Planning and communications

Statue of Liberty structure

The project manager is called in for executing a decision taken by the sponsors. The success (respecting the agreed time and budget) depends on whether he/she has enough power (and ability), to act within clearly established boundaries, or suffer from the inability to manage the requests for changes.

The only possible way of fulfill a deed consists in the thorough understanding the motives that designated the target(s).
The “Project Mandate” (an excellent link) should state the “principal” stakeholders’ priorities. These represent the first and most important source for Risk Analysis.  The priorities shall be clearly focused on subjects which are meaningful for the intrinsic nature of the proponent. They will be used to outline the project itself.

The act of planning means to prepare a chain of actions (and responses) in a specific portion of future. Therefore, the available resources can be coordinated with a common logic. They will tune their works for increasing the opportunities to deliver the required result.

The most suited logic is the one that can satisfy the stated priorities. Hence, the core of planning is the ability to define a “visibile” target and then organizing the resources in a way that every involved person can do his/her best for reach the target.

Striking the balance between stakeholders’ pressure and target consistency.

Dealing with the future implies the presence of uncertainties. Therefore, some grade of flexibility shall be introduced.

Without a proper control from the project manager (supported by the senior management) the open-mind attitude will transform the freedom into anarchy. Every stakeholder will feel to entitle to add his/her own modification; often without taking care of discussing the impact on the common target, with the project leader.

The plan’s resiliency shall be adapted to match the needs of different type of stakeholders. Furthermore, it has to evolve progressively in the allotted time.

The stakeholders’ pressure represents the most important aspect of communication. However, there are two dimensions to be considered:

1. The distance, in terms of time, of the event from the starting date. This dictates the granularity of details.
2. The impact of the proposed modification on the plan’s feasibility (Iron Triangle).

The first point (time and details) is about the need for having everything stated on a document. It could be smuggled as professional attitude; in reality, it is a way to hide anxiety. A rigid planning assumes the necessity to tame the future. The project manager has to intervene for understanding the nature these fears. The Risk Management could offer sound answers to this kind of questions.

The second point (changes) involves all stakeholders. For a sake of clarity, in the following list, they are grouped for area of interest:

Technical:

The choice of the architecture (from the type of application/web server down to the nitty-gritty of rules for commenting code) either is a project’s priority, or it shall be left to the small group of experts. They will issue a couple of feasible proposals that have to be fit for the aforementioned priorities. The final decision will be taken by the project board on the company’s needs.
Once the technical proposal has been set, every other decision (e.g. request for change) shall be conformed to it.

Commercial:

This is the most area most sensible to modifications. The simple and strongest reason for this: a weak business case. Whenever the benefits for the business seem insufficient for covering the initial expenses, the project will be laden with new requirements. This is the most expensive and surest way to doom it.

Functional (personal):

As stated Machiavelli (The Prince), there is no difficult task such as bringing innovation into an organization. Who prospers in the old system will be an enemy of the new one. People that will receive benefits, are shy to spend effort for the innovator.
The only working receipt: a constant attention to details. When the time has come to deal with each of them.

Conclusion

“A good plan today is better than a perfect plan tomorrow“.
The plan has to be dynamic. The priorities (well supported by the sponsors) shall form the robust structure, while the single tasks are detailed as soon as the time will be mature.

The Statue of Liberty offers a marvellous example of using a “rigid” structure as kernel, then, by mean of “flexible” bars each piece gains of a good grade of freedom.

More reading:

www.projectsmart.co.uk