MBA Assignment: ‘To conference or not to conference – that is the question.’

Share

History, according to a very simplified version of Marx, is basically a continuum of opposing arguments (dialectic) – with socialism versus capitalism being the most obvious example. Occasionally, minority schools of thought appear on the scene that may, or may not, help to change the course of history (e.g. the Utopians). When you have worked in the HR field for over 30 years you start to experience the same sort of dialectical process in real time. In the late 70’s, before Margaret Thatcher came to power, industrial relations was about management versus unions and, through a dialectic, this confrontational relationship has, by and large, reached a more positive juncture: although there is still a great deal of room for improvement.

The same dialectical process is currently being applied to two apparently opposing forces in management thinking.  In the blue corner we have the evidence-based managers and in the red corner we have those who, for want of a better description, want to eschew the main tenets of conventional management for something less ‘managerial’.  One illustrative manifestation of this latter view is the advent of the ‘unconference‘.

As someone firmly in the EB camp you might think I would want to dismiss such events but actually, as a seasoned conference speaker myself, I have always held the view that there is precious little evidence that conventional conferences are either an efficient or effective method for sharing useful information.  Amongst their numerous flaws are the fact that no one can absorb multiple, death-by-PowerPoint, presentations; only the very best conferences use speakers who actually have some acknowledged expertise and there is never enough time for a thorough debate of the most important issues.  So there has to be a better alternative, and I welcome any suggestions for improvement, but the theme of this ‘unconference’ (which is still a conference – when defined as a meeting of people with a shared interest) was “How HR can use social media to gain a competitive advantage” so surely it undermined its own proposition by resorting to a physical meeting?

As a teacher (who, incidentally, only gets paid if students/delegates continue to value the knowledge I share) I physically meet my MBA class but I also use ‘social media’ when they have problems with their assignments.  So maybe this dialectic process is still working well and, in the true spirit of the unconference organisers, if anyone who attended wants to share some learning with my MBA class then I cordially invite them to offer their own answers to one of the assignments I set (on how strategic HR can influence ‘Intangibles’ – specifically Creativity in this case).  We can then use these for comparison and further discussion.

I will happily publish my own answer on request and share whatever we might learn.  All I ask in return is some evidence that creativity provided a competitive advantage.

Share

68% of projects fail

Share

This flyer, (pictured) from Cranfield University’s School of Management, landed in my mail a couple of days ago and it immediately caught my eye because I wondered if Cranfield were referring to the projects run by its own alumni? Cranfield have been teaching  project management for many years and currently runs an “Executive MSc in Programme and Project Management” and one of the Core Modules on the Cranfield MBA is “Project Management Introduction” with one of its “Learning outcomes” being “able to identify a project, set it up, track it and bring it to completion”.

It transpires though that they were, of course, referring to everyone else’s IT projects and the source of the 68% figure is the Standish Chaos Report (2009) so I thought I would investigate further. The number of projects rated as “successful” between 1994 to 2009 range from 16% to 35% per year. The EB manager could challenge how they define ‘successful’ (for example, just because a project is ‘on budget’ does not necessarily mean the budget was ‘right’) but there are plenty of high profile, project ‘failures’ to support the picture presented here and so, if we take these figures at face value, there is an enormous amount of room for improvement.

‘Project management’ has become almost as much of an oxymoron joke over the years as ‘military intelligence’ or ‘leadership development’ as one large project after another has failed. Some of the biggest ones spectacularly so – take the UK Ministry of Defence’s attack class submarine – Astute – which was about £1 billion and 7 years late when it was finally launched in 2007 -

Or the NHS’s National Programme for IT (NPfIT) which is years late and well over budget. So why do projects fail so often?  What do we need to learn from these failures to make them more successful?

One commentator, Kelly Waters (who also refers to the Standish data under the heading ‘Most IT Projects Fail. Will Yours?’) concluded that some of the common reasons for project failure include “Stakeholder Management and Team issues” : – Insufficient attention to stakeholders and their needs; failure to manage expectations

  • Lack of senior management/executive support; project sponsors not 100% committed to the objectives; lack understanding of the project and not actively involved
  • Inadequate visibility of project status
  • Denial adopted in preference to hard truths
  • People not dedicated to project; trying to balance too many different priorities
  • Project team members lack experience and do not have the required skills
  • Team lacks authority or decision making ability
  • Poor collaboration, communication and teamwork

Kelly’s analysis looks sound to me but maybe an even more thorough, evidence-based, cause-and-effect analysis would have included all of the possible, human reasons behind project failure.  These would have to include: -

  1. The egos and hidden agendas of the main protagonists.  Perhaps no one wants to have to produce a clear business case because then their pet project might not go ahead and they won’t be able to embellish their CV, satisfy their personal ambition or enhance their status.
  2. Maybe the approval process is primarily a political process – for political ends (like another aircraft carrier we don’t need) – rather than to produce something worth having.
  3. Perhaps no one is skilled enough in project scoping and definition (Astute kept being re-designed as it was being built)
  4. Or perhaps no one is prepared to be held accountable and, even if they were, would they be given the authority to control every aspect of the project and its supply chain?

The list of human frailties goes on and therefore evidence-based project management, as with every other aspect of EBM, is inherently a human discipline designed to resolve human system issues, rather than a purely scientific, mechanistic or managerial one.  Only when the project management ‘profession’ accepts that organisational culture has probably the biggest impact on project outcomes will the 35% success rate have much chance of improving significantly. 

A good start, therefore, might be to ensure all project management training courses address these crucial issues at the very beginning, rather than choosing to ignore them and perpetuating the cycle of hope triumphing over experience.  Everyone involved in the project has to be allowed to air their valid concerns without fear of losing their jobs or being deemed to be uncooperative; then these crucial issues actually have to be resolved before any money is spent.  These are the very sort of powerful, ‘human capital’ indicators that EB-HR aims to develop.

I certainly hope this is item number one on the syllabus of Cranfield’s “new and exciting programme” and uppermost in the minds of those running it.  Moreover, if they have some guaranteed ways of resolving these issues I, for one, would recommend it.

Share