Intelligent gathering

Research from Cranfield School of Management has found that a programmes success or failure is dependent largely on how a client behaves. Dr Harvey Maylor and Dr Mark Johnson discuss.

Telling project managers: failure in your projects is not your fault, but that of external forces arranged against you, is always a popular move. For this reason alone, recent government reports, most notably the Gray report into the UKs Ministry of Defence procurement, should have cheered many project managers. Contracted providers have for a long time been the subject of criticism. Indeed, the majority of press reports on failed programmes and published guidance have focused on the delivery side of the client-provider dyad, assuming this is where the cause of failure has lain.

Our research and work with many organisations on both sides of the dyad, suggests that this is not the case. It is good to see this recognised in these reports. To help clients move forward (or to help managers score their own clients), we have identified the top 10 bad habits of programme and project management from the client side. These are:

 1. Partnering with suppliers

This means I tell them what to do and kick them when they dont deliver, meaning that any failure is their fault and not mine. Many of the current partnering approaches we see within major programmes still retain both the primacy of the contract and recourse to legal action when outcomes are not favourable. The much lauded Copenhagen Metro opened in 2002, but seven years after completion, was still mired in legal claims and counter-claims between the contractors and client.

2. Protect my interests

Stay local localised protection of my interests works. I am the customer, the impact of my decisions on the supply chain is not my concern and making unreasonable demands is just part of my role. There are many impacts of staying local on the performance of outsourced programme delivery. Outsourcing brings with it the notion that the delivery becomes SEP Somebody Elses Problem. Furthermore, based on current practices, it is apparently believed that risk can be outsourced with the responsibility for delivery, pushing the risks into the supply chain and that this creates a scenario in which you win and others lose.

3. There is no need for up-front investment

A lack of up-front investment was one of the causes of failure in the procurement of the Nimrod MRA4 by the UKs Ministry of Defence. Scoping out the project and exploring the realities of developing such a capability received an investment of 0.1 per cent of the budget. Whilst it was thoughtto be a revision of an old aircraft design, the requirements resulted in an almost entirely new design, with huge implications for cost and time.

4. Risk can really be moved upstream

Outsource anything really difficult and seek to build internal and external buffers between you and the potential for you to be blamed for anything that might go wrong. This is particularly effective when trying to work between a number of government agencies. It appears that many contractors are once bitten, twice shy about this phenomena. For instance, for the construction of the 2012 Olympics main venue there were only two bidding companies.

5. Over-optimism never hurt anyone

Believe all the plans you see, especially if they are printed out in colour or have flashy presentations. Never, ever involve yourself in the detail and remember: function always follows form. Determining the true levels of cost and time always presents a challenge to organisations. Systematic behavioural bias towards being over-optimistic exists at organisational, team and individual level. Recent research has demonstrated that this bias often continues well into the execution phase, with similar behaviours seen in reporting. It is not unusual for progress to be reported as acceptable for some considerable period, and then for the performance to be seen to drop off a cliff as the original completion date approaches.

6. Process, process, process...

Its all about following the process; everything would be fine if they did that. Also, if the current process isnt working, just add more processes. Remember to ignore that change will occur in the environment (is the environment really controlled?) and that the macro-level processes will always be one step at least behind. Also remember to ignore the potential for documenting the micro-level processes, as this is small fry.

7. The KPIs are always right

Watch the indicators closely and as long as they are okay, dont worry that you are measuring completely the wrong things or that people are responding to the measures in bizarre ways. In a recent study we conducted, we encountered a senior manager who noted that, All the indicators are green, but the client is still not happy. Once we had investigated further we discovered that the KPIs used in the project and prescribed in the contract were not those that actually measured success.

8. Do not worry about managing up

The turn of the century was notable for many things, including Millennium (i.e. vanity) projects that were not delivered until after the Millennium. Such projects were invariably driven by one persons personal agenda who were unaware of the impact of a single comment or statement to the press. Interestingly these same people frequently then expressed dismay that the impact of their action is so costly or disruptive. Chicagos Millennium Park was a fast-track project meaning that tasks were carried out concurrently. In this case, because of changes at the design and approvals stages, groundwork had to be re-done, causing considerable delay and great expense.

9. All programmes are sacred

Programmes are an expression of a personal agenda. Killing a programme invalidates that agenda and is an admission of personal failure. Dont worry about the implications of delays on other programmes. Some organisations are excellent at killing off programmes. In new product development, many firms will kill off 95 per cent of ideas early in their life. Killing off programmes that are failing or are no longer required is likely to be politically unpopular and is frequently hampered by a commitment to sunk costs.

10. Do now, think later

Programmes are about doing not learning. The time for reflection is after the programme has finished but, more often than not, organisations do not have the time or budget to capture and embed what they have learned. One major UK government department we conducted research with recently noted that at the end of projects, they now conduct lessons identified reviews, rather than lessons learned reviews, because weve realised we dont learn.

Real change

By eliminating these bad habits, clients can move towards becoming intelligent clients. They are companies that believe that the buck starts and stops with them. They hold all the risks, seek the win-win on behalf of the network because if a supplier loses, so does the client. They expect solutions to emerge as the future is not written. They understand that metrics do drive behaviours. They then go away and understand the behaviours that are necessary and install the metrics needed. Without intelligent clients, programmes and projects are likely to continue to fail to meet expected targets. The reasoning provided here may help or even please embattled project managers. Real change in delivery will come when clients adopt more intelligent behaviours. Thats got to be a better way. For more information, contact icpm@ cranfield.ac.uk or telephone 01234 754537.

• Dr. Harvey Maylor is centre director of the International Centre for Programme Management at Cranfield School of Management.
• Dr. Mark Johnson is a senior research fellow within the Supply Chain Research Centre at Cranfield School of Management.