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.

Last week on “The Tonight Show with Jay Leno,” Paul Reiser was a guest.

You may remember Paul as the male lead in the sitcom “Mad About You” which starred Helen Hunt as his wife.  The madcap comedy of this twosome kept me in stitches for many evenings.

Paul was appearing on “The Tonight Show” to promote his new sitcom “The Paul Reiser Show.”  However, as luck often has it in the TV business, Paul’s show was canceled after just two shows on air. 

The way he said the TV executives pitched the cancellation to him was “Well, you have some viewers and then you have not so many viewers.  Your show fell in the latter category.”

So he was a “lame duck” in a sense but, since he was already scheduled for Jay Leno’s show, he showed up to provide some laughs and a look a reality in the wacky world of TV sitcoms.

Jay asked Paul about his two sons, who I believe are seven and ten years of age.  Apparently, the last time Paul and Jay spoke, Jay recalled that the two boys had requested a 3-D TV for their home.

Paul explained that one of his sons had exclaimed “Dad, didn’t you see that last jungle picture in 3-D.  The trees were slapping me in the face as the animals swung through the trees.  It was so real.” 

Paul explained that he had always been a 2-D person himself and, in fact, throughout his life, he had tried to avoid being slapped in the face by anything resembling tree limbs as he navigated the world. 

But, of course, the boys were different.  They really enjoyed the idea that they could actually experience being slapped by something unreal and yet so lifelike in appearance.

To all you project managers reading this blog, how do you treat your projects?  Do you go through the motions, treating your projects like 2-D, always hoping that something won’t leap out and slap you in an unexpected manner? 

Or do you approach you projects with a 3-D mentality, relishing the idea that every slap in the face represents a new opportunity to lead?

If you are experienced enough to have managed several projects, you know that 3-D is the only flavor for projects in today’s fast-paced project environment. 

So why avoid being slapped in the face by treating projects as 2-D?  Take a risk and embrace new experiences and new opportunities to lead–you will be glad that you did.

“The mastery of risk is the foundation of modern life, from insurance to the stock market to engineering, science, and medicine.  We cannot see the future, but by calculating probabilities, we can do the next best thing:  make intelligent decisions–and take control of our lives–on the basis of scientific forecasts.”  Peter Bernstein, Against the Gods:  The Remarkable Story of Risk.

“I am used to thinking three or four months in advance about what I must do, and I calculate on the worst.  If I take so many precautions, it is because it is my custom to leave nothing to chance.”  Napoleon I, in a conversation with Marshall Murat, March 14, 1808. 

With the current deepwater oil spill crisis in the Gulf of Mexico occupying much of the news lately, we have heard a lot of rhetoric about “risk” and how BP and the United States should have developed a risk management plan as a contingency in case such an event were to occur.  It is obvious that many people feel that the principal parties involved in the exploration, drilling, and production had no risk management plan in place. 

I suspect that is far from the truth. 

Modern project management practices include risk analysis and risk management as key and integral components of any operating and business plan involving assets and resources. 

Every operational move in the portfolio of projects has key risk management activities that are focused on the two key aspects of risk:

1.  The probability of an event occurring.

2.  The impact of that event if it should occur.

These aspects are then analyzed based on prior information, other incidents, and events, in order to determine a four-quadrant layout of potential risk outcomes.  Typically, companies place the most emphasis on the quadrant of high probability of occurrence and high impact when developing their mitigation and contingency plans. 

The truth is that most mitigation plans and contingency plans are never revealed to the public by project teams unless an event sparks a response.  But that does not mean that the mitigation and contingency plans don’t exist.

Even prior to the project being initiated, most larger companies employ a risk analysis in their overall Internal Audit plan in order to identify risks involving the geopolitical climate for projects, the resource risk, the technology risk, etc.  The Audit universe of projects is then subject to scrutiny as to which possible risks present the greatest exposure to the company.  In other words, which possible risks represent the greatest adverse implications for revenue and profit generation (and possibly, environmental outcomes). 

This analysis, in turn, identifies whether the company should focus additional key resources on areas of high potential for risk events.   For example, if software or hardware development or new technology is considered a high-risk component of a project, then the Internal Audit staff usually provides key IT or other technology resources to guide the project team development in that area.

At the planning stage of major projects, risk is analyzed as an integral part of the Project Charter and Business Case development to alert the Authorizing Leadership Group of potential upside and downsides from project activities.  Indeed, a key and integral part of the decision to pursue the project often focuses on “risk.”

Throughout the project, risk is monitored closely.  Adjustments are made when new risks emerge, and some risks are moderated by project activities.  For example, if the project involves the proveout of new technology during the course of the project, the new technology development is monitored throughout the project so that mitigation plans can be employed at a moment’s notice. 

As part of the Lessons Learned exercise at the completion of a project, the risk management plan is reviewed for its completeness and accuracy of depiction of the events of the project.

So far my discussion has been somewhat “textbook” in nature following the usual Planning, Execution, Close and Lessons Learned aspects of any well defined process.

But, if we examine the reality of the risk management process with actual practice, you will see that there are two aspects of risk analysis and risk management that we have not introduced to this point–the concepts of interpretation and judgment. 

These concepts are concerned with the Leadership aspects of projects.  The actual application of interpretation and judgment to real life risk cases can vary all over the board based on the corporate culture and the context and climate within which risk is defined and managed. 

The aspects of “good interpretation” and “good judgment” should be emphasized more in our understanding of risk in projects.  Noel Tichy and Warren Bennis in their book “Judgment:  How Winning Leaders Make Great Calls” emphasize that judgment is the core–the nucleus–of Leadership.  With good judgment, little else matters.   Without it, nothing else matters.  Risk analysis and risk management without good interpretation and good judgment are devoid of the key elements of Project Leadership.

In your PMO, do you have a well defined risk analysis and risk management plan in place for your programs?  How are the concepts of interpretation and judgment carried out?  Who carries them out?  Top management?  Or the engineers and planners at the heart of the project details? 

If your overall approach to “risk” in your PMO needs examination and updating, take this opportunity to boldly propose new approaches and new viewpoints.  The value addition from such exercises can be enormous.

As usual, your comments are welcome.