Big Decisions Demand Rigor II or why TARP is truly an appropriate name

In the middle of 2008 I wrote that the need for a clear understanding of your intent is essential to selecting the best balanced choice when making a decision, specifically as it related to selecting a Vice Presidential candidate. “As with all big decisions, understanding your intent and capturing the benefits that you want to derive from your choice in terms of a clear set of objectives is key.” (See: Big Decisions Demand Rigor) It would seem we are seeing the value of objectives, and their harm when they are absent or unclear, being played out on the public stage once again.

This time the arena is the series of financial bailouts enacted (in the case of the $700B Financial Service industry plan) or planned (in the case of the Automotive industry). The challenge of “rescuing” the distressed US economy, and by turn the global economy, seems to be compounded by an absence of visible, prioritized, and above all, specific objectives against which solutions can be designed and assessed. Unfortunately, we seem to have a mess and the TARP, or Troubled Asset Relief Program, would seem to be a very apropos acronym. A tarpaulin or “tarp” is essentially designed to cover something up.

In mid-November, Henry Paulson the US Treasury Secretary, decided to abandon his initial plan to buy bad mortgage debt and the troubled assets seem to be left out in the cold. This was one of the primary objectives of the bailout plan that he proposed to the US Congress and to which they agreed. The heart of the matter would seem to be that the objectives used to define the program were too broad to be useful and lacked clear measures so that performance against them could be assessed.

The current circumstances appear to be driven entirely by a repeating solution / test cycle in which proposed solutions are rapidly implemented and, when found wanting, are revised and another run at implementation takes place. This has caused some…consternation; which is understandable given how unclear the outcomes seem.

The Treasury has changed its mind about what it thinks will work on “Wall Street”, which seems to have little connection to the intent of Congress in terms of what it wants to see on “Main Street”. All of which is happening while the sitting President and President-elect attempt to wrestle with the hat-in-hand Auto Industry, who although they are being treated as a collective are actually in very different financial positions with separate and distinct needs in terms of their individual viability. This has created confusion on many sides.

Confusion is a breeding ground for anxiousness about the unknown and rising fear – not exactly winning emotions when the intent is to restore confidence in the financial markets, specifically the systems of credit that are a primary economic engine.

Whenever there is confusion about the quality and shared understanding of the objectives used in making decisions, and the way in which those objectives are being met, there is an increased likelihood for a divergence in expectations. This results in dissatisfaction with any outcome. That dissatisfaction results in poor implementation of any decisions made. In the case of the financial bailouts this is playing with fire. Not only does this create the conditions for confusion it also calls into question the effectiveness of the ownership of the decision-making process leaving the door open for additional objectives to be added and the common assessment of proposed solutions to be impossible.

Clear stakeholders and a clear owner are essential. With that in hand, a clear focus in terms of the decision statement that answers the question, “What result are we looking to achieve?” Then, and only then, should the objectives for any decision or solution design be developed and assessed for their level of relative importance to the desired outcome as determined by clearly defined measures and standards. With that in hand the decision maker or decision making group will have a robust framework against which data may be added to make the thinking visible and a commonly understood decision made. This absence of this kind of clear thinking is one of the reasons why a recent CBS Poll has Americans split on the Auto bailout. They just don’t see a clearly defined outcome.

When the stakes are this high rigorous, visible, consistent thinking is critical. And with the possibility of an additional mortgage crises and perhaps a consumer credit crisis in the future, the sooner that approach is adopted the better.

No Credit – No Worries (or a path to manage them)

In the current economic climate there is little-to-no credit to be found. The absence of credit need not be the end of the world if a business focuses on improving what it already has in hand.

It was the best of times. It was the worst of times.

- Charles Dickens

Right about now we all know more about collateralized debt obligations, structured investment vehicles, mortgage-based securities and credit default swaps than anyone without a Nobel Prize for Economics has any right to know. While most of us are not moving in circles where the structures of high finance have had much meaning to us, we have all recently discovered just how much these financial oddities affect our own success. The first order of business is to figure out what to do now that the ready access to credit has evaporated. Until those funds begin flowing we will all need to relearn lessons of old: Do more with less and make the most of what you have.

Where to start? Building clarity of purpose by addressing five key areas now can minimize the short-term damage of the credit crunch and position you for survival and growth.

1. Take Stock – if you haven’t already

With current economic conditions shrinking or even eliminating credit availability it is necessary to understand available value-creating “inventory.” This is not product or SKU inventory. Rather it is your available human, production, process, systems and infrastructure – the lifeblood of your organization and how you go to market and meet the needs of your customers. The reason this is so vital is you will no longer be able to “buy” you way to operational improvement through capital expenditure or capability acquisition. What you have is probably what you will have to work with in the near term to improve your cash position.

2. Prioritize – choose what not to do

If anything needs to be remembered at this time it is that all resources, now matter how abundant they may seem, are finite. In your organization discussion will likely cover a wide variety of projects. It is safe to say that no project or program will be seen as superfluous in any sense. The key step is to recognize that the process of prioritization at a time like this is not an inclusive one; it should be driven to exclude. Be certain you understand the timeframe available for your projects and programs and their impact.

Through the prioritization process, it will become apparent that the annual (repeating) capital and operational needs will be difficult to compare to the one-time stand alone projects required to drive strategic change. Some level of annual capital expenditure should have the first call on capital in order to maintain your value streams, operations, facilities and infrastructure for present business needs. Additional annual capital needs should be analyzed separately and prioritized should capital become available. Driving all this should be your strategic objectives. If you arrive at this point and find that your strategic objectives do not help you differentiate between areas of expense (which is not as uncommon as you might think) you may need to rapidly work on a “strategy for the times” to meet your present needs.

With your prioritization in hand the next order of business is to quite literally fix what is broken.

3. Fix it Fast – if it is broken or represents a high degree of risk

Credit is a system whereby a person who can’t pay gets another person who can’t pay to guarantee that he can pay.

- Charles Dickens

Based on your operational assessment, it should be readily evident what is working and what isn’t. Follow the money. Where are your cashflows not resulting in the expected return? Do you know why? If you do, what decision or decisions need to be made? Are there systems or processes, or even human performance issues at play? Are their decisions that you have been putting off because they were not easy, or not high enough a priority? These are exactly the kinds of decisions you should be making at this time. At a minimum you will be removing distractions and low-grade drains on energy. Better yet you will address issues that may have been festering for a while.

Realize value-added productivity per employee through closing capability gaps. In all cases spend your money wisely. Be clear about your objectives and share them with the organization so that everyone understands the concerns you are seeking to address. If you can stop wasteful expense today, you can begin to look for other ways to invest your money to capitalize on the opportunity resident in most downturns.

4. Look for potential – the unpolished gem, the hidden hazard

Often the swiftest response to times of economic uncertainty is to hunker down and hoard. Many organizations proceed to strangle themselves by turning off investment or cutting back so deeply they place their operations into virtual hibernation. Little do they realize that there is opportunity in the bleak news around them. At this time, the frustration of not being able to rely on past behaviors to drive business performance needs to be supplanted by forward thinking.

How have your clients’ needs shifted with the economic conditions? How have your suppliers’ needs shifted with the economic conditions? In both cases, with tightened credit coming into play, you can fully expect the joint conditions of shortened terms with your suppliers and increased aging of your Account Receivables. As the founders of Kepner-Tregoe, Drs. Charles Kepner and Ben Tregoe noted in their seminal work, The [New] Rational Manager, “The easiest and most economical time to solve a problem is before the problem has a chance to occur. This means that people must be free to look into the future and suggest actions for improving it or take the initiative to move ahead out of personal dedication and commitment.” Think of what you might do to strike agreements with your entire supply chain that meets the needs of all members. Get ahead of the painful lagging indicators – the ones that impact your bottom line. Being contrarian in this circumstance may pay large, long-term dividends.

5. People First, Processes Second, Purchase Last

This has essentially become the dark matter of the financial universe.

- Chris Wolf, co-manager of Cogo Wolf (a hedge fund of hedge funds)

As quoted in Fortune magazine, October 13, 2008

The key factor to capitalizing on the value that your people bring to this situation is to invite their participation in a way that recognizes that value and which they perceive is meaningful. With your people onboard, the next step is to tackle your business processes. Every process should be focused on improving your customer experience and improving your return on that experience. Finally, spend your limited funds with clarity of purpose. Who knows when your capital coffers might next be filled? Prioritize your capital decisions in such a way that you can leverage any spend in multiple areas.

At a time of financial turmoil the first impulse may be duck and cover. Resist that urge. Confirm your available resources and current circumstances. Take the time to think and act wisely, the returns may surprise you.

Enduring Needs – What hiring managers are looking for and how it doesn’t change much

Forty-three percent of hiring managers said they spend one minute or less looking at a resume when first reviewing applications; 14 percent spend less than 30 seconds. Make sure you are highlighting specific accomplishments, quantifying results whenever possible, to showcase how you put your skills into action and benefitted previous employers – CareerBuilder.com.

One of the challenges of an economy in turmoil is finding the next job. As firms shed jobs or slow hiring, looking for the next position can seem like a fruitless pursuit. If only you could read minds! Like someone with telepathy, or the very least a mentalist.

Unfortunately, no such capabilities are widely available to the job seeker. Fortunately there is something else that is actually much better – data. CareerBuilder.com in the middle of Summer this year, well before the economic crisis we are now sliding into, conducted its regular survey of hiring managers. While some of the findings were quite remarkable: like the number of people who lie in interviews, (my favorite being the person who submitted samples of work that the interviewer actually did – nice one!); there was a body of evidence that pointed to a long understood set of skills that most business need to survive. And, wouldn’t you know it, the set of skills at the top of the list of most desired attributes were…

Problem Solving & Decision Making skills

Which at 50% makes these skills desired over an above “oral and written communication” by 6% and even above “leadership” by 20%. Why is this the case?

One of the key drivers for any business is doing more of the right things, with less and less resources. Less time, money, people. To that end, it means that the people who are in the business have to be able to rapidly prioritize problems, identify their root cause, make decisions about what to do to correct it, and manage the associated systems risk and potential. Critical thinking skills are not only desired, they are a fundamental skill necessary for a business’s long-term strategic and operational success.

Another Gap to Bridge – tackling the distance between thought and action in workforce generational change

The practice of knowledge transfer is complex and can be analyzed through many different lenses. The learning and cultural differences that exist in a diverse workforce, an organization’s history and culture, and the changing employer-employee contract are only a few.

From The Conference Board report: “Bridging the Gaps”

A recent report from The Conference Board, titled, “Bridging the Gaps – How to Transfer Knowledge in Today’s Multigenerational Workplace”, highlighted the widening chasm that is forming among generations who find themselves sharing the workplace. In it they highlight the fond hope that employers will seek to prevail on soon-to-be retiring employees of the Baby Boomer generation to stick around long enough to transfer their hard-earned skills to their, most likely younger but not necessarily cheaper, replacements. To paraphrase Benjamin Franklin – those who live in hope, die fasting.

Unless employers can offer retiring employees a bargain that meets their needs they may find themselves filling vacant slots and rebuilding an incredible amount of tacit knowledge. The chaos this will cause may be profound and will incur significant cost. The reason for this is that the employment bargain that many Baby Boomers struck with their employers was based on hard work, commitment, mutual respect and a chance for advancement. The economic peaks and valleys of the last decade have certainly taken the shine of that implicit agreement. As a result Boomers, even those not ready to retire, may leave in waves and some may even take their knowledge and compete with their former employers out of frustration or a desire for more.

It seems that some fence mending is in order.

To that end, what systems should businesses be putting in place to tie the past and present of their organization to the future? There are a couple of critical elements. Make the knowledge easy to transfer. And, provide opportunities for it to be transferred. A common language for issue resolution and action is recommended. (Yes, I know my bias is showing!) If you share a common language for how to think and enact change, it can help link the way people think without telling then what to think. Essentially you need to create a context in which people can share and build an understanding of the issues at hand. Projects and structured approaches to managing decision and resolving problems provide excellent forums for this effort.

Previously I wrote an article on the challenge facing organizations addressing what I referred to as the Baby Boomer Vacuum. (If your interested in reading further – please make a request here.) This wholesale generational shift requires a strategic perspective on the part of leaders as they seek to manage this “changing of the employee guard” successfully. Keep employees engaged by having diverse groups work on matters that are important, even critical, to the organization’s health. This honors those who have served their time by recognizing their contribution, and engages those who are new to the organization by directly connecting them to something that matters (a key driver for the current generation entering the workforce.) Make this shift a matter of urgency and the employee engagement it delivers may surprise even the most jaded among you.

Beyond Problems – why the “fire-fighter” is not the appropriate model for business leadership success

We can’t solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.

– Albert Einstein

 

In a demand-driven world, the “fire-fighter” is the pinnacle of virtue. What is a fire fighter? This person, or group in your organization, is who is turned to when things go drastically wrong. Essentially they are called upon to rescue the organization from itself. They are asked to address critical issues through the extraordinary application of their efforts. They are highly visible and highly prized. Often they are also highlight rewarded for their efforts with compensation, advancement and promotion. The only problem with this mind set is that the “tyranny of the urgent” will continue to outweigh the benefits of applying resources to longer term issues of building strategic capability and capacity. The fire-fighter, does not help an organization grow – they really only help an organization overcome the problems that the organization has not properly addressed previously (by removing the root cause of the issue) or perhaps even recovering the organization for the poor decisions it has inadequately implemented.

 

In our recent research, in the Consumer Products industry space, we found this the “fire fighter” is a common organizational archetype and that it is actually one they want to avoid. These clients found that the primary driver for this kind of behavior was that there was a demand that “hot” issues be visibly and promptly addressed. The biggest challenges, strangely enough, occurred when lower managers had trouble getting buy-in from senior managers to address more strategic issues. Those senior managers often saw only those issues that were most dramatically visible (regardless of their true priority) and sometimes lost sight of the strategic issues that needed to be addressed as a result. Action was prized over sustained focus. The constant demand to accomplish more with less created an ever-present sense of urgency. The time to think strategically was pushed to evenings, weekends or some hoped for time in the future. Not a good place to be.

 

Breaking this pattern requires that organizations build a focus on executing their corporate strategy, and resolving the issues that arise during that effort, with a single-minded focus on brilliance. It requires focused, systematic, consistent critical thinking. It demands that effort not be wasted. The elimination of waste in these organizations was seen as an effort that reached beyond the waste associated with production – unnecessary downtime, materiel wastes, energy wastes, procedural wastes – it was also, and perhaps most importantly, focused on the elimination of the wasted thinking effort that produces little value across the operation.

Mind the Gap – in Troubled Times aim for the space between Choking and Panic

The news today is filled with tales of woe. Global fuel prices are increasing at a phenomenal rate. Access to basic necessities such as water, food and shelter is being impacted by a more chaotic and changing climate. The global economies are suffering from the after effects of an economic downturn, the result of the United States subprime mortgage debacle and its investment banks Structured Investment Vehicle follies. All in all, the world seems very much in turmoil.

 

One of the great challenges we see is that decision making is oscillating more widely between two ends of the data spectrum. The absence of data or access to too much data are causing behavioral extremes that Malcolm Gladwell described at the turn of this century in a particular prescient article in The New Yorker titled, “The Art of Failure.” I was reminded of this article in a recent story in a recent Financial Times “Outside Edge” column by Rahul Jacob. Jacob was focusing on the behavior of the tennis player Roger Federer, asking whether or not he chokes under the demands of fifth set match play – I am assuming he was reminded of this after Federer’s recent Wimbledon win to advance to a match against Lleyton Hewitt. Nevertheless for me, I found saw the concept in a new light. In his article, Gladwell described twin forces connected by instinct but very different:

 

“Choking is about thinking too much. Panic is about thinking too little. Choking is about loss of instinct. Panic is reversion to instinct.”

 

With the inability to process too much information manifesting itself as “choking”, and the inability to access enough information manifesting as “panicking” – and evident in the newspapers everyday – managing our actions rationally seems the only way to address this conflict. This is where I see KT fit. At its extreme we help our clients find the space between choking and panic. Through the application of systematic, rational, visible approaches we can ally ourselves to our clients need for business results. By using our Decision Analysis methodology we can help clients address their data deficiencies more effectively by gathering, sorting, organizing, analyzing and confirming the necessary meaningful action. In our Problem Analysis approach we can cut through the complexity of data surrounding an issue and identify the information that is most germane to the identification and confirmation of root cause.

In troubled times, clarity of thought helps you aim for the gap between choking and panic to use data in a way that helps you do what you need to survive and thrive.

Mind the gap – contrary to the London Underground – that’s where the value lies.

Innovations in New Product Development & Marketing

Brad Golden, Global VP for Kepner-Tregoe’s (KT) Consumer Packaged Goods Practice, and Drew Marshall, KT’s Chief Innovation Officer spent this past week at Frost & Sullivan’s MindXchange™ conference for senior business leaders in San Diego, California. The Conference was titled, “Innovations in New Product Development & Marketing.”

 

This two and a half day event covered the intersection between new product development and marketing and how the two areas are not only interdependent but unlock tremendous value when effectively integrated. Our focus was on the back-end of innovation or, “what do you do once the light bulb goes on?” This plays to KT’s long-standing strength in assisting our clients in executing their strategies through integrated thinking and action.

 

In an early session, the way in which a product’s design elements are gathered and considered for inclusion focused on the value of “designing for gross margin.” Sheila Mello and Wayne Mackey, co-authors of Value Innovation Portfolio Management: Achieving Double-digit Growth Through Customer Value, presented a method for driving cost out of product development by using a value assessment driven by customer requirements. (For those familiar with past posts to this blog, this is the second time in as many conferences that the effective use of customer requirements has been a key element. The VOC – voice of the customer – rules.)

 

From KT’s perspective, the decision objectives for that kind of assessment are critical. A MUST objective, or perhaps at a minimum a high-weighted WANT objective should be: Design solutions to meet requirements for which a customer is willing to pay a higher price. With this objective in mind, most organizations can develop ‘test’ mechanisms that could demonstrate and ‘fly’ the cost drivers of new products or business models to be able to clearly say how much true value exists. The key is to listen to what customers want and consider the environment in which they have unmet needs – unless you can do both you may mislead yourself into building something for which there is little perceived, or real, value.

 

“A negative return on investment is not a case for a strategic investment.” – Subra Narayan, Director, Venture Capital and External Alliances, Eastman Kodak

 

Another area of keen interest for participants was the impact of sustainable product development. The Environmental Marketing Manager from HP’s IPG (Imaging & Printing Group), Maggie Davis, provided a rapid overview of how that group is tackling this approach to their markets. In this space the key objectives for deciding whether or not to purchase a product or service have tended to fall into the following four areas: personal protection (how does this impact me and my immediate circumstances?); cost (does it fit within my price constraints?); status (how will this broadcast my environmental awareness?); altruism (how much good will it do?). A crucial point: if you do not meet these objectives from a base of credible engagement, your products or marketing efforts will have a negative on your brand. This is no market space to be two-faced.

 

In any case the answer to the question, “what innovations should we pursue?” comes down to considering those innovations that are sustainable, authentic (to the brand and customer experience), and create value. All of these must be perceived and measured in the eyes of your customer. Take care in what you choose to do…

Big Decisions – Demand Rigor

Only 18 months and the primary election cycle in the United States has (finally) ground to a halt. The victors, or almost victors, are steeling themselves for the general election process and one of their first critical decisions as their party’s representative for election to the highest office in the land – the selection of a running mate. One of their first decisions as the presumptive nominee of their respective parties is to indentify, vet, and select a Vice Presidential running mate. These are the kinds of decisions that, while they may not make an election, they can certainly break an election.

 

How do they do it? What’s the process? What’s the received wisdom?

 

Well there appear to be four key concepts that seem to have been presented each time this comes to light. 1) Focus on the potential Vice President’s location – it should enhance or close a gap in the electoral armor; 2) Present a record that aligns with and enhances the core position of the candidate (for example, Barrack Obama is more than likely looking for someone with a strong anti-war record); 3) Look for someone who is bi-partisan so that you can cast as wide a net as possible into the territory of “the uncommitted”: and, 4) Identify someone who has a complimentary record that may balance the Presidential candidate’s shortcomings (for example, John McCain may be looking for a Vice Presidential candidate who shores up his social conservative credentials.) With all that said, it doesn’t really matter how well a potential running mate does against these criteria unless they pass the initial “dust-busting” assessment designed to identify any skeletons in the closet.

 

For those of you who know KT, these are the beginning of a more robust set of objectives in what should be a comprehensive Decision Analysis. As with all big decisions, understanding your intent and capturing the benefits that you want to derive from your choice in terms of a clear set of objectives is key. Without them, the whole assessment effort becomes a “beauty contest” driven almost entirely by personality and feel. Some of the concepts above could be crafted into specific objectives for assessment purposes, but the key objectives are those of the final decision maker. It’s interesting to note that Mr. McCain presents a rudimentary Decision Analysis matrix on his election website. But this decision matrix leaves out a number of critical elements, the primary one being able to assess the data against a specific, weighted objective. He calls this section of his website, “The Decision Center,” yet that would appear a misnomer as all the decisions presented have been made on a viewers’ behalf. In terms of their Vice Presidential running mates, I wonder what Mr, McCain and Mr. Obama have in mind as they make this crucial selection. It’s not one that either of them would want to get wrong…

The PMI EMEA Congress in Malta – Day 3 (Final Day) May 20, 2008

The final day at the PMI EMEA Congress ended well. Today, the range of subjects covered was almost as broad as the project management profession is applicable. To start, though, I led the day off with a presentation titled, “Filling the Baby Boomer Vacuum.” The interesting fact of the presentation was that many in the audience had little understanding of the extent of this generational transformation taking place in around them in the organization in which they work. Many thought that Baby Boomers were those born the years immediately following the Second World War – one or two years at the most. When in actual fact the Baby Boomers are a twenty year generation from 1946 to 1965. The surprise was quite widespread.

 

The focus of the presentation was on the pace of retirements and what organizations can do to use project management to build an effective bridge between one generation and its successors. Rather than rely on natural success, organizations need to unite the outgoing and incoming generations in a way that is meaningful to both. The thing that unites them is a willingness to take initiative.

 

Based on this common desire to contribute to an organization’s success, the transition between generations can be structured around projects to deliver strategic value to their organizations. I proposed five steps in building an appropriate response so that organizations are not left wanting as some of their most seasoned and valuable employees move to the next stage of their careers (and lives.) These steps are: 1. Develop a risk profile; 2. Highlight priorities; 3. Set result expectations; 4. Manage emotional investments; and, 5. Be prepared, be approachable, and be flexible. The overall response was very positive and I look forward to continuing the dialogue with PMI members.

 

Other presentations experienced today covered best practices in the development of Project Management Offices (and the resulting necessary change management) which was presented by one of the PMO leaders of Turk Telekom (the largest telecommunications provider in Turkey) as well as a structured approach to Stakeholder Relationship Management Maturity that highlighted the need to identify an organization’s stakeholder willingness and readiness to change. The leader of this presentation was Lynda Bourne, from Stakeholder Management in Melbourne, Australia. Her focus is on the assessment and preparation of organizations to embrace and experience change in all its forms. It is certainly hard, and essential, work.

 

An additional presentation focused on moving from Protective to Offensive Project Management. This presentation highlighted the need to build flexibility of response into project management practices. It called on project managers to live with the ambiguity associated with dynamic and risky operations. In this context the realm of opportunities becomes more readily available to projects and the corresponding opportunity to derive value is increased.

 

All in all, the visible commitment of project managers and project management professionals to exchange ideas and engage in debate was a sign of a healthy and vibrant profession. I look forward to further exchanges in the near future (there are many intriguing questions to be considered after the Congress that require deeper consideration before sharing.)

 

Goodbye to Malta! I look forward to returning.

The PMI EMEA Congress in Malta – Day 2 May 20, 2008

It is day two in sunny Malta at the PMI EMEA Congress and the learning and exchange continues. The focus for today was on seeking ways to improve the fundamental application of project management to meet client needs. Topics explored ranged from getting the most out of Lessons Learned and exploring missing aspects of Project Communication through to the inherent bias toward the negative in Risk Management and the integration of Global Project Management Standards.

 

I hate to say it, but today began a little awkwardly as the presenter for the opening session on Applying Lessons Learned was not to be found. Rumor was that she had been seen at one stage, but was not to be found in time to deliver the planned presentation. In its place, Kik Piney (PMI raconteur and haiku creator) offered to (re)present a topic on which he had expounded in Madrid in 2006. The concept of lessons learned was the same, but the context was very different as he used the fictional character Don Quixote’s “project-based” journey to explore his lessons learned. This was certainly a case of making lemons into lemonade. Kik, also had a planned presentation later in the day focusing on what he considers a missing integration of PMI’s standards for portfolios, programs and projects. He offered “Probernetics”, a word derived from an older concept, cybernetics, as a conceptual framework and practical approach to the required integration. It certainly sounded interesting when we discussed at the end of the day and I’ll be sure to read the paper in the session documents.

 

Following this session I went to an overview of the new standards that PMI is bringing to its members in the last quarter of 2008. Those standards are: Portfolio Standards, Program Standards, Project Management Body of Knowledge, and Organization Project Management Maturity Model (aka, OPM3). For the first PMI was presenting these standards as part of a reasonably linked package to foster the creation of strategic value through a coordinated, organization-encompassing, project framework. The only issue was that the connection between strategy and it’s operationalization through project management was solely at the portfolio level. The development of the portfolio, as well as the integration with existing business processes and organization capabilities seemed to be missing. (Remember: this was a high-level informational briefing and in no way reflects the end product.)

 

On break between sessions in the morning, I fell into a number of conversations also focused on a missing component of this integration. These conversations highlighted the need for an approach to integrating project management with the core of an organization’s business. As I listened it seemed strange that others would be wrestling with this concern so much. I think I must take it for granted. The reason being KT has had an application focused on Strategic Project Management, which addresses this concern directly and completely, for over ten years. In fact, only two years ago, Sam Bodley-Scott and Alan Brache published a book, Implementation, (MacGraw-Hill, 2005), that brilliantly hits all he key points of meaningful integration in this area, along with useful diagnostics. This certainly sounds like an opportunity for KT if the marketplace of project managers is identifying this need so vigorously.

 

In the afternoon I went to sessions that I think would be most meaningful to KT consultants and our clients. The first was presented by the Risk Doctor, Dr. David Hillson, a charming and self-effacing chap (he’s British after all) who’s spent the last 15 plus years focused on the practice of risk management as it relates to project management. He demonstrated that risk management as a documented standard is supported by leading organizations and that their commonly held definition embraces risk as “uncertainty that matters.”

 

With this definition in hand he highlighted the fact that risk contains both the concepts of threats and opportunities and that while this was the case the commonly held belief was that risks are negative. In his presentation he addressed the underlying motivations behind this lop-sided perspective by using two frameworks. One was Maslow’s “hierarchy of needs” and the other was Dawkin’s framework, “memetics.” In the first case we focus on threats because they are one’s that can incapacitate us while unaddressed opportunities have no impact. In the second case he noted that memes, essentially concepts or ideas, (like genes) survive when they are commonly held. That is why no matter how hard organizations might like us to think of risk in a bi-polar fashion, we are very predisposed to see it from the negative only.

 

The reason KT consultants and clients would be interested in this is because for fifty years we have been doing exactly what Dr. Hillson was trying to convince us was a difficult challenge. We have long ago abandoned the “loaded” word “risk,” and in its place focus on Potential Analysis^SM  (2008 © Kepner-Tregoe, Inc. All rights reserved.) Potential Problem Analysis focused on the risks associated with threats and Potential Opportunity Analysis focused on the risks associated with reward.

 

The final session today used the story of the Tower of Babel as an allegory for project management communication. An interesting presentation focused on the fundamentals of communication within the context of all aspects of project management. The highlight for me was actually a quote from George Bernard Shaw:

 

“The biggest problem with communication is the illusion that it has taken place.”