ALL3PM

Sharing tools and ideas for Portfolio, Program, and Project Managers

Archive for the category “Risk Management”

26 Sep 2017

Why Projects Fail

Introduction

There are three primary categories of project failure or delay. The first objective of turning around a failing/delayed project is to identify causes. Once causes are understood potential remedies can be planned and implemented. Below is an outline of typical causes and/or symptoms of failure or delay.

Technical Development

There are many reasons for failure/delay in technical development whether hardware, software or service products.

a. Has the value proposition been identified?

i. You can’t design a product or process without a firm definition of what marketing has determined as the customer need and how the organization will satisfy this need. Fundamental.

b. Has product usage been identified? Sounds obvious but can be difficult in specialized niches or a new use for an existing product.

c. Poor customer definition.

i. Who’s the customer/user…the nurse, doctor, patient, purchasing, housekeeping, or other?

Hint 1: Everyone from the purchasing agent to housekeeping (disposal) is a customer/user. Does it meet their needs? If a hospital incinerates its trash can the materials be burned?
Anyone and everyone who touches or has to experience the product is a customer/user. And yes, unit and shipping packaging is part of the product. I’ve witnessed a medical disposable product launch get off to a very slow start because of product presentation (the method used to package). Current products on the market were presented on rolls for use where multiple units could be hung on an IV pole by the bedside for nurse’s use and convenience. This new product delivered individual units in a box. The box had to have a home in a drawer or on a shelf which was not always bedside. The product itself was a winner but acceptance slow due to expediency. BTW, the company made a change to rolls. This took several months with changes to parts, tooling, sterilization validations, and production.

Hint 2: Make a value stream process map on one axis showing the who, what, and where of the potential product flow from mfg. to hospital (vs. home vs. outpatient center vs. ?) through to disposal (trash vs. incinerator). On the other axis show/describe customer/user process flow for each user and location from diagnosis to therapy or want/need to supply. The axis should cross where customer/user meets product/service.

ii. Has the customer/user been formally defined?

Even if one of the users is the Doctor, has the type of Doctor been identified? The needs of an OB/GYN vs. a General Practice vs. a Nurse Practitioner are all different. Where are they located? Answers to these questions drive product requirements.

d. What is the product?

Is it hardware, software, service, combination, other?

e. Poor product definition

i. Without a. above being defined this cannot be done.

ii. Does marketing keep changing their mind as to features/benefits?

f. Poor product/customer requirements definition.

Need to answer who, what, and where in order to identify requirements.

g. Poor Engineering Requirements (ER) definition.

i. ERs must first be translated from product/customer requirements to ERs.

ii. ERs must be defined in a manner that can be measured or verified (NOT-Is this red enough?).

iii. Can you prove the product meets the requirements via facts (objective) as opposed to opinion (subjective)?

1. “Easy to carry” is not measurable and is a matter of opinion.

2. Product must weigh less than 10 lbs. is measurable and is a fact.

h. R&D not focusing on developing one ER at a time.

Several ERs are developed simultaneously thereby confounding the measurements necessary to determine which of the outputs meet the ER. This is particularly true when ER’s are at the opposite ends of the engineering spectrum, e.g. “Must be strong” vs. “Must be light” Q: How strong is strong? Requires defining tensile, cross section, etc. Q: How light is light? Requires weight definition. R&D needs to determine output individually or understand how the ERs relate.

i. Not understanding Key Input Variables (KIV) that drive ER output.

In systems there may be many KIVs that drive desired output. Most teams stop looking after they find 3-4 KIVs. Typically the other ones are found during launch when production variability via materials, process, and labor, are forced into the system. This may result in product slowdowns if product does not meet specifications or a recall if product makes it to market.
True story: I know of a medical disposable that had a designated activation force (ER). This device was made of several pieces of which two were rubber. One KIV to the system was the hardness of the rubber (durometer) for these two components. The company never measured durometer of this key component during production. Company received lots of rubber components that were too hard (high durometer). Product made it to market. Customers complained of high activation force. Company instituted a voluntary recall. Very costly in terms of dollars spent/lost and customer satisfaction!

Project Management

a. Time/Schedule

i. Forced upon team by executive management regardless of scope/costs

ii. No/Poor planning

iii. No schedule integration

iv. Death by a thousand cuts

v. No management control or feedback mechanisms

b. Scope/Quality

i. Scope is not defined or poorly defined (a top reason projects fail/delayed)

ii. Deliverables not defined

iii. Myriad scope changes without consideration of affect on Time/cost.

1. Marketing changes to

a. product requirements

b. Use requirements

c. Volume-from a 10k/mo to 1mm/mo.

d. Countries in which product will be sold

2. Manufacturing changes

a. Manual assembly vs automation

b. Mfg. location changes (from one plant to another)

3. R&D can easily add one more product feature

4. Regulatory issues

5. Legal issues

6. On and on and on……

c. Cost/Resources

i. Resources shuffled around due to firefighting because of No project-program-portfolio management.

ii. Poorly trained resources as in “(S)he’s an engineer let’s make him/her a project manager!”

iii. Task/Skill level mismatched

iv. Key Skill sets assigned to too many projects (always and always a bottleneck)

Hint: Lookup Critical Chain project management if this is a regular issue

d. Management dictating all three elements of the PM triple constraints (cost/scope/time).

This is dictating the length of all three sides of a triangle. Sometimes the ends meet sometimes they don’t, e.g. two short sides and one really long side. This also happens more than we care to admit and usually with a hand wave, “Make it so….”

Business Management

a. Projects/programs don’t align with strategy

i. No strategy

ii. Constantly changing strategies

iii. Not keeping up with changes in strategy

iv. Executive pet projects (happens all the time)

v. No method to determine if projects/programs align with strategy

b. Management doesn’t understand business strategy requires an implementation strategy.

It’s easy to say we’re going to the moon but if you don’t have any idea of what it may take it’s only a dream (or is that nightmare?)

c. “Culture eats strategy for breakfast”

A famous quotation attributed to the late business management guru Peter Drucker speaking to the need to have a business culture that can execute the strategy or recognize the need to change the culture to align with strategy.

d. No project/program portfolio management

i. Too many projects (This gets my vote for the No. 1 reason projects fail or delayed and a key killer of company moral.)

Many midsize companies easily have 200-300+ projects they can identify across all disciplines, e.g. R&D, Software, Mfg., Regulatory, Medical, Customer Service, Field Service, Supply Chain, etc.
As a manager of an R&D group in a large company I had 40+ projects for my group alone including NPI, line extensions, and Sustaining Engineering.

a. Some are high priority and assigned w/resources and costs.

b. Some are assigned w/resources and costs but no one is sure of their priority.

c. Some are picked at and mosey along when someone can spend some of their very limited time moving them along.

d. Some are hidden using hard dollars and resources

e. Some are department or executive pet projects

f. Some are project names or concepts only, on the To Do list, and without definition, scope, or resources.

g. Most require multidisciplinary teams.

ii. Too few resources/too few key resources

iii. All projects are top priority (therefore none are)

iv. Executive pet projects (happens all the time)

v. Not knowing the difference between a project, a program, and a strategy.

e. No project/program sponsor.

f. Lack of key decision making resulting in lack of scope definition.

i. Legal issues

ii. Regulatory issues

iii. Other issues(?)

iv. Flip flopping on decisions dependent upon whose making them or stakeholders involved.

This may happen when key decisions are made and take a long time to implement. Over time a new leader comes in who is now responsible for the former decision and does not believe in that decision and changes it without consideration of downstream effects.

Summary
This is a short list of the more typical causes of project failure and delay. My vote for the top two causes are:

1. Too many projects (or not enough resources) resulting in regular shifts in resource assignment and priorities.

2. No or poor scope definition resulting in regular changes to project deliverables.

Either of the above, if done perpetually, results in extremely inefficient performance and low morale.

The challenge in curing any disease is to: 1) Acknowledge there is a problem and 2) Diagnosis. Once a diagnosis is made as to potential cause(s) adequate steps may be taken to address causes.

Have a look through the list again, reminisce, and see if you recognize those causes that have affected your projects.

Question: What will you do differently next time?

 

Advertisement
Posted in Execution, Failure, Initiating, Leadership, Monitor & Control, Planning, Portfolio, Risk Management, Scheduling, Strategy, Uncategorized | Leave a comment
30 Jan 2013
1 Comment

Using Six Sigma Tools for Project Risk Management

Show your work.  It’s not just for math teachers.  I’m a big fan of using and creating tools that allow me to explain and someone to follow my thought process.  While great as a communication tool it also allows me to share my ideas with others and how I came to my conclusions.  I currently work with inventors and students in the nascent stages of commercialization.  Mainly engineering or PhD types working on a product idea, the simple question “Who’s this for…?” causes puzzlement and consternation.  “Do you have written requirements…?”  A Requirements Document is a simple example of showing your work.  Others can look over the requirements and contribute by seeing what is written down.  It allows you to constantly input, review, and modify any requirements as new learnings and discoveries are made.

I use this example to help explain using a Cause & Effect Diagram, aka Ishikawa Diagram or Fishbone Diagram, for project risk management.  This is a simple Six Sigma Tool to assist in understanding where areas of risk may develop.  In Figure 1 below you can see the sections of the diagram.  The Effect is listed in the box on the far right.  You list ONE item of failure (or you could list a success), Scope, Schedule, or Cost. Then under the six main groupings of Measurement, Materials, Personnel, Environment, Methods, and Machines you list input factors that may have an effect on the output of  Scope, Schedule, or Cost.

Figure 1 Project Management Cause & Effect Diagram

Figure 1 Project Management Cause & Effect Diagram

In Figure 1 I’ve listed many items as found in the Project Management Body Of Knowledge (PMBOK) 5th Ed. plus a few others.  This is to help with the thought process.  For each of the secondary inputs you should be able to add additional detail.  For example, under Environment>Physical Location you could add additional legs for each of the various plants/division locations that interface with your project.  Many global companies develop in one location, pilot in another, and scale up in a third location.  Each of these should be listed.  Each one has its own risks associated with it.   THAT’S THE POINT.   You’ve now identified a potential risk to add to your risk register to grade and review and determine its level of risk.  Any risk item must fit on the cause and effect diagram because it is an input that has an effect on the output, e.g. schedule.  YOU’VE JUST SHOWN YOUR WORK.  In the risk reviews I’ve participated in everyone starts listing detailed risks.  There is no systematic method to ensure you’ve at least looked over the landscape. Another way of putting this is looking from the 10,000 foot lever meaning a broad overview.  Now someone else can come along and review your Risk related Cause & Effect Diagram at both a high level and detail level.

This tool is a way to systematically review and capture a wider and deeper look at potential risks.  Let’s not forget that it may also be used to capture success’ and understand what inputs were driving successful projects.  This is a simple tool to assist in better outcomes and at the same time allowing others to follow your thought process.  Show your work!

Posted in Risk Management and tagged , ,
11 Jan 2012

SCRAPP™ Method or How To Integrate Your Schedule

  1.  Print out your project schedule as a NETWORK DIAGRAM.  Depending on the size of your project, this may take one “A” size sheet (8 1/2″ x 11″) or several “E” size sheets (34″ x 44″) .  Don’t be afraid of the amount of paper used.  I’ve literally covered all the walls in a large conference room using this method.  It’s money well spent.   Make sure the settings on your project software shows discrete lines between tasks. This usually means setting the software so it draws a straight line from task to task.  This is so you can trace each predecessor and successor tasks.  If it is set to only draw horizontal and vertical lines the lines will tend to run together and you’ll lose traceability.
  2. Write on each of SIX large sheets of paper (e.g. those 2 ft x 3 ft easel size Post-it® Notes) one of the following headers:  STRATEGY, CONSTRAINT, RISK, ASSUMPTION, PROBLEM (known problems), and PARKING LOT (issues to be resolved but need more info or are outside of project scope but affect the project).
  3. Begin your analysis by choosing and reviewing a starting task, a task with no predecessors. Using a yellow highlighter and a red pen, if the information is correct, highlight it in yellow to show that information has been reviewed and is correct.  Use the red pen for any corrections.  What you review for each task will be dependant upon the information you’ve chosen to show in your printout for each task , e.g. task name, resources, start date, etc.  Your project software should allow you to change this information.  As a minimum I would recommend Task Name, Resource Name, Duration and effort.  Start and finish dates are not important at this point as they will be driven by the final schedule and dependencies. If there are date constraints list them on the CONSTRAINTS sheet.
  4. Next, review the first task’s successor tasks.  If the relationship is true and the line connecting the predecessor to the successor task is correct, and going in the right direction, highlight the entire connecting line, not just a portion of it, in yellow to show it has been reviewed and is correct.  Mark any corrections or changes using the red pen. Thus if the dependency was incorrect crossout the incorrect line and draw the new/corrected dependency using the red pen.  Review the balance of the task information and mark as reviewed and correct (yellow) or corrected (red).
  5. As each task and dependency is reviewed, questions/issues/problems may arise.  If so, write them in plain English on one of the six SCRAPP sheets.   For example, if you could accomplish a deliverable three different ways, right down the one selected on the STRATEGY sheet.
  6. If during this review there are risks discovered and associated with a particular task or strategy write it on the RISK sheet.
  7. Tasks may have constraints, i.e. finish on or by a certain date or limited amount of funding, capture these on the CONSTRAINTS sheet.  Projects have many assumptions; capture these on the ASSUMPTIONS sheet.  Again, write these in plain language without all the techno speak. This is so others outside the project, mainly executive management, can read and understand it.
  8. Your project may face a known roadblock or problem.  List these on the PROBLEM sheet.  Any items that cannot be addressed immediately or require further research place on the PARKING LOT.
  9. As you work your way through the schedule every aspect of it should be discussed, e.g. “Should we proceed serially or create a parallel path?” (hint: capture it on the STRATEGY sheet).  Do not stop until ALL TASKS, TASK INFORMATION, AND DEPENDENCIES ARE HIGHLIGHTED YELLOW OR CORRECTED IN RED.  Any item not highlighted or corrected has not been reviewed.  You’ll know where you left off and where to pickup if this takes more than a day.
  10. Revise the schedule per the redlined corrections using a different filename for your schedule.  As you go through and make each correction in the software, use a green highlighter/marker and mark the red corrections on your printout to show you’ve inputed the changes.  This is because there are typically many changes and it is easier to keep track of where you’re at.
  11. Once all changes are input, printout the schedule a second time starting from step 1 above.  It typically takes 2-4 rounds before the schedule is finalized.
  12. Type up all SCRAPP paper and review with your team.
  13. Finalize and document your schedule.  Print out one page of  schedule milestones.  There shouldn’t be more than 12-15 key milestones on this page.  Combine this one page of milestones along with the SCRAPP paper. You should now have 2-4 pages, one page of milestones and the balance SCRAPP paper, that can be used as an executive summary. They should always travel together.  A schedule will never make sense unless the SCRAPP is known.
Fig. 1 Network Diagram before SCRAPP Method

Fig. 1 Network Diagram before SCRAPP Method

Fig. 2 Network Diagram after SCRAPP Method applied.

Fig. 2 Network Diagram after SCRAPP Method applied.

There are several advantages to this method:

  • It is a team building exercise with key inputs and decisions determined by the team.
  • Team members will have a higher degree of confidence that the project is achievable.
  • As circumstances change within your project you will be in a position to make better decisions because you will have previously discussed many strategies, options and details.
  • All elements of SCRAPP can and should be integrated into the Project Management Plan.
  • Lastly, when management asks for a schedule you can provide them with the SCRAPP paper and a single page of key milestones instead of 20 pages of a Gantt schedule that has little or no rigor or meaning behind it.

This method is best used for project types that are vastly different every time.  That is why this method has worked extremely well in the medical industry.  Well versed project types like construction, while able to take advantage of this method, may not extract the advantages of other project types.

How do you do schedule integration or do you?  I’m interested in hearing how others have approached this issue.

Posted in Initiating, Planning, Risk Management, Scheduling, Strategy and tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Post Navigation