Mel Bost – PMO Expert

Last week’s episode of Parenthood on NBC had a number of dimensions.  I would like to review, from my perspective, what happened in this episode, and then draw some conclusions for the project community followers of this blog. 

In this episode, one of the main characters, Adam Braverman is faced with a number of issues.  He is the father of a teenage daughter and a grade school son and his wife is about to give birth to another child.  He has recently lost his job, and is evaluating several possible jobs, each of which are really at a lower level than his previous position.

Here are the issues he is faced with in this episode:

1. His son has a learning disability which causes him to speak out in class inappropriately.

2. His daughter is dating a gentleman (Alex) who has a criminal background, and is now being charged with assault and battery by the parents of another teen whom Alex fought with at a recent party.

3. His brother is seeking to get a lease on an old recording studio in hopes of reviving the studio.  He has used Adam’s background information—without Adam’s knowledge—to secure a position to bid on the recording studio space.

4.  He has no traditional job or income at present.

5.  His wife is about to give birth, and there is a possibility that the baby could also have the same learning disorder that their son experiences.

Now, we all talk a lot about rational decision making being the basis for business interactions and business contracts. 

Adam thinks that the “rational” choice is for him to accept a job that provides an income, but not a fulfilling experience.  He also knows that there is very little he can do about the assault and battery charge against his daughter’s boyfriend, but, in his mind, it’s just another indication that their relationship was a mistake from the beginning.

So, what decisions does Adam make in this episode?

First, when Adam and his brother meet with the landlord of the recording studio building, they are initially met with rejection because the landlord says that he wants a safe and reliable tenant that he can count on.  At the heart of this conversation, Adam takes over the dialogue, and tells the landlord that he believes in what his brother is doing.  What’s more, he tells the landlord that he has business skills that he has not tried out in this context before, but which could be exactly what the new startup recording studio needed.  In doing so, Adam surprises both the brother and the landlord.

Second, when Adam’s daughter tells him that she feels really powerless because she can’t help her boyfriend with the charges leveled against him, Adam tells his daughter that everything will work out.  He then goes to the parents of the assaulted teenager and speaks to them from the heart about how he first doubted Alex, but was impressed when he learned how Alex had moved from using a soup kitchen as a source of food, to actually running the soup kitchen.  Adam’s eloquence in this dialogue resulted in the parents dropping the assault charges leveled against Alex.

Now, was this irrational decision-making?  At first glance, it appeared to be just that….in the face of harsh facts that pointed in one direction, he reversed his field and stood up for his brother and for Alex.

Meanwhile, the side story about Adam’s son’s learning disability, and his inability to get along with the other kids in the class, developed into an asset.  When the kids in the class found out that Adam’s son had advanced to a high level in their favorite video game and knew how to beat a major obstacle, the kids sought him out as an “authority” that could help them achieve the same success with the game.  His “influence” with the classmates increased.  Seizing upon this success, Adam’s wife and the teacher developed a strategy for Adam’s son that they hope will result in him getting along better with his classmates.

At the end of the episode, Adam is still faced with no income, and an uncertain position in his brother’s recording studio venture.  He feels, however, that he “did the right thing.” 

The real story here is how reframing the issues provided Adam with a greater ability to make difficult decisions.  Until faced with a decision, Adam had not focused on his own skills and competencies to see how they might apply to his brother’s recording studio venture.  Adam was uncertain about how to proceed with Alex until they learned more about his past, and how his drive to succeed and survive led him to run the soup kitchen.

Reframing is a very important tool in project management and in life.  It is why I tell my Project Lessons Learned students to get as many perspectives as possible when describing a “Significant Event” that may eventually become a “Candidate” for a Lesson Learned—”People act in accordance with the truth as they perceive it to be.”  Everyone sees different outcomes from the same scenario. 

In this episode of Parenthood, Adam reframed the issues, and acted at the right time, with the right intent, and with the right IMPACT to make a difference.

Every project manager and every PMO leader is, at some point, faced with a difficult decision.  It is our job to face the facts, reframe if necessary, move toward action, speak with conviction, and lead by leading.

Project managers who fully experience the project process learn and acquire truth, knowledge, decision-making skills, and good judgment.  There are three primary methods by which project managers may learn these lessons:

First, “reflecting” is the preferred method because it results in the highest value to the project manager.  “Reflection” means focusing attention on or studying an event or outcome to understand its origin and root causes as they apply to new project situations.

Second, “imitating” other project managers’ documented, shared experiences is the easiest method by which project managers may improve their skills.  “Imitation” means to behave in a manner which mirrors the actions or behavior of others.

Third, “repeating” his or her own bad experiences and unplanned or poor outcomes may also result in the project manager developing his or her skills, although this method causes the most pain and, in most cases, creates the least value addition.

These concepts paraphrase Confucius’ fifth-century B.C. quote concerning “wisdom” and “lessons learned”, which many of you will recognize from previous posts on this site.  They relate concepts of “behavior,” “actions,” “outcomes,” “experiences,” “pain,” “ease,” “value addition” and “knowledge.” 

Why is it that project managers refuse to accept the reality that it is more painful to keep repeating the same mistakes in their projects, rather than learn and benefit from the experiences of others? 

Lou Tice teaches us two principles of personal growth and development:

1.  People act in accordance with the “truth” as they perceive it to be.

2.  People move toward and become like that which they think about.

As Lou Tice suggested, project managers who act as if project lessons learned can have no positive impact on their future success, act in accordance with their perceived “truth” that project lessons learned aren’t valuable.  Similarly, many organizations have been reluctant to require their project managers to take the time required to reflect upon their completed projects and document their project lessons learned, despite the fact that most PMBOK practices suggest that project managers properly close-out projects with an after-action review and documentation of project lessons learned. 

Today, however, I believe that this reality is beginning to change.  Many companies have begun to take project lessons learned more seriously, and are interested in closing-out projects with documentation preserving the “knowledge” created by the project, and the “experiences” of project participants.

On the other hand, what do project managers want to do more than anything else when they successfully complete a project?  Those of us who have observed this behavior over time can tell you that overwhelmingly project managers want to get on to that next great assignment, that next great challenge, that next great project.  Rarely do they want to pause and reflect upon what they have just accomplished, or what the organization could gain if they documented and shared their project management experiences. 

So, what should be the driving force for properly documenting and sharing project lessons learned?

We all know that most organizations now recognize that there are certain Best Practices—in both their project management processes and their business context—which they employ over and over again.  This is to be expected; when an organization experiences a successful outcome using a key Best Practice, the organization is likely to have a successful outcomes in the future if it employs that same Best Practice again.  Often these Best Practices are specific to that organization’s culture, and they fit into the project process naturally in the course of executing projects.  Indeed, many organizations are employing Best Practices now intuitively.  Few companies, however, are adept at recognizing and employing their own Best Practices.     

Just like Best Practices have become—no pun intended—Best Practices within many companies, shouldn’t PMOs look upon Project Lessons Learned as having the same potential to lead to “success” in their project work? 

Here is a “process” and ”framework” for looking at Project Lessons Learned that will allow the project lessons learned process to become a Best Practice in your PMO: 

In my last blog, I talked about building capabilities as a prerequisite for successful PMO execution. 

What would constitute a “capability based system” for capturing and sharing project lessons learned?

1.  There must be some process or mechanism for sorting out the FACTS in stories, experiences, and anecdotes versus the ASSUMPTIONS.

2.  There must be a recognized “review” process to identify candidates for project lessons learned. 

3. There must be a willingness on the part of project managers and project team members to speak directly, concisely, and with conviction about project events and lessons.  This involves a risk-taking attitude that only comes from developing an internal capability in the organization to acknowledge that project lessons learned add lasting value.

4.  There must be a “review” process which addresses the following questions:

        –What were the Expected Results from the action or behavior of the project team?

        –What were the Actual Results from the action or behavior of the project team?

         –What is the gap between Actual and Expected?

         –What are the Lessons Learned to be captured, shared, and documented?

5.  There must be an internal knowledge-management system devoted to storing project lessons learned documentation so that project managers may easily retrieve and apply the lessons contained therein to new projects.

6.  There must be a single person who is the coordinator or caretaker of the project lessons learned process and knowledge-management system, so that he or she can analyze the documented lessons learned in order to identify any broader lessons learned which may be applied to the policies, processes, and procedures governing the organization’s project management processes.

Once you have mastered these basic elements and gain some experience in applying the process to a number of projects, you can begin to add some sensitivities.  For example, you can relate project lessons learned to the risk of developing a new technology concurrent with the project within which the new technology is being applied.  At the outset of the project, you can establish a plan to prove-out the technology as the project progresses.  A lesson learned can then be documented in terms of the risk of the new technology being proved-out successfully during the project.  Such a scheme could introduce concepts such as “controllable” and “uncontrollable” risk.  “Controllable risk” could be associated with those portions of the technology prove-out where there is a high probability of success.

Likewise, you can look at project lessons learned at the end of each major phase of your project and apply some “integrative thinking” principles, as I have outlined in another blog post.  This allows a reexamination of original “assumptions” for the project and sets the tone for good project planning for future project phases.

Where does your PMO stand on closing out projects?

It has been difficult to pick up any literature on business strategy and business growth recently without seeing the word “innovation” splattered all over the headlines and content.  “Innovation” is such a catchy word these days because the idea inspires people; it connotes taking the innovator to a new height of success.  Likewise, there are some companies whose names seem to “drip” with the word “innovation” whenever you encounter the company’s name:  DuPont, Procter & Gamble, and Apple,  for instance.

A.G. Lafley, in his book, The Game Changer:  How You Can Drive Revenue and Profit Growth with Innovation, defines innovation as “the process of converting or turning new ideas into revenue and profit.”  Similarly, many authors in the PMO field have defined the PMO as a distinct organizational structure which can be used to drive innovation through project management and product development.

A recent article in the Winter 2010 issue of Strategy + Business magazine, entitled “The Global Innovation 1000:  How the Top Innovator’s Keep Winning”, was based on an ongoing Booz & Co. study of innovation in the most successful companies in the innovation game today.  The goal of the study was “to examine the capabilities needed to maximize the impact of the company’s innovation efforts in good times and bad, and to highlight the benefits both of focusing on the short list of capabilities that generate differential advantage and of clearly linking the specific decisions within innovations to the company’s overall capabilities system and strategy.”

Their premise was that “innovation capabilities enable companies to perform specific functions at all the stages of the R&D value chain–ideation, project selection, product development and commercialization.”  The consultants asked the respondents in the Global Innovation 1000 survey which capabilities were most important in achieving and sustaining success in innovation.

Surprisingly, the study found that “all the successful companies surveyed depended on a common set of critical innovation capabilities.  These include the ability to gain insight into customer needs and to understand the potential relevance of emerging technologies at the ideation stage, to engage actively with customers to prove the validity of concepts during product development, and to work with pilot users to roll out products carefully during commercialization.”  The study’s authors also found important the ongoing assessment of market potential during the project selection phase.

You will recall that in other blog posts, I have discussed the rise of PMOs for specific purposes in organizations which recognize the special value-added by having an organization focused on project management capabilities as a means of converting strategy into action.  For example, some utilities have formed Smart Grid PMOs to handle Smart Grid projects.  In an organization that is determined to succeed and grow in its industry, with best-in-class products, services, or both, why not consider creating an entity called the Innovation PMO?  What would the characteristics of such an entity be?

First, since feedback and research from consumers, users, and other stakeholders is critical to understanding “what to innovate for,” the Innovation PMO would establish its own unique source of feedback research within the context of its own industry or consumer setting.  This is a key element of success.  Unfortunately, very few PMOs are currently doing a good job in this area, but to become an Innovation PMO, they must.

Second, the Innovation PMO has leveraged its key supplier and vendor relationships.  It knows that frequently, the unsolicited feedback provided by suppliers and vendors provides a fresh look as to where the market is headed, especially in innovation scenarios.

Third, the Innovation PMO has tailored the critical innovation capabilities discussed in the Booz & Co. study to the internal business context of the organization.  This tailoring process is analogous to the benchmarking process, discussed in a previous blog post, which is used by leading PMO organizations, such as American Express and Procter & Gamble, to establish best practices.  Like best practices, to be successful, innovation capabilities can’t be lifted verbatim without being tailored to the organization’s business context.

Margo Visitacion of Forrester has also written about the expansion of the PMO concept to innovation in organizations in her recent Forrester paper “Involve Your PMO to Find the Right Match for Innovation Opportunities.”  I would recommend you read her analysis as well.

Innovation is certain to be a topic embraced by more and more organizations looking for successful growth-promoting projects in their industries.  Your role as a PMO practitioner is to find a spot where you can contribute to that success.  Remember–”Change Creates Opportunity.”  Now, go find that opportunity.

Ultimately, after all is said and done, I believe that we all are searching for “happiness” in our lives.  It’s that combination of emotions, activities and long lasting collaborations which bring us satisfaction and enjoyment from living everyday.

When my daughter was married six years ago, I gave a toast in which I addressed “happiness.”  I said that happiness really consisted of three different things. 

First, if you think back to the past to those things that you have shared with your loved ones, which have made you feel good and fulfilled, that was a first step to happiness. 

Second, if you think about the present day and those events and emotions you share with your loved ones which bring you special joy in the present moment, that is a second ingredient to happiness. 

Third, and most importantly, if you think about the “anticipation” of those things you will share with your loved ones in the future, and how you can work to enrich those experiences for each other, then that is the ultimate ingredient for happiness.  

Lou Tice has often said that “People move toward and become like that which they think about.” 

Thinking about and anticipating happy experiences in the future will help to bring them about and make them an integral part of your life.

My toast was very sincere and heartfelt.  I wanted to leave a lasting impression for my daughter and her husband to be to contemplate as they approached the future together.

Much the same thing can be said about project managers.  I believe that each project manager is seeking “happiness” in his or her own context of the project and the project community.  To really achieve “happiness,” a project manager must look back, examine the present, and anticipate the future.

As a project manager, where are you seeking happiness in your projects?   Perhaps you never thought about a project or a project team being a source of happiness.  But, if you believe my initial premise that all of us are ultimately seeking happiness in our everyday lives, then a project manager must really address his entire experience in–and out of–projects.

Feedback?

In recent blog posts,  I have discussed how individual project and program managers can improve their capabilities and performance through some simple, yet very tangible and actionable, everyday tasks in the project process. 

I want to turn now to “benchmarking”, an area which can be applied to improve performance on several “scales”, whether it be overall performance of a PMO group, of an individual group within a PMO, or a single person’s performance.

Benchmarking is the comparison of a known state or condition of a group or process to another “defined standard” group or process which, in the eyes of  the benchmarker, represents a level of performance or activity that is desired in one’s own group, process or person. 

Benchmarking also introduces “innovation” into your organization.

Now what does this really mean?

In order to have a meaningful “benchmarking” exercise, you must first define an “as is” base case that describes the current situation with regard to a process, group, or person, and which adequately describes the level of performance.

Next, you must seek another “reference” group which, in your eyes, represents a “to be” state of performance which you seek to emulate within your own group  or process.

Where can you locate such a “reference” group?  Outside organization such as Gartner, Forrester, or the Corporate Executive Board  can provide a good starting point in terms of processes, the expected behavior and activities of these processes, and ways in which you could measure the performance of these processes.

If you are examining actual PMO processes, look at the standard-bearer companies like American Express, Marriott and Eli Lilly & Company   for your reference group benchmark.  Similarly,  if you want to benchmark in other processes, such as Purchasing and Supply Chain Management, look at the titans–Motorola, HP, and Deere & Co.

You can readily see the power of this approach–it can be applied at the total PMO organization level, an individual internal PMO group level, or even at the individual person contributor level within the PMO.

Benchmarking has been successfully employed by thousands of organizations, even when they had little benchmarking experience when they began the process.  The key to a successful benchmarking exercise is a desire to improve.  Once an individual or a group decides to get better at whatever the process or task of the group might be, the wheels of successful benchmarking are put in place.

You can be a leader in the benchmarking effort of your PMO.  It takes a desire to contribute to the improved performance of the group and a “capability” to perform.  As we have seen in previous blog posts, capability is enhanced with “education and training.”  You should seek out knowledgeable references on “benchmarking”, and other companies in the PMO field who exhibit good PMO performance characteristics.  Talk to your local PMI Chapter, or to a local PMOSIG group.  They can assist in your selection of appropriate PMO performance measures.

Good luck–I look forward to your feedback!

Recently I collaborated on a podcast with Wayne Thompson, the host of the very popular blog “Project Management War Stories.” 

Wayne wanted a topic that would continue the theme of PMO structure, organization, and function within a larger enterprise.  We decided to revisit the topic of building a PMO from the “grass roots level”, which many of you will recognize from my previous posts as taking a clean sheet of paper as the starting point.

In this podcast, you’ll learn about:

1.  The importance of  “commitment” vs. “compliance” in the design and success of a PMO.

2.  Issues of  “accountability” vs. “authority” in PMO organizations.

3.  Designing a PMO for a small entrepreneurial organization vs. designing a PMO for a larger, more disciplined, bureaucratic organization.

4.  The importance of including all Stakeholder voices to the design and success of a PMO.

5.  Building “capability” as a critical success factor in the design of a PMO.

Thanks to Wayne for directing this effort–the resulting podcast is now ready for your listening enjoyment on the “Project Management War Stories” blog site.   

Thanks so much for your attention.  As always, your comments are welcome.

The usual way that Program Management Offices (PMO) impact the firm’s strategy is through the execution of their “value proposition.”  The execution of projects yields tangible, concrete assets; new processes; or principles of operation that guide the firm and add long term value to the shareholders.  This blog post addresses how PMOs can more effectively deliver long term value and create a competitive advantage for the company. 

In recent blog posts, I have discussed:

o  “Best practices” in a project context

o  “Evolution” of PMOs from a “cost center” IT PMO perspective to enterprise PMOs to specialized PMOs to satisfy specific special business/functional needs in an organization

o  “Reframing” project scenarios to ensure we are tackling the right problem with a project; and

o  Design of PMO structures and functions using a “clean sheet of paper” approach

In this post, I want to leverage the insights of Professor C.K. Prahalad, a management and strategy guru who was recognized worldwide for his strategic intent, core competency and “bottom of the pyramid” theories, who died suddenly on April 16th.  He was a university professor in the Ross School of Business at The University of Michigan (which was my MBA program). 

In an April 2010 article/column entitled “Best Practices Get You Only So Far,” Prahalad discussed “innovation” in corporations from the perspective of looking beyond “best practices” to find what he termed ”next practices,” those cutting edge initiatives that will lead to sustained competitive advantage in a changing world and marketplace. 

This blog is in a sense a tribute to his contribution to strategy and management practice as I apply his principles to the Program Management Office (PMO).

Prahalad argued in this HBR column that today’s top management is too narrow in its focus to see “best practices” and must refocus their initiatives to uncover “next practices.”

He advocates that top management ask six questions in this search for “next practices:”

1.  Is the problem widely recognized?

2.  Does the problem affect other industries?

3.  Are radical innovations needed to tackle the problem?

4.  Can tackling the problem change the industry’s economics?

5.  Will addressing this issue give us a fresh source of competitive advantage?

6.  Would tackling this problem create a big opportunity for us?

In an earlier blog post, we cited the fact that Progress Energy–the utility that serves portions of North Carolina and Florida–had launched a Smart Grid Program Management Office (SGPMO). 

Why did they do this?

The logical answer was that they anticipated that the interest in Smart Grid would result in major project initiatives, not only for their own organization but for other contributing and supporting organizations such as General Electric.   Smart Grid would touch the lives of not only the electricity community but the customers and all stakeholders who have an interest in the application of SG technology.  Smart Grid would be an “evolving” concept because “the more you learn about what you don’t know about it, the more inclined you are to change direction with regard to subsequent actions.”

In other words, the six questions that Prahalad proposed we ask of a “problem” facing an industry and its stakeholders would surely lead to competitive advantage for someone–why not Progress Energy?

So defining a Smart Grid Program Management Office (PMO) was a very “smart” thing to do when faced with all the unknowns about how Smart Grid would play out.

The same could be said of Apple creating a PMO for its financial organization, reporting to its CFO.  The rapid product development that Apple has undertaken in recent years, including the recent introduction of the iPad, meant that the “problem” was how to mass produce sophisticated products that could still meet low cost requirements and a margin that would sustain Apple’s viability.

Many organizations engaging in a ”next practice” analysis will find that establishing a PMO will provide them with a long term competitive advantage.

So what are we saying here? 

Those of you who would seek to plan the next generation of PMO need to look to the six questions that Prahalad succinctly stated in his HBR column.  Finding that “NEXT PRACTICE” will become standard management practice if companies want to succeed.

Your comments are welcome.