Cultural uniformity

By Eugenio, on August 27th, 2009

A slide rule

When the project involves different countries (either for production or implementation) the richness of different cultures is a huge capital that offers some challenges. Some of them are of logistical nature and could hamper communications.

Assuming the same mindset

When the project is completed within the same geographical area (city) and most of the stakeholders dwell within the commuting radius; the cultural aspect is almost ignored. Therein, communication is considered much easier.
As highlighted by Craig in his post, within the stakeholders the word “business” can be used for maintaining separation among the various functions (easily transformed into tribes).
Once these agglomerations are formed, conduct codes are built as part of the “norming” phase. This includes the harmonization of the perception of key values, for example:

Allowance on values like (delivery) time.
Meaning of the concept “quality” (there is an excellent post from Drew Davison).
The priorities to be set for spending energy.
How to “read” the threshold’s events.

Different viewpoints

If the “waterfall” approach tends to establish the “gatekeeper” profile, some applications of Agile are working on “informal leaders”. In both situations, it is reasonable to expect that people, either for their personalities’ traits or for professional skills, are influencing communications. To analyze the reasons for these natural behaviors is beyond the scope (and ability) of this post. However, it is important to highlight how the formation of social structures can influence the communications. At least for granting the same meaning to some key words like:

Ready (Done)
Soon
Important
Urgent

In situations like these, the management, that works on well defined (if not rigid) communication lines, has to rely on limited sources of information. Therefore, each bit of data, if not properly framed within a clear and shared measurement system, is destined to represent just the “perceived” situation. This could create embarrassing situations, when other sources (with other conditionings) are producing data or asking for results.

Dangerous interpretations

The usage of templates, or their improved (web-centered) version, offers some saving in terms of time in the process of collecting key information. However, policies are mostly based on previous experience. Therefore, they are conceived on the common understanding that includes just one or few consolidated viewpoints.
For its nature, projects are endeavors focused on new or change product in a temporary environment.

Changes ruling

Changes can only be referred to a previous status. Then the magnitude of it needs some measurement units to be assessed.
Risk Management is strongly influenced by the existing cultural climate within the company or organization. Sometimes it can be perceived as a tool for avoiding bad luck. In other situations, the “technical” issues are “outsourced” to each echelon. This could increase the “silos” attitude. Where, for every section different values can be applied.

Conclusion

“Honesty” is a fundamental value, indispensable for the normal social life.
To make it working, it needs relationships based on common understanding. The idea of spending a meeting on defining how long should be “soon” sounds amusing; however, give it for grant, could introduce attritions.

A PM's workshop