Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
2 the time of the first deliver "e had a fairl trustable vie" of the customer!s relevant milestones and e*pectations, risks and issues. 1n the other side, our channels had been fed back "ith strategic information, current internal and operational status and success factors, and so critical s nchroni3ation information reached the relevant levels in customer!s side. The project "as delivered "ith negigible dela . Lessons learned. first, a gap#based, tactical approach to risks "as effective in the absence of a +straight,, planned "a . %econd, the gap#based approach "as justified just because the whole project was in risk, not because the risk impacted just a couple activities. In fact, "e needed to reprogram man tasks, "ith the painful conse'uences this carries. The end results "ere being compromised, and the actions "ere oriented just to secure the end results, not to put the project on track 4according to the official minute task schedule5, to compl "ith the e*isting schedule, or "hatever. Risk management cannot be overemphasi3ed. If ou are an e*perienced program or project management practitioner ou have alread perceived that Risk, %takeholder, 6thics7, 8ssumption, 9ualit , %cope, Time and &ost management are all mutuall interdependent. There are program managers that prefer to approach the project b the Risk side, other b the %takeholders: side, a lot from a &ost side. That!s all#right as long the manager remembers that his;her dut is to come to a happ end "ith the program or project still able to be called a program or project, not in pieces. The conscious manager "ill seem to be caring for just one dimension, but that!s just an e*ternal perception because of the manager!s bias. The seasoned practitioner kno"s he;she needs to govern the "hole pack from current status, through the gap until a success status. In tactical times, "hen the Plan is not "orking because of terrain realities, some priorities among the Triple &onstraint dimensions can change, but it!s the manager!s responsibilit to balance them in order to maintain the program!s integrit and "orkable balance.
7 /ell, 6thics is usuall considered as kind of unmovable dimension. I invite ou to read m discussion on ethics and gap# 2ased deliver if ou "ant a broader elaboration on the matter.
Foreseen risks, unplanned. This is not necessaril a project fla". 6ither because their lo" probabilit of occurrence, because of their unmanageable 'ualit 4+what if the world blows up?,5, or because our team is confident the can manage them as the sho" up "ithout too much disturbance, our team decides not to manage them. Unforeseen risks, unplanned yet budgeted. =ou include some percent of total budget in order to deal "ith unforeseen risks. =ou are b the "a a great negotiator if ou can commit mone from finances! area for such immaterial things. Plain unforeseen risks.
0or risks ou didn!t provide a contingenc or a "a to avoid them in the Plan, ou have t"o "a s to deal "ith them. 8s soon as the are identified and 'ualified, if the are manageable in the conte*t of the e*isting provisions in the Plan, m advice is to do so. Let!s sa a team member got sick and ou hadn!t a replacement, but the tasks in the schedule do suffice to deal "ith the situation through schedule engineering, b making use of slacks or b getting a "aiver for a tolerable dela , ou just do it and accommodate the immediate impacts and due communications. If the risk can either risk the final results of the project or it ma promote such a perturbation that could evolve in a major crisis even after the project deliver or program completion, ou certainl need to get tactical and make a bridge for that gap. These risks "ill be part of the tactical dashboard
The manager "ill probabl need to get "aivers from the sponsor, the e*ecutives and ;or the steering committees in order to proceed out of the Plan. The manager "ill tr to assess "hich risks can actuall be moved to regular, Plan#managed risks. The lesser the critical tactical risks, the more focus, hence the more chances. 8 thorough stakeholder!s risk thresholds levels assessment "ill need to be conducted. /hile ou and other stakeholders can stand the involved levels of stress the solution poses, man relevant stakeholders ma not be read to stand them. Remember that declared risk threshold levels are not the same as "orking threshold levels. /hile a stakeholder ma sta muted "hile the project or program is in normal condition, it!s probable he;she "ill take advantage of the crisis and ask for a risk threshold change. 8s financial and time concerns are the most immediate and more visible impacts, special care must be e*ercised "ith them. 4this of course can change if the priorities are different, like reliabilit #space projects#, environmental impacts #social, agriculture, marine projects#, etc.5. It ma happen, too, that a planned risk evolves in an unforeseen "a into a danger for the the program or project!s ultimate goal, in "hose case ou "ill need to process it in tactical mode>. You should try to process as many risks as possible according to the Plan, if necessar b altering it. This "ill re'uire ou to activate proper governance devices. 0or instance, ou "ill probabl be re'uired to make a &hange Re'uest that "ill need to be processed b the established change processes for the program. That is the best practice, the recommended "a to do things unless ou have no other option but to get tactical and in need to pull the program through the gap 4b using gap#based deliver tactics5 instead of pushing it according to the Plan.
> -otice I use +tactical risk management, and similar e*pressions in a loose "a , not necessaril related to some attempts to s stematicall deal "ith tactical risks. In the conte*t of Gap#2ased $eliver there is no other s stematics than the ver focus on bridging the gaps "ith ever usable and proportionate#to the problem device or tool. Gap#2ased $eliver is about focus and attitude, not tools.
-otice that m solution to the crisis in the &loud project depicted above "as good enough as to deliver the project in its first stage, but it did not solve the severe management problem the project had. M intervention "as intended strictl to take the project out of the mud until first deliver , but that "as not enough as to bring a comprehensive ans"er to the initiation defects and subse'uent structural project issues. That "as not in the scope of a tactical intervention, and needed much more support and a drastic conte*t change. 8nd certainl the same emergenc PM "asn!t the appropriate person to do so. Tools. The tools ou "ill make use of are the same ou "ould use for Planned risks. =ou still need to assess the risks for 'ualit and 'uantit . =ou still need to assign a responsible. The can even produce #after the mitigation# secondar risks. /hat changes is not the nature of the risks but the timing of them, their criticalit and the e*ecution conte*t.
waivers for bribes, thus the "overnor had some kind of indirect responsibility on the events. #e had took provisions for some $0 representatives being changed in the middle of the program because of elections %thus we needed to plan for the new stakeholder&s scenario%. #hat we failed to map was the governor being put apart by the new representatives. #hile the program did not fail, it was severely shaken, and some components could never been deployed, thus affecting the final benefits outcomes.
8s a final note, ou should differentiate bet"een critical, results#endangering risks from those nast , not necessaril too dangerous et trouble#carr ing risks. Most of these risks have to do "ith bureaucratic concerns or communication issues. 6ither a purchase process "as not properl follo"ed, or someone in the team made an inopportune statement in a meeting or to the journalism. The can branch in une*pected "a s and even become critical risks if not properl managed and contained. Risk management is not and it "ill never be a closed issue. That has nothing to do "ith tool availabilit but the ver nature of comple* s stems. Profession "ill manage to record ever possible risk ou can find in a specific kind of project. /hat catalogs and risk list could never account for is the inherent non#linear characteristic of comple* s stems and the volatile nature of human beings. Thanks God.
It is not the critic who counts. 'ot the man who points out how the strong man stumbled or where the doer of deeds could have done better. he credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood( who strives valiantly( who errs and comes short again and again( who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions( who spends himself in a worthy cause. #ho)at the best)knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who)at the worst)at least fails while daring greatly so that his place shall never be with those timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat. Theodore Roosevelt
The length of this document defends it well against the risk of it being read Winston Churchill ###o###
?isit gbdeliver .blogspot.com