TLIR Group - Corporate Transformation Advisors & Enablers

This is an overview of a concept presented by John Bolden, President & Principal Consultant – TLIR Consulting Group, at the European Conference on Technology Management, Leadership and Governance, Paris, France and at the International Symposium on Knowledge and Change Management, Prato, Italy. All Rights Reserved.

The subject is the never ending litany of poor project performance in corporations, governments and institutions. This overview provides pointers on certain key elements that contribute to project failure; delays, cost overruns, low quality, user dissatisfaction, dismal ROI, etc, etc, etc. Lastly, it outlines how organizations can bring order to projects and get results, time after time after time.

To learn more about the subject and explore the significant value propositions for your organization please call or e-mail to arrange a conversation with John. It will be time well spent.

Abstract

At any moment in time, every organization will be in the throes of change to a greater or lesser degree. Projects; tens, hundreds even thousands vie for resources, time and attention; concurrently striving to address defensive, offensive, expansion, growth, contraction and improvement pressures - internally generated or externally forced.

The sum of the organization as a whole and every project that the organization is conceiving, planning or executing equates to Corporate Singularity. Corporate Singularity is a constantly evolving view of what is now, what was then, what will be and what is happening in between.

Organizations that understand and use Corporate Singularity to advantage will be more proficient at managing projects; more economic in use of project time, resources and money; more sensitive to the issues of acceptance and receptivity.

The mechanics of projects (how to get to the new state, when and with what resources and with what results) are neither foreign nor impossible BUT the sum effect of multiple projects, conflicting dynamics and obstructive politics begets Project Multiplicity and this is severely disruptive of Corporate Singularity and every project it encompasses.

Organizations that continue to allow rampant Project Multiplicity will generate waste, replication, errors and failures – time after time after time. This paper examines Corporate Singularity and the prevalent forms of obstruction and conflict that give rise to Project Multiplicity.

Corporate Singularity vs. Project Multiplicity

The Case for Clarity & Cohesion

Business schools, research firms and consultants proffer significant empirical research that at least 75% of all business projects or change initiatives fail to meet expectations, partly or wholly. The vast majority of all analysis conducted on project failure examines how a project was managed, what went wrong and who was to blame. In other words examining a specific project as a Singularity!

My perspective differs somewhat. It is very easy to assess project mechanics yet it is another thing entirely to get to the root cause of project failure. Projects often fail to deliver yet, in the vast majority of cases it is not project mechanics that cause or indeed significantly contribute to failure. Organizational dynamics, optics and politics are very different to the dynamics, optics and politics of projects and within these differences can be found the real causes of so many project failures.

Accordingly, it is time to shed light on the dynamics, optics and politics associated with multiple projects underway concurrently (Project Multiplicity) and how these impact upon the organization (Corporate Singularity).

My observations, opinions and recommendations are the product of direct involvement with projects over a thirty year career, extensive research of projects of ‘interest’ where details were gleaned from public reports and archives via the internet and lastly; extensive qualification and validation discussions with business leaders, employee’s, academics and peers. The number of projects, grouped by total cost, and the people who provided invaluable validation for this work are summarized at the end of the paper.

1. Corporate Singularity

Corporate Singularity is the composite of both what is now and what will be, in the future. Corporate Singularity is a dynamic state that is composed of two discrete elements. The first element is the ‘operating state’ of the organization right now. No matter how long it lasts, it is the status quo now and, there is only one.

The second element is the ‘operating state’ of the organization as it will be (then) and this element might be present as one, ten, hundreds or even thousands of elemental views; essentially, one for each project. An elemental view of what will be (then) is the vision of what the organization will look like once a project completes.

This view of the organization captures what will be different once the project is injected, integrated or implemented into the organization. As each project or initiative completes, it changes the ‘operating fabric’ of the organization and, a new now is the result. This dynamic, constantly evolving view of ‘what is’ and ‘what will be’ is Corporate Singularity.

As you read this passage, your organization is at a certain ‘what is’ state now. It is executing tasks and functions in order to fulfill its prescribed mandate now and will continue to do so in a mechanistic fashion until the outcomes of the next project or initiative are integrated into the operating fabric of the organization.

From a purely linear perspective, at that very moment in time in the future – perhaps an hour from now, a day or two, several months or next year - a new ‘what is’ state will be created when a project causes or forces the operating fabric of the organization to change and this new ‘what is’ state will be the status quo until the next project in the delivery pipeline integrates something or other, somewhere or other, into the organization and so on.

If the linear perspective noted above were the real world, every project would flow seamlessly and easily from inception to implementation sign-off, right? Each project has uniform, linear characteristics so why do so many projects fail? Here is the basis of my thinking …

2. How big is your Singularity…?

Envisioning Project Multiplicity in concert with Corporate Singularity without visual aids will be easy for some while those of us challenged by the concept of imagining what is now, what was then, what will be and what is happening in between will definitely benefit from using a scratch pad to follow this example:

On a blank sheet of paper, draw a line down the centre of the page, this represents the ‘what is’ state of your organization at this moment in time. This is Corporate Singularity now. It is the mechanics of the organization at this moment in time – it is the sum of processes, people, policies and paraphernalia that equates to everything the organization does in its day-to-day operation, now.

Consider all projects or initiatives of any type that are underway at this moment, in any part of your organization. (This is a substantial task, most if not all readers will be faced with hundreds even thousands of projects) Include any project that alters or changes the organization in any way; for example – acquisition integration, ERP applications, consolidation, process re-engineering, divestiture, outsourcing, new policy implementation, policy revisions, policy cancellation, a new look to the corporate web presence or logo, updated programs (i.e. HR, Pensions, Recruitment), revised process, product obsolescence, new sales programs, new partnerships, virtual business portals, new self service script, etc, etc, etc.

Include projects that seek to change, alter or adjust the organization in any way on a permanent or temporary basis. Include those being thought about, argued about, being planned or actually underway (ranging from requirements definition, design, construction, testing through to final implementation).

Depending on where you work within your organization, your relative level in the hierarchy and your ‘need to know’ you may or may not be aware of the extent of project efforts across the entire organization.

One trusts that someone, somewhere, has full and complete vision of everything that is going on, project wise, across the organization...?

This rather simple yet troublesome question resurfaces later…  

On your sheet of paper, set up a relative scale that accommodates both the duration and start/end dates of your projects. Draw a horizontal line for each and every project; position the left end of the line at the approximate point where the project first saw the light of day and the right end of the line at the point when the outcomes of the project are expected to be fully integrated into the organization. You will end up with a collection of lines of varying length, each bisecting the original, vertical ‘what is’ state line. If you know of future projects where the probable start date is to the right of the ‘what is’ line (now) scribe them also, if the width of paper allows.

Diagram 1

The initiative shown in green in diagram 1 started a while ago and will complete relatively soon. Between now and when the green project completes; two other projects (blue) that started earlier than the ‘green’ project will complete. When each ‘blue’ project integrates its outcomes into the operating fabric of the organization it gives rise to a new ‘what is’ state of the organization.

Should the green project be concerned about either or both? Does it even know about either or both? Does it even care about either or both? Let’s explore these fundamental questions in more detail…

3. Organization vs. Project Dynamics, Optics and Politics…

3.1 Baseline Disconnects

Look back in time on diagram 1 (to the left) to the point when the ‘green’ project was about to start. The ‘what is’ state of the organization at the start of the green project is denoted by the vertical hatched line. For project planning purposes - to determine what is going to happen, when, to whom, to what and with what measurable effect - a time oriented baseline must be established.

The vertical hatched line (black) correctly represents what was unacceptable way back then. By this I mean, when the ‘green’ project was conceived (back in time, at the vertical hatched line or beforehand) there was a situation then that had to be changed for some reason – the status quo was unacceptable.

However, between inception and completion of the ‘green’ project, both of the ‘blue’ projects will complete. These two ‘blue’ projects will each change the operating environment of the organization, somehow, somewhere. The assumptions that governed the time, cost, outcome and scope declarations of the ‘green’ project would be highly suspect if the ‘green’ project used the vertical hatched line as the baseline for change and if deliverables from one or both of the blue projects changed some aspect of the assumptions or organizational reality.

The baseline for project assumptions about what to integrate, how and to what effect must be driven by assumptions about the ‘what is’ state that will exist at the moment when project outcomes are integrated into the operating fabric of the organization (future) and not by the ‘what is’ state that existed when the project was conceived (past).

The correct baseline for planning purposes would be the vertical dotted line positioned just after the ‘blue’ projects complete and just before the ‘green’ project completes – this is the environment that the outcomes of the ‘green’ project must seamlessly integrate into – notwithstanding blue project issues that delay or corrupt delivery.

3.2 Quislings multiply like Lemmings

A project is always less than the organization as a whole and therefore subservient to the greater good of the organization.

Do you agree? If you do, you are now committed to support a corporate declaration along the lines of… “It is mandated that every single project fully understand, consider and address any possible impact, conflict or even duplication or redundancy between every other project across the organization and itself.”

By implication; you have agreed that your project will collaborate with every other project, will help and assist other projects to succeed and, if it is clear that your project is a duplicate (partly or wholly) then you will gladly cancel your project for the greater good of the organization…

Do you still agree? Paying lip service to the ideal of Corporate Singularity while ensuring project outcomes meet one’s own ends is an unfortunate fact of corporate projects... How does one categorize such deviant behaviour?

Peruse the following list. Simply put, a project (any project) is subject to influences other than those that justified the project (initiative) for inclusion in Corporate Singularity.

It is easy to test for the presence or absence of one of more threads of obfuscation, obstruction or dilution in a project. It is problematic whether the organization has the wherewithal to deter these influences. I label the major influences and include demonstrative examples that are, naturally, silhouettes of the organization in question:

3.2.1 Machiavellian Multiplicity

Turf wars, politics, competing egos and not-in-my-backyard perspectives dominate project decisions and actions. Corporate Singularity is of secondary importance, protectionism of organizational and/or project turf rules, at the expense of Corporate Singularity. Projects beget sub-projects, each subtly different, moving away from the core imperative.

Global financial institution was surprised to find it had over 1300 ‘front office’ account management processes worldwide, each developed with painstaking precision and accuracy at an estimated, fully burdened cost of at least $2,500,000 each.

Over 900 of these had a possible reusable factor of 30%; meaning 30% of the cost of each of the 900 could have been avoided since they were either mutations or direct duplicates of software, processes or collateral elsewhere in the enterprise. A sum of $675,000,000 was spent building the same thing over and over and over again and in all that time no one thought to look next door to ask what they were doing…

Why did this happen? People with some degree of power went their own way to fix or improve how the business did its business in their neck of the woods. There was no overarching process or mechanism that allowed the business to see and consider what was being planned across the entire enterprise.

Each business was correct to fix or improve but a centralized assessment mechanism would have helped each of them as well as the business to fix or improve quicker, cheaper, with higher quality and less mistakes. The mechanism is in place now…   

3.2.2 Competing Multiplicity

Diametrically opposed objectives, rationale or plans; often focused on the same target for differing purposes. Multiple Viewpoints of Corporate Singularity, what it is, who owns it and why – who ever delivers a project first, wins.

Global Financial Services Institution was taking baby steps into the virtual world. A sophisticated R&D laboratory was created, far removed from the politics and histrionics of corporate technology. Acolytes of OS2 and other prehistoric forms of computation raised their hands in alarm.

The laboratory hummed along, good results were gaining support from the business. Corporate technology leaders adopted a siege mentality, building fortresses of legacy style applications as quickly as they could. Costs soared, internal battles raged.

Why did this happen? Technology begets advocates and bigots. Corporate Singularity assumes ambivalence in how, but strictly controls when and at what cost. In this case, factions affixed how then worked backwards toward Singularity and time and costs were incidental. Affixing how in such a cavalier manner was not a wise career move…

3.2.3 Singularity Multiplicity

Silo viewpoints occlude reality and practicality, incremental singularities proliferate as disconnects surface. Corporate Singularity is open to interpretation; silo management plug gaps and chasms of their own making with project solutions of their own making. 

Enterprise Telecommunications Company used an old, customized version of an application in its US domestic operations. The CFO ordered a roll-out of a new version of the application to the rest of the world (vanilla – no customization) with the order that all processes and practices around the world (except the US) were to change to fit this new application. Previously all international regions had home grown, customized systems with features keyed to the needs of their environment.

 Chaos ensued globally; customers departed in droves, service levels plummeted, costs skyrocketed; process disconnects multiplied, language impacts compounded; internal dissent at all levels became extreme. The CFO blithely ordered US operations to use the new version; they refused to accept the new application without customization. Quite a conundrum; without customization the company may not survive in a key market; with customization all international regions will have to change yet again.

Why did this happen? With due respect to U.S. readers: The Organization’s leaders were seized by domestic U.S. issues alone. They assumed that what would work for the domestic U.S. market would work across international markets. Such naiveté could be construed as moronic even infantile. What’s worse, their assumptions about the domestic U.S. market blew up too…

3.2.4 Multiplicity Generators

Reactive responses to multiple demands of competing interests are dealt with as separate instances, each requiring a project to be commissioned. Policy rather than process governed exception handling and exceptions became the norm - each necessitating a project. Corporate Singularity was non-existent while Project Multiplicity was actually sanctioned in its place.

Government Institution was plagued by competing special interests with respect to policy formulation and resultant processes (what’s new?). Either by erroneous decision or default, each ‘demand’ was handed a project mandate, funds and resources and each project was left to its own devices in terms of when and how the ‘solution’ would be integrated into the workplace. Similar to paying kids to play elsewhere, peace was achieved, for a while. What proved fascinating to watch was the progress of eleven projects all addressing ‘demands’ for self service delivery of one department’s social programs. Each project was quite large and involved significant systems conversion activities, staff retraining and communication with external constituents. All eleven set their plans in isolation yet all eleven targeted the last day of the government’s fiscal year as the implementation date…

Why did this happen? Government!

3.2.5 Assumptive Multiplicity

Compelling business case arguments usually “end” at out-of-scope boundaries; downstream and parallel impacts are rarely understood and rarely fully inclusive. Corporate Singularity implies no boundaries yet disconnects abound in projects, ’not in scope’ is the familiar refrain, the initiative fails to meet expectations but it is never the fault of the project delivery team.

Global footwear company has suffered through a $500 Million global ERP implementation underway for over five years with virtually no bottom line contribution and still needs hundreds of millions and more years to complete AND it is simply laid on top of the enterprise with no process integration or re-engineering costs or benefits, yet! Oh, by the way, it cost $100 Million in lost sales and the stock went down by 20%. No one knows what the eventual cost will be or when ROI goals will be met.

Why did this happen? Phil Knight, CEO of Nike has publicly flogged himself for not asking the same question much earlier. Essentially, technocrats with no sense or sensibilities about business realities sold the CEO a song and dance and, sans independent advice he swallowed the bait…

3.2.6 Divergent Multiplicity

Corporate objectives are diluted, secondary to the need to personalize or customize according to whim or circumstance. Corporate Singularity infers commonality and standardization, entrepreneurial energy has to find a niche. ’Skunk works’ fill the void.

Global Technology/Telecommunications Company with a comprehensive suite of products and services undertook a re-branding exercise. One facet of re-branding involved redesign of the corporate web presence. An analysis of the ‘status quo’ web presence revealed over 700 unique web sites operating under the global banner with significant content duplication, redundant or obsolete content, non-sanctioned information, insecure information interchange, etc. Many web sites were custom built to meet the needs of a sub-set of customers, constituents or employees. Every site was the result of a project and many were unapproved. The corporation’s web presence was, in sum, very unprofessional and very expensive with annual operating costs of $80 Million.

Why did this happen? The internet is neither difficult to access nor difficult to integrate into business processes. SDLC and project governance measures were not sufficient to bring the need for and creation of web presence(s) into the purview of management oversight. They are sufficient now…  

3.3 Concurrency Conflict

Diagram 1 depicted ten projects marching toward their destiny. Each is following a plan and clearly independent of every other project or is it? Project independence has two constructs; the first relates to redundant or duplicate effort and the second relates to redundant or obsolete delivery. Who adjudges independence?

Redundant or Duplicate Effort: When one project develops an interim asset, say a testing regimen or focus group questionnaire, resources are consumed. When another project is tasked with building a similar or identical asset, resources are consumed - again. If the resources tasked with building the second instance were the same as those tasked with building the first – would the job be cheaper and quicker? If they are not the same, would the job take as long, cost as much?

Redundant or Obsolete Delivery: Project X integrates a ‘blue widget’ into business unit A. Project Y integrates a ‘yellow widget’ into the same business unit three weeks later and in so doing replaces the ‘blue widget’. Why did project X deliver the ‘blue widget? Project Z is building a ‘red widget’ that will couple onto the ‘blue widget’ that Project X built and Project Z’s delivery date is after Project Y’s…?

These apparently absurd statements are provided to show the impact of redundant or duplicate effort and redundant or duplicate delivery. The particulars were changed to protect the organizations who actually suffered the consequences and, there were many more than one.

3.4 Reusability Rejection

Lets change the focus from the issues of independence, duplication and redundancy amongst concurrent projects to that of reusability between past, current and future projects.

Reuse is a curious anathema; those responsible for timely, cost effective projects that deliver to expectations rail against reuse yet reuse saves time, money, prevents repeat mistakes and improves quality.

A separate paper by the author details reuse and the assortment of weird and wonderful rationale that people offer up as reasons why ‘reuse’ is inappropriate for their project. The Sum of Change is available upon request from Tracey@TLIRGroup.com

3.5 Recap

The dynamics, optics and politics that surround projects impede progress and without doubt, preface disastrous project results.

1. The vast proportion of projects set plans from the basis of the wrong moment in time (what existed back in time rather than what will be, just before delivery).

2. Projects are subject to multiple influences of organization dynamics, optics and politics that seek to change the mechanics and outcomes of the project.

3. Projects insulate themselves, erect barriers and close off communication channels in order to preserve scope, time and cost parameters.

4. Reuse of assets, collateral and knowledge is an anathema.

4. The Future

Essentially, all organizations should consider the concept of Centralized Project Command and Control (CPC&C). I imagine many will leap up with arguments and reasons why this idea is wrong. My simple rebuttal; the scorecard of past project failure (85%) does not presage well for the future. Project performance will not improve until radical changes are made to how the organization regards projects and how projects are interlocked.

Many organizations will have a Project Management Office (PMO) that oversees the mechanics of all projects and, this is a good thing. CPC&C does not replace or govern the PMO, it augments it from an organization wide vantage point - the main focus of CPC&C is organization and project imperatives, dynamics, optics and politics.

The CPC&C is the logical response to the need for clarity and cohesion in organizations with multiple, concurrent projects; large, global, small, local, complex, simple - each marching to a different set of orders, priorities and mandates – each replete with ego, politic and optic divergence – this is project multiplicity!

As explained earlier, every time a project is conceived and subsequently executed it is subjected to ego, politics, ownership or other influences that spawn an insular perspective that impacts how a project is viewed and managed.

When examining the wisdom and value of a project (singular), powerful interests seek to influence what is needed, how it will be done, who will do it and the outcomes. Little if any thought or process is devoted to overarching organizational objectives when power, prestige or authority of individuals is at stake.

Reusing assets or collateral is regarded by many as an anathema. It threatens positions of power and ego; it forces sharing; it forces supportive, helpful collaboration; it forces commonality.

Powerful forces quickly marshal and rail against reuse, concocting rationale, reasons and excuses why not! They expend significant time, money and valuable resources arguing against the merits of re-use. It appears to be of no consequence that a project can cost less, happen quicker, in a more cohesive and orderly fashion with higher return if reuse is on the table.

5. Corporate Project Management Tomorrow

If organization leadership insisted that every project be interlocked and interrelated with all other projects across the enterprise – past, present and future - the scale, scope and variety of opportunities would surprise them. They would move quickly to propel and compel adherence.

1. Organizations that centrally control the state and context of all past, all present and all future projects minimize waste, replication, duplication and conflict.

2. Organizations that rigorously insist on full and complete cohesion of all projects constrain and even eliminate unworthy, unneeded and/or unsanctioned projects.

3. Organizations that constantly assess the progress and outcomes of all projects know - what worked, what didn’t, what can be reused, what should be stopped and what should be rethought; thereby improving the performance of each and every project while minimizing risk to the organization.

4. Organizations that balance multiple project pressures and priorities avoid the all too common issues of negative receptivity for change or change saturation

These propositions do not judge the wisdom or potential of any project; they are simply a powerful way to make all projects as quick as possible, as robust as possible, as cost effective as possible, as value laden as possible and with the greatest assurance of success.

6. Manage to Advantage

How CPC&C interacts with all constituents in order to fulfill its mandate is a matter of choice based on the organization’s outlook for future change and the record of past change. What the CPC&C does and the very significant values that accrue to the organization are best demonstrated by several generic examples. Peruse these to obtain a sense of the powerful possibilities then ascertain the potential for your organization.

1. Initiatives target growth, others to improve productivity, some to reduce costs or concentrate on key objectives, all in varying stages. CPC&C is the central hub; interlocking and inter-relating all change across the enterprise to ensure better alignment of resources (time, money, people, etc) with corporate objectives. For example:

a. Identifying that it might be wise to cancel or cut back initiatives because of replication elsewhere.

b. Analyzing and recommending that initiatives should be combined since the return, chance of success or timings of each, separately, are less than stellar.

c. Reviewing and determining that objectives can be realized quicker and more simply by reusing components from past change elsewhere.

2. Mission Critical Change initiatives are resource intensive, very costly and last many months. CPC&C reviews all change, conceptual, planned, in process or completed; across the organization to maintain cohesion, clarity, benefits and risk mitigation such as:

a. Noting an unrelated change effort encountered severe receptivity and re-training issues. CPC&C ensures these valuable insights are brought into focus so that large, complex change projects do not repeat the same mistakes or use incorrect assumptions.

b. Reviewing downstream impacts of delays or cancellations. CPC&C assesses all change initiatives underway to test “what is” and “what will be” assumptions and expectations; raising awareness that large scale, complex change initiatives might be untenable if expected outcomes from unrelated change is not ready or available due to cancellation or delay.

c. Large scale change timelines often force business units to come up with interim ways and means to meet objectives. Receiving units strain to prepare, absorb, implement and sustain waves of change; even worse, some changes have conflicting delivery dates. CPC&C unbiased focus on overall corporate objectives leads to probing questions such as: Are these linked? Does each know what the other is doing? Is this wise?

3. Mapping Conceptual Change improves the potential for success when the organization is looking at new ways to do business. CPC&C highlights potential issues and opportunities the organization will face in getting to the end state; extremely valuable inputs for determining how to execute and implement change include:

a. Simulated Change: Modeling “what is”, “what will be” and the ”waves of change” the organization must pass through to get to the new model ensures full comprehension of the extent of change required across the organization.

b. Change Receptivity: Assessing how all or similar change worked before; where it was bad, where it was good, what worked and what failed highlights essential input for decision makers to determine the shape of impending change.

c. Change Underway: Examining the implications of all change underway that would be impacted by the new concept; analyzing the value, cost, need and priority of each presents opportunities to adjust and refine focus, perhaps recommending “Stop”.

d. Change Replication/ Reusability: Assessing the potential of reusable components, processes or knowledge across the organization indicates ways to ways to save time and money while improving the potential for success and improved results.

7. Is CPC&C necessary for my organization?

1. Consider the state of change across your organization; reflect on past successes and failures. Think about the various statements and value propositions of this material and the applicability to your organization.

2. Sum up the total cost of change to your organization over the last three years or so and what you will pay over the next year or two. If you wonder whether a significant percentage could be saved or avoided you should certainly consider establishing CPC&C to manage change.

3. Sum up the disappointments over the past three years or so where change has been less than spectacular. If you wonder if results would have been better with synchronized and cohesive plans, execution and implementation you most certainly should examine the merits of CPC&C to manage change.

John Bolden ©

President & Principal Consultant

TLIR Consulting Group

Oakville, Ontario, Canada

jbolden@TLIRGroup.com

All Intellectual and Proprietary Rights Reserved