When Project Managers gather one of the common griefs they share with each other is the client who hates them. All the more puzzling and enfuriating to the group because in many cases the project has been "delivered successfully" - at least as far as the aggrieved project manager in concerned.
In my experience, when I ran a Systems Integration business, and when I consult to Systems Integration business clients, this lament of project managers is not uncommon. And even more infurating is the fact that competitors, who our lamenting project managers regard as technically inferior, are liked by the same clients for their project work.
What's going wrong here - what's the cause of this project managers' lament and how do we fix it?
The first point to make is that it can be fixed.
Again, in my experience there are two key mental models and operation issues that need to be fixed in order to solve the problem.
Understand the difference between successful delivery and delivering success
The first problem occurs because project managers fail to understand the difference between successful delivery and delivering success.
Project managers typically measure the success of a project by its meeting their project metrics, yet often successful projects do not deliver business success. Typically when things get tough, as they do on all major projects, the project manager hunkers down and focuses on "just getting the project done". If this is what the project manager believes to be "their real job", if this is their mental model, then they are heading down the road of delivering a project but not delivering business success.
When things get tough success can only be delivered by working more closely with the business, not by focusing internally at the project scope and requirements.
Think of it this way: it is certainly not fundamental technical problems that cause most IT project failures. The wave of failed enterprise resource planning and customer relationship management (CRM) projects in the past few years have not come about because of problems with the technology. Almost all have resulted from a failure to mesh the project effectively into the business, and to implement the business process changes required to reap the benefits.
Here's the nub: project directors and project managers measure the cause of failure and success of major projects from an implementation perspective, from a delivery milestone perspective and from a sense of pride as a project manager. This has been shown by numerous reputable surveys, and borne out by my own experience.
Therefore the first step in rectifying this fundamental problem is for project directors and project managers to understand not only how to successfully deliver but also how to collaborate and work with the business to deliver business success.
This begs the question - how to do this, and herein lies the revelation of the second major problem that I have observed in the stereotyped project managers in my opening theme.
The Project Manager has to be part of a Enterprise Engagement Model and Account Team
The second problem occurs because of an inadequate engagement model.
Project managers are often pleased to say that they are not Account Managers - and they aren't.
But they should be an active and integrated part of an account management team. Without that team operating effectively then the project manager inevitably becomes the scapegoat for the business and the project becoming increasingly disconnected, and increasingly disenchanted with each other.
This is seen so many times in practice that it would seem to be obvious. However the failure of effective account management and the lack of responsibiity project managers take for their role in that failure is quite endemic. What often happens is that when the client relationship starts to strain project managers bury their heads in the project, and also declare that the relationships 'on the ground' with the client's team are all OK.
The problem is that the client's team on the ground have also often disconnected from their management's disenchantment, and also they are not the final arbitrators of business success. In fact the point is that the very definition of 'business success' will have changed, and the proejct team from all sides had better find out what the new definition is. They can't do that by confiding in each other!
To address this challenge and solve this potential problem a team needs a very well thought out engagement model, operating at all levels, and integrated with the key aspects of project control. That is, an account management plan needs to be integrated with project control, change management and risk management.
Without air cover the project manager becomes collateral damage
The part that is most often missing with our stereotyped problem project managers is the high-level cover provided by the account management team, and the continuous and close link the with business and its pertubations and changes in business activity and goals during the life of the project.
For example, if there is a problem at the project level this engagement process provides the high cover. The very fact that the higher level relationships exist and are in good shape helps shape a softer landing. On the other hand, if the business requirements change and the project has to change scope and objectives - despite the project manager's rules - then the account management team can help shape the priorities and work out with the client how to share the pain and gain.
It has been my experience that where project managers feel most disliked by a client after delivering a "successful project" it is always the case that the engagement model was faulty, flawed or non-existent. This is not a direct reflection of the project or the project team, and cannot be fixed by focusing internally.
Successful large-scale Systems Integration companies have learnt long ago to place enormous emphasis on the client engagement model and process, more so than even project management. Companies like Accenture, IBM, Cap-Gemini, CSC, and EDS fall into this category.
For companies who feel technically superior, but lack the engagement models, this can be very frustrating to their project managers who see themselves as delivering a "superior technical solution" and yet being the butt of their clients' dissatisfaction.
The key here is that conscious competence in managing technical projects can often become unconscious incompetence in running a large scale systems integration business. This is the challenge for companies like HP who have tremendous brand and technology assets but lack the SI experience of their competitors.
By project managers grasping the challenge and altering their mental models to:
• delivering success rather than successful delivery; and
• understanding the engagement model and how to make it work collaboratively to maintain alignment with the client's business objectives,
their major projects are certain to succeed more often and their clients tell them so.
Technorati Tags:
CIO IT Alignment IT Governance IT strategy
Read more on this topic at www.digitalinvestor.com.au
How the CEO Should Move the Monkey for Major IT Projects
What's your take on this topic, do you agree that lack of a proper engagement model can threaten even the best project team and project delivery? Post your Comments.
How can I help? 
Email me; Call (Australia) +61 403 345 632 (direct); +1(817) 382-4453 (SkypeIn USA); +852-8199-0189 (SkypeIn HK); 
"We hired Walter to complete a technology audit, but he gave us much more -- he has the ability to identify business opportunities that benefit all sides, creating networks of customers, suppliers, investors and intermediaries. His breadth of knowledge and willingness to push himself beyond the brief are tremendously valuable." Zenon Pasieczny, Director, Saphet Capital Management
Recent Comments