› Forums › Managing Risk in Complexity SIG
(MRC SIG) › Working Group B: What principles are important in dealing with complexity?
-
AuthorPosts
-
Up::0
I like Ian’s focus on our work. Only one suggestion re;
watching for common triggers using a risk-based approachI would strike the word “common”, we have all been around the block enough times to be depressed at the ‘common’ failures we see, but I suggest we try and focus on triggers such that in the world of analytics and AI we help set the systems up to detect unplanned transition regardless of if it has happened before (sadly a forlorn hope but I am forever an optimist).
Up::0Team – Looking at the emerging thoughts from the last two meeting, I would offer the following as part of our action going forward in terms of transitions:
– From a transition responsibility point of view, accountability probably falls on all levels of governance leadership: the Project Leader/Manager (who has a unique position of awareness at the execution and stakeholder levels), the Project Sponsor (especially if the Project Leader/Manager becomes incapacitated), and senior governance (in terms of emerging signals from the Board or equivalent organisational bodies, or externally such as at senior political levels). All should be charged with watching for, identifying and alerting the collective leadership about potential or underway transitions to enable an appropriate response.
– The first challenge is recognising (1) when a transition is likely to emerge by watching for the common triggers, or (2) when a transition is underway, which is largely about being aware of project events for those that indicate a stimulus for change.
– Common trigger events we have talked about (or have donned on me) include: the project launch (especially when the project execution team is not ready to launch the project), follow-on gates denoting project phase transitions, key personnel position changes, important execution stakeholder changes (Prime contractor or key suppliers in the supply chain), power dynamics, significant plan variances (e.g. schedule, cost, client needs, workforce availability), heightened levels of stress or burnout in the execution team, or a degree of unexplained chaos somewhere in the project enterprise.
– The second challenge is about the considerations to reflect on regarding action in response, which as Tony mentioned will be shaped by the degree of significance and urgency of the change required – that is, whether it is a planned transition, a deviation, a major disturbance or a change of project fundamentals.
– Other aspects that also could condition one’s response include whether any of the following requirements or circumstances are – or are expected to be – in flux: knowledge levels, level of complexity, vision for the project, strengths or weaknesses within the broad project enterprise, cultural behaviours, stakeholder power balance, relationships, and ability to adapt.
– This can lead one to identify mechanisms for managing transitions such as the following: watching for common triggers using a risk-based approach; succession planning & formal turnover procedures; briefing senior governance & the broader stakeholder community when a transition is or will be in play; and in the case of a major disturbance or a change in fundamentals, engaging the project’s Immediate Action Risk Assessment SWAT Team response to treat the need for accelerated transitions as project crises (e.g. brief senior governance on what you know, what you don’t know, what you are doing next to address knowledge gaps, optional courses of action governance should consider [now, and those worth starting to think about regarding the near future] and when you will brief again)
In terms of next steps perhaps we could:
– consider whether this framework makes sense (responsibilities, triggers and responses), and
– once we have an agreed framework, add to each list of the confirmed elements that matter.
For consideration – Ian
Up::0Hi Group B
Attached are the notes from our shortened meeting on Thursday.
I have asked ICCPM to schedule an additional meeting on 2nd February, and Eliza is now actioning that.
In the meantime, please use the forum to continue our very interesting discussion.
Cheers
Davin
Attachments:
You must be logged in to view attached files.Up::0Interesting article, Stephen. One thing I would add, from my tribulations, is something dubbed the “Mortimer Curve” here in Australia (locals in the Defence sector may recall the “Mortimer Review”, some years ago). Mortimer examined a useful number of projects (I recall twenty or so) and developed a hyperbolic curve of compliance (Y-axis) vs cost/risk (X-axis). I have uploaded an image. Most of the curve was linear, but then it inflects dramatically and the costs of achieving that last 10% of compliance are hyperbolic. This is mainly due to moving from non-development, into development, and all the chaos that ensues from that. Well, in a project I led, the owners of those “last 10%” of requirements just would not concede anything, and it tripled in cost and schedule, chasing that. The benefits from the “first 90%” were deferred and deferred, chasing the last 10%. They are still chasing, years later. I found this non-linearity to be profound and I always look out for it.
Attachments:
You must be logged in to view attached files.Up::0Ian,
Good find on Power Dynamics. In their Masters in Complex PM, QUT teach Critical Systems Heuristics as a tool to help with this. A nice primer at ulrich_csh_intro.pdf . However, I must say that I have never found it useful in practice – not sure why exactly.
I also like the idea of including “transitions” in our ponderings.
Andrew
Up::0Team – I regret this late note, but for those who have time to read it before our imminent meeting, some thoughts:
On Transitions:
– A suggested question for this pursuit: What should practitioners understand about transitions, and how can the potential risks inherent in transitions in complex projects be minimised so as to preserve project momentum in as seamless a way as possible? (Supplemental – Is it a single answer for all transitions – the same action requirement (e.g. as with all risks, identify each type of transition plus potential sources of solutions to mitigate risks, and prepare to take action when the probability of realising any transition risk starts to increase)
– If the transition is in complexity, the other transitions (e.g of a key player, of knowledge required) will likely also be invoked
– I see the Project Leader/Manager (the team leader responsible for execution and delivery) as the monitor of transition risks/needs and the one to address the related risks, which could mean requesting support from senior governance where necessary (e.g. contracting to address knowledge transition gaps, complexity adaptations throughout the enterprise, to address detrimental power dynamics)
– Gates should always require transition considerations and governance needs to ask about them as part of gate process protocols – while noting that gates after implementation starts are rare but knowledge transitions are common (e.g. to meet trials and commissioning)
Power Dynamics – A Primer from the Internet
Of interest, it seems that there are 7 types of power dynamics (coercive, formal, reward, informational, referent and connection) which in transitions highlight a few points:
– Remember that power is (1) rarely evenly distributed, (2) always relative, and (3) usually fluid
– Of the 7 types, formal and coercive power among governance members and other stakeholders are the ones we typically see as most worrisome (understanding those wielding these types of power are products of their past journeys), whereas the others are often available and useful to junior project execution members to counter the first two
– By employing independent peers, power struggles over issues can sometimes by resolved – by getting the parties seniors to understand what triggered their acting out, to let go, to listen to alternative viewpoints more curiously and less biased, and/or by shifting the narrative to shape other perspectives
– Overcoming imbalances in power is about (1) there being mutual respect as a foundational requirement, (2) there being a guaranteed safe space for the lesser powerful party to speak up (e.g. the less powerful is comfortable and is not intimidated by coercive power), (3) the more powerful party agrees with the intent of finding common ground where the essential and possibly minimal set of needs of both/all parties are met, and (4) apologies by either party are not expected
See you all soon – Ian
Up::0Stephen – Wow again! That conjures up a scary narrative with me: a toxic environment throughout such organisations (not just in its project work), the risk of the harm to all caused by whistle blowing, a failure to retain top talent, communications issues with the grass roots who keep secrets from seniors, and I suspect a death spiral unless the firm changes its ways. In the wee company I have, I only once shunned an invitation to assist a company in the 5 years of operation, one that was rumoured to be similar – my response likely being common as a result of its tacit reputation. The company is till operating but seems to be losing business. What a sad state of affairs, especially if it is typical in the industry sector of business nationally. As they say, it is not really about the challenge and the money, but about the people you work for and with. I truly have led a sheltered (and charmed) life … and not surprisingly, I have nothing to offer for such situations. Thanks for the education – Ian
Up::0Ian
It’s useful to rephrase points and restate them. Each time we have the prospect of sparking an additional insight or consolidating material we have already settled.
In the worst examples of the behaviour I described, the dominant management style has been bullying and intimidation with the promise of significant financial bonuses for acquiescing.
A really uncomfortable environment.
Up::0Stephen, I do not think you could have ever paid me enough to do your job with those mine challenges. And this seems to be too long a reply of what I am sure is obvious.
We all know that people are always what this is about, and like everywhere else they need the right SUPPORT and TOOLS – plus if tackling complex stuff, they need to be damn good at their jobs. And the avoidance of the tragic scenarios you last mentioned – or the ways to minimise harm to the people and thus the project when schedule starts to slip.
On support, I have often talked of leadership at all levels in complex projects, and that they need to practice situational leadership with a <u>steady servant leadership default</u>. Few seem to exercise such leadership abilities or even understand them. From my observation (and bias, admittedly), few private sector leaders (and civilians in government) have developed a career based on leadership as their primary skill, as is done in military officer corps in Western nations. Simply stated, leading in stressful situations is about protection of the team based on developed relationships, because it is the work of that team that will minimise harm overall in finding a way forward. And while people always smile when I say “There is only news – not good or bad news, just news”, but I believe this is what every senior leader in the complex project business needs to internalise and live by – they must always have their people’s backs. Also critical to that support is depth as characterised in a mindset as follows:
“Complex projects are not sprints or marathons; they are back-to-back-to -back marathon relay races. In other words, one should strive wherever possible to have <u>two</u> people filling critical roles.”
I admit that this is ‘hard’, but from my experience it is not rocket science. It is about having and protecting a cadre of such skilled leaders and project execution personnel to handle the expected (or enforced) number of concurrent complex capability acquisition projects.
As for tools, project core co-ord/control/risk teams need to be very well trained (preferably career specialists) with a solid network they can draw on. And with that went the ability to use their tools to do their work effectively AND efficiently. As an example in one case I observed (not my project), the Prime employed Booz Allen’s POLARIS project analysis suite very impressively to track progress, recommend risk mitigation and offer reset opportunities along with consequences of options in response to emergent/realised residual risks, along with confidence factors reflecting the assumptions underlying those analyses. I mention this solely to make the point that there are some amazingly capable (and sophisticated) tools out there to ease some of the pain of staying on top of the short and the long game in complex projects – and I suspect that AI incorporation isl making them even easier to use and better.
None of this could have saved the folks you mentioned once they found themselves in deep holes. In the new reality as is slowly being recognised to navigate our increasingly volatile world, organisations are recognising that they need to be AS GOOD OR BETTER at complex project management as they are in professionally delivering their core service product such as mining – both must be core skills.
As I said when I started this note, this is well understood by those in our Working Group, so apologies. Nevertheless and to state the obvious, I offer for consideration – Ian
Up::0Ian
I am learning a lot here too
One point I need to clarify is that the schedule slipping out of control is a serious matter and all that we have both said applies to that but I feel there is a more subtle behavioural issue behind that
When we see people with time and little pressure working through the planning and management of a job, they respect the data, they pay attention and do a thorough job – exploring details and connections between their tasks and other parts of the project
When the pressure comes on, their behaviour changes so they become inclined to accept a course of action they have not explored fully if it offers the prospect on visible progress in short order
I don’t know how we detect that but I reckon it would have shown red beacons flashing at many desks in some of the big mining jobs where I’ve been engaged for risk assessment
One current projects jokes about the Christmas ritual of getting Steve back to rework the analysis with the new plan
Another job, long past now, had me in at three resubmissions, each a couple of years apart, with the cost estimate being $N at the first one, $2N at the second and $3N at the third – all very large numbers
Each one descended into chaos as so much changed and change control was not as rigorous as it might have been that no one knew what was going on and the latest project director had to stand the job down and rework it
On the second and third reworking, I was coming into an office full of people who had been beaten up for months as the current project director tried to save the job. They were blinkered by self preservation to only look at the issue in front of them – no inclination to examine or explore more widely so each time things fell apart
I was then pulled in towards the end of the third iteration to see if they could convince the Board this one would work
The stress on the faces of mature experienced engineers and managers was quite unsettling
In the end, they found a way to say it had been completed then closed and sold the assets a year or so later
The state of mind of those people was really the biggest red flag but no one is keen to acknowledge anything like that, let alone accept what lies behind it, what it signifies, and remedy that
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.