MODULE 4 CLOSURE
Spring 2010
Compiled by Greg Kinney
“MUDDIEST ITEMS”
QUESTION:
The muddiest item in the module concerns the establishment of “lateral relations [which] allow decisions to be made across lines of authority”. If the decisions are made across lines of authority, to whom does this decision responsibility fall? Does this indicate that a consensus of opinion is required to make decisions and therefore the group involved decides on a majority basis, or does a single manager decide based on the input derived “across lines of authority”? This idea is not fleshed out well enough in the text.
ANSWER:
I think some insight is gained just by going to the definition of “lateral relations” at the end of the text. It’s defined as “communications across lines of equivalent authority.” I think that the authors are simply acknowledging a fact of life, which is that in most organizations, there is a spread of authority among different leaders of different groups, and that it’s almost impossible to get anything done without the help of others. The reality, particularly in Projects, is that the PM has the accountability for the success of the project, but much of the authority enabling implementation resides among others. In terms of having to get consensus opinion to get decisions made – well, yes, it’s best to handle things by consensus. However, organizations aren’t democracies and there are times that conflicts must be handled by elevation.
QUESTION:
The muddiest thing from this module was the conflict intensities over the course of the project life. It seems that most of the conflicts blend into one another over the project cycle. Even though the book states certain topics of conflict are greater in some areas I still feel that it is all dependent on the project and cannot be set in stone.
ANSWER:
You’re absolutely right. They are speaking in general terms; that is, generally in the buildup phase, you see certain types of conflict, etc.
QUESTION:
One question arises on my mind, which is “For some internal conflicts (conflicts inside an organization, the top or senior management can easily resolve them, while the subordinates perhaps need lots of work to fix those conflicts, or maybe they will never fix them by themselves. So, should a project manager seek the help from his boss when the conflicts confront him? If doing so, will the boss think that project manager too incompetent or mediocre?”
ANSWER:
In my experience, management expects that subordinates will do their due diligence to solve the problems at the lowest level. You don’t want to come running to senior management every time there is an issue, only when the issue becomes intractable and threatens progress in your work. When you have done everything you could, or when there’s no hopeful outlook, you will want to elevate it. In fact, you should be informing management of issues all along, but the time to ask for intervention is when you have reached the end of your abilities.
Will the boss think the PM to be incompetent or mediocre? He or she will if the PM brings on himself a reputation for not being able to deal with issues himself, and as I say, comes running frequently for help. If the requests for intervention are rare and well supported, then the PM preserves credibility.
QUESTION:
The least clear thing I learned from this module was project chartering. Is this strictly an internal agreement between the different department/section managers working on a project, or an agreement between the managers from different project partners? Either way, I assume this is helps resolve accountability issues? Can you give me an example of a real company or agency that uses project charter agreements?
ANSWER:
This can take a number of forms. Basically the project manager needs to have a defined scope of work that is sanctioned by the executive sponsors of the project. At Alyeska Pipeline, the primary vehicle is called the Scope of Work Form, upon which the project deliverables are articulated carefully. When that is signed, you have a scope that is agreed upon. It is noteworthy that there is a parallel process involving project work requests, which involves the project going through a “gate” process. At the initiation stage, the board decides if there is enough of a driver to warrant a project initiation. The next gate is done typically after a conceptual study is done, along with a Project Execution Plan. Again, the board decides if the project is well enough defined to warrant going forward, and whether the problem is worth the cost to fix. That greeenlights the process of authorization for project expenditures to develop final design documents. When the final design is developed, and a cost estimate is developed, there is one more stage of review – one more chance to kill the project. So in essence there’s a parallel review process; nonetheless the Scope of Work Form is the primary chartering document.