Our staff has been trying since the Obama Presidential transition to convince the new administration that a Chief Portfolio Officer was important to the success of the ARRA. Truly, having a CPO on a US$1 trillion stimulus plan is not an outrageous request. It is sensible, right? Someone who will look at the distribution of funds to ensure that they reach to projects and programs intended, and balance those resources as the various stakeholders vie for the funds. Too, we need to ensure that the stimulus funds achieve their intended objectives....in many cases, people at work! That's what a portfolio officer, versus a performance officer, could do.

Take the issue of jobs. The latest figures in the USA show an unemployment rate over 8.5%. The intent of many of the "shovel ready "projects is to keep the unemployment rate below 9%. That is a real challenge, given the growth of the layoffs and restructuring globally of multi-national firms. Unless the stimulus funds in the USA, and in any country with similar directed funds, produce new jobs, we will see unemployment rates at levels not seen in more than 35 years. It makes sense to create a portfolio office that will stay connected to the results of the investment, and have the power to redirect the funds for good use.

Well, you would think this is a rational idea. However, in the grand scheme of things, it has gone virtually ignored. Unfortunately, this is not an issue that seems important to the Obama administration. In fact, VP Joseph Biden has been asked to oversee the implementation, and a director of the board of the ARRA has been appointed as well. But their big issue seems to be waste and fraud. However, this should be about results, and governments have demonstrated they are more effective at policy formulation and approval than about achievement of results or policy deployment.

To prompt discussion, we prepared an opinion piece for the news media in the hope that the business press would react favorably. I'm happy to report that

Forbes.com has published the piece. Check it out here, and be sure to comment on the piece. Your participation will help raise the visibility of this important subject.  Business leaders globally need to push for this type of action. The disciplines of portfolio, program and project management are crucial to the world's economic recovery. Business leaders understand the need to be held accountable for results. Governments worldwide need to do the same. Later.

It was a rainy Tuesday morning in Kuala Lumpur, about 0630, and I was having breakfast after working out. I was reading through the daily issues of the International Herald Tribune (IHT), and the Wall Street Journal Asia (WSJA). Normally, I just let the news of the economy aid in my digestion. However, on Tuesday morning, I was struck by articles on education in both publications.

The first article was part of a special report on International Education in the IHT. The article was titled MBA a Safe Haven, by Sonia Kolesnikov-Jessop. Basically, the article addressed the fact that enrollments and applications were up for full time MBA programs. At the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (HKUST), for example, applications for an MBA are up 50% over 2007. Although this is interesting, it isn't earth shattering news. However, what caught my eye was the following paragraph:

"But with fewer jobs for the their graduates, especially in the financial sector, and radical changes reshaping the global economy, business schools are having to rethink career services offerings, and in some cases their curriculums."

Ok, then. Now I am awake, and I push back my cereal to read on. I am seduced by this article, thinking maybe, just maybe, business schools might start building MBA programs that address execution, which might focus more on how to get predictable business results (hmm, maybe project, program and portfolio management), rather than pure analytical skills. And so, I eagerly read on while my cereal got soggier.

Well, the seduction continued. George Yip, Dean of the Rotterdam School of Management was quoted in the article as saying that corporations are becoming far more cautious about sponsoring employees in their pursuit of an MBA. In fact, he said:

"Given that there are advantages to having more qualified managers, there has also been a trend to more business case-style applications...with a firm cost-benefit analysis."

Now we're talking! I knew it would come soon...I believed that the article would quote academic executives that would say something like "graduates need more skills and competencies in areas like project, program, and portfolio management."  I just knew it. Who cares about the cereal, I am going to read about an intellectual breakthrough!

As luck would have it, I was disappointed. Though the article proved to be interesting, and to some extent valuable, it didn't play out they way I had hoped. Instead, it placed heavy emphasis on career coaching and outplacement help, except for one very disappointing quote from Stephen DeKrey, MBA program director and senior associate dean of the business school at HKUST.

He said that graduates in the future will face a different marketplace, with Government playing "...an increased role in corporates, and it's important for students to understand that."  Fair enough! He goes on to explain that they need to change curriculum to address the changing marketplace. The big question is how will curriculum be changed?

Well, disappointment reigned when he said that the school was considering making "macro-economics" part of the core curriculum, rather than an elective. He states that "...all of what's happening worldwide is macro. It's a worldwide phenomena, and it just shows the importance of that knowledge base." 

Forgive my cynicism, but I just don't get it. Do we want graduates that can readily distinguish between supply-side and trickle down economics? Or do we want graduates who can successfully manage change that will transform the organization they work for? If, as the article says, there are fewer jobs in the financial sector, then why are universities considering changes that continue to prepare them for the same environment? It seems like "more of the same."

You know, there is a quote that I use often, but can't take credit for. It goes something like this: "Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results is the definition of insanity."

I wonder, are we really going to get a different graduate, more capable of managing in this kind of environment -- or are we teetering on the brink? I don't know, but unless things have changed in the business world, I believe it is still all about results.

More later.

The thing that has been mulling around in my mind is the economy, and how we jump start it again. The entire world is dealing with the economy and "experimenting" with things. In the U.S., the Congress is reviewing a stimulus package submitted by newly elected President Barack Obama. The European Union recently passed a stimulus package worth nearly US$250 billion, with individual member nations contributing significant stimulus packages.

These stimulus packages generally include infrastructure investment, tax relief for individuals, tax relief for corporations, and debt relief to improve investments. Pretty sophisticated economics with art, science, and some magic all combined. 

The most important issue that I ponder, obviously, is just how focused these stimulus plans are on results. Is anyone thinking of these plans as a change portfolio, that must be managed correctly? Is anyone considering that the U.S. investment alone has the potential to dramatically increase the capacity of the federal government to "do stuff" by as much as 30%?

The US$850 billion package will create an immense amount of work just to distribute funds, make the adjustments in tax revenues and incentive distributions, changes in lending policies, etc. The closest thing we have heard about managing this is the creation of a new position called Chief Performance Officer. It was to be filled by Nancy Killefer, the person who reengineered the Internal Revenue Service in the U.S. Bad news: she withdrew her name because of a problem with unpaid taxes. GREAT! Another delay!

The position is supposed to be used to "eliminate waste in the federal government," but I am not sure what that means. Waste in money, time, human resources... will it be operated like a portfolio office...or will it be an office dedicated to reading thousands of reports?  I wish I knew.

Lots of good things have happened with respect to the project management discipline in the U.S. federal government, the government of the European Union, the government of the GCC countries in the Arabian Gulf, and in China as well. In all of these governments, the respect for and investment in developing competency in project management has grown dramatically. PMI staff working in India, China, Europe and the U.S. have, in the last five years, gone from getting no answer to phone calls, to getting calls to help them deal with competency development.  

In the U.S., the Department of State, Department of Energy, Office of Management and Budget, General Accounting office, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), and the Department of Defense, to name a few, have developed extensive programs in project, program and portfolio management, and ramped up their work in recent years. The list of PM "heroes" in the U.S. federal government is growing, and getting better results every day. We could triple our staff, and we wouldn't have enough people to respond well.

However, in spite of this fact, we still don't hear about this as a key element in the success of these stimulus packages. Whether it is the politics, the spin, or what, it just doesn't get talked about. Let me give you an anecdote from the Near East that can emphasize what I mean. In Saudi Arabia, King Abdullah, the ruling sovereign, has launched a massive educational initiative, which involves all levels of education. One of the gems in this plan is the King Abdullah University of Science and Technology (KAUST). It is the most sophisticated and leading- edge university being built in the region in decades.

The King was very committed to making sure that the project was delivered as planned. He wanted "insurance." So he turned to Aramco, the largest oil explorer and producer in the world, for the talent necessary to manage a project of this scale and magnitude.

Yes, he went to Aramco. Why? Well, he knew that Aramco delivered results and was globally recognized for its project management expertise. The person they chose was Ali Al-Ajmi, former Aramco VP of Project Management and Engineering, and former PM for one of the two major Aramco projects that received PMI's Project of the Year Award. And, to add to the challenge, the King asked that the University be opened one year earlier than planned. That plays out to asking a very experienced portfolio manager to manage a sophisticated project, in 25% less time than planned, outside his area of expertise. I would call that belief in the discipline.

That is what should happen with the stimulus plans. First, get the people who know how to manage complex change initiatives -- these are not career politicians but are experienced project professionals -- who can manage change portfolios... that can get results.

Second, emphasize the competency of project management, like they have begun to do in many of the governments around the world. But they should not allow "pockets" of excellence to prevail.  On the contrary, the governments should leverage the pockets of excellence to develop an enterprise discipline in project execution.

Finally, we need to advocate for accelerating the project. This should be a Phoenix Project, like the rebuilding of the US Pentagon building in 2002. Procurement and deployment must be done on a fast track mode. There couldn't be a greater sense of urgency right now. The global economy is dependent on success.

More later.

I made it to Dubai, and now awaiting a flight to Bahrain. This airport constantly reminds me of diversity...in culture, language, religion, profession. It has become a hub comparable to any great transport hub in the world. Very interesting place.

Well, I am back to my favorite subject right now...the global economy. I am forever frustrated that the economic condition is uncertain, declining, and keeping us from a focus on value. I called it the great global distraction but we can't look at it as a distraction but rather as part of life. It is living life on life's terms, not ours.

There is a significant effort globally toward government based stimulus plans. It is not a US phenomenon, and not a matter of just cutting taxes or making loans safe. These stimulus plans are loaded with projects and for the most part, represent a critical portfolio of change. In the US, there is already about US$160 billion in infrastructure construction in the original US$750 billion plan, not including the significant increase that President Obama is now pushing through congress. China is investing nearly US$500 billion, in the same approach.

Our economies are so different. Bob Chen, PMI's Managing Director in our Beijing office, pointed out that slightly more than 50% of the GDP in China is from government funding, which is about four times the contribution from government in the US. The US is a consumer economy, no doubt about it. Yet, the plans are similar: shoring up the money market, cutting taxes, and lots of infrastructure construction.

Asia is also caught up in the need for infrastructure construction. It is estimated by the World Bank and the Asia Development Bank, that Asia needs about US$250-300 billion per year in infrastructure construction to sustain its growth. I spoke with Raj Kalady, PMI's managing director in India and his staff last week, and they informed me of the same thing as China: weakening of their prime markets (in this case, IT outsourcing), while the government is investing heavily in their 11^th five year plan to build infrastructure to sustain growth. Every conceivable aspect of the infrastructure in India, and other countries in Asia, needs attention. All across Asia, from India to Southeast Asia, there is a movement to infrastructure.

The national governments in Europe are also taking the same approach. Spain, Italy, and countries in Central Europe, are all beginning to increase funding to federal, state and municipal governments, to spur the economy. While where I am today - in the Arabian Gulf - oil exploration is slowing down because of the significant fall off in demand and the rapid drop in the price of a barrel of oil. The bubble in real estate has burst in some parts of the Arabian Gulf, but it is still alive, particularly in Saudi Arabia. However, infrastructure development still goes on. In Dubai, for example, the rapid rail system and the Al-Mahmoud Airport (due to open in June) are both being accelerated.

The one interesting factoid is that McDonald's is expanding dramatically in Europe. In the latest issue of the Financial Times, McDonald's executives were quoted as saying they plan to add 240 new food outlets across Western and Central Europe. This will add about 12,000 jobs and create a big portfolio of change for them.

Digesting all of this, you come away with the conclusion that project work will continue to exist. Construction will certainly be a focus, but is not alone. Starting from the top, all of these government plans are massive change portfolios. The need for portfolio and program management in the public sector has never been greater. Unfortunately, federal governments are not known for their excellence in portfolio management, with the exception of maybe China, which is a centrally controlled economy.

Even with construction as the focus, technology rules! In the US, federal buildings will go through a "greening" process, and green buildings have to be smarter. Power distribution and alternative energy sources also have to be smarter, and will spur development in new areas. The governments of the world have not choice but to focus more on innovation, results, and on technology. Obama, for example, is adding a Chief Performance Officer (CPO) position in the White House, and also a Chief Technical Officer (CTO). This is not new to countries like Finland and Singapore but is very new to the US. I suspect other countries will follow suit if they have not already done so.

Rail, air, and road construction requires a variety of associated project management approaches.  IT, finance, and HR will all need attention, especially in the arena of project management.

So, will it be a "breeze" for project managers during this recession? It's doubtful, very doubtful. No profession is going to be unscathed. However, I think that there will be more project work distributed than we can imagine right now. The PM talent gap will shrink quickly, but will the PM practitioner still have work?

I think so, but we'll have to see. More later.

Whew! Good news in the markets...finally. US President-Elect Obama announced his financial team, including his pick for Treasury Secretary, and the markets globally have responded favorably for two market days, especially in the USA. Finally! It is really about public confidence in the markets, and the POTENTIAL for a solution.

Speaking of a solution, I read an article today recommended by Mahala Renkey and Len O'Neal on our staff. It was a November 10 article on CIO.com, entitled Why Project and Portfolio Management Matter More at Recession Time. The article supports my post on November 19. I believe, from experience and from common sense, that PM practices have never been more important in our lives than right now. The article points out that "High project failure means you're wasting money, and there's even less tolerance for that in a down economy."  The article goes on to say that "...Portfolio management can help you zero in on the projects that are most worth their effort and scant budget dollars; while project management can help you execute those projects most efficiently."

Yes, I am all over that statement! However, I am concerned that the article points to using available proprietary software as a solution, rather than the discipline and the approach. It points to project and portfolio management software as the answer to solving problems associated with balancing a portfolio...rather than the rigor associated with an internal standard and discipline for managing the portfolio. Although you would expect that from CIO magazine, the statement troubles me.

It is the problem with having a software jockey piloting software without knowledge of the discipline. It happened in the architectural design profession as design software became available on desktop computers. It is not an effective approach. It leads to more problems. Project, program and portfolio management needs rigor, discipline and understanding before any software can be used.

And remember, we are not only facing a recession, but we started this profession with a global shortfall in the supply of competent, experienced project management professionals. When there is a gap in supply, it tends to create a vacuum and can pull in individuals who lack the discipline and knowledge to manage projects and programs well. Couple that with the software jockey, and we have a problem.

But let's hope that things are different now. The world is rallying for a solution. Let's hope they see success through the eyes of project management professionals.

More later.