Project Leadership Considerations

A project leader’s first task is to ensure that a project to be undertaken aligns with the parent organization. This consists of several activities, the first of which is to assess the culture, teamwork, risk tolerance, communications, decision-making, and trust levels in the overall organization to determine how capable the overall organization is in supporting project leadership. It is important to understand strengths and weaknesses and to develop ways to improve upon past performance. Apendix A contains a project leadership assessment tool that is designed to assist in analyzing and evaluating project leadership at the organizational level.

Effective project leadership requires proper attitudes, skills, and competencies. It is a willingness to take personal risk—to show genuine concern for the company, client, project, and everyone involved. The good news is that most of the skills and competencies required to be a successful project leader can be learned and that coaching and mentoring are instrumental in a leader’s development.

The individual, team, and organizational aspects of leadership are interdependent. Senior management support establishes a foundation for leadership success, but it is the application of leadership characteristics at the individual and team levels that makes it truly effective.

The assessment questionnaire provides a self-scored assessment of the state of project leadership at the organizational level. This is not designed to answer all the questions that need to be asked for effective project leadership, but rather to provide an indicator for further action.

Once it is determined that the organization is ready to support project leadership, the next step in alignment is to identify potential projects. Ideally, all leaders in an organization are continually searching for potential projects as part of their everyday work.

The third step is to assess each potential project. Some large organizations may have extensive assessment procedures, while some small organizations may have almost none. Regardless of the size of the organization or the complexity of the project, a few key questions should be asked to determine if a potential project might align well with the parent organization’s priorities:

•  What is the project’s vision?

•  What value does the potential project offer the organization?

•  Can the project be understood and articulated at different levels (as part of the larger organization, as a system itself, and as a combination of its parts)?

•  What level of human and other resources will the project potentially require?

•  What is the project’s priority in comparison with other projects?

•  How is work within the project prioritized?

•  How will the parent organization’s culture help or hinder the work of this project and vice versa?

CSM’s top officers acknowledged that several benefits could come from this project and that it was consistent with a company philosophy of partnering with customers. However, the leaders did not spend enough time assessing whether the company had and could use the human and other resources necessary to complete this project, nor did they assess the impact this project would have on CSM’s overall mission, vision, and goals. Many projects when considered in isolation appear to be a good fit; however, wise leaders consider potential projects in comparison with each other when making alignment decisions.

The automated B2B processing project under consideration at CSM appears to be a good fit in that it has the enthusiastic support of one of the company’s major customers and will have many other benefits to CSM. The executive team seems excited and willing to work hard to help the project succeed. Direct benefits to CSM include better shipment notice information and reduced product lead time, both of which will have a positive impact on customer service. Since the project appears to be a good fit, CSM’s project leaders are now ready to proceed into their second responsibility, which is to perform a risk assessment.

Project Leadership Considerations

Risk assessment should start with the key project participants who are already assigned identifying the different potential sources of risk. These risks may include:

•  Customer-associated

•  Contract

•  Project requirements

•  Business practice expertise

•  Project management

•  Work estimates

•  Project constraints

•  Complexity and scale of deliverables

•  Contractors.¹

It is imperative that potential projects be assessed for risks by both management at a high level and technical experts at a detailed level. There are different schools of thought on the composition of assessment teams. Some argue that it is important to have a totally independent team make this assessment objectively and then play no other role on the project. Others argue that seamless transitions are preferable, and that those who will implement the project should be involved from the start. In an organization that values and trusts its associates and that attempts to maximize communications, we believe that the latter approach make more sense. Simultaneously, the executives involved should determine how much risk they are willing to tolerate for each identified category. Then the assessment team and the executives should together determine whether the risks appear to be acceptable.

Everyone needs to express their views candidly based upon their experience and expertise. In the end all parties must agree on the risk level in each category. Sometimes the project approach may need to be altered to reduce the risk levels in one or more areas to an acceptable level. The project leaders should ask themselves the following questions to determine if they are ready to proceed to their third responsibility, which is to justify and select the project:

•  Can we develop a sense of shared risk with the project team, client, suppliers, and upper management?

•  Have we started having useful discussions in identifying problems and approaches to solving them?

•  Have we prepared for the worst while hoping for the best?

•  Do we have the ability to identify risks soon enough to overcome them?

•  Are we consciously trying to understand who gives us good vs. bad advice?

•  Are we identifying opportunities along with risks?

•  Have we assessed risk using the categories shown above?

It is clear that in the B2B project we are using as an example, both executives and the assessment team met to assess project risks. What is not as clear is whether they were thorough enough to ensure that all potential sources of risk were considered. A wise project leader really explores the details when assessing risks. Many things look fine on the surface, but trouble lies buried beneath. Leaders want to find that trouble early enough to handle it.

Project Leadership Considerations

Project selection is similar whether a company is selecting one project or a portfolio of projects. Project leaders need to be able to articulate the business case for a potential project so that all key stakeholders can understand its value. In this situation, the project aligned so well with CSM’s mission that selection was almost a given. The more interesting decision in this project selection was which approach to take. CSM was appropriate in first considering several potential solutions and then looking hard at the last two when the others did not appear feasible.

TABLE 2-3 Potential Project Cost Benefit Overview

This same approach can be used when there are many more potential choices. First a team needs to brainstorm all the potential approaches (which can sometimes be numerous). Each participant should feel free to offer any approach without fear that it will be criticized. This is important since some ideas that first appear impractical may later prove to be worthwhile. Moreover, this sets the tone for free and open discussion on the project.

Once all potential approaches are listed, the team needs to have a method of quickly screening a large number of choices down to a small number that can be analyzed in detail. Sometimes project participants perform this screening by asking questions about which approaches are not feasible. If there are quite a few choices to be considered, a second method worth considering is multi-voting. In multi-voting each participant can vote for whichever approaches he or she prefers. The group then progressively removes first the really impractical approaches and then the practical but not quite ideal approaches. A key to multi-voting is to try not to remove more than half of the potential approaches at one time, which can result in good choices being removed along with impractical ones.

Once there are few enough potential approaches left that it is practical to perform detailed analysis, each alternative should be examined based on relevant dimensions. The dimensions that are often considered include:

•  Strategic and/or commercial value

•  Risk

•  Stability of requirements

•  Competition

•  Opportunities for learning

•  Fit in the portfolio of current projects

•  Expected duration

•  Cost

•  Resource needs

•  Leadership needs

•  Training needs.

Before committing to a project, a company might use four different frames of leadership (political, human resources, traditional management, and symbolic) as lenses through which to view the project. Certainly an ethics check is necessary for all projects. A look at the broad picture or external environment is also necessary: Are there political, economic, or social issues? An internal look at the project’s impact on the development of resources and relationships between and among all stakeholders is also important: How does the project build expertise for associates? What impact will it have on suppliers? Regulators? Other customers? Competitors? It appears that none of these factors is an issue in this case.

Project Leadership Considerations

A large part of the success of any project is determined at this point. In choosing key participants, the first goal is to find people who have adequate knowledge and skills in team-building, planning, communications, and decision-making to be effective project leaders. Appendix B is a self-scoring assessment of an individual’s project leadership potential. The key project leaders selected should in turn find people who will have a synergy among them, that is, who will work creatively together and whose efforts will complement and supplement each other. Key project participants typically include a steering team, project sponsor, project manager, project core team, and subject matter experts.

The steering team needs to include people of vision who see the project in perspective, who care about the project’s success, and who will provide overall guidance and support for the project. In some instances the organization’s existing management team serves this function. An advantage of this approach is that the steering team by definition has legitimate authority (clout). In other instances individuals are specifically selected to serve on the project steering team. An advantage of this approach is that the steering team may have more specific expertise and passion. CSM elected to select the steering team.

The sponsor is usually a member of the steering team and is the primary liaison between the steering team and the project, although many informal lines of communication may also exist between the steering team and the project. The sponsor is primarily responsible for securing resources, removing obstacles, and mentoring the project manager and the core team.

Bob appears to be a wise choice for sponsor since he understands organizations, communicates well, and works effectively with teams. While Bob’s technical expertise appears weaker than Gary’s, other participants can provide expertise. In a true team setting, the experts will lead within their competence. Bob’s willingness to ask detailed questions should help.

The project manager is the primary communicator both internally within the project and externally with many individuals and groups who have an interest in the project. When situations call for action, the project manager needs to be able to:

•  Advocate a project vision effectively

•  Keep attention focused on key issues

•  Listen well and speak clearly

•  Inspire confidence

•  Create a sense of urgency

•  Care for and protect people

•  Defend the core values of the organization and project

•  Lead change fearlessly

•  Coordinate a multitude of tasks

•  Make sensible tradeoff decisions.

Uma appears to be a good choice. Since the two key people have been chosen, it is now time for Uma (the project manager) to assess herself and Bob (the project sponsor) in terms of their personality types, their emotional intelligence, their team-building skills, their weaknesses, and their professional needs and desires. The project manager and sponsor will need to communicate effectively with many people, including the steering team, who will guide them, and the project core team, who will collectively make many project decisions and perform many of the project’s tasks.

A project core team is generally a small group of people who are assigned to the project during initiating and remain for the duration. They collectively make many project decisions and either perform or lead the performance of most of the project tasks. Bob and Uma decided that subject matter experts (SMEs) would not be members of the core team, but would be selected on a just-in-time basis.

Project core team members then need to be chosen based upon three general criteria: their technical competence, their ability to help the team function well, and their desire to do whatever it takes to complete the project successfully. This is a good situation for Uma. Since she is choosing several people at once and the positional leaders are known, she can balance her choices, perhaps accepting someone with a technical competence that is hard to find who lacks certain teaming skills and finding another person with those skills. Diversity is the key: She will want to choose people with different styles, experiences, and approaches to problem-solving to ensure that many possibilities are considered.

The project core team needs to comprise committed, qualified, and diverse people. It is wise to have a mix of very experienced individuals and some new players who can learn and be developed during this process. Bob and the steering team need to ensure that Uma sees the bigger picture and chooses people who will be effective in this project and in future projects. It does appear that a wide range of departments is represented on the project.

One key question to ask when deciding if someone should be on the core team is: Do we need this person’s expertise throughout the project or just part of the time? The core team ideally should remain intact for the entire project. Another key question is how big the core team should be. While many factors enter into this decision, one useful rule of thumb is that smaller teams communicate more easily. An offsetting factor is that different departments and units need to be represented when decisions are made.

The last major role is for SMEs. These individuals are brought onto the project as needed, and some may perform a little work on many projects. One challenge with SMEs is to get them to buy into the project. Since they have less involvement, often they have less commitment. While many SMEs are selected just-in-time, some critical resources are in such short supply that the need for their services should be identified and prioritized as far in advance as possible.

Project Leadership Considerations

By using an inviting approach, it appears that Uma has broken down many prejudices and assumptions and helped each team member get excited about her, the project, and other team members. It is important to establish a climate of openness, trust, and fun. This climate must recognize that individuals have different needs, concerns, and abilities to change. The project leader should honor each individual while establishing workable team operating methods. Appendix C is a project leadership assessment that can be used both now, while project team operating methods are being established, and during the project execution stage, when the project team is accomplishing its work.

The project’s parent organization may strongly influence the operating methods. At the more formalized end of the spectrum, some organizations have quite specific operating methods that all project teams are expected to follow. Organizations like these often have reminders mounted in conference rooms, templates in shared network files, trained facilitators to help new teams, and other measures to ensure that all project teams follow the prescribed operating methods. At the less formalized end, some organizations not only have no standards, but also have little patience for project teams that want to take time up front to establish operating methods. Many organizations fall somewhere between the extremes.

The reasons for having project team operating methods is to prevent some problems from occurring in the first place, smooth out difficulties, help the team use their time efficiently, and create an atmosphere for making decisions that minimize inappropriate conflict. Some of the more frequently developed operating methods include decision-making and meeting management.

Project Leadership Considerations

What we have observed in Bob and Uma’s meeting with the steering team is the culmination of an ongoing dialogue. It appears they have done a good job in laying the groundwork for top management support of their B2B project. The approval came quickly at this point, indicating that there was probably informal communication with the key leaders prior to this meeting. Uma’s skillful handling of Peter’s question, showing him how his department would benefit, left him no option but to agree and diffused his criticism. Possibly Peter’s question suggests that Bob and Uma may not have informally answered all of his concerns in advance. While project leaders try to head off problems, frequently a few questions remain.

Wise project leaders will open multiple informal channels of communication and keep them open. One key lesson is: Never surprise your boss. It is prudent for a project leader to think of the entire steering team as multiple bosses. While open communication is generally a good idea with supporters, there may be one or two members of the steering team who are so antagonistic to a particular approach that convincing evidence should be developed before communicating with them.

Developing top management support is vital since any senior executive who is hostile to a project may find a way to sabotage it. A project manager does not want a difficult project to be accepted by a vote of five executives for it and four executives against it.

Project managers often need to coordinate the efforts of various workers from different disciplines over whom they have no authority. While this may be challenging it is often a reality in modern leadership—and is also a helpful experience for moving up in the leadership ranks in an organization. The exposure that project managers have in developing top management support provides an excellent opportunity to develop their leadership skills and stature within an organization. Junior project managers should see this wooing of top management support as an opportunity for visibility and should make every effort to perform this responsibility well, both for the immediate sake of their project and for the long-term sake of their career.

Project Leadership Considerations

The initiating stage of a project is complete when the project team and the sponsor sign the charter. The charter is one of the most important project documents and, arguably, the one that project sponsors have the most personal involvement in creating. Project sponsors must ensure that other planning and control documents are completed, but they must be personally involved in the creation of a charter. Other project leaders (that is, the project manager and the core team members) will have extensive personal involvement in creating other planning and control documents in addition to the charter.

A project charter is a contract between the project core team and the sponsor (who represents both senior management of the organization and the outside customer). As with a contract, the people who sign the charter should ensure that they understand and agree to every detail within it. Either party (the sponsor or the project core team) can write the rough draft and then very candidly discuss each part of the charter with the other party. Sometimes the sponsor tells the core team right at the start which items are especially important, but more often either the team creates the rough draft or both parties develop it together. When both parties work together, the session is often facilitated by either an outside consultant or a disinterested executive from the parent organization (that is, one whose own area will not be substantially impacted by the project). Many organizations understand that serving as a project facilitator is a learning experience for rising executives and choose to assign this role to managers who show promise.

Essentially, a charter has two purposes. First, everyone involved in the upcoming project needs to develop a common understanding of what the project is all about. Second, each person needs to personally and formally commit to doing their best to achieve the agreed-upon project results—even when things do not go as planned. Many organizations have developed their own ideas of what must be included in a charter to accomplish these two goals. Organizations value speed and simplicity when creating charters. The charter is written to get a quick understanding of what is involved in completing the potential project with the knowledge that, if something is not acceptable, the project may not get approved. In many organizations projects are not considered official until a charter is completed and signed.

FIGURE 2-4 B2B Project Charter

Listed below are some of the typical key sections that are included in a project charter. For ease of remembering, we present these sections as the three “W”s to be accomplished, subject to the three “H”s, by using the three “C”s. We briefly define each section and list popular alternative names. Note that while the intent of most of these sections is included in many charters, many organizations combine sections or leave out one or two. As long as the two purposes of the charter (agreement and commitment) are accomplished, the exact format is certainly negotiable.

Typical Elements of a Charter

•  The Three Ws:

– Why—also known as mission, purpose, objectives, or business case. This is the reason for undertaking the project. It is hard to commit to something unless you understand why it is important.

– What—also known as scope overview or deliverables. This describes what will be accomplished.

– When—also known as milestone schedule. This lists when key portions of this project should be completed. Critical success factors or metrics are a brief listing of what should be monitored closely to ensure that the project is making adequate progress; they are often the basis for the milestone schedule.

•  The Three Hs:

– How much—also known as budget or spending authority. This shows how much the project is expected to cost and may include limits on specific aspects.

– Hazards—also known as risks and assumptions. This identifies what might go wrong, how likely each risk is, the consequences if the risk happens, and what the project team plans to do about each risk.

– How—also known as team operating principles or methods. This describes how the team will function. Organizations often have this established for all project teams and incorporate it by reference.

•  The Three Cs:

– Communication plan—also known as reviews, approvals, and reports. This describes who needs to know what information, when, and in what format.

– Collection of knowledge—also known as lessons learned and lessons shared or post mortems. This describes how this project team will perform this project better based upon what they learned from at least one previous project. A wise sponsor will not sign a charter until the project team has convinced her that they have learned from studying previous projects.

•  Commitment—also known as signature block or roles and responsibilities. This lists who is involved and often describes the extent to which each person can make decisions. It also is how the project team members publicly and personally show their commitment to the project by signing the charter.

The B2B team did the most important thing by constructing the charter that each team member and the sponsor representing top management publicly signed. The charter is pretty good as far as it goes.

The purpose statement includes two of the Ws: what and why. The deliverables expand on the what and the milestone schedule addresses the last W: when.

The three Hs are also covered, but are not very complete. The budget is how much (although it often must have more detail and support). The risks are the hazards. While these are listed, having three high-risk items should raise come concerns about the project approach. Team operating principles (the how) such as “team members will trust each other” seem pretty simplistic and hard to enforce.

Notably missing are most of the Cs. Commitment is the most important C and that is included in the roles and responsibilities. However, the communication plan and the collection of knowledge are entirely missing. Collection of knowledge (lessons learned and shared) will help a project team make better plans based upon the successes and mistakes of previous projects. These lessons learned should also be in the charter. Project teams often put the communication plan off until the planning stage. That is also acceptable—as long as it is accomplished. It is very important to remember who needs project information, when, and in what format, and then to provide that information. When people do not have the information they need, they are likely to guess and the rumors they spread will frequently cause problems for a project. A wise project leader will try to balance the needs for these W, H, and C elements for their charter with their interest in keeping things simple and keeping them moving.