Shipulski On Design

Archive for August, 2023

When you want to make a difference, put your whole self out there.

When you want to make a difference, tell your truth.

When you want to make a difference, invest in people.

When you want to make a difference, play the long game.

When you want to make a difference, do your homework.

When you want to make a difference, buy lunch.

When you want to make a difference, let others in.

When you want to make a difference, be real.

When you want to make a difference, listen.

When you want to make a difference, choose a side.

When you want to make a difference, don’t take things personally.

When you want to make a difference, confide in others.

When you want to make a difference, send a text out of the blue.

And when you want to make a difference for yourself, make a difference for others.

Image credit – Tambako The Jaguar

Finishing a project is usually associated with completing all the deliverables.  But in the real world there are other flavors of finishing that come when there is no reason or ability to complete all the deliverables or completing them will take too long.

Everyone’s favorite flavor of finishing is when all the deliverables are delivered and sales of the new product are more than anticipated.  Finishing this way is good for your career.  Finish this way if you can.

When most of the deliverables are met, but some of them aren’t met at the levels defined by the specification, the specification can be reduced to match the actual performance and the project can be finished.  This is the right thing to do when the shortfall against the specification is minor and the product will still be well received by customers.  In this case, it makes no sense to hold up the launch for a minor shortfall. There is no shame here.  It’s time to finish and make money.

After working on the project for longer than planned and the deliverables aren’t met, it’s time to finish the project by stopping it.  Though this type of finishing is emotionally difficult, finishing by stopping is far better than continuing to spend resources on a project that will likely never amount to anything.  Think opportunity cost.  If allocating resources to the project won’t translate into customer value and cash, it’s better to finish now so you can allocate the resources to a project that has a better chance of delivering value to you and your customers.

Before a project is started in earnest and the business case doesn’t make sense, or the commercial risk is too high, or the technical risk is too significant, or it’s understaffed, finish the project by not starting it. This is probably the most important type of finishing you can do.  Again, think of opportunity cost.  By finishing early (before starting) resources can start a new project almost immediately and resources were prevented from working on a project that wasn’t going to deliver value.

Just as we choose the right way to start projects and the right way to run them, we must choose the right way to finish them.

Image credit — majiedqasem

If you give a person the tools, time, and training, you’ve empowered them.  They know what to do, they have supporting materials, and they have the permission to spend the time they need to get it done.

If you give a person the tools and the time but not the training, they will struggle to figure out the tools but they’ll likely get there in the end.  It won’t be all that efficient, but because you’ve given them the time they’ll be able to figure out the tools and get it done.

If you give a person the time but not the tools or the training, they’ll go on a random walk and make no progress.  Yes, you’ve given them the time, but you’ve given them no real support or guidance.  They’ll likely become tired and frustrated and you’ll have allocated their time yet made no progress.

If you give a person the tools and training but not the time, you’ve demoralized them.  They have new skills and new tools and want to use them, but they’re too busy doing their day job.  This is the opposite of empowerment.

If you’re not willing to give people the time to do new work, don’t bother providing new tools, and don’t bother training them.  Stay the course and accept things as they are.  Otherwise, you’ll disempower your best people.

But if you want to empower people, give them all three – tools, time, and training.

Image credit — Paul Balfe

What does your team do when you’re not there?  Do they make decisions or wait for you to come back so you can make them?

If your team makes an important decision while you’re out of the office, do you support or criticize them? Which response helps them stand taller? Which is most beneficial to the longevity of the company?

If other teams see your team make decisions while you are on vacation, doesn’t that make it easier for those other teams to use their good judgment when their leader is on vacation?

If a team waits for their leader to return before making a decision, doesn’t that slow progress?  Isn’t progress what companies are all about?

When you’re not in the office, does the organization reach out directly to your team directly? Or do they wait until they can ask your permission?  If they don’t reach out directly, isn’t that a reflection on you as the leader? Is your leadership helping or hindering progress?  How about the professional growth of your team members?

Does your team know you want them to make decisions and use their best judgment? If not, tell them.  Does the company know you want them to reach out directly to the subject matter experts on your team? If not, tell them.

If you want your company to make progress, create the causes and conditions for good decisions to be made without you.

Image credit – Conall

When planning the projects for next year, how do you decide which projects are a go and which are a no?  One straightforward way is to say yes to projects when there are resources lined up to get them done and no to all others.  Sure, the projects must have a good return on investment but we’re pretty good at that part.  But we’re not good at saying no to projects based on real resource constraints – our people and our budgets.

It’s likely your big projects are well-defined and well-staffed.  The problem with these projects is usually the project timeline is disrespectful of the work content and the timeline is overly optimistic.  If the project timeline is shorter than that of a previously completed project of a similar flavor, with a similar level of novelty and similar resource loading, the timeline is overly optimistic and the project will be late.

Project delays in the big projects block shared resources from moving onto other projects within the appropriate time window which cascades delays into those other projects.  And the project resources themselves must stay on the big projects longer than planned (we knew this would happen even before the project started) which blocks the next project from starting on time and generates a second set of delays that rumble through the project portfolio.  But the big projects aren’t the worst delay-generating culprits.

The corporate initiatives and infrastructure projects are usually well-staffed with centralized resources but these projects require significant work from the business units and is an incremental demand for them.  And the only place the business units can get the resources is to pull them off the (too many) big projects they’ve already committed to.  And remember, the timelines for those projects are overly optimistic.  The big projects that were already late before the corporate initiatives and infrastructure projects are slathered on top of them are now later.

Then there are small projects that don’t look like they’ll take long to complete, but they do.  And though the project plan does not call for support resources (hey, this is a small project you know), support resources are needed.  These small projects drain resources from the big projects and the support resources they need.  Delay on delay on delay.

Coming out of the planning process, all teams are over-booked with too many projects, too few resources, and timelines that are too short. And then the real fun begins.

Over the course of the year, new projects arise and are started even though there are already too few resources to deliver on the existing projects.  Here’s a rule no one follows:  If the teams are fully-loaded, new projects cannot start before old ones finish.

It makes less than no sense to start projects when resources are already triple-double booked on existing projects.  This behavior has all the downside of starting a project (consumption of resources) with none of the upside (progress).  And there’s another significant downside that most don’t see.   The inappropriate “starting” of the new project allows the company to tell itself that progress is being made when it isn’t.  All that happens is existing projects are further starved for resources and the slow pace of progress is slowed further.

It’s bad form to play Tetris with your project portfolio.

Running too many projects in parallel is not faster.  In fact, it’s far slower than matching the projects to the resources on-hand to do them.  It’s essential to keep in mind that there is no partial credit for starting a project.  There is 100% credit for finishing a project and 0% credit for starting and running a project.

With projects, there are two simple rules.  1) Limit the number of projects by the available resources.  2) Finish a project before starting one.

Image credit – gerlos