ICCPM Connect Banner

December 2014

CEO Message

Hello and welcome to the final edition of CONNECT for 2014. 

This year has been one of transformation for ICCPM and I hope that we have kept you well informed in relation to how we are transforming ourselves and what we aim to achieve through the transformation process.  No transformation can be successful without the support of all affected and I can honestly say that I and the ICCPM team could not have been any better supported than by our Chairman, Mr Chris Jenkins and all of our board members. I would also like to take the opportunity in this edition to acknowledge some very special supporters who have contributed individually to our success, Mr Harry Bradford, (name deleted on request), Dr John Davies, Mr Boyd McCarron (Cordelta), and our friends at QUT.

I was lucky enough to be invited to attend a workshop facilitated by Ms Susan Goldsworthy in October of this year that focussed on a concept called ‘Safe Base Leadership’, a joint publication with George Kohlrieser who is a hostage negotiator turned leadership consultant.  The core premise of ‘Safe Base Leadership’ is that we all have safe bases in our lives that enable us to feel secure to do the things that we not only want to do but all of those things that we must do.  This year my safe bases have been my husband and son, the Chairman and Board of ICCPM and my exceptional and dedicated small team of Diane, Cathy and Kate. I only hope that I too have provided a safe base for others to be exceptional and as my good friend Jeannie Kahwajy would say help them to move from good to great.

Thank you to partners, members, supporters and friends of ICCPM for your continued and renewed support of the organisation as we move toward consolidating and refocussing on what is important to you and the broader complex project management community.  We have had a number of successes this year including our Annual Conference in Paris, the establishment of the DMO/Industry Project Management Forum, the ICCPM Opinion Column, a range of member events, increase in connections and members, and the development of the ICCPM Complexity Awareness course. 

We have continued to develop strong and beneficial relationships with organisations such as the International Association of Commercial and Contract Managers (IACCM), the Australian Risk Policy Institute (ARPI), the International Project Management Association (IPMA), the Australian Institute of Project Managers (AIPM), and APMG-International, on top of the existing relationships we have had for some time.  This network proves that working collaboratively increases capability exponentially when we are all focussed on the success of project managers and the delivery of successful projects.

This edition of the CONNECT newsletter will provide you a complete update on what we have been doing since the last edition as well as some additional links and information for you to look at over the Christmas break.

I am very keen to receive any feedback that you may have for future issues. This is a vehicle for us to deliver what is meaningful for you, so please don’t hesitate to let us know what you would like to see more (or less) of.

We wish you a very merry Christmas and a joyous new year. Be safe, healthy and happy, rested and ready to tackle any and all of the challenges and opportunities that 2015 is guaranteed to bring.

 

Deborah Hein,

MD/CEO

ICCPM Christmas Closedown

 
ICCPM will close down over the Christmas break from 24 December.  We'll be back in the office on 5 January 2015.
We hope you have a safe and happy break!

 

2015 Annual Conference

Save the Date!

We are very excited to announce that after five years in Europe we are bringing our Annual Conference to Australia.  The conference will be in Canberra, ACT and we hope to see you there!

ICCPM 2015 Annual Conference

Date: 27 - 29 October 2015

Location:  Canberra, ACT, Australia

Watch this space, and our website for updates...

CPM Opinion Column

What does risk look like in a complex project, and how should we address it?

We hope you enjoy the second in our opinion column series: What does risk look like in a complex project, and how should we address it?

Thank you to our opinion column contributors: Donata Garrasi, Dr Stephen Grey, Deborah Hein, Dr Richard Barber and David Gordon.

If you would like to contribute to a future column, please contact Deborah Hein.

 

DEBORAH HEIN

MD/CEO ICCPM

STEPHEN GREY

Associate Director Broadleaf

DONATA GARRASI

Senior Advisor, OECD

The concept and therefore process of risk management is not new to any of us, in fact if we haven’t been filling out risk matrices and risk logs slavishly then we’ve been failing in our compliance duties as project managers.

My experience comes from being involved in many reviews of projects and in particular, working on two major acquisition projects concurrently. Both projects should have been deemed to be complex projects from the outset and weren’t, both were going through commercial settlement processes, both were in significant performance trouble and required intense management.  When going through the numerous and constant reviews and scrutiny that management always imposes on projects in trouble, we were asked one day by a very senior executive “do you have a risk log?” as if a risk log was the solution to our problems and would make everything better.  We responded quite calmly that we managed risk every minute of every day and a spreadsheet was not going to make that task any easier or any more successful.  As you would expect our response was not met with much support and we rushed away to meet that executive’s need to see a risk log. The risk log did not give that particular executive any more information than he already had nor did we present any risks that he was not expecting to see, as that would have been a significant waste of effort.  If in fact our project status report and associated narratives had been read, it would have been quite obvious that we had moved from a project management approach to a risk and opportunity management approach for the management of the projects concerned.  Not only was it the right thing to do it was also the only way we could have achieved the results that we did.

In complex projects and business environments some of the most significant risks become issues or missed opportunities as a result of the inability to make decisions. We are taught in most disciplines to always seek as much information as we possibly can to help us make better decisions. As we know complex projects exhibit varying degrees of emergence, uncertainty and change, so the information we have today may not necessarily be useful tomorrow. We must become comfortable to make decisions with the information available at the optimal time that the decision is needed, and we must be comfortable and willing to address the risks and opportunities that emerge as a result of that decision.

Risk management has an interesting relationship with complexity. Established approaches to project risk management are based on a classical linear project execution model. The rise in truly complex projects represents both an opportunity and a need for fresh thinking.

Complexity is sometimes seen as a source of risk in itself, one of the factors to be considered during a risk assessment. At the same time, emergent behaviour presents interesting challenges for the risk management process, the way we understand and seek to modify risk to help us achieve beneficial outcomes.

Risk management has been plagued by attempts to embellish the important principles distilled into the standard ISO 31000. These elaborations generally do little more than divert resources into unproductive effort. It would be a mistake to respond to complexity in projects with a new flight of risk management fancy. The core of sound risk management is not affected by the nature of the system to which it is applied. The effect of uncertainty on objectives, the standard’s definition of risk, is a valuable concept no matter what our objectives or how we pursue them.

In the previous ICCPM opinion column, Terry Williams set out a pragmatic and useful way to view project complexity. He said: “A project becomes particularly complex when it combines three effects: it is very complicated (lots of parts and lots of interconnections), it is highly uncertain (so there are likely to be many changes or disruptions) and it is heavily time-constrained (so there is no time to sit back and re-plan sensibly – disruptions need working-around immediately)”.

In the face of real complexity and emergent behaviour, we need to relax our insistence on using detailed plans and forecasts as the baseline for understanding risk, yet we must know what success means. Our attention has to shift to definitions of success that can survive mid-course adjustments as we respond to evolving circumstances. This will be challenging for those drilled in the idea that success means being on time, on budget and within specification.

Other developments are likely to involve shorter monitoring and review cycles based on large amounts of small observations, closer integration of risk management with change management, and greater autonomy to act on uncertainty at lower levels in the management team guided by light constraints rather than rigid centralised controls. Weak signal detection will be increasingly valuable to make emergent behaviour visible while there is time to react.

This means drawing on the observations of people involved in executing work, rather than only involving management and supervisory personnel.  Information gathering has to be open to important matters arising that have not been contemplated in the design of the reporting process. This is a role for which narrative capture techniques may be useful.

Discovering how to manage risk in complex projects is itself an exercise in managing complexity. We need to experiment and test ideas on several fronts so that we can identify what works and build on it.

If you are managing a complex project aimed at reducing violent conflict, stabilising a country, and consolidating peace in the Middle East, Africa, or the Pacific anything that will make violence more attractive or accessible than dialogue and peace is the critical risk you should try to understand and manage. If you don’t, you will unlikely deliver results.  

In addition, in conflict affected and high risk areas there are more “traditional” risks you should be aware of and address that relate to the context, your interventions, and the role of your organisation or company. The Development Assistance Committee of the OECD calls these risks contextual, programmatic, and institutional.[1]

Contextual risks include the range of potential adverse outcomes that could arise in an unstable context, e.g. risks of political destabilisation, a humanitarian crisis, cross-borders spill-overs. They are caused by such factors as governance failure, competition for resources, natural hazards, and socio-political tensions.

Programmatic or operational risks relate to the risks of programme failure, i.e. the potential for interventions not to achieve their objectives or to exacerbate contextual risks. Risk factors include many of the risks outlined above, institutional and political features, inadequate understanding of the context and of what needs to be done; management, planning, and operational failures. 

Institutional risks are the potential consequences of intervention for the organisation or company and their staff. They range from management, security, and fiduciary failure to reputational or political damage. These and the risk of corruption are areas of highest sensitivity.

So, how do you manage and reduce these risks, first and foremost the risk of violence prevailing on peace and dialogue?  The answer depends on the context and on the role of your organisation or company within these environments. The golden rules include:

  • Understand the context, the actors, the dynamics and the incentives for picking up arms. This analysis must be the basis for designing, implementing, and monitoring your interventions and your risk management strategies.
  • Promote multi-stakeholder and inclusive dialogue as a key part of your strategy to achieve the results and to identify and jointly manage the associated risks (e.g. joint risk assessment).
  • Make communication about what you are doing and how a key part of your risk management strategy.
  • Set up mechanisms to jointly manage risks with partners (e.g. pool funds, joint risk management teams).
  • Revise and adapt your strategy and operations to respond to the changing risk environment (e.g. remote management systems to operate in cases of limited access, third-party services to monitor corruption and fiduciary risks and security conditions).

Organisations and companies that are in the business of reducing violence and building peace, or that simply operate in conflict affected and high risk areas, must have the right people, capacities, mechanisms, and strategies to understand and address the risks related to what they are trying to achieve, and to the process of doing so. This is not a side business, it must be their core business.

[1] Development Assistance and Approaches to Risk in Fragile and Conflict Affected States, OECD-DAC, 2014

RICHARD BARBER

Risk IQ

DAVID GORDON

General Manager - Engineering (CCSM), ASC

I take a wide view of risk because complex projects involve diverse sources of risk.  Some arise from discrete events - such as a change in the economy, new competitors, or most of the project team getting flu at the same time. They may be difficult to deal with but usually they are not hard to identify, analyse or document.

However many sources of risk are already present yet have uncertain, systemic consequences.  They create subtle, inter-connected, evolving and emergent risks to project success that are difficult and perhaps impossible to measure, analyse or to deal with in parts.  An example of this is a project manager who lacks experience or key capabilities. 

Projects are also influenced by “hidden” sources of risk such as those sensitive risks that are difficult to fully express in written risk registers or reports.  They often relate to human capability, biases, habits, commercially sensitive information or relationships.  Such sources of risk are common, powerful and yet are often poorly managed.

What to do?  Working on risks one by one is the least effective approach to uncertainty in a complex environment.   Instead, we must look for systemic responses - that is, responses that ripple across the whole project environment to reduce threats to success and to enable improvement, opportunity taking and innovation for best possible outcomes.  There are two key approaches to this.

First, work on all risks at the same time, rather than one by one.  Typical tools to help with this include risk pattern analysis, risk relationships analysis and risk mapping.  No matter what the approach, working with project stakeholders to include multiple perspectives and to open our thinking to challenge is a critical factor in effective (complex) risk analysis.  Armed with rich insight into project risks, it is possible to develop systemic responses that influence multiple risks over time and that provide best “bang for buck” for the project owner.

The second approach is long term and inherently systemic.  It is to focus on building the capabilities required for project success. The only effective response to truly emergent risks is to build an aware, robust, resilient, responsive project organisation.  This requires investment and has associated costs, but it is the single most pervasive and powerful way of working on all kinds of risks - emergent or otherwise. 

A parting comment.  If you want to focus on just one way to improve risk management in complexity, you should work to enhance the quality of decision making processes and behaviours.   Making effective decisions in uncertainty requires capable leadership behaviours including transparency, collaboration, robust analysis and taking considered risks.  In complex projects with high levels of uncertainty, leadership and how decisions are made lie at the absolute heart of risk management.

Risk does not exist on Complex Projects!

And I am banning the phrase ‘Risk Management’ on any project; complex or traditional.

Complex projects are challenging enough and too often I see only ‘risks recorded’.  But what if we actually did ‘Risk and Opportunity Management’?  What if our project leadership was prepared to acknowledge the size of the challenge and the success, set out the options, build support for and drive solutions that manage risks and opportunities”.

Commitment and Communication:  I was fortunate to work for a Project Leader once who quoted ‘Hope is not a strategy’; and as such, risk mitigation and opportunity realisation without a Whom, What and When is just that – an expression of hope!  It is imperative that complex projects have properly planned and resourced mitigation and realisation actions at the level of the project best suited to deliver on these commitments.  In addition, it is essential that these are aggregated in a manner that supports effective communication.  Complexity requires risk and opportunity Data is summarised into Information, and in turn synthesised into Knowledge to ensure the Wise leadership of complex projects (The DIKW Pyramid).

Contextualisation and Identification:  The uncertainty associated with complexity certainly makes it harder to define observable risk and opportunity events, both for identification and mitigation (risk) / realisation (opportunity).  The meaningful aggregation of numerous risks and opportunities is essential to focus attention.  On complex projects, it may be preferable to anchor these around conditions or events – ie single observable event, with multiple causes and impact ranges; with some rigor around combining probability and impact estimates.   Nevertheless, they need to be credible and communicated in a language that all stakeholders understand.

Tools and Leadership:  Quantitative modelling on complex projects is particularly useful for both risk and opportunity (and uncertainty) if the team maintains the integrity around inputs, avoids overly detailed models (The KISS Principle) and uses the outcomes to support decisions and actions.  Complex Project Management is about the management of risk, opportunity and uncertainty in delivering project outcomes; especially abrupt and irreversible emergent effects that escalate rapidly.  Agile processes and leadership is required to respond to these emerging effects.  Whilst working on a project some years back, I recall the project team lacked the ‘Opportunity’ half of a Risk and Opportunity Register.  Rather than spending hours discussing what it could/should be, they simply started with an agreed vision and commitment to chase Opportunities.  They set up brainstorming sessions and a spreadsheet, assigned actions and set up support meetings and reviews.  The team delivered on just over $6M of Opportunities which aided in the final delivery and acceptance of their ‘Red’ project. 

As with most areas of traditional Project Management, properly tempered reductionist approaches remain reasonably valid.  By managing Risks alone we are acting only on the down-side of projects and locking our teams into ‘risk averse’ and ‘pessimistic’ ways of thinking. 

Complexity demands words, actions and leadership that is ‘cautiously optimistic’ as both Risk and Opportunity exists on Complex Projects!

 

ICCPM Activities

The following are a just few of the activities that ICCPM has been engaged in over the past three months.  We held a breakfast seminar with Hudson on the generational shift in workplaces, the inaugural DMO/Industry Project Management Forum, two Systems Thinking courses, an upgrade of the Digital Gateway, and finally, our website developers, Agileware are developing a members area for our website.

Breakfast Seminar

28 November, EQ Cafe, Canberra, Australia

ICCPM and Hudson held a very successful breakfast seminar to present Hudson's research and report on generational differences in the workplace.  The report can be found here and a brief summary of the event with photos can be read here.

DMO/Industry PM Forum

The inaugural meeting of the DMO/Industry PM Forum was held in Canberra on 12 November.  This forum will increase alignment between defence and industry and allow the parties to get to know each other and appreciate how each organisation operates.  It has an enterprise focus and recognises how important it is for defence and industry in Australia to understand each other and learn how to work more effectively together to improve the delivery of complex projects and programs.  If you would like more information on this forum, please contact Deborah Hein.

Systems Thinking Courses

ICCPM, in conjunction with QUT, ran two successful Systems Thinking courses in Canberra in September and Brisbane in October.  This course takes a holistic approach to complex problems and participants were introduced to a range of systems thinking methodologies that enable them to address complex projects and programs in creative and holistic ways.  It challenges assumptions about traditional hard systems linear approaches when managing projects and programs in the complexity space.  For information about courses in 2015, please contact Cathy Baljak or visit our Education page.

Digital Gateway

ICCPM and CSIRO have been working together to upgrade the Digital Gateway.  The updated site will go live early in 2015; watch our website for updates.

Members Area

Our website developers, Agileware, are creating a members area for the ICCPM website.  This will allow members of ICCPM to share and comment on content, start discussions, participate in conversations and more.  It will be up and running in the new year and we will keep you updated on progress.  If you would like to join ICCPM or have a query about your membership, please contact Kate Hubbard or visit our Membership page.

Website updates

Here is a selection of the updates we've added to our website over the past few months:

Systems Thinking and Complex Project Management

We are delighted to announce the release of the Training Calendar for 2015 and will add more dates and courses as these become available.

DateLocationCourse
18 - 20 FebruaryQUT Garden Points Campus, BrisbaneSystems Thinking and Complex Project Management
17 - 19 MarchQUT Executive Education Facility, CanberraSystems Thinking and Complex Project Management
9 - 11 JuneQUT Executive Education Facility, CanberraSystems Thinking and Complex Project Management
8 - 10 JulyQUT Garden Points Campus, BrisbaneSystems Thinking and Complex Project Management
1 - 3 SeptemberQUT Executive Education Facility, CanberraSystems Thinking and Complex Project Management

Cost: $2,750 + GST per person. A 10% early bird discount is available up to 2 months before course delivery and a further 10% discount is offered to ICCPM members.

The course is designed to introduce leaders and enabling staff to the concepts of systems thinking to manage complex projects. The course will benefit senior and aspiring project managers, key project management staff, commercial managers, supply chain managers, portfolio managers and key advisors independent of sector or program type.  The course enhances understanding of management of complex projects. It provides a conceptual bridge, extending traditional analytical tools of senior members into the field of managing complex projects. The course uses real-world examples to take participants through strategic imperatives within complex systems, as well as organisational and holistic systems approaches, so that viable project systems can be designed and managed, and emerging problems can be solved. The course also considers organisational strategy, stakeholder needs, and project delivery architecture. It will be facilitated by Dr Erin Evans or Dr Geoffrey Abbott from Queensland University of Technology’s Faculty of Business.

The course is fully catered and participants will receive a certificate of attendance and 10 CPD points.

Here’s what previous participants said about the Systems Thinking and Complex Project Management course:

I attended the three day Systems Thinking and Complex Project Management course conducted by ICCPM and the QUT and was thoroughly satisfied with the professionalism of the course. The facilitator, Dr Erin Evans, clearly had passion for the subject and was successful in engaging participants and explaining the core concepts. The course introduces a number of innovative analytical tools that can be used in managing complex project issues. The course utilises a number of very interesting case studies that practically shows how the tools can be implemented. I would highly recommend the course to any individual or team involved in project management. - George Kadmos - September 2014

The Systems Thinking and Complex Project Management course was both informative and stimulating. The course was interactive allowing participants to learn and learn through practice. I would recommend the course to anyone that works in project management and simply wants to learn a better way of thinking and organising your work. - Carolyn Raine, Project Manager - September 2014

Complexity Awareness Course

ICCPM is developing a Course in Complexity designed to suit everyone from project managers looking to develop their awareness and understanding of complex environments and how to work within these to anyone with an interest in complexity and complex environments. We continue to work on the application for course accreditation under the Australian Qualification Standards and have named the course 'Certificate IV in Complexity Awareness’.  This is a more appropriate name as it properly defines the course outcomes and also provides ICCPM with opportunity to design a Diploma of Complexity Management course in the future.

A pilot of the first unit “Introduction to Complexity” was conducted on 25 September. The one day unit was exceptionally well supported by our partners with 20 participants from ASC Pty Ltd, Thales, Boeing, DMO, BAE Systems and Airservices Australia. The feedback received on the day was very positive.
The eight units in the Complexity Awareness Course are as follows:

If you would like more information on the Complexity Awareness course, please contact Cathy Baljak or Deborah Hein.

Risk Mitigation - what's your score?

Dr Philip Crosby is Assistant Director: Western Australia for one of CSIRO’s National Facilities. He is a business strategist and a major projects specialist, with a PhD in high-technology mega-projects. He lectures and publishes widely on this topic, and his latest eBook “Success in Large High Technology Projects - What Really Works” is published by the ICCPM and available through Amazon.

If you would like to contribute to our website, or this newsletter, please contact Deborah Hein or Kate Hubbard.

Risk mitigation – what’s your score?

Phil Crosby MICCPM

Ask about risk management in almost any complex project, and you’re likely to be presented with some form of table listing various risks, often ranked by severity, with many of the highest risk exposures “mitigated” by control measures and demoted to safer (non-red!) scores. These   conventional style risk plans, underpinned by likelihood and consequence ratings derived from coloured look-up tables, certainly give the impression of a scientific treatment of project risk. But if you then ask more searching questions around the frequency of updates and reviews of risk tables, or verification of the effectiveness of mitigation plans, don’t be surprised to see ‘cracks’ appearing. However, perhaps such lack of ongoing attention matters little, since a growing number of researchers suggest serious flaws in this standard method of risk management. Awati (2014) sums up these concerns, drawing on work by both Hubbard and Cox, each theorising that such arbitrarily chosen (and likely biased) risk ratings are mostly worthless.

Nonetheless, project management courses, and PMBOK style guidebooks mean that risks of all kinds (including those that for which there is no statistical probability distribution) will likely continue to be assessed and managed by traditional means, and to be fair, the process does at least portray a view of known risk exposure at a point in time. But how good is the method in practice? I suggest that investment of a couple of hours can pay handsome dividends as a self-test and learning exercise – for both practitioner, and the organisation. Here’s a suggested approach:

1.     Set aside a time (ideally just ahead of a gate review), when you and at least some other project leads can focus on the project risk table and control plan(s).

2.     Examine a few examples of the assessed risks with the highest impacts, and their controls and/or mitigation plans.

3.     Now ask these questions:

a.     In retrospect, were these actually among the highest impact risks?

b.    Did they materialise (impact or threaten the project) in the predicted way?

c.     Were the mitigation measures or controls effective in reducing impact?

d.    In the light of the above, can we do better at ranking our exposure profile?

e.     Do we need to change, or implement new, controls?

4.     Allocate a time to update the risk plans to capture and embed the new view of project risk.

The above task will freshen up the risk register and better prepare the project, and its people, for periodic review. However there is one other aspect that is likely to ‘fall-out’ of the exercise. Working through (or brainstorming) potential project risk can only help reveal and rate the set of known exposures and cannot cope with non-specific, or intangible, risk in complex projects. As humans, we are optimists, extrapolate poorly from past events, and we are generally reluctant to plan for non-rational, unexpected negative impacts. This idea is most highly developed by Taleb (2010) who classifies such events as ‘Black Swans’. Green (2012) adds the crucial point that project planners should not be fooled by the statistically insignificant frequency of Black Swans, but instead should pay close attention to the potential catastrophic consequences. Something we are much better at when dealing with personal e.g. investing our own money, or caring for children.

So, how might complex projects be better shaped in terms of risk? First, since the unknown cannot be planned in detail, I suggest investing in preparedness not prediction. Green (2012) promotes ‘uncertainty spotting’ skills; the early seeking out and challenging of threats and assumptions through active awareness – especially geopolitical and economic developments at the project boundary. The trick here is to develop an atmosphere of vigilance and preparedness among project team leaders.

The second approach to building defences against Black Swans in complex projects is two-pronged: (i) establish a contingency reserve against estimated risk cost, combined with (ii) the early appointment of a ‘proto’ task force panel(s) kept in dormant readiness to offer expert advice against unanticipated events. Cost estimation of risk, which is admittedly a highly speculative process, is well covered in Baccarini’s (2006) catalogue of formal risk-pricing processes and worth a look. Promptly deployable task forces, coupled with access to project contingency reserves provide fast and practical resilience measures for troubled projects.

To summarise, if the traditional risk rating approach is ‘your thing’, then work through it non-mechanistically, frequently, and lift your success through application of learning and experience. And finally, actively open your mind to the potential negative consequences of a Black Swan event.

 

References:

Awati, K, 2014, ‘On the limitations of scoring methods for risk analysis’, viewed on 9 February 2014, http://eight2late.wordpress.com/2009/10/06/on-the-limitations-of-scoring-methods-for-risk-analysis/.

Baccarini, D, 2006. he maturing concept of estimating project cost contingency – a review. Department of Construction Management, Curtin University of Technology, Perth, WA.

Crosby, P. 2013. Success in large high-technology projects: what really works, ICCPM, Australia, <http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00GU7X3QU/ref=rdr_kindle_ext_tmb>

Green, N, 2012. 2012. Keys to success in managing a black swan event, Aon Risk Solutions White Paper, viewed 17 January, 2014, <http://www.aon.com/risk-services/thought-leadership/report_black_swan_event_whitepaper.jsp>

Taleb, N, N, 2010. The black swan: the impact of the highly improbable, 2nd edn, Random House, USA.

2014 Annual Conference

A selection of presentations from the 2014 Annual Conference in Paris are now available to view through the conference summary page on the ICCPM website (you must be logged in to access them): ICCPM's 5th Annual Conference Summary.  If you have any problems accessing the videos or logging in please contact us: admin@iccpm.com

ICCPM would like to thank the PM Channel for their fantastic work in filming and producing these videos for us.  

The PM Channel provides on demand project management training and development for project managers.  It is created by Provek, a company wholly owned by HCS Group Charity Limited (Charity Number 1069113) to which it gift aids its profits for the advancement of education.

The Power of Project Leadership

The Power of Project Leadership by Susanne Madsen is released 3 January 2015 and aims to transform project managers into effective project leaders.

This book will teach project managers how to feel more confident and assertive, handle conflict and poor performance, build a team of critical thinkers, and be comfortable taking risks and standing out as a leader.

The book describes what good project leadership looks like and explains how to make the transition using concrete tools and strategies. With underlying theories to help the reader understand how teams and individuals are motivated, it ensures that project managers lead with vision, continuously improve and innovate, work with intent, empower the team, get closer to stakeholders, remain authentic and establish a solid foundation for their projects.

The book has a practical and engaging approach and references over 25 interviews with leading project management experts and thought leaders who themselves have made the transition from project manager to project leader. These experts come from a variety of sectors and companies; including Expedia, British Gas, Standard Bank, Verizon Enterprise Solutions, and the UK Government.

Pre-ordering and more information on the author and The Power of Project Leadership can be found here: http://www.powerofprojectleadership.com/

Partners

   
Boeing blue_large_resized
   
   
QUT Business School 

 

Contact

International Centre for Complex Project Management
Level 2, Equinox 3, 70 Kent St
Deakin ACT 2600 Australia
Phone: +61 2 6120 5110

Subject to copyright. ICCPM has taken reasonable care to ensure that all content is correct and up-to-date at the time of publication. This document remains the property of the International Centre for Complex Project Management. No part of it may be reproduced by any means without the prior written permission of the International Centre for Complex Project Management. For further information and requests for distribution please contact: admin@iccpm.com

 

 

Key Partners