Project Management

Agile and Waterfall: Dispelling the Myths about Bimodal IT

Dilbert_Agile_Programming_Speed.png

In today's world of digital transformation and the Internet of Things, among other advances in technology and logistics, business agility is not just an advantage, it's a necessity.

Several years ago, Garter introduced the Bimodal IT framework to address this. The idea was to allow for two modes of operations: one for areas that are more understood, and another for areas that require rapid iterations of discovery. 

Misinterpretations also ran rampant, leading to debates, especially among the Agile community, who felt Agile was being misunderstood to be about sacrificing quality and stability for speed.

This 2016 article from Gartner, Busting Bimodal Myths, served to clarify many of the key misconceptions, though to this day, people are misinterpreting the intent. 

From the article, it's clear that Bimodal is:

NOT the slow lane vs. fast lane. 

NOT the quality lane vs. speed lane.  

NOT the planning lane vs. wing-it lane. 

NOT the stability lane vs. innovation lane. 

NOT the sustaining lane vs. the development lane. 

NOT the old lane vs. the new lane.

Nor is it necessarily about Agile vs. Waterfall. 

Both modes can have quality and speed. Both involve planning and accuracy. Both can be stable and innovative. Both can be used for development or change. And both are very much relevant today.

In a nutshell, Bimodal IT is about increasing enterprise agility, enabling a variety of tools in meeting two kinds of needs: initiatives that benefit from heavier up-front planning and phased approval gates, and those that benefit from rapid iterations of product. Agile approaches can be applied to either, but a Waterfall approach is not conducive to the latter.

The principles of Agile lend themselves to rapid iterations with the customer, where change is expected. The principles of Waterfall lend themselves to longer efforts that must be well defined, and where change is to be avoided unless carefully vetted. Waterfall does tend to move slower by design.

So yes, this is where the general interpretation comes in that Mode 1 is for Waterfall and Mode 2 is for Agile, and it isn't entirely wrong. Like any framework, there needs to be flexibility and common sense in using the right tool for the right job.

Stay tuned for an upcoming article on resource planning in a bimodal world.


JB Manas - website photo.jpg

Jerry Manas is the bestselling author of The Resource Management and Capacity Planning Handbook, Napoleon on Project Management, and more. At PDWare, Jerry helps clients improve strategy execution through tools and processes that align people and work with organizational priorities. Connect with Jerry on Twitter and LinkedIn 

Goal Setting Key to Project Success and Resource Planning

Einstein.jpg

Albert Einstein said, "Confusion of goals and perfection of means seems, in my opinion, to characterize our age."

In my opinion, it also characterizes most project and resource planning efforts. So much attention is spent on improving project mechanics (e.g., critical path scheduling, task estimating, financial planning, resource assignment, baselines, change approvals, running meetings, etc.), but precious little is spent on understanding the goals of the project, and of the portfolio.

Understanding and articulating the goals leads to more informed decision-making, better-aligned resources, and greater customer and employee engagement. Often, there are conflicting goals among stakeholders, and this needs to be rectified as well. It's why Napoleon said, "It's better to have one bad general than two good ones."

Unfortunately, many leaders are overly focused on mechanics and tactics, especially newer project managers. I often compare it to someone just learning to dance; They're so busy watching their feet and counting steps that they forget to just listen to the music.

There's no doubt, when goals are clear, the organization operates like a well-tuned orchestra. Otherwise, you can have the best systems and processes in the world and you'll still come out sounding like a grade school band (no offense to parents of grade schoolers out there).

Bottom Line: Next time you're leading a program, implementing a system, or attempting to allocate resources, make sure the goals of the endeavor are understood and widely agreed upon. Fix that, and everything else will fall into place. Put another way, Focus + Purpose = Productivity. Now that's an equation even Einstein would like!


JB Manas - website photo.jpg

Jerry Manas is the bestselling author of The Resource Management and Capacity Planning Handbook, Napoleon on Project Management, and more. At PDWare, Jerry helps clients improve strategy execution through tools and processes that align people and work with organizational priorities. Connect with Jerry on Twitter and LinkedIn 

Do You Have a Group or a Team?

modern-business-team-walking_23-2147707536.jpg

Much has been written about effective teams. But some people get confused as to what a team really is, let alone how to make it effective. As this Forbes article by Jeff Boss points out, titled "What You Don't Know About Teams May Be Hurting You", teams and groups are not the same thing.

In a true team, the people are joined in a mutual endeavor and will share the same fate. If someone doesn't do their part, the whole team can fail in the mission.

In contrast, with a group, the individuals can succeed or fail on their own merit without impacting the others in their group. In fact, with some groups, there's built-in competition, with individual incentives for those who achieve certain goals.

A department full of salespeople or business analysts, for example, is a group. Each person is likely working on something that bears no impact on the others in the slightest. However, one of the business analysts could also be serving on a project team.

Boss rightly points out that, for teams to be effective, there should be team-based (not individual) incentives, a team decision-making process, and shared goals. He also suggests building connection through better conversations. My dear friend and fellow author Judith E. Glaser wrote an excellent book on this topic alone, Conversational Intelligence, which I highly recommend. Stay tuned for a post with more on what Glaser calls C-IQ (Conversational IQ).

(Note: I was a founding member of Glaser's Creating WE Institute, an organization dedicated to helping organizations progress from a group of "I"s to a sense of "We," through research rooted in the crossroads of leadership and neuroscience.)

Star Trek.jpg

In addition to team-based goals and incentives, team decision processes, and better conversations, I would cite complementary skills as a key component of effective teams as well. Think Star Trek's Enterprise crew, with Captain Kirk's boldness synergizing perfectly with Mr. Spock's logic. Or any other great team (fictional and otherwise), for that matter.

Noted author Patricia Fripp cites complementary talents as well in her article "A Team is More Than a Group of People".  (Side note: Fripp's brother Robert is the founder and lead guitarist for one of my favorite bands, King Crimson). 

What DOESN'T work is sending everyone to a single teambuilding workshop and expecting all the lessons to magically turn them into an elite team. However, soft skills training does help. So does making transformational changes toward a better team culture. Having the right mix of people doesn't hurt either.

As Robert Redford said, "Problems can become opportunities when the right people come together."


JB Manas - website photo.jpg

Jerry Manas is the bestselling author of The Resource Management and Capacity Planning Handbook, Napoleon on Project Management, and more. At PDWare, Jerry helps clients improve strategy execution through tools and processes that align people and work with organizational priorities. Connect with Jerry on Twitter and LinkedIn 

Process and Productivity: Finding the Right Balance

PeopleVsProcess.jpg

Many organizations struggle with how much process to put into place versus "letting people do their thing." There are a number of perspectives to consider.

Quality legend W. Edwards Deming said, “If you can’t describe what you are doing as a process, you don’t know what you are doing.” My wife used to manage Deming's events, so I had the pleasure of meeting him a number of times and took a tour of his TQM principles in action on the USS John F. Kennedy. A consistent theme of his is that people don't fail, systems do.

Before improving a process, you have to have a defined process to begin with. Thus, key business functions need to be defined in terms of functional processes along with inputs and outputs of each. Then improvements can be made, either using Deming's "Plan-Do-Check-Act" method, Six Sigma, or other process improvement approaches.

But where do we draw the line between having defined and measured processes and creating an environment where people can flourish in an empowered fashion? After all, as highlighted in this Fast Company article on 5 Ways Process is Killing Your Productivity, managers can take it a bit too far, for example:

  • Damaging trust and bogging down progress with approval steps
  • Focusing on process over people
  • Excessive meetings (especially recurring ones) to "keep things on track"
  • Empty jargon-filled slogans and mission statements
  • Micromanaging and filtering new idea

One way to help ensure the right level of process and standardization is to engage people in creating it. Even the late Peter Scholtes, author of The Team Building Handbook and standardization proponent advised, "By involving people in the standardization of work, we can remove some of the oppressiveness of it. People are less likely to balk at standards they have devised." He went on to say, "We need not standardize everything."

As for process vs. productivity, Fons Trompenaars, my favorite author on cross-cultural communication (his book, "Did the Pedestrian Die" is a landmark achievement in that area), advises taking a "through/through" approach when trying to balance two seemingly opposite agendas. Instead of focusing on one or the other, think how you can improve productivity "through" process improvements, and how you can improve processes "through" a greater focus on productivity. it's not "either/or" and it's not even "and/and." It's "through/through."

In other words, always consider the people perspective when defining processes, and find ways to improve processes to boost productivity and reduce barriers.  For more on this, I expand on this and other common leadership dilemmas in my book, Managing the Grey Areas.

Meanwhile, whether you're instituting processes for resource management, project management, portfolio management, or anything, for that matter, consider the following points:

  • Before you improve a process, you need to define one
  • Keep it simple, and consider the people aspect
  • Engage people in defining the process and identifying two or three key measures of success
  • Use checklists instead of approvals where possible
  • When balancing two seemingly opposite perspectives (e.g., process vs. productivity), try a "through/through" approach to incorporate both perspectives
  • Once a process is defined, use Plan-Do-Check-Act or Six Sigma's DMAIC model to improve specific areas as needed

Author Subhir Chowdhhury summed it up nicely when he said, "Quality combines people power and process power."


JB Manas - website photo.jpg

Jerry Manas is the bestselling author of The Resource Management and Capacity Planning Handbook, Napoleon on Project Management, and more. At PDWare, Jerry helps clients improve strategy execution through tools and processes that align people and work with organizational priorities. Connect with Jerry on Twitter and LinkedIn 

How Will Artificial Intelligence Impact Project Management?

artificial_intelligence_benefits_risk.jpg

In addition to consulting, writing, and teaching in the business world, I also write science fiction, though sometimes, as actor Richard Dreyfuss told me at a recent event, it's hard to tell the difference.

So, it was with great interest that I read a recent article in the UK-based Project Manager Today about... well... project managers tomorrow. Specifically it was about "how project management roles might change in the future."

We've all been hearing about digital transformation and the Internet of Things for some time now. Recently, there's been buzz about breakthroughs in artificial intelligence, from the intelligent android Sophia to Emotion-Detecting AI that can detect real-time changes in a person's mood based on their face and/or voice.

How fast is all this going to evolve and what does it mean for project managers?

According to the Project Manager Today article, some forecasts suggest that "by 2030, up to half of all jobs could be replaced by robotic or AI workers." The authors cite eight fields of endeavor that could be impacted by this, from doctors, teachers, journalists, and lawyers to construction workers, entrepreneurs, R&D workers, and market strategists.

Put simply, if robots are performing medical operations, capturing news for journalists, and executing construction demolitions, and AI is preparing lesson plans, legal cases, and market studies, things could be looking a bit different in just a few years. Tony Stark-like entrepreneurs could have their own Jarvis-like AI helping the run their business. Elon Musk is probably already working on it.

Meanwhile, project managers could find themselves busier than ever with more complex projects, supporting and administering robotic and AI efforts, serving as the human facilitator in otherwise automated initiatives, leading projects to make new and better use of AI-driven analytics, and more. As the authors point out, some areas, such as pharmaceuticals, are already making gains in AI, and project managers with experience in such projects could soon be in high demand. 

Could project managers one day also gain from the benefits AI offers? Could AI assist with stakeholder analysis; detecting customer satisfaction; planning out the project tasks and resources required; identifying troubled projects early; managing risks; and more? These are  questions we may actually be thinking about over the next five to ten years. 

What about the negative impact to a project manager's career? Could there ultimately be a time when we have a robotic project manager, able to make phone calls and send emails when tasks are running late, or change gears when a resource is pulled off on an emergency? Considering project management is mostly about communication, building relationships, and removing barriers, it may be a while, though a Jarvis-like assistant wouldn't be unwelcome (aside from the occasional urge to slap it).

Sophia.jpg

Then again, once Sophia and other androids begin improving their emotion-detecting skills, they could well do more than we imagine. If you asked me in the early 70s if we could one day in my lifetime watch practically any movie at home instantly at any time, I would've said you were dreaming. Now we have self-driving cars, Google brain developing its own encryption method, Watson winning at Jeopardy, and Adam and Eve forming scientific hypotheses and determining which compounds to study. Project management may not be that far off after all.

Meanwhile, I'd like my own BB-8 to start with.

BB8.png

 

 


JB Manas - website photo.jpg

Jerry Manas is the bestselling author of The Resource Management and Capacity Planning Handbook, Napoleon on Project Management, and more. At PDWare, Jerry helps clients improve strategy execution through tools and processes that align people and work with organizational priorities. Connect with Jerry on Twitter and LinkedIn