Being agile without a capital ‘A’!

My construction project management students will generally tell me that Agile has no place in construction.  Indeed, many feel that the PMI has alienated engineering and construction by their insistence of the integration of Agile in the Body of Knowledge.  When it comes to the Agile frameworks such as SAFe and Scrum maybe the students are right.

However, I do have a deep suspicion that construction does, and has for some time, used agile approaches we just don’t call them Agile!  Take the idea of ‘gamification’ which features in many Agile facilitation approaches.

Gamification is more than just playing games Continue reading “Being agile without a capital ‘A’!”

What learning legacy are you building?

Project learning legacies

When I visited the UK earlier this year, one thing that really struck me was the emphasis on learning legacies.  This has particularly taken off in the engineering and construction industries where learning legacy portals are being made publicly available. 

These legacy learning sites aim to share knowledge and insights across the profession. As the Crossrail legacy site so aptly puts it – they want to promote a:

‘pinch with pride’

attitude to encourage projects to learn from what has happened before.

Continue reading “What learning legacy are you building?”

When the budget really matters: A church restoration with lottery funding

When Ian Cribbes, took over the project management of the St Edburg’s church conservation work in Bicester he had not quite realized how different it would be from the projects and programmes he had managed for over 30 years for BAE Systems.    The project had a £205,500 budget – somewhat smaller than the multi-million-pound projects he had been involved in his professional career.  This budget came in two phases; phase 1 was for £19,500 and was allocated for the carrying out of development work (the production of plans and reports); phase 2 was for £186,000 and was allocated to the actual works to be carried out.  But, as he is the first to admit, this project proves the point that being small does not necessarily make it simple.  Sometimes tight constraints demand higher levels of capability and attention to detail from the project manager.

The St Edburg’s work was a conservation project to restore its Grade 1 listed building, parts of which date back 900 years and was funded by the Heritage Lottery.  (In the UK work on a Grade 1 Listed Building is categorized as ‘conservation work’ when its purpose is to retain what is there for future generations.  Renovation and restoration, on the other hand, is when work is carried out to take things back to what they were.)

Ian is an experienced project manager and knew he had things to learn as the construction domain, and in particular heritage conservation, was new to him.  What he hadn’t foreseen was how the difference in the funding and the stipulated budgetary control processes would affect the planning and every aspect of the execution of the project.  The budget constraint was absolute – it was this amount and not a penny more!  While the control of spending on commercial projects is important, with most, especially larger, budgets there are usually opportunities for virement – moving costs between account categories.  It is also often the case that there isn’t an absolute cost: when push comes to shove – more money can be found.  This was very much not the case on this project.

Continue reading “When the budget really matters: A church restoration with lottery funding”

Changing IT roll-outs into stakeholder-led implementations

When rolling out new IT infrastructure to a large number of client sites, it is tempting to consider it to be the same project over and over again.  But while the project may be justified in terms of the standardisation of technologies across the corporation, how those technologies get implemented and exploited by each business area may be substantially different.

Philpic1Phil and his team recognised that the crucial factor, the thing that would make-or-break this global project was not the technology but the differing business contexts and stakeholders concerns that each roll-out would deliver into.  A previous attempt at implementation had been a costly failure – the business knew it and needed other options.  Fifty-seven countries impacted;  12,000 applications reduced to just one thousand; the very way that users could access their PCs would change with admin rights removed from all personal computers.  These changes were far-reaching, and their instigation by a central controlling group was unlikely to meet with group-wide excitement and positive emotions!

The business agreed a new approach was necessary.  The first actions taken by the project manager, Phil Urwin, was to send members of his team to visit the twenty hub-countries and establish the stakeholder success criteria.  What would make it good for them at their site… in their words?  Phil’s aim was to convert the technology implementation into a stakeholder-led programme.  Each site visit resulted in a 2-page summary of what mattered to the local stakeholders, and each site was different.  Some reported non-technical users who would need hand-holding –  others reported good technical skills.  Implementation no-go times, PC wants and needs- all captured succinctly in the 2-page mandate for the site implementation.

The rollout project was a large initiative for the company.   At the Head Offices in the UK,  the normal governance structures existed – “these role-based stakeholder engagements were engaged through formal structures, but often there was little interest from them beyond getting a view about the status of the project.  It was with the agenda-based stakeholders that we needed to focus our attention.”  The project established open channels of communication with these groups using webex or whatever medium best suited the participants.  Before and during the implementation this was crucial and resulted in at least weekly meetings.  While the project team took responsibility for the initiation of the meetings, the agenda was driven by the stakeholders – it was definitely their meeting.

With fifty percent of the programme rolled out and four of the largest implementations completed the signs are good.  Customer satisfaction ratings were previously 2-3 and during and post the implementation moved from 4.1 to 4.6.  When asked about the lesson learned from the project, Phil describes two critical areas:

  • A stakeholder-led project. Right from the start, the project outcomes were aligned to the needs and agendas of stakeholders in their own business context.  Phil does not talk about the technology or what it could or could not do – his total focus is on addressing these concerns.
  • Stakeholder-focused, “like-minded team.” It’s not enough for the project and project manager to be stakeholder-focused this attitude and approach must be propagated throughout the whole team. Following the process is not good enough (although the process matters) the understanding and buy-in from every team member is crucial to translating good ideas into a reality on the client site.

Phil Urwin is currently a programme manager with The Grangeside Group.  In September he will be presenting at the New Zealand Project Management Conference in Christchurch on how to recruit the right project manager, develop and keep them. http://www.projectmanagementconference.org.nz/

My thanks to Phil for taking part in the Success Stories Shared initiative.

SSS-logo-smallSuccess Stories Shared is a South African initiative to encourage sharing across the project community. Driven by Louise Worsley & Linky van der Merwe, you can find these stories online on this blog site or at http://www.virtualprojectconsulting.com/success-stories-shared/

If you have a story to share, please do contact us:

  • Louise Worsley: lworsley@pi3learning.co.za