Mistake #4: Turning from a project leader into a project secretaryNow, if you want to get the up-to-date information (winning strategy #2) all in one place (winning strategy #3), you are prone to mistake#4: turning into a robot, constantly copying information back and forth.
The project secretary job can be overwhelming. Do you often find yourself running from meeting to meeting, calling and sending dozens of e-mails to your team, requesting status updates or shooting off reminders about the upcoming deadlines? In this case, it might seem that the essence of the project management job is just collecting information and updating the plans. Most of your working hours are spent on gathering data and updating your project schedules. Don’t forget that you still need time to lead your teams. You need to motivate them.
Winning strategy #4: Use the right technology
When you start a project, and then take on several more, you’ll need a reliable tool that will help you to integrate your data. Get a tool that will let you to manage an entire project portfolio, without overloading you with unnecessary routine activities. Tools should make your life easier, not create even more duties for you. While choosing a project management tool, make sure it will truly integrate the project schedules for you and that the schedules will be easy to update. Don’t choose project management software that will make you create a separate “workspace” for each project. Remember that separating project data and schedules is a common mistake #3. Many of traditional project management tools make it really hard for you to make changes to your initial project plan.
Choose a flexible application that will let you easily keep your plans up-to-date. Some Web-based applications (Wrike is one of them) allow your team members to update tasks assigned to them directly in the plan. This saves you lots of time, as you don’t need to collect all the updates and integrate them manually into your schedule. Such a tool will also help you accelerate your delegation skills, as you follow winning strategy #1.
The final post in the series is comming up. At the moment, please share your thoughts on the most commont mistake #4 in the comments. By the way, make sure to check out my new presentation about how various Web 2.0 technologies can help you in project management.
My question: Isn't it also true that too many cooks spoil the soup? Isn't there a difference between updating a task and updating a plan? Of course, those in charge of the project who truly understand its scope and are held accountable for the deliverables have to be able to easily update a project's plan. Set the deliverables, set the budget, set the timelines, assign resources, etc.
But then a team member should be able to easily update the task they've been assigned. What percentage is complete, how many hours, upload files, add notes.
In Wrike that team member can also add new tasks to the project, or even change the timeline of the project if they have the capability to be a project manager at all on the account. Wrike doesn't appear to allow for a project manager to add a team member who has project manager capabilities to a project while locking them out of being able to manage that particular project. Am I missing something? Or is that by design? If by design, I'm curious as to why from a project management best practices point of view. Thanks.
A core concept in all projects is "plan the work, work the plan." If your plan is a list of task with simple dependencies many tools will work. Once you're beyond that "make a list and check it twice" paradigm, web based tools fall apart rapidly.
Resource loading, budget management and forecasting, critical path assessment, complex dependencies and constraints must be managed.
Those performing the work must report their physical percent complete against the plan and you as the project manager would like visibility into how that performance impacts future performance.
Take care to assure the tool and the process you select is appropriate for the problem at hand, not the other way around - picking a tool before you know what problem you're trying to solve. Look for guidance in PM frameworks first, then assess if a proposed tool fulfills the "governance" aspects of those process.
You wouldn't manage the construction of a high rise by making lists and getting status through email. As well you wouldn't manage the company picnic using full US Government certificated program management process.
Understand the problem first, then pick the process, and only then search for tools.
My original question was aimed at Mr. Filev because he sometimes takes the time to plug his product, Wrike, in his posts. And in this case it seemed that this functionality in Wrike goes against best practices. In Wrike, the plan can be changed as it's worked by anyone invited into the project based on their company permissions, not their project permissions (of which this tool seems to have none). That doesn't seem right to me. So I was wondering if I was either missing the point, or misunderstanding the tool.
No matter what tool you use or what process you select to apply with that tool and no matter what type of project your are managing there are 5 immutable principles that must be addressed. This means for any project. From planning the company picnic to flying the Mars.
These are:
• Do You Know Where You Are Going? - Do you know what DONE looks like in some measure that is meaningful to you
• Do you know how to get there? Do you have some plan or schedule to get to DONE?
• Do you have enough time, resources, and money to get there?
• What are the impediments you will encounter along the way? What's going to get in your way?
• How do you know you are making progress? What's the evidence that you're making progress?
These principles are immutable. Going to space station (which we manage a portion of) or planning the picnic both are subject to these principles.
The tools you use to manage using these principles have to be appropriately capable. So when you say you're not building a High Rise, you still need to ask how the proposed tool provides you answers. Andrew's tool provide certain capabilities for certain classes of projects. Knowing when to use the right tool for the right problem and when to apply the right process to that problem is the key to success in any project management paradigm.
Do not start with the tool. Start with the understanding of the problem and the processes needed to solve that problem.
Here's some background on this problem is "starting with the tool." It's common to take that approach when you're a tool maker. It's rare to take that approach when you're a Project Manager.
http://judisohn.posterous.com/frustrated-with-project-management
Since that post I also did a demo of Wrike (which led me to this blog) and I'm dropping it out of the running for the reasons I stated further up.
I am now torn between Project Insight and DreamTeam (which integrates nicely with our CRM, Salesforce, but doesn't have quite flexibility of Project Insight). What I can't do is have 3 or 4 different tools for different types of projects. I know that flies in the face of what you're saying, Glen, but it's just the reality of the situation.
What I'm looking for is something that shows upper management a big picture look at all the organization's projects and where they stand...that shows a project manager where their projects stand (what tasks are complete/incomplete, behind schedule...yes, a task may be incomplete but is it critical to the completion of the project? Can other things move ahead while a task lags behind. Are folks on the project over/under utilized?)...and finally that individual team members (in and out of the organization) can use to see what is expected of them and when on any project they're on (they can't change the plan on the project, they can't see other projects).
I want those views to be clean. No endless discussion threads on every task that someone has to read through and then think, "and what am I supposed to do now?" because the last 4 attached messages are also talking about a television show from the night before. But at the same time, notes relevant to the project should be able to be attached.
I know exactly what I want and don't want out of the tool, so I am not at all distracted by featuritis and "new shiny" in anything I'm looking at. I'm looking for the product that fits the "picture" I have in my head. I am a founder of this organization. I know how we work. I know how we're productive (and not) and so I'm looking for a tool that will enhance our productivity, give us more accountability and metrics, and then get out of the way.
Thanks for the response. You picked up another subscriber to your Blog as well.
Have you looked at any of the SharePoint based tools?
Good post.
To me, this is essential:
Some Web-based applications (Wrike is one of them) allow your team members to update tasks assigned to them directly in the plan. This saves you lots of time, as you don’t need to collect all the updates and integrate them manually into your schedule. Such a tool will also help you accelerate your delegation skills, as you follow winning strategy #1.
So much time has been wasted on updating MS Project Plans and Excel spreadsheets. Tying in workflow and updates via the web is essential for effective project management these days, in my view.
Updating tasks by the task owners is a nice feature and provided on all tools that have a server side from MSFT and Primivera on down. But here's the issue on any non-trival project with independent updates.
You're the PM, I'm a task owner and so are several other tasks owners. I change th start date of a group of tasks - for the right reasons of course. Other's make changes in their finish dates.
You the PM now have a schedule that is not only "off baseline" it is likely no longer even credible, since the integrity of the schedule has been stomped on by others.
From full DoD programs down to XP teams, ALL changes to a baselined entity - from the formal cost baseline to the 3x5 cards stuck on the wall is a "team" face-to-face process. Making these changes in the absence of "formal" approval, be that a node from the Scrum Master to the Change Control Board for the Integrated Master Schedule, is the critical success factor for maintaining this integrity.
The is called "chasing your tail," and is exacerbated by allowing task owners (or work package owners) to make changes to a "controlled" document in the absence of a change control process.
Sound like a handy feature in principle, but in practice creates havoc.
Thank you.
I've looked at so many tools over the past few weeks and I lost count at how many, including Wrike, that I've been forced to dismiss for this very reason. I had one vendor say to me, "Well, we go on the assumption that everyone on the team is on the same page and has the same goals for the project." EXCUSE ME?!? I was beginning to think that I was the only who was crazy for placing this kind of control as such as a high priority in the tool I select for my organization.
If everyone was on the same page, you wouldn't need project managers.
It's that pesky "assumption" thing again.
Hope this answers your question. If you have more questions and comments feel free to contact our support team at tvqqpsuAufbn/xsjlf/dpn. We'll be happy to help! =)
http://www.projectmanagement-training.net/book/chapter7.html
There is a calculation in it that clearly shows what happens if you do too much at the same time. Or if your teammembers do so ("sorry no time to do my work, i had to work on my other 3 projects...")
Wrike is mostly used as a work and task management solution by "accidental project managers" - small businesses, marketing managers, software team leads, etc. It's not a complex/expensive solution focused on advanced scheduling & resource management features, ours is a mix of collaboration and lightweight project management.
Judi, If that's the right mix for you, here're two simple workarounds used by some of our customers:
(a) You can tell people to not change your plans. However, I personally would prefer plan B, which is
(b) PMs more often than not subscribe to changes in Wrike. If you see a particular change that you don't like, you can always roll it back. In such case you could also address the fact that employee saw things differently than you. You could explain the importance of task at hand, or introduce adjustment factor into his next estimates. If after a conversation, you decide that you agree with the change, because the employee presents you with reasonable facts that you missed initially, you get a faster adjustment to the real life conditions than otherwise. In such cases, you might also advice your employees to include a comment listing such new game-plan changing facts along with the change. Every time you analyze the discrepancy and address it, actions of your employees would become more compliant with your strategy, not because the software forces them, but because they understand your goals and expectations. If people know the rules of the game and are repeatedly non-compliant with them, that's a different conversation. That would be an organizational problem.
No matter what your choice is, good luck in your journey.
Regards,
Andrew