Tag Archives: Project Managers

The Agile Dilemma – It Is Time to Rethink PM Approach

Articles, , ,

(This article was first published in the Critical Path, the monthly newsletter of PMI Sydney Chapter publish in June 2024)

In the evolving landscape of project management, a critical question lingers in the minds of many practitioners: Is Agile, in its myriad forms, truly enhancing our ability to manage projects effectively? While Agile methodologies have dominated discussions and practices over the past decade, recent trends and observations suggest a potential shift in the paradigm.

The Evolution of Project Management Methodologies

Project management has a rich history of evolving methodologies, each developed to address the specific needs of its time. In the 1950s, the Program Evaluation Review Technique (PERT) and the Critical Path Method (CPM) were introduced, providing a structured approach to managing complex projects with a focus on scheduling and resource allocation. The 1980s saw the rise of the Waterfall model, a linear and sequential approach that became the standard in industries like construction and manufacturing.

However, the turn of the millennium brought a significant shift with the introduction of Agile methodologies. The Agile Manifesto, published in 2001, emphasised flexibility, customer collaboration, and responsiveness to change. This new approach revolutionised software development and soon expanded to other industries, promising increased adaptability and faster delivery.

The Rise of Hybrid Models: A Departure from Pure Agile?

The increasing adoption of hybrid models raises an important question: Are Agile purists beginning to distance themselves from traditional Agile frameworks? The PMI’s latest Pulse of the Profession report (15th Edition, 2024) indicates a decline in Agile adoption for the first time in so many years, alongside a decrease in the decline of traditional project management methods. This trend points towards a growing preference for hybrid approaches, which blend elements of both Agile and traditional methodologies.

As clearly indicated in Figure 1 below, the adoption of Agile is declining after peaking at only 27% among project managers, while Predictive (waterfall/traditional) decline is easing, but still close to double of Agile adoption (43.9% vs 24.6%). While the adoption of Hybrid is steadily increasing, it is doing so at the account of Agile rather than Predictive.

Hybrid models are not a novel concept. They have been employed for years, driven by the principle of fit-for-purpose. This approach tailors project management practices to the unique needs and contexts of individual projects, rather than adhering rigidly to a single methodology. The essence of hybrid models lies in their flexibility and adaptability, allowing project managers to draw from a diverse toolkit to achieve the best outcomes.

The Reality of Hybrid Project Management

But is hybrid truly hybrid? Or is it simply a rebranding of what seasoned project managers have been doing all along? The term ‘hybrid’ suggests a new, innovative approach, yet in practice, it often reflects the pragmatic application of established principles. The shift towards hybrid models highlights a fundamental truth: effective project management is not about rigid adherence to one methodology but about selecting the right tools and techniques for the job at hand.

A case in point is the construction industry, where hybrid methodologies have long been in use. Projects often start with Predictive planning for initial phases like design and procurement, and then transition to Agile techniques during the construction phase to manage changes and unexpected issues more effectively.

Agile’s Waning Influence?

The proliferation of new Agile variants raises questions about the methodology’s core effectiveness. Are these new ‘flavours’ of Agile necessary, or do they signify a broader issue – that Agile, as a concept, may have lost some of its initial lustre? As organisations and project managers continually seek to justify Agile’s relevance, there is a growing sense that we might need to rethink our approach to managing projects.

Reframing Project Management

At its heart, project management is a means to an end, not an end in itself. The ultimate goal is to introduce new ideas, products, and services in a well-planned and efficient manner. This objective transcends any specific methodology, be it Agile, Predictive, or hybrid. The focus should be on achieving project goals and delivering value, rather than on the labels we attach to our methods.

As the project management community navigates this evolving landscape, it is crucial to maintain an open mind and embrace a flexible approach. We must prioritise the success of our projects over strict adherence to any particular methodology. By doing so, we can ensure that we remain effective and responsive to the unique challenges and opportunities that each project presents.

Conclusion

The current discourse around Agile and hybrid methodologies invites us to reflect on the essence of project management. It is a reminder that managing projects is fundamentally about enabling innovation and delivering value. Whether through Agile, hybrid, or traditional methods, our focus should always be on finding the best way to achieve our project goals. As we move forward, we should remain committed to the principles of effective project management, irrespective of the labels we use.

By recognising that the goal of project management is to facilitate the successful introduction of new ideas, products, and services, we can better navigate the complexities of our projects. This perspective allows us to move beyond methodological debates and focus on what truly matters: delivering value and achieving project success.

Stakeholder Management: Deliberate Relationship Building

Articles, , , , , ,

(This article was first published in the Critical Path, the monthly newsletter of PMI Sydney Chapter publish in February 2023)

Stakeholder Management is one of the key pillars of effective project management.  Managing their expectations and keeping them in the know of project progress and status are good practices that work well with committed and already engaged stakeholders.  However, to surpass good project management towards making a real difference by delivering long-impacting projects, you need to go beyond merely managing your stakeholders: you need to deliberately build a purposeful, collaborative, and positive relationship with your stakeholders – particularly the difficult ones.

Melanie McBride in her PMI Global Conference 2012 Paper “A PM, a bully, a ghost, and a micromanager walk into a bar – difficult stakeholders and how to manage them” provided an innovative description of effective stakeholder management: “the purposeful crafting of a collaborative and positive relationship that truly separates the very good project managers from the superb project managers.”  Let me explain the impactful words in this interesting definition:

  • Purposeful: deliberate and planned stakeholder management and relationship building.  Doing it ‘on purpose’, not by chance or as a by-product of other Project Management activities.  Devise a clear plan for relationship building.
  • Crafting: An excellent use of the word ‘crafting’ rather than ‘building’.  It is important to ‘craft’ the relationship with art and innovation.
  • Collaborative: A good relationship is always a two-way relationship built on collaboration – give and take.
  • Positive: Always look for the positive side of things: search for the ‘silver lining’ and promptly address any potential setbacks.

To build such an effective relationship, you should be aware of the characteristics of your stakeholders.  The more ‘difficult’ your stakeholders are, the more effort you need to put in crafting the relationship.  Here are some examples of difficult stakeholders and few suggestions on how to deal with them.

The Bully, that stakeholder who dominates you and others through aggressive force of will.  There aren’t many around, but they derail your project while they are thinking they are doing the right thing.  For bullies, you need to establish a strong ‘first impression’.  Don’t hesitate to confront, explain with confidence, and persuade.  The important thing is to keep the discussion professional and avoid being dragged into “winners vs losers” game.  Look them in the eye (or in the camera if virtual meeting) and be ready to call ‘timeout’ and regain your position if needed.  One way you can deal with a bully is to give them an assignment to produce data to support their argument.  If they are unable to produce supporting data, they are likely to notice the flaw in their argument.

The Ghost, the stakeholder who doesn’t return your calls, emails, or messages and are ambivalent to your project status.  You should aim to limit your project’s dependence on their input and direction.  Agree with them on how far you will run without their direct input, knowledge, or approval.  Ensure that they remain happy and be extremely concise and direct in your communication with them.  One thing you can do is consider whether they can delegate their authority to another, more engaged, stakeholder.

The Visionary, the stakeholder who has the ‘big picture’ of what they want, but they can’t explain it.  You have to be patient with their long talks and twisted tales.  They are usually happy with the project, and they acknowledge how it is important to their future.  Ensure that you drive the discussion into deliverables that will achieve their vision.  It would be good if you can develop early prototypes to review them and discuss them with the visionary stakeholder.  Make sure you are conclusive and explicit about the deliverable and what can and can’t be done – or what is in or out of scope, otherwise you will be dragged into an endless list of amendments and new features.

The Micromanager, the stakeholder who looks for the tiny details and undermines the Project Manager authority.  To satisfy the ‘micromanagement’ desire of your stakeholder, provide consistent, regular, and concise status updates.  Show them “here is how you can help up” in your updates and provide them with actionable items they can work on.  With the current move into ‘virtual’ ways of working where the stakeholder is not physically close to ‘stop by and see how things are going’, a consistent and regular update with actionable items is more important than ever.

The Prisoner, one of the more toxic stakeholders: they don’t want to be on your project, but they are “nominated” (forced) by their managers.  Your main strategy is to see how you can get them off your project – peacefully.  Have a candid discussion with their direct manager and see if they can be assigned somewhere else.  If you are lucky and the prisoner is not disrupting the team dynamics, let them be there.  However, if they are ‘sucking the joy out of the room’ then you need to think seriously about removing them – make them aware that you are going to escalate about them. In conclusion, do your homework: don’t manage your stakeholders in an adhoc manner – have a structured and deliberate plan to deal with them.  A well-crafted email is not enough, you should own and drive the conversation.