Preventing Project Failure

I’ve just finished the Commission on Wartime Contracting Report on contracting failures in Iraq and Afghanistan.  The report admits that solutions to such problems as “agency cultures that fail to adapt” or “lack of strategic planning” are incredibly difficult and complex.

The exact words are  “deeply rooted and resistant to change.”

We’re talking about contracts here, because contracts produce projects.  So looking at contractual failures can lead to more insight about project failures.

This post describes what I consider to be one of those deep roots; a paradox inherent in government contracting that I’m calling The Work Breakdown Paradox. I also provide a suggested new method for addressing the paradox.

Losing the Project Vision Within the Process

Every project starts with a vision; that is, the intent or scope of what the project is really supposed to do. And the goal of any project process is to accomplish the vision of the project. In other words, process exists to meet the project goal. However, as time progresses, the goal of the project process becomes the project process itself. The vision of the project usually becomes diffused and/or lost.

This video created by NASA clearly shows how project process gets in the way of the project vision.

In this video, I imagine the vision of the contract that Heather is working on is to provide the best quality, best engineered spacecraft possible. But, that vision is lost because the project has become focused on process, and not the true goal.

Breaking Down the Work

We can’t really blame the setup; on large projects you have to breakdown the work into manageable chucks. Contract reps have to create requirements, and the contracts have to meet those requirements. Government organizations need clearly defined missions. And their staff are trained to understand their mission. Otherwise, it’s hard to tell people what they need to do to be successful.

Losing the project vision can happen during the breakdown of work. Let’s take a simple example. A local government department is tasked with the mission to provide quality education to its citizens. To meet this mission, the department decides that it must train teachers. A contractor is hired to train the teachers.

So to recap:

Departmental Mission: Provide Quality Education

Contractor Mission: Provide Training to Teachers

In the Statement Of Work, the contractor may briefly read the language about the departmental mission to ‘provide quality education through providing training to teachers’. But the contractor is not thinking about the providing quality education part because that is not what their scope of work is. They figure that the Providing Quality Education mission belongs to someone else and it is that someone else’s responsibility. What they have to do, per contract requirements, is train teachers.

The overall vision of the project – which is to provide quality education – by necessity gets defused by the breakdown of work. The contractor will be judged according to the contract requirements; namely how many people trained, how many people certified. But they will not be judged against the project vision Providing Quality Education, though they play a key part.

That’s one issue – who is making sure that, within the diffusion of work, the intent of the project is maintained?

The other issue is that the structure of contracting creates a dynamic that sets up competing motivations. The contractor may want to meet the project vision but is limited by the terms of their contract. Likewise, the Government may recognize the need for changes but is limited by the dictates of their mission.

Well, how about the Program Manager and the leaders in the Government? Can’t they ensure that alignment to the vision is maintained? I think it’s clear from the video that they cannot. This is because they are participants to the structure created by the contract and the breakdown of work. They are immersed in it and restricted by it.

Contractor PM motivations/constraints

1. Restricted by requirements
2. Doesn’t want to jeopardize contract
3. Wants to align with government COTR

Government PM motivations/constraints

1. Restricted by contract barriers
2. Restricted by heavy paperwork to get assistance
3. Silo mindset ‘ that’s not what we do here’
4. Mission mindset ‘ our mission is ONLY to do these things’

So this creates a dynamic of interaction between the government and the contractor that gets the work done but doesn’t allow flexibility to meet the project vision.

The Work Breakdown Paradox

The problem is that group dynamics have been created with good intent and of necessity. The work needs to get done, and to do that, it has be broken up into manageable pieces. The Work Breakdown Paradox is that the structure of group dynamics required for the breakdown of work sets up barriers to the realization of the project vision, which is the reason for work in the first place.

Enter the Vision Keepers

Rather than change those barriers, because there is a reason for them, I believe that its time for the Government to create a corps of intermediaries; of skilled intercessors.

These people would exist solely to:

1. Be the keeper of the intent and vision
2. Recognize when group dynamics are creating barriers to meeting the vision
3. Form the continual repeatable communication mechanisms to get the right parties at the table to discuss the Work Breakdown Paradox
4. Have the freedom to honestly state the issues without fear of repercussion

These people of necessity need to be outside of the bureaucracy. They have to be able to challenge without fear; fear of losing a contract, fear of appearing out of line, fear of losing a job.

The ideal candidate would be someone who understands why problems exists, is well versed in contracting and process but who is also a communicator with the courage to intervene, raise issues, communicate risks and insist on risk mitigation. These folks would have to be outside of regular contracting mechanisms. They also can’t represent a budgeting or audit organization, so that they will not be perceived as a threat to groups. Yet, these people should have the authority to encourage frank discussions without repercussion and set up the honest, repeated mechanisms of communication that constantly compares results to vision.

These people do exist, because the evidence of their good work is apparent in completed projects that meet project vision. The Government just has to make a concerted effort to find them and figure out a way to give them the freedom and authority to keep the vision.

6/20 This just in: Just read Ron Rosenheads post on IT Project Failures where he quotes the UK government’s outgoing CIO Ian Watmore.  Among Watmore’s excellent suggestions, he make the case that some of the best people to lead projects are those who have experienced failure themselves.   To quote Ron,  “to stop projects from failing Watmore suggested having them run by experienced people who have made mistakes, and have recognised where these mistakes have been made”

More support for experienced, seasoned vision keepers.

• • Comments [8]
  • Tags [communication barriers, Group Dynamics]
  • Categories [Controlling Scope]