Subscribe via RSS Feed

Tag: "featured"

How to Avoid Being Stalked By Scope Creep: The Project Charter

scope-300Scope Creep. Sometimes it’s politically motivated. Sometimes it’s intentional. Sometimes it’s a misunderstanding. But it’s always painful.

Stay Inside the Lines to Manage Projects Effectively

Throughout the Getting Predictable blog, I talk about alignment. For many, the word “alignment” is a bit vague. Does it mean we agree? Does it mean I actively support you? If I don’t actively support you, but I don’t block you either, am I “aligned” with you?

As it relates to projects, doesn’t alignment simply mean we agree on what is in scope? Why are there so many books written on alignment, and why do they sound like “consultant speak?”

alignment

The cost of mis-alignment

Alignment is important because when a project team is not aligned, it can not only derail a project, but, in a very subtle manner, prevent the project from ever getting back on the rails.

Sometimes, keeping projects inside the lines can be challenging. In fact, it can be a lot like looking at a roadmap when you’re lost. You’re the driver, you have a navigator next to you, and GPS, and each one is doing something different. You’re not in sync, and it’s difficult to figure out where you’re going. In the confusion, you end up getting even more lost, and it takes you twice as long to get to your destination.

This example illustrates how bad alignment can steer a project – or a car trip – right off of a cliff. The concept of alignment is often a bit of a no man’s land – people don’t understand just how harmful bad alignment can be to a project.

Silence is not agreement; Don’t let others hold their breath

speakup2It’s not often, but I believe we have all experienced the meeting that goes too smoothly.

There’s anywhere from four to eight people, trapped with each other for an hour, around our favorite conference table.

The 3 Great Interrupters: Meetings, Management and Drive-Bys

interruptors-300x199Recently, we’ve introduced Commitment Based Estimation  to a couple of our software teams. Typically, this helps a team provide highly-accurate estimates. These teams go on to deliver successfully by meeting these estimates.

Delivering Successfully is like the Matrix: It’s All In Your Head

matrix-300x269

In this blog I usually  write about best practices that help set teams up for success. That is really what Getting Predictable is about.

Project Retrospectives: When looking forward makes more sense than looking backward

iStock_000016701854SmallRecently a consultant asked me if I encourage teams to do a project postmortem or retrospective once a project is done.  The goal is to review what worked well and what didn’t.

Winning with “Project SD”

Winning-with-Project-SDEvery team needs a process they can embrace because they know that process will get them to the desired result.

Announce Changes and Avoid Wig-Outs

breaking pencilIn previous posts, I have discussed best practices around Change Control. Or, maybe I should say “lack of best practices” since so many organizations either fail to follow a defined process or simply don’t have one.

Facilitating A Panel Is Not So Different Than Facilitating A Requirements Session

My First AHA Moment of 2012

panel-discussion-150x150Facilitation appears to be a hot topic these days. After blogging about facilitation a few months ago, I am getting many questions about best practices and how to handle certain situations. At the bottom of this post I’ll provide links to my past articles on facilitation that should address many of these questions.

Today I want to share an AHA!

Recently I was invited to speak at an event on the topic of facilitation. One of the other presentations at that conference was a typical panel presentation.

Panels are very common at conferences; they usually have three to four people and a designated moderator who helps facilitate the discussion among the panelists and engages the audience. The session typically runs about 60 minutes.

These panels tend to be very dry (yawn)

For most panels, questions are devised ahead of time and shared with the group so they can prepare their agenda, personal messaging, and so on. I should clarify, that some panels are engaging and are very interesting. But at times, I come across a panel where each person seems to be coming from his or her personal point of view. Their views may not be clearly aligned to the question. So you get someone speaking strategically, while another may be extremely tactical or even not directly speaking to the question.

Let me magnify my point. Each member of the panel will work with the moderator to identify the question(s) they would like to be asked so they can share their viewpoint on a topic. And since three or four different panelists do this as individuals, possibly at separate times, it can be dry, without a clear set of takeaways.

I want to be clear, that there are many panel presentations that are engaging and valuable. But more often than not, I personally find them dry. As an audience member, you are trying to get a grasp of the discussion topics and understand the panelists’ points of view. However the very disparate nature of the moderator’s Q&A prevents engagement between the audience and the panelists.

Changing the dynamic of a panel…

This makes me want to try something new the next time I am invited to be a panel moderator.

I would want the audience to engage more with the panelists on stage. To get more energy, the format of the panel would have to be a little different. We are used to a panelist getting asked a question, then answering their question, followed by each of the other panelists attempting to provide answers to these preset questions which they may or may not have a valuable answer for. Then it starts all over when the next question is thrown out.

With my new approach, after the question is asked, instead of always asking all the other panelists to answer the same question, I will ask the audience members to give their perspective on the panelists’ thoughts. This would raise the engagement level of the audience with the panel.

My job as a panel facilitator would be to facilitate the rhythm of the discussion between the audience and panelists. This means I must meet with the panelists before the conference to create an agenda that would allow us (facilitator and panelists) to agree on a common objective. This would enable the panel discussion’s rhythm to flow more smoothly, be less fragmented, and not break the energy of the room.

I have already outlined in past posts, that the key to the most effective facilitators is that they monitor three things: energy, rhythm and objective of the room. The same can hold true for panel moderators (aha!)

  • Energy in the room: Everyone is engaged, participating and making constant progress toward accomplishing objectives. (For panels: Keep the audience engaged)
  • Rhythm of dialogue: The dialogue flows, but stays focused on the initial goal of the meeting. (For panels: Make sure energy does not get broken by unrelated, fragmented questions)
  • Objective of the room: Make sure the meeting stays on track and accomplishes its objective. This can be tricky since the facilitator needs to balance discussion on side topics that are helpful to the objective versus topics that derail the goal.(For panels: Make sure the questions address a common theme)

I think there would be huge value in using these fundamentals when moderating a panel discussion.

When did you last attend a panel that really impressed you and what was so unique about it?

What are your thoughts about changing the dynamic of a panel presentation?

You can find more details on facilitation best practices in my past blog posts here:

They are some of the fundamentals that I present in my regular class on Facilitation Best Practices.

Discovery: Going Where No Person Has Gone Before

Discovery-Going-Where-No-Person-Has-Gone-BeforeTypically, at the beginning of a project, we begin by collecting requirements from the business. We might spend a month or more gathering requirements. If we are using a more Agile approach, we may spend a few weeks gathering requirements for the first few iterations in the form of stories.

Every once in a while, I find myself starting a project where  for every step  forward we seem to be taking two steps backwards (or at least sideways).  Let me explain: As soon as the development team starts to code, literally within the first week or two of coding, the change-requests start. Does this mean the business is already changing their mind? We are just beginning to code!

So how is it that the business is changing their needs within weeks of starting a project? I can see change requests occurring once they see some initial software delivered.  But why do we regularly see projects with  change requests before the business even sees a deliverable?

We might assume that we had the wrong stakeholders in the room.  Another potential cause could be that we didn’t do a great job collecting requirements. Certainly, there are projects where one or both of these problems exist.

But what I often find  is that the project is suffering from a case of “Discovery”.  More specifically, the business is stuck in Discovery and is not ready for Definition.

Discovery vs. Definition

Let me contrast the difference between Discovery and Definition. Put simply:

Discovery is the phase where the business identifies what problem to solve as well as a description of the end-state or goal of the project.

If Discovery defines what problem to solve, then Definition defines the path to the solution. In other words, the Definition phase focuses on how we are going to achieve the end goal.

An Example:

A small company is in growth mode, doing very well. At a recent Board-of-Directors meeting, the company’s management team was asked how they can continue their revenue growth over the next two or three years.

They currently develop advanced Word Processing solutions for Android products. Their solutions are customized to that platform and to take advantage of all the Google Android features, giving a rich experience on a mobile platform.

To increase revenue, they can choose to develop a complimentary Spreadsheet tool for the Android platform, providing the same, rich user experience and Google feature integration.  On the other hand, they can choose to create an identical Word Processor and user experience on other mobile platforms such as iPhone and Blackberry mobile devices.

There are probably other paths as well, all providing a path to their continuous revenue growth. At this point, we are “Taking a single goal and generating multiple ideas.”

Moving from Discovery to Definition

After much research and due-diligence, you conclude that the best direction would be to offer your current Word Processor and all of it’s rich user experiences on the iPhone and Blackberry platforms, solidifying your brand as “The Mobile Word Processor. Period.”

At this point, we have completed the Discovery phase because a decision was made on the overall goal. Now, it’s time for Definition.

In Definition, we  begin to define the path to that goal.  We start to define the key features that MUST be in the iPhone version and how we will replace Google Android features within the Apple iPhone environment.

Clearly identifying this  feature list is what is called Definition.

So Why Should We Care?

If you are trying to define the requirements for a solution, but your business stakeholders are still discovering what they call success, then you are destined for rework! And this will show up as:

  • A proliferation of change requests early and often
  • Slipped schedules, since they didn’t anticipate these discovery changing goals
  • Budgets being blown since they didn’t anticipate the increased costs associated with rework

Because they are still in Discovery, we can’t be sure of the right direction. Any step we take could cause rework that translates into budget and schedule variances.

My guess is that you could think of a project or two right now where the business stakeholders were probably not ready to define their system. And, most likely,  this “re-thinking” of their projects goals created a great deal of pain for everyone involved.

So What To Do?

When you are collecting requirements, or engaging with the business, if you believe they are not ready to define how the system will work, you need to “pop-a-level”.  I use this term when I want folks to take a step back, and take a different view.

So if you suspect you are being setup for a great deal of rework, then pop-a-level and ask your business team:

  • Do you have the right Subject Matter Experts who are knowledgeable and empowered to help define your needs?
  • Are you  still in Discovery? Are you unsure of what a clear definition of success is?

In either case, try to create transparency around the issue, highlighting the potential costs of continuing to move forward when the wrong stakeholders are involved or the goals are fuzzy.

Realizing your project is in Discovery is half the battle. No matter what’s ahead, this realization will enable to you stay on course and manage the project more effectively.

Have you experienced Discovery? Please share your experiences in the comment area below.