Voices on Project Management

In my previous post, I talked about work commitments. Sometimes success in project delivery requires breaking those commitments if they are not in line with your goals. If you need to break a commitment, I recommend the following steps:

1.    Identify a commitment you have made that is not benefiting the project.

2.    Consult with the project manager and/or supervisor whether this activity can be removed from your list.

3.    Identify someone suitable to deal with this task. Seek advice from your manager when in doubt.

4.    Once you've secured management authorization, transfer the details of your commitment to that person.

5.    Advise the person to whom you originally made the commitment that the task has been reassigned to another person, and explain the reason for this action.

Depending on your role and authority, you may be able to deal directly with the person to whom you made the commitment, and you can resolve the conflict without involving other parties.

There's no magic formula for undoing what's done. But by breaking such commitments in this professional manner, you are renegotiating the terms of your commitments and earning trust and credibility. 

I recently watched a Hindi movie called 3 Idiots. The moral was to follow your passion--which got me thinking...

In the software industry I've seen examples of technical leads who were promoted to project manager based on the assumption that they'll perform just as well in that role.

But in several of these cases the technical lead has failed in the new position. That's because project management is not about resolving technical issues. It has other parts: resource management, cost management, expectation management, etc.

Companies shouldn't automatically follow the standard growth path for each role, whether it's for a software engineer, senior software engineer, technical lead or project manager. Rather, the path should be decided based upon an individual's capability and interests. A technical lead may be interested in business analyst work or quality-assurance activities instead of the project management role.

Also, as individuals we should have the opportunity to follow our passion and not feel tied to a typical career path.

What do you suggest?

My last post received a wide range of comments and I wanted to draw some conclusions based on those comments and my thoughts.

The majority of those that left a response said they would choose "option one." If you selected "option one" and well managed your relationship development and engagement processes, then helping "Mary"--the stakeholder in question--and her team contribute to the change should be beneficial. Why?

The first thing to consider is that Mary would be a key stakeholder at several different levels in the overall change management program.

As a long-term employee leading a group of workers, she is a stakeholder in the overall organization and is likely to have many unofficial contacts and significant influence.

As the leader of a group of workers who will be disadvantaged by a planned reorganization, she and her team are critically important stakeholders for the change manager. The group will never like the consequences of the change, but they need to be included so they at least cooperate for the good of the overall organization.

Because they can contribute knowledge and support, Mary and her team are also stakeholders of the program and particularly your project. The assumption that your team has enough knowledge to bypass her people is risky. You don't know everything that happens in Mary's section on a day-to-day basis.

The second important consideration is where the value is created. Ultimately, there is no value to the organization unless the change is successfully implemented.

Your project may deliver a key component needed for the reorganization but if it is not used, there is no value. This is something IT people in particular need to remember; 99 percent of IT projects require changes to business processes and are a complete waste of time if the business people reject the new processes.

If you selected "option two" and chose to ignore Mary, she is likely to become an active opponent of the change (no involvement equals no commitment and no support). This puts your most important stakeholder at a disadvantage: the overall change manager.