY MANAGING A PROJECT BY THE BOOK IS NOT ENOUGH

PART 4: THE NEW ADAPTIVE PROJECT MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK

A Four-Part Series

By Aaron J. Shenhar

PART 2: WHY MANAGING A PROJECT BY THE BOOK IS NOT ENOUGH

The current techniques as used in the discipline of project management form the necessary basis for learning and understanding what project management is all about, but they are insufficient to guarantee a project’s success or to address the needs of today’s dynamic and uncertain projects.

We have seen projects that were managed exactly as required “by the book”–and still failed. They followed a structured process of planning and execution, which is common in the profession, and even when completed on time, they ended up in disappointment to management and clients. And we have observed other projects that did not follow any acceptable structure or process, or did not have a full plan with all its elements, and yet they turned out to be outstanding successes, bringing-in value and fame to their performing organizations and great satisfaction to their customers.

The discipline of project management is based on an outdated model that assumes that projects are successful if they meet their time and budget goals. Once the project is launched, it must continue to its end to meet time, budget and requirements goals. Rarely do projects focus on business results or on changing at mid-course to better adjust to customer needs.

Most of today’s project problems are not technical, but managerial. When technical errors cause projects to fail, it is usually management that failed to put the right system in place so that these errors will be detected in time. We also realized that the current practices of project management are insufficient to predict project problems or to solve them. And we found that even if you do everything according to the conventional well-established practices of project management, you may still fail.

Ironically, these traditional practices remain typically unchallenged by top management. As a result, many project teams are left on their own. They often struggle to keep their projects on track while trying to fulfill unrealistic expectations of stability; often highly detached from dynamic business needs and changes in the environment.

Our conclusion is simple. There is more to project success than following a standard set of rules. It is not the tools or applications, nor is it the lack of process. The problem lies in the mindset and the assumptions that are driving the traditional approach to project management, rather than in process or practice. The critical questions are: can we help project teams make the right assessment before presenting their project proposals to top management? Can we show executives how to ask the right questions and foresee danger before they make a commitment to a project and before it is too late? And can we guide project teams on how to adapt their project management style to the right circumstances, environment, and task? It seems that managers at all levels need a new framework and a new language to communicate with each other about projects.

PART 1: THE PROJECT MANAGEMENT OPPORTUNITY

PART 3: WHAT IS MISSING IN TRADITIONAL PROJECT MANAGEMENT

PART 4: THE NEW ADAPTIVE PROJECT MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK