Strategy is about lines

Elegant lines bringing a clear design

In order to induce people to move toward a target, lines have to be set up. How to draw these lines it is up to manager’ sensitivity. A good example about how difficult could be work in a murky environment is described in this post . Ron Rosenhead narrates an interview, with a troubled PM.

His definition of source of risk as “grey area” should be used as “kanban” whenever a plan is drafted.

It seems, to me, that the lady described in the interview decided to leave aside the tenets of the methodologies (either PMI – Charter, Prince2 – Mandate or any resemblance with a Product Owner). Furthermore, the basic concepts of Risk Managements were ignored. This sounds like an extremely risky (if not naïve) strategy.

In that post, among other problems – mostly related to a lack of accountability – there was the setting of (high) priority, while the rest of the company ran the “business as usual” model.

Has the expression “high priority” to be referred only to the producers’ team? Had this scenario to be the right one (confirmation has to be sought with the sponsor); there is a list of (sample) essential questions that will complete the strategy.

1. A higher budget shall be worked out for increasing the productivity of team members?
2. Are the techniques, to improve the quality of produced code, not to be considered?
3. Are the relationships with “external” stakeholders already strained during the framework negotiation (e.g. little or no budget is available for covering users’ time for collecting requirements)?

Designing a course

Another (limited) definition of strategy could be defined as: a line of conduct for dealing with stakeholders in order to build proficient relationships (i.e. solid supplying contracts, information, support or production).

The first and most important area to be cleared must be the importance (aka priority) of the project itself (at least from the customer and sponsor’s viewpoints). The reason for this choice is to be searched in the amount of resources (energy and time) made available for the project.

This will be reached through negotiation. It requires reaching a common understanding. Each environment and subsequent situation has its own meaning for otherwise, common words. Furthermore, as suggested in previous posts, stakeholders work in different rhythm and calendars (sometimes with other time-zones and cultures as well).

Project is about changes.

Is it a good reason for conceiving an “easy-to-be-abandoned” strategy? The best strategy should be able to face changes, independently from their nature. However necessary, changes to the strategy have to be invisible to other people. Each strategy is the trade-mark of the project manager.

Conclusion

“Nations have no permanent friends or allies, they only have permanent interests.”  This is valid for the project as well. Their interests shall go beyond the delivery date. Satisfied customers (and users) form the best reference for anyone who has spent his/her energy to reach a common and clear stated goal.

Image is courtesy of:

http://blog.papervision3d.org/2007/07/14/rhythm-of-lines/