​

Flying your project – Pre-Flight 1 – We're going on a journey

Written by STEPHEN J GOODWIN
Wednesday, 31 January 2007

We're going from A to B – we've got to get there quickly! We don't want bureaucracy to get in the way and we need to have everything we can possibly think of just in case we need it.

The rational planners amongst us will think that that is a great way to start a project and the logical incrementalists will likely stifle a yawn and think to themselves, "…. here we go again!"

Rational planners tend to believe that to deliver a project you just need to know that we have to go from A to B – a bit like a holiday-maker or a client booking a helicopter ride. They will hopefully recognise that they need to have a pilot, someone who is entrusted with the life of a project, or perhaps a stage of a project.

Even worse can be the intrusion from a key stakeholder who is a bit too much the rational planner constantly asking (like 'Donkey' in the movie, Shrek), 'Are we there yet?'.

Often they will also expect the pilot to not only fly the craft but to be the ground engineer, the winch operator, make the tea and keep the in-flight entertainment going.  Project Manager, Business Analyst, Subject Matter Expert, the lot.

The pilot of the mail helicopter doesn't need to know the contents of every letter and package that the aircraft is carrying. Sure, there needs to be an adequate wrapper, the package needs to be well labeled, addressed and its drop-off point known. It will need to be signed for. But over and above that, if the pilot is delivering the mail that is the task; the point of the process.

Another classic mistake, other than purely overloading the PM, is to assume that any PM can do anything/everything. Thankfully we don't often have recreational pilots flying the Airbus or a 747. Yet for some organisations calling someone a project manager is expected to make it all happen.

Pilots have to learn the basic skills before going solo in a light plane. Then they have to learn how to fly different types, from there they may develop multi-engine skills, move from simple visual flight rules to running on instruments, gain commercial experience, even become an instructor. They are developed every step of the way, they get to know the craft they are flying intimately, memorise the checklists and still read them to be safe. We all have to gain experience and qualifications – take a look at the link to the Australian Institute of Project Management (AIPM). The AIPM has some of the most stringent conditions for admission to the Register of Project Managers – they go far beyond almost all similar professional qualifications with the strong ties to the Australian Qualification Framework. Project 'Pilots' in training can take their different ratings and are proven fit to fly before they are given the PM wings. It's a good method and is strengthening Project Management as a profession in Australia.

Some project sponsors and stakeholders may not see the need for a team around the project manager – they can do everything, after all – and they will often decry any hint of a bureaucratic process or governance because that keeps the people around them happy; doesn't it?

At engagedprojects we think not.  It doesn't mean excessive form-filling for its own sake; however, to have a structured approach to projects/programs and their governance is a real positive. It can reduce anxiety for team members, stakeholders and clients alike. It's all part of the process.¹ 

Another trait that seems to hold true from the rational planning fraternity is that we have to get to B regardless of whether we really can. Rational planning doesn't generally take into account whether or not the end point is really known or not.

Perhaps pilots are logical incrementalists – getting as close to the destination as possible, having some diversion airfields planned in, knowing the way points, where new crew may join them, ensuring enough fuel in reserve for the journey, planning the waypoints where they can review their progress, re-assess their flight-plans and adjust their course to meet the current conditions. Many good PMs are also logical incrementalists – edging towards their destinations rather than jumping in the aircraft and just setting off.

When learning a new piece of music it is often found (and sometimes taught) that the musician should start by practising the end of the piece so that they will recognise it when they get there and know how to finish. Pilots generally have the maps of the destination airfields so that they know how to approach, communicate the end of the flight, land and shut down. Very similar to a good project. The end point of the project has to be the delivery of the new capabilities that allow the benefits to be accrued. We may not be able to tell which runway we will land on at the start of a project, but we can describe the destination in terms of the expected benefits and the capabilities that we will need in order to achieve them.

Perhaps the absence of a known end-point helps to explain (in part) why many politically driven public-sector projects end in something less than success. Multiple teams of staff, in mutiple locations, operating in isolation – delivering a journey where they can not recognise the end of the flight, don't really know what they have to deliver nor how they are to deliver it. They are operating in a foggy project environment^{2a, 2b}.

Of course there is a real benefit in having someone with clarity of vision to be able to set things straight, direct the action and take responsibility for the multiple projects that are flying at any one time. So the next write up will probably be the Project/Program Sponsor as an Air Traffic Controller.

In the meantime, think about your projects as a helicopter trip, make sure the journey is necessary, get the pilot with the right ratings, be prepared to support them, get the pre-flight checks in order, assess the risks, look for any known issues, have some diversion plans ready, fuel up with some reserve in the tanks for things that may go wrong (after all you may have a forecast that says tail-wind and find that the weather changes during the flight).

If you want to know more about the difference between rational planning and logical incremental strategies, we recommend reading the book Understanding Corporate Strategy by Johnson and Scholes³.

1    Big Calm: Part of the Process, Morcheeba, 1998

2a  The Project Workout, Buttrick R, Financial Times/Prentice Hall, London, 2005 (pp127-131), after..

2b  All Change, The Project Leader's Secret Handbook, Obeng E, Pitman Publishing, London, 1994
3    Understanding Corporate Strategy, Johnson G and Scholes K, Financial Times/Prentice Hall, London, 1999 (pp 51-57)​