Читать книгу The Red Pill Executive - Tony Gruebl - Страница 21

At the core of project management stands the Iron Triangle (a.k.a. the Triple Constraints of time, cost, and scope/quality). According to PM training, when a project manager can stay within those three lines, their projects cannot possibly defeat them.

Or can they?

If the Iron Triangle is actually bulletproof, why the 70% rate of project failure? Could it be that our best tool is also a factor for failure? In the world of project management, this idea is pure heresy.

Like shark hunters rely on the shark cage to protect themselves while meeting their “projects” face to face in the water, we rely on the Iron Triangle to protect ourselves from failure. In Jaws³³, as Hooper gets ready to take the shark fight into the water, he prepares the shark cage. Quint asks: “What d’ya have there, a portable shower or a monkey cage?”

When Hooper responds, “Anti-shark cage,” Quint says: “Cage goes in the water, you go in the water. Shark’s in the water.”

As a marine biologist, Hooper had extensive training and figured he knew what he was doing. However, when the massive shark attacks his cage, we see how quickly his protection could become his deathtrap.

While the Iron Triangle can become a deathtrap in terms of defining project success, we also acknowledge that it can be helpful. Maybe we aren’t using it right.

The Iron Triangle provides a framework for addressing the three fundamental project constraints with project managers and technical teams. It facilitates discussions when comparing strong, middle, and weak project constraints. Knowing which constraint is the softest in a project gives a place to go for relief when unforeseen problems come up. The strongest constraint is immovable and therefore slack is in the weaker ones. Simple.

However, the overwhelming evidence of failure says the Iron Triangle might be too simple. It cannot manage its own constraints or forecast outcomes in the practical world. Most project management experts recognize this. Several have tried to broaden the Triple Constraint Model into a diamond or star to bolster the Triangle’s shortcomings.

The TRIJECT Model³⁴ incorporates and unifies Michael Dobson’s theory of the Hierarchy of Constraints.³⁵ It’s the best model we’ve seen, but something fundamental is still missing.

Michael Dobson is a good friend and coauthor of our last book, Bare Knuckled Project Management: How to Succeed at Every Project.³⁶ Michael is a prolific author, business consultant, and true project management master.

During an email discussion on March 14, 2016, Dobson said:

“Sometimes people confuse management’s initial statement of the Triple Constraints (“Budget: $40m, Time: NLT 6 months, Scope: IT system upgrade”) with the *real* triple constraints. A project is what it is, not necessarily what they tell you it is. We prefer not to spend more than $40m, but if the project will earn us $100m, it’s worth continuing even if the cost doubles on us. If the upside is only $50m, then costs have to be kept under much tighter control.”³⁷

Dobson is in clear alignment with Kerzner. The constraints are what Operations Executives say they are. Unfortunately, too often these figures are not in full disclosure to the PMs on the front lines.

Here we come to the crux of the matter. Working within false parameters creates an equally false measure of success. Could a blue pill Operations Executive sometimes focus on protecting their own interests rather than performing at maximum effectiveness for the company?

“Working within false parameters creates an equally false measure of success.”

Red pill executives are full-out committed to their project’s success. They pull off the gloves and take the fight to the source. A Red Pill Operations Executive stops fighting Mimics and turns toward the Omega. A Red Pill Operations Executive kicks butt.

In his email, Dobson goes on,

I’ve never argued that triple constraints are the be-all and end-all of project management. They are a single tool and they provide a set of potentially useful insights, particularly useful in the very beginning when you’re trying to understand all the hidden dynamics of the new project. The overlooked question, I argue, is “Why?” On the overall project, “Why are we doing this?” “What do we hope to achieve?”

“What will be different depending on whether we succeed or fail?” On individual constraints, “Why $40m? Why not $30m, or $50m? Is it a best-guess arbitrary number or is it anchored to a hard limit (the project’s only worth $X, or we don’t have more than $40m period)?”³⁸

Michael Dobson is clearly onto something here. Project managers rely heavily on the Triple Constraints while their blue pill sponsors might have a different frame of reference and a different agenda.

Project managers often cite the “faster, better, cheaper: pick two” idea to their operations sponsor to set the stage for constraint discussions, but is it really that easy?

How can a project manager possibly make this claim without a deep understanding of scope, resources, capability, corporate culture, levels of performance, the temperament and direction of the Operations Executive, strategic direction of the company, and many other variables and considerations? If it were as simple as staying within the Iron Triangle, we would have a better track record.

In essence, project managers create presentations to deliver their analysis and estimates without knowing all the necessary background data. They need to know the scope of the work and the depth, breadth, and raw capabilities of the resources needed to handle that work. The seemingly intangible things like corporate culture really do matter and play a significant role in what resources are available and how they can be used.

“The blue pill model fails to recognize the far more critical and complex organizational context surrounding the project.”

The traditional, blue pill model fails to recognize the far more critical and complex organizational context surrounding the project. The Red Pill Operations Executive acts in partnership with project managers. When everyone on the team pulls in the same direction, they get stuff done. Without this level of collaboration, the Iron Triangle locks the project manager into a doomed framework, sometimes to the point of taking the entire company down with the project.

While the blue pill Operations Executive hunkers down watching for Mimics hiding in the sand, their Red Pill counterparts assemble a squad of warriors and head out to kill the Omega, no matter what it takes.

Locking your operations manager into the Iron Triangle without regard for other factors leaves them exposed, where they can only move within rigid walls, where a shift in the cost, time, or scope/quality means certain death to their success, yet the project might need these changes in order to deliver Business Value. In situations like this, your operator is stuck between a rock and a hard place.

“The battle is the great redeemer. The fiery crucible in which only true heroes are forged.”

~Master Sergeant Farell in Edge of Tomorrow¹⁰⁴

Long considered a place of safety, the Iron Triangle actually takes us down to where 70% of initiatives are eating our lunch.

The insidiousness of the Triple Constraint Theory is that we use it to judge our own performance. Hit pause and think about that for moment. The horrific success statistics we have been quoting are simply a record of whether or not we stayed inside the Iron Triangle. So much more is involved in evaluating project success, primarily whether the final result adds value to the company as expected.

Did you reach the company goal?

It’s that simple.

Can you see the impact this bias toward failure has on PMOs within many organizations? It’s no wonder PMOs are frequently formed and disbanded, reorganized and moved, while still confined to a structure and process that does not heal the damage to quality operations managers, the reputation of the Operations Executive, or the company’s bottom line.

“A true determination of project success is primarily whether the final result adds value to the company as expected.”

This situation has become so dismal that many times the Operations Executive questions the effectiveness of project management altogether. After decades of disastrous results, agile practitioners completely reject project managers. The average Operations Executive accepts this rate of failure as par for the course for their PMO. They’ve given up on a lost cause.

Why? Because we’ve been working our butts off trying to kill more Mimics and dying on the beach while the real battle is far away.

Chapter 1 Summary

 •The it’s-just-the-way-things-are attitude is intolerable with failure rates at 70%.

 •The industry has a deep inertia when it comes to improving effectiveness.

 •Human behavior is at the root of project failure.

 •Operations Executives and project managers who take ownership see improved performance rates.

 •When used the traditional way, the Iron Triangle becomes a trap.