With most organisations reporting more projects that they can resource, stopping projects which are addressing yesterday’s problems may be even more important than not starting those projects designed to address today’s.
In a review of 15 client portfolios, the UK project consultancy group, CITI reported that in annual portfolio prioritisation more than one-third of the projects and programmes approved were carried forwarded from previous years, with 20% having survived two annual review processes. The question perhaps to ask is – does this reflect a real need for long-term projects or is it that management decision making around stopping something is just so much harder than approving a project to start?
Significant portfolio management attention has been paid over the last few years to developing improved governance processes around the front-end selection and prioritisation of projects. But portfolio monitoring and control is a much greyer area and often confusion arises between the governance responsibilities at the portfolio and project sponsorship levels.
Continue reading “Culling projects: A critical portfolio process”
If you’re working in a structured project environment with a project office, the chances are that you are using a right-size governance approach.
What does that mean? Essentially, the level of management attention and oversight varies appropriately, depending upon the characteristics of the project, such as size and complexity, or the level and significance of the impact of the project on the organisation.
Continue reading “From right-size governance to agile governance”
Your development journey
The Future Work Skills 2020 report identifies six drivers for change in our learning practices and ten skills for the future. What are these skills? How can we as project managers use them in the way we define and follow our professional career path in 2019?
Future work skills 2020
Continue reading “Be a Project Management Professional Learner”
When fix-on-failure is not an option
There are projects in which some, maybe even most, of the possible outcomes are so threatening that their occurrence cannot be tolerated. Should something go wrong–should it not go to plan–there is no mitigation available. If you are driving a car and the engine malfunctions, it can be annoying, even frightening, but it’ll be a whole lot more final if the engine malfunctioning is in a spacecraft!
There are degrees of criticality, ranging from safety-critical performance in a nuclear power station to life-and-death rescue missions, to correct compliance to regulations set out in legislation–and in each case project failure always incurs severe penalties.
In these projects, the avoidance of risk drives the planning. This forces a modification to the usual planning process. The focus is to avoid the possibility of events occurring that cannot be managed; it is on the use of processes where the known performance indicates very high levels of reliability with no surprises.
Continue reading “When failure is not an option”