Working Group B: What principles are important in dealing with complexity?

[Davin Shellshear]

#11883

Up

2

::

Attached are the transcribed notes from our meeting on 20th May.

Please continue to post articles, references, ideas and thoughts on the forum, so the work can progress between meetings.

Richard and I will attempt to improve the risk map to make it more useful for the working group.

Cheers, and thank you all for your continues energy and input.

Attachments:

You must be logged in to view attached files.

[Stephen Grey]

#11862

Up

2

::

Pondering the initial question about waking up people who are oblivious to complex emergence and its implication

1. It is not likely that we will succeed by defining an ideal end state for project leaders and stakeholders or by seeking to shift their view of the world in one move
2. There might not be one ideal end state because everything is context dependent so we will probably be well advised to keep an open mind
3. Even when confronted by a serious ‘burning platform’ no one will turn their back on the way they have functioned for years and embrace something novel in one step
4. Picking up the idea of the adjacent possible, a modest shift in the direction we would like to see established, can we see a small move in outlook that would lay the foundations for further shifts? The idea is that making the small shift gains some benefit, is not unduly disruptive and is less likely to be resisted than presenting people with a large shift, and encouraging that small change might provide an opportunity to develop insights into the longer term process. It’s similar to the minimum viable product in Agile approaches to implementing projects.

This is all a bit different from thinking about how we manage risk in complex projects. If we can’t get people thinking clearly about complexity, the best management advice on the subject will be moot.

[Davin Shellshear]

#11857

Up

1

::

Agenda for Working Group B on 20th May 2021

Attachments:

You must be logged in to view attached files.

[Davin Shellshear]

#11846

Up

1

::

I have included a map in order to visualise some of the conversation so far – hopefully you may find it useful

Attachments:

You must be logged in to view attached files.

[Davin Shellshear]

#11844

Up

1

::

I have combined the contributions of Ian and Stephen and in the attached document to act as the starter for our conversation Thursday morning (8am AEST)

Attachments:

You must be logged in to view attached files.

[Stephen Grey]

#11843

Up

1

::

I think we are drifting away from the issue of waking people up to complexity into how to manage risk in complexity

I have found myself doing that as much as anyone

Probably worth giving the original task a bit more thought or we risk coming up with yet another set of good ideas for which there only a very limited audience

[Ian Mack]

#11836

Up

1

::

Thanks Stephen, my thoughts on your thoughts:

On the amount captured: I did not try to weed out anything from the transcript, perhaps that is a task on its own?

On ‘managing up: I tried to identify what we covered. And I am comfortable ‘managing up’.

On tool attributes: I have found that the use of a simple risk register by people who have little experience in complexity is a recipe for failure (and Stockholm Syndrome). Perhaps we could try to identify a minimum set of attributes for tools and additional attributes that could be considered?

On looking beyond the risk specialist: Agree completely. I made what may have been a bad assumption, that risk treatment is intergrate across project teams and stakeholders so the Project Managers would always be intimately involved, especially when addressing messaging for seniors. And I agree that they must be heard, without filtering, for seniors to get ‘ground truth’. But outside project staff and senior management, who were you thinking of ‘looking too’?

On tolerating ambiguity and uncertainty: Completely agree. The one military cliché that applies is ‘no plan survives first contact with the enemy’, which occurs because of uncertainty from the (opposing force) stakeholders and from that point on requires probing/sensing/acting with wave planning and reliance on tactical initiative?

 

 

[Stephen Grey]

#11826

Up

1

::

There is a lot here. Here are a few immediate reactions.

1. The first two headings seem like managing up, trying to fill the gaps in senior management with a little bit of attention to changing their behaviour.
2. On tools – I am not sure tools are the answer, necessary but not sufficient and I am sure there won’t be one tool or even one set of support tool attributes that will fit all requirements. I am more inclined to put faith in people.
3. A lesson from many fields is that we frequently fail to capitalise on the value of the knowledge, insights and creativity of the people executing a project or working in an organisation. They are closest to the work front and can observe small leading indicators of emerging problems but no one asks them or listens if they speak up. I believe that we need to look outside the people explicitly responsible for risk management and their senior management.

We need to take our own medicine I think

What we asking for is a shift in world view from linear mechanistic and analytical to suspending judgement where we can, tolerating ambiguity and uncertainty. A common response to such suggestions is to say “that won’t work” because we have so little experience of it in action. Analogies, perhaps military, might offer one way to spread understanding.

[Davin Shellshear]

#11802

Up

1

::

Thank you Ian for you very thoughtful analysis. I think you have provided an opportunity for this working group to move forward from the discussion last week, so I have formatted your comments to allow us to keep track of your analysis as we continue the dialogue.

Attached is the formatted version.

Would the working group be interested in using this document as our start point next Wednesday?

Alternative approaches?

Attachments:

You must be logged in to view attached files.

[Ian Mack]

#11801

Up

2

::

I have analysed the full transcript and offer the following structured summary for WG B to consider and build on.

Summary Review Notes (Submitted by Ian Mack)

It strikes me that our discussion was really around observations that fall into answering three questions:

– Why do seniors not buy-in to complex risk treatment or act on identified risks? [These inform us in terms of what needs to be done to counteract the many reasons that seniors fail to do their part relating to significant enterprise risks – these should be tacked first to inform our task which immediately follows]

– How do we communicate (messages and timing) with those in the governance/oversight of complex projects to (1) catch their attention about risk management in a way which (2) convinces them to invest interest and time required on an ongoing manner? [This is the deliverable for the task of the WG I think]

– What are the attributes of an appropriate risk treatment system for complex projects? [These were discussed in a number of ways; we set aside the Remington model but should deliver on the question of tools and guidance on their application]

<u>Why do seniors not buy-in to complex risk treatment or act on identified risks?</u>

Note – I have tried to identify all the factors raised and then proactively offered some of my thoughts to rectify such factors to get our collective juices flowing. These are not in order of priority.

– Too busy [To rectify, work with ‘their gate keepers’ to determine the best way to catch their attention ONCE to make your case]

– Only filtered messages reach them which downplay the risks and potential probabilities and/or impacts [To rectify, work with the one-below executive who can influence their boss with honest messages (in terms of residual post-mitigation risk increasing probabilities and potential impacts with issue management Course of Action) as crafted with the Project and Risk Managers]

– Concern that action by them cannot remain secret and it could leak out to detrimentally affect credibility and/or reputation or stock values [To rectify, strictly control the access to significant risks (legally binding Non-Disclosure Agreements) with increasing probability]

– They have lived through bad examples of applied risk treatment/responses in the past that were too painful, and they are not comfortable with projects that ‘blow through’ cost or schedule or delivery reduced capability [To rectify, determine a clear risk tolerance threshold across cost/schedule/scope/reputation  (CSSR) they would be comfortable with when launching the complex project and refine the project accordingly – with ongoing monitoring for risks that threaten the threshold which would receive early messaging for issue management]

– The continuous pain they live every day in their jobs dulls their response [To rectify, identify which breeches of thresholds (CSSR) they personally want to play in and who the designated “Number Two” executive is to action all below those thresholds]

– The interdependencies between risks and the potential cascading impacts scare them [Ro rectify, stick to explaining the risk triggering concern alone and the proposed response action]

– They get lost in the detail specialists love and find it a waste of time, or the use of model buzz words scares or loses their interest and understanding [To rectify, ensure that the message is communicates appropriately (as always, tailored to the audience) by using someone OTHER THAN the specialist, but WITH the specialist in the room when the senior is being briefed]

– Mitigation still leaves residual risk so they feel impotent [To rectify, communicate by demonstrating the expected benefits of the recommended action to the organization]

– They only see risks of consequence and assume the project must be out of control ]To rectify, use the initial session to educate and shape their mindset to understand the nature of complex projects in terms of interdependencies and likelihood of significant emerging risks with sometimes contradictory responses week-over-week]

– They invest in one or two workshops which do not convince them that they need to sustain their involvement [To rectify, any session with seniors must cater to the requirements of the most ‘senior’ attending to ensure your needs (expectations going forward) are met by meeting their needs to understand the challenges in time ahead]

– They see it as just another process [To rectify, set their mindset on complexity in the first session by making the case that: cost/schedule/scope are interdependent risks and all other risks interrelate with these, (2) risk treatment processes are ONE OF the foundational processes (if not THE most significant) upon which all other processes are based, and (30 it matters as the one of the few integrating processes of greatest potential to benefit the organization]

– The lack of integration of risk treatment across an enterprise (including key suppliers) leads to mixed messages that kill credibility [To rectify, implement ISO 44001 and sustained joint collaboration to ensure there are only unified risk messages at all times]

– They have invested before in so-called ‘complex’ projects and wasted time as they became bored, to the point of considering terminating their risk specialist employees [To rectify, admit that you have no crystal ball but that (1) you have the experience to be credible, (2) you expect some significant risks to emerge, (3) you expect that some will likely be realized, (4) you will only engage based on the risk tolerance thresholds they set, and (5) if no significant risks require their attention then you only ask for an audience to explain the project’s journey before they consider terminating you]

<u>How do we communicate catch attention and sustain it?</u>

Note – The following were mentioned to a lesser or greater extent in our first session and will need to be fleshed out to capture our collective thoughts on ways to remedy the reasons that seniors in governance do not engage as highlighted in the immediately prior session. What follows are not in order of priority.

In the first session or soon after:

– Expose seniors to a carefully selected and relevant sample end-to-end risk treatment example with impacts on other risks, mitigation, residual risks and the resulting issue with COAs

– Shape the mindset by making  the case regarding the VUCA international interconnected and interdependent threatening environment that the project lives in (financial, political, security, social and technological) and that the project is buffeted by these and more (e.g. stakeholders {of which the governance members are included}, Project Office HR challenges in capability and capacity)

– In educating about navigating complex projects, identify the true/pervasive nature of the degree of uncertainty in the project (as well as the parts that are NOT expected to be complex) and the resulting demands in terms of frequent engagements with seniors on the matter, with recommendations changing over time as Project staff members “probe, sense and try again” in the absence of clear evidence to support various decisions required

– Employ the ‘teddy bear’ approach (catering to their comfort zone) with examples and language that is understandable by the senior audience

– Consider using language that avoids repeating the term “complex” by explaining the project as non-linear and not able to be disaggregated because of interdependencies

– Use an incremental approach before the project launches to ensure an understanding of the real risks, the challenges that could arise at their level, why it matters, the risk treatment tool, integration across the enterprise, etc (eat the  elephant one bite at a time). Patience and attention to the risk treatment required before launching is key

– Assistance from their peers or specialists they have found credible in the past who have lived the good, bad and ugly of similar projects and the respective risk treatment applied can be useful to marketing for their sustained engagement

– Build on the reality that all employees everywhere are hired to reduce risk

– Make the point that the client ultimately owns ALL the risk

– Stress the importance of an integrated risk treatment system across all stakeholders in the entire enterprise (including key suppliers)

– Make the point that all involved in the project’s leadership and governance must invest time to understand the context and the specific sector’s domain knowledge to enable competent risks treatment including issue management

<u>What are the attributes of an appropriate risk treatment system for complex projects?</u>

Note – These were mentioned or triggered by what was said in my mind. They are not in order of priority.

– The WG needs to come to an agreement on the attributes of a good risk management tool

– We need to ensure that the experience and judgment of the people employing the tool is competent to deliver meaningful but subjective assumptions

– The cost of any tool and system will pale in comparison to the cost of the project – as budgeted and/or at risk in terms of growth potential without the tool and specialists to employ it

– The risk treatment of stakeholders needs to be separately compartmentalized and protected with access minimized and legally committed to a Non-Disclosure – Agreement as well as in the Public Sector constraints to prevent release under ‘access to information’ regulations

– Prioritization of risks as their probability increases is important

– The networked interdependencies of risks is important

– The ability to translate risks into dollars is useful to influence decision-makers to take action

– Getting the risk treatment tool benchmarked or certified is an important selling feature to seniors

– Being able to discern the linear risks from the complex is an important attribute

– The system should be able to build granular ‘work breakdown structures’ and able to assign risks for each work element along with confidence ranges (commensurate with the experience of those assigning the risk assessments) which can be tracked and aggregated

– Earned Value Management system integration in the tool is an important forecasting feature

EOF (And thanks for reading!)

 

[Ian Mack]

#11780

Up

1

::

[quote quote=11753]Attached is a full transcript of the first Working Group B meeting. The group decided noI suggested we post vvvt to sumarise the meeting as dot pints since the content was so rich.[/quote]

Team – I suggested we post biogrphies so we can better get to know WG members. Mine follows:

 

Ian Mack, CMM, CD

Ian retired from the Royal Canadian Navy as a Rear-Admiral in 2007 after 38 years in uniform. During his naval career, his early years were spent at sea, in warship refit work in a civilian shipyard and in every aspect of the lifecycle management of naval systems. He held several senior leadership assignments, including Head of Navy Training, Commander of Canada’s largest base in Halifax, Assistant Chief of Maritime Staff (now Deputy Commander of the RCN), Defence Attaché to the United States, and first Head of Canadian Delegation to the Inter-American Defense Board. He served for two years as the Chief of Staff of the Materiel Group in Canada’s National Defence Headquarters before retiring from the Canadian Armed Forces.

As a Public Servant, he served for a decade in the Department of National Defence as a Director-General for Major Project Delivery. He was a plank holder at launch in 2008 and subsequently involved in the implementation of Canada’s National Shipbuilding Strategy. He also guided the projects acquiring the Arctic and Offshore Patrol Ships, the Joint Support Ships and the Canadian Surface Combatant warships, these in delivery, construction and design respectively. As well, he led a portfolio of acquisitions destined for the Canadian Army, including lightweight towed howitzers, close combat armoured vehicles, tactical armoured patrol vehicles, and a broad suite of trucks and trailers customized in over 20 variants for use by soldiers. And he played a role in establishing a project manager competency development program before leaving government employment.

Ian is semiretired and operates his own small business, Xi Complexity Consulting Inc. in Ottawa Canada. He has provided advice internationally on project and program execution and governance, and in providing assistance during Australia’s Future Frigate procurement. More recently, he has offered his perspectives locally.

Ian is a Fellow of the International Centre for Complex Project Management, the Canadian Global Affairs Institute and the World Commerce and Contracting Association. He is also an Executive Associate with Strategic Relationships Solutions. For the past 15 years, he has routinely engaged a number of international organizations in pursuit of emerging practices to navigate complex endeavours. Ian holds a Master of Science degree, is married to Alex, and has three grown children from his first marriage.

[Stephen Grey]

#11761

Up

1

::

Not sure about where to post stuff so I put some papers into a topic on the forum at https://iccpm.com/forums/topic/complexity-papers-and-resources/#post-11751

I hope they will be useful to some members and would welcome reactions and comments

Also not sure if that is “the forum” or “a forum” in this context

[Davin Shellshear]

#11753

Up

2

::

Attached is a full transcript of the first Working Group B meeting. The group decided not to sumarise the meeting as dot pints since the content was so rich.

Attachments:

You must be logged in to view attached files.

[Sebastian Winter]

#11167

[Author]

Posts