It would be a pretension to present myself as a “lean” expert. My knowledge and experience on this subject is at its very beginning, after a long period of bafflement. My doubts were focused on the difficulties of translating principles conceived for the [...]]]>

Symbols are powerful communication tools

What can “Lean Management” offer for improving communication?

It would be a pretension to present myself as a “lean” expert. My knowledge and experience on this subject is at its very beginning, after a long period of bafflement. My doubts were focused on the difficulties of translating principles conceived for the production and distribution of goods, in a world (complex software projects) where the uniqueness of situations both technical organizational are difficult to predict, and then too short (in time span) for being standardized.

Information as goods to be managed

Like any other production process, there is the paramount necessity of collecting data about “what is going on”. This information (structured data) is to be read and confronted with initial estimations and plans (baselines).

From this point of view, the powerful concepts and tools made available by “Lean Management” can be applies to the program and project management. These are the points:

1. Any process produces (meta) information.
2. Those “goods” shall be distributed to everyone is involved in the process.
3. Every person working on the project is a customer who needs to receive “goods” in the best possible way respecting:
   1. Time
   2. Correctness
   3. Role

My approach as newbie

There are many blogs and documents offering excellent ideas about the application of Lean Management for IT project. I have chosen a specific item: the communication.

Applying Kaizen principles

In the Crossderry post, there is a clear description about the importance of applying “Lean management” in project management. This post is focused on the advantages offered by the “5S principles” to the communication.

Phase 1 – Seiri (Sorting)

Using the calendar for sorting out how many meetings, reports and diagrams shall be delivered and received, can offer a view of how the system is (not) working at the best.

Phase 2 – Seiton (Straighten)

Consider, for an instant, templates, timetables, agendas, meetings etc. as tools. Are they arranged in a way that facilitates the workflow? Is it easy, for everyone who needs them, to find quickly what he/she wants?

Phase 3 – Seisō (Sweeping)

Starting from the messages’ style, it is possible to check if there is any room for improving the efficiency. Quality becomes more difficult to be measured on the short leg; however, spending a little time for understanding, which is the better way to deal with other people can give huge benefits.

Phase 4 – Seiketsu (Standardizing)

Once a better standard (including the cyclical verification and improvement) has been found, stick with it. People love working in a predictable working environment.

Phase 5 – Shitsuke (Sustaining the discipline)

It could be seen as the best way for measuring the quality. Any decline in the “new” standards will be treated as a breach of the rules. Obviously, the point 4 shall include procedures for dealing with this kind of behaviors.

Conclusion

As consultant working in multi-cultural environments, the communication has a fundamental role. The adoption of these concepts is improving the outcome of the whole project.
In this post, I am just skirting the issue about management and leadership. However, it is a big topic, which needs some more thoughts.

“Please be good enough to put your conclusions and recommendations on one sheet of paper in the very beginning of your report, so I can even consider reading it”

More readings

• http://herdingcats.typepad.com/my_weblog/2009/07/impediments-to-successful-earned-value-management.html
• http://johnastrello.com/?p=236
• http://leansoftwareengineering.com/2009/08/06/multi-site-teams-travel-and-the-half-life-of-trust/

The power is exerted through a careful dosage of information within the team.

Trevor starts describing theoretical distribution of communication inside [...]]]> I have the pleasure to cite this Trevor Roberts post. He gets a good point using the combinatorial math for illustrating the function of project manager as filtering conveyor of information among the team member.

The power is exerted through a careful dosage of information within the team.

Trevor starts describing theoretical distribution of communication inside an unmanaged team, where each member needs to share his/her information with all other colleagues. This easily creates a huge volume of traffic, with a string of obvious disruptions.
In order to save time, all internal communications shall be reduced in terms of direction: (from each person to the boss, who shall filter the topics to be distributed during the meetings).

In my opinion, this is a good starting point. The next step would be thinking about how to use this concept for maintaining proficient relationships with the (other) stakeholders.

This can be achieved through the control the quality of information.

The parameters for validating the information are:

1. Reliability. It uses metrics that allows checking the validity of the data.
2. Efficiency. Usage of figures showing the output (e.g. EVM).
3. Acceptability. PM has to find a common ground with the stakeholders outside the team. It means going deeper than a simple usage of the correct language.

1. Reliability:
   Time is the most common factor.
   “I will be late” could be a socially acceptable statement. However, the recipient of the message should be familiar
   with the subject’s habits. In other words, I have an experience (history) to check against how long I shall wait.
   In a project environment, due to its temporary nature, building a history based on wrong assumption can be extremely dangerous. It could damage the project’s reputation in front of all stakeholders.
2. Efficiency. The deliverance of the tasks (work package) shall be checked against the acceptance criteria. When the package does not respond to the stated requirements, it contributes to failure of the whole project. The feasibility of the acceptance criteria is one of the most important PM’s responsibilities.
3. Acceptability:
   As team’s ambassador, the project manager must be sure that messages delivered to the stakeholders (e.g. senior management) are well received and clearly understood.
   An example of this, can be conceived in a small internal project.
   The tally order is: “no money is available”. It makes sense. Obviously team members still remain a cost for the company. However, this cost could be seen as unavoidable.
   In this case, there is no reason for listing the efforts in terms of money. It is much better, for the PM, to focus on the company’s needs, using the familiar lingo. It would make easier for the Snr manager to be bought in for difficult decisions (e.g. shielding the team members from external temporary duties).

Time and direction

As managers we usually calculate the effort in terms of time. As customer we use money to buy something that gives [...]]]>

Time and direction

As managers we usually calculate the effort in terms of time. As customer we use money to buy something that gives us energy (from food to security). In fact, as human beings we live on energy levels.

In projects, we have to manage people’s energy (prodding their interests) in order to satisfy the customers’ stated needs.  The adoption of time as only or major metric to gauge efforts does not consider the quality of results.

Quality, in a project environment, can be defined as reasonable correspondence between results and requirements and the available resources. The “reasonability” stands for the necessary allowance in human relationships.
A good chunk of managers’ energy is dedicated to the art of selling.

1. Organization concepts must be sold to stakeholders for gaining their attention. Therefore, we can drive team’s energies on the target.
2. Results shall be sold to the sponsors.

Selling the result is necessary, at least, as well as delivers it.