AllenWeb
AllenWeb
Dec 99
| The "we" as opposed to "us and them" attitude among the different project participants toward the project (and toward each other) is of major concern. |
The facts are that in a survey I held in New
Orleans at the APICS 1996 Conference in New Orleans, I asked some 30+ project
managers from different disciplines (information systems, enterprise systems,
and manufacturing being the largest proportion) to please respond to the
following statement -"95% of the problems on projects come from people -
true or false?." No one said it was less - everyone asked stated it was true
or that it was greater than 95%! Because people ARE the projects and projects
need people for success, this is a "critical area" for project management
focus.
Some companies reinforce this point by having the management teams from the different organizations work at the same location. A second objective of this is to establish in advance mechanisms designed to ensure this collaboration spirit is able to withstand the problems and setbacks that will invariably occur on the project. These mechanisms require the unwavering , consistent, and fanatical support of senior management. Among the most significant mechanisms are problem resolution, continuous improvement, joint evaluation, and persistent leadership.
Problem Resolution
Escalation is the primary control mechanism for dealing with and resolving problems. The basic principle is that problems should be resolved at the lowest level within a set time limit (i.e., 24 hours), or they are "escalated" to the next level of management. If so, the principals have the same time limit to resolve the problem, or it gets passed on the the next higher level. No action is not an option. Nor can one participant force concessions from the other by simply delaying the decision. There is no shame in pushing significant problems up the hierarchy; at the same time, managers should be quick to point out to subordinates those problems or questions that they should have been able to resolve on their own.
Continuous Improvement
Partnering assumes that continuous improvement is a joint effort to eliminate waste and pursue opportunities for cost savings. Risks as well as benefits are typically shared 50/50 between the principals, with the owner adhering to a fast-track review to withstand the problems and setbacks that will invariably occur in the project/approval process.
Joint Evaluation
All involved parties meet on a regular basis to review and evaluate the partnering process. Specific criteria relating to the effectiveness of the partnering process such as teamwork and timely problem resolution are evaluated. This provides a forum for identifying problems not only with the project but also with working relationships so that they can be resolved quickly and appropriately. Evaluation of the partnering process usually includes a periodic survey. Comparison of survey responses period by period identifies areas of improvement and potential problems.
Persistent Leadership
Project managers and their subordinates must "walk the talk" and consistently display a collaborative as opposed to confrontational response to problem solving. This is especially true early in the project, where mutual trust will be tested by how the partners respond to the first disagreements or setbacks that emerge. Project managers have to reward those within their own organizations who adhere to the principles of partnering as well as admonish those who resort to more adversarial practices.
Why They Fail in Projects
Project Completion (or Termination) - Celebrating Success (or Failure) or Project Closure
Organizational downsizing and concentration on utilizing core competencies has already increased the use of outside sources to assist or implement projects. The trend for the future suggests partnering will be more common. The challenge is to get the project completed on time, within budget, and to customer specification. Although the results achieved from successful partnering can be phenomenal, there are three areas that lead to breakdown of the partnering arrangement and one area that is frequently overlooked.
The first and most significant problem is with senior management - the owner and contractor. The owner and contractor must have compelling reasons to make the partnering relationship work. Although most partnering arrangements start out with good intentions, when senior management fails to keep on top of the project and partnership, the seeds for failure are planted. The breakdown typically begins with a problem that needs resolution. A minor problem is escalated instead of solving the problem at the first level. Team members are hesitant to accept risk. The owner and contractor fail to return the problem to the first level where it should haven been solved. Soon all problems are escalated and the relationship deteriorates as both sides hurl accusations and begin defensive posturing. Senior management must give clear signals that team members are empowered and encouraged to make decisions at the lowest possible level. The same problem occurs when senior management fails to resolve an escalated problem within the time limits set. Senior management is not leading the way. Senior management support of the partnering process cannot be ad hoc; leadership and commitment must be 100 percent and constant. Partnering will only be successful if senior management works at it!
A second major reason partnering arrangements break down is the failure to adequately deal with cultural differences among the contributing organizations. Differences in management styles, terminology, operating procedures, and perspectives of time can result in culture shock that frustrates the development and maintenance of good rapport between the participants. The key is to try to merge these cultural differences into a common team culture that is based on successfully completing the project. This process begins with the team-building sessions but must be a priority agenda item throughout the duration of the project. Much of the material on developing high-performing teams must be applied. Each organization must also be careful to select and place savvy professionals in key positions who are adept at forging relationships with people who do not necessarily share the same priorities, time orientation, or work habits.
A third reason for a partnering relationship to deteriorate is the absence or lack of use of a formal evaluation procedure. We estimate that fewer than 20 percent of partnering projects have a formal, effective procedure for evaluation the partnering process. Without regular evaluation, problems and deterioration of the process cannot be recognized until it is too late to change and correct things. Regardless of the procedures used (questionnaires, interviews by outsiders, weekly evaluation meetings), the procedure should regularly identify problems and opportunities at the operating level. In addition, the evaluation should measure and track the overall state of the partnering relationship. The "partnering report card" measures team performance and encourages team accountability. It measures if the relationship is improving or degenerating.
Finally, there is one opportunity a majority of partnering arrangements fail to exploit as fully as they should - continuous improvement. In many partnering projects lip service is given to continuous improvement , but that is the extent of it. In the word of one owner, "I expect that of any hired software contractor." The key, for those who have been successful, is setting up an incentive to encourage a contractor to seek improvements and innovation as the project is implemented. A procedure needs to be set up before the project begins. In essence there is little incentive for a contractor to strive for improvements, except for repeat business and reputation. All of th risk of innovation failure is on the contractor. An approach known as the "50/50 percent split" appears to work well and has resulted in savings of millions of dollars across a variety of projects
Partnering is a conscious effort on the part of management to form collaborative relationship with personnel from different organizations to complete a project. For partnering to work, the individuals involved need to be effective negotiators capable of merging interest and discovering solutions to problems that contribute to the ultimate success of the project and the partnership.
- END -