Your story, in The Decreasing Value Case for Project Management, hit on a very important aspect of PPM. Of course, it is essential that projects be managed to achieve a set of strategic and business objectives that were proposed in the business case (and became the rationale for authorizing the project in the first place). Yet, we have trained our project managers (and project control specialists) to monitor the metrics associated with the traditional project triple constraint (cost, schedule, scope). This is in their job description and this is what we equip them to do and upon which we base their performance rewards.

Yet, in a successful PPM environment, project selection and project success requires a different triple constraint. I define this as (1) strategic alignment, (2) benefits & value, and (3) effective utilization of critical resources. To assure that project performance is evaluated against objectives in these three areas we need to explore changes in the traditional project governance. My model for this calls for a position of Portfolio Administrative Specialist, placed within the PMO, with a strong connection to the Governance Board. The PAS would look at performance parameters beyond cost, schedule and scope and evaluate the likelihood of the project delivering the promosed benefits and supporting other defined objectives.

Within this modified management structure, we must also modify the project culture. It is okay to terminate (or delay) an active project. Also, we must ignore sunk costs in such evaluations. Sunk costs don’t matter. What matters is what we gain from investments going forward.

I’m not surprised that our traditional project management community doesn’t get this, and that such changes are either resisted or nor understood.

Harvey A. Levine

So your “task droids” are most likely project controls clerks with the title of project manager but not the skills or the responsibilities. Maybe if you encourage the development of the strategic architecture role you’ll find some organizations will real PMs operating in that role?

Nah, won’t happen.

This sounds interesting. I would love to read this article. Can you let me know the link?

Bottom line is that a vast majority of people are both literal and unfortunately lazy. Sometimes the laziness is a source of brilliance (“Progress is made by lazy men looking for easier ways to do things” RH) but sometimes it’s just assembly line thinking.

Effectively the article was building a case for an emerging activity called “strategic architecture” built on the bones of the project management whale.

Does this organization actually say “the project can be over budget and behind schedule, and oh yea it doesn’t really have to work, when it shows up late.”

Are they out of their every loving minds?

Ok, the business problem has to be solved, but a solved business problem that is late and over budget doesn’t seem as interesting to the business as one that solves the problem, shows up on time, and within or near the last budget estimate.

Glen B. Alleman
VP, Program Planning and Controls