I greatly enjoyed watching a recorded webinar on projectmanagement.com led by Antonio Nieto-Rodriguez, The Project Revolution. It's very good - as one commenter in the presentation page thread wrote, "one of the most outstanding presentations that I have attended." 

Nieto began with a comparison of organization support for operations (focused on running the business) and projects (focused on changing the business), and the trend of organizations to commit more and more effort to project work. He reviews some Google Ngram data that illustrated the relevance of projects in publication - and the lack of corresponding publication in project management.  What has happened with this increased focus on projects to meet the needs of businesses and organizations? Nieto shares some implications, two of which spoke to me given my most recent experience in a portfolio planning effort:

• Lack of focus:  Organization spread too thin in its project work
• Too many projects: They're easy to start, but not closed out fully

Nieto suggests three remedies to improve the current situation:

• ​Simplification of project management frameworks:  He emphasizes the value of the Project Management Body of Knowledge Guide and the need for project managers to have sound technical project management skills. Still, with a larger number of organization staff engaged in project work, concepts and terms need to be defined more simply. Nieto uses a project canvas one approach to this. 
• Expand reach of the project life cycle:  There are several paths available here, The first, not surprisingly given the growing use of Agile approaches, is to deliver benefits earlier in the life cycle. Second, to provide sufficient upfront time for ideation. And finally, to expand the project's cycle to include a longer duration of in-production time (best understood with new product development - the project remains open during the early period of sales and use, as opposed to the more traditional approach of closing the project after product delivery). 
• Redefine the simple triple constraint:  Nieto suggests several alternatives to the technical focus on scope, schedule, and budget, alternatives that emphasize the delivery of benefits and on supporting the human resources committed to the project. 

I'm interested in learning more after seeing this webinar. Nieto-Rodriguez didn't mention it, but he's recently published a book by the same title (info) and I'm looking forward to the read. 

I've been thinking through the challenges of portfolio management.  Having worked in a planning effort in my organization for one year, I want to learn more about optimal approaches. I consulted ProjectManagement.com and found this presentation from back, back, back in 2011. Mark Mullaly presented on creating and adjustment a portfolio management process, with a key concept included in the title:  "owning other peoples' choices." 

I'm convinced that tolerance for ambiguity is of critical importance here. As Mullaly notes, project prioritization is an inherently political activity and it should be accepted as such. He focuses on the development of prioritization criteria, a separate process from applying them. A key takeaway for me is the need for trust between participants in the prioritization process, in that Mullaly recommends that the planners discuss "what are those things that we should be doing?" at the start of criteria development. In an environment with differering strategics and approaches, this is a key challenge - being methodical and patient in criteria development. The presenter references a case several times during the presentation in which a company prioritized (through its portfolio criteria) its customer facing projects to the exclusion of those that supported the staff doing the work, with negative results and the need to eventually create a second project evaluation flow. 

Looking to criteria application:  Mullaly also noted the importance of defining capacity as accurately as possible up front. What happens when too many projects are stated as priorities? He points out that the prioritization decision is then shifted to others, particularly front-line staff who can realistically perform only a subset of the work that they've been assigned. This again goes back to the trust issue - is it possible for the participants in portfolio management to objectively consider "those things that we should be doing" above all, and then make realistic decisions in terms of capacity? It certainly isn't easy. Mullaly also notes the need for participants to consider alternatives such as outsourcing and deferring work. 

Finally, the presenter notes that portfolio prioritization work is a dynamic process and the criteria decided upon should be carefully reviewed and updated each year. 

There's much more here in Mark Mullaly's presentation and slidedeck, but this session underscores the difficulty of portfolio management and provides some sound suggestions on approaches. 

I'm preparing for two "project management in libraries" presentations in May/June at upcoming conferences. In describing project management, there are essential basics, including the "iron triangle" or "triple constraint" of  scope, schedule, and budget. These three areas are each represented by chapters and knowledge areas in the Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge. 

​In an excellent ProjectManagement.com presentation, Dr. Blaize Reich of Simon Fraser University provides project managers with some approaches to move beyond the triple constraint approach. As Dr. Reich points out, the triple constraint isn't the current, first measure of success - rather, it's on value delivery. She describes the work that she and three other research colleagues have undertaken in measuring project satisfaction based on triangle/triple constraint targets and on perceived value (by customer) - and emphasizes that these measures are correlated, but only weakly in some cases.  

Dr. Reich then focuses on three innovations to improve value:

• Design thinking
• Benefits mapping
• Hybrid project management (her area of research focus)

Taking benefits mapping as an example, Reich provides a specific example from an automobile association that's building a service center. One value of benefits mapping that she cited (relating a user experience):  Using this innovation shifted the early project conversation from what we are doing? to why we are doing it? Two specific benefits were articulated and target goals were assigned to each and documented. Importantly, changes to the benefits are tracked as well - if the benefits are reduced during the project work, the use of benefits mapping guides the manager to consider - is the project worth doing with the reduced benefits? 

All of these value-enhancing approaches take time (design thinking, for example, requires a period of times from hours to a small number of days to define the problem space). With schedule pressure, these more methodical approaches can be a difficult sell in the organization. 

I viewed a timely projectmanagement.com presentation on the need for project managers to embrace innovation. This is behind the PMI/projectmanagement.com paywall, but I encourage those of you with access to watch this presentation and consider the presenter's (Dennis Stauffer, of Innovator Mindset) arguments. 

Stauffer compares the status quo and innovator approaches and mindsets. Across positions and to a great degree as a project manager, I personally have worked in an implementer role, with a focus on the detect and correct loop. While this isn't bad in and of itself, Stauffer compares the innovativeness scores (using an instrument created by IM) of individuals across some industries with value add - and emphasized that most of the value add comes from those working on the higher end (70-100) of innovativeness. 

Okay, okay - Stauffer takes a more extreme approach in the session when describing the attributers of the status quo and innovator mindsets. Here's a subset of examples:

Status quo:  Argumentative, frustrated, blaming...

• Stauffer:  This is when the detect and correct/status quo approach becomes too dominant

Innovator:  Curious, open, reflective...

• Stauffer:  "Innovators and the best project managers live in this space" (emphasis mine)

To get to the presenter's core argument:  The high-level flows of the status quo and innovative approaches are similar (both with Idea, Action, Reality, Feedback phases in a loop). The PMBOK Guide approach is valuable, but taken too far, it can undermine innovation (specific example that came out during the Q&A session, the overcommitment of resources to knowledge management and documenting lessons learned). 

Stauffer suggests that the project manager should embody innovation. Ask questions instead of making declarative statements; embrace feedback (including negative feedback - which the presenter depicted as a key indicator of effective innovators). 

I hope to take the IM instrument soon  to determine my own innovativeness score  and to learn more about Stauffer's research. Can I ask more questions and make fewer declarative statements? It's an interesting test for me....