To Improve is to Change. To Be Perfect is to Change Often.
Project Costings
Accurately costing out projects can be a challenge. IT-related projects in particular can be very focused on the cost of the technology but overlook the cost of the process and people change. Whilst no ‘one fits all’ model exists I find the 20-30-50 rule to be good enough in most cases. 20% for process change, 30% for technology change and the remaining 50% for people change. Most organisations overlook the people change costs which often undermines the actual benefits realisation of doing the project in the first place.
The last decade has seen a huge growth in project management, to the point where some organisations I have worked with seem to be unable to do anything unless a project is kicked off. The demand for project management skills has also created a whole new ’snake oil’ marketplace filled with methodologies, practitioners and consultants.
To their credit the major project management bodies (OCG, PMI etc.) have done a good job of getting standards and certifications in place however there are still a LOT of rogue practitioners out there.
A lot of organisations I’ve worked with have also not done themselves too many favours by being very loose around their definition of project management and what purpose it actually serves - many figured they just needed project management because everyone around them was doing it. Many went in expecting to deliver projects sooner, with less risk and cheaper than before and are often left wanting when process went wild and few benefits were realised.
I’ve often used a maturity model (see graphic below) to position the project management function within the organisation based on what outcomes the business is after. For example, Maturity Level 1 focuses on managing cost and risk associated with bespoke projects whilst Level 3 concentrates on developing and delivering cross-functional portfolios of projects.
Many organisations experience a disconnect with what they want to achieve and how they position their project management capability. Many are after a portfolio approach to projects but position their project management capability at Level 1. Expecting enterprise-wide efficiencies & reporting when operating at Level 1 is another classic misalignment example. Heavily utilising contract resources in an environment where portfolio-wide continuity and alignment is a primary issue is the other issue I see all too often.
I think its quite timely for organisations to look at the project management investments and 1.) make sure they are positioned & aligned with the wider organisational objectives, 2.) have the right-sized process frameworks & tools in place and 3.) most importantly have the right people on board to help them realise the outcomes they are after.
I would also consider some of the more flexible approaches to solution development such as the Agile/Scrum methodologies as part of a balanced delivery platform.
