This is a true story. The company name
has been changed.
Background
Acme Corporation hired a project
manager to plan and manage the implementation of an ERP software package, a
well-known product by a leading vendor.
The project sponsor wanted the project
staffed with internal resources, having consultants only in an advisory role. After
assessing the work, the project manager recommended that eight company staff be
assigned to the project full-time.
The project manager also gave the
project sponsor guidance on selecting the eight resources and how to ensure
they would be available to work on the project.
The right stuff
The project manager gave the sponsor a
description of the type of individual that should be chosen for the
implementation team.
Each team member should be highly
motivated, with strong knowledge of her subject area and the company business
processes.
Team members must be capable of
thinking in abstract terms, willing and able to visualize new business
processes, and resourceful.
In addition, the individuals must be
team players, and the project work should fit with the team members’ career
goals.
Back-filling jobs
The regular jobs done by these
employees should be filled by internal transfers or temporary staff for the
duration of the project. This back-filling would ensure that the employees
assigned to the project team could focus on it full-time.
The Situation
It was obvious almost immediately that project
work was not being completed on time and some tasks were not being done
particularly well.
Timelines would soon start slipping and
the project could be in danger of missing the first major milestone.
No back-fills
The project manager discovered that
seven of the eight of the team members had been assigned to the project on an
80% basis, instead of full-time. In addition, their regular jobs in the company
had not been back-filled. As a result, the team members were trying to do their
project work and their regular work, with little success in each.
They were not able to commit even 80%
to the project team. The most any of them was actually available was 60% and
some were as low as 40% available.
The wrong stuff
In addition, it was evident that two
inappropriate choices had been made in selecting members of the implementation
team.
They were not the right type of person
for the implementation team. They were good at their own jobs, but unable to
think in abstract terms and visualize the required new business processes.
In addition, one of the two was a poor
team player. She didn’t share information. She also frequently told other
employees outside of the project that the company had made a big mistake and
this project was never going to work out. However, she voiced no concerns to
the project team, project manager, or sponsor.
Recommendation and response
What did the project manager do? The
project manager knew that part-time resources are a common and very difficult
problem to resolve. Part-time resources are always pulled back to their regular
jobs for urgent work, unless someone else is filling that position.
The project manager met with the
sponsor to review the problems with project staffing, and requested that the
sponsor replace the two unsuitable team members. In addition, he asked that the
regular jobs of all team members be back-filled, so they could concentrate on
the project work.
The sponsor was not receptive to these
suggestions, and decided not to change any team members or to back-fill their
jobs.
The saga continued
The problem with lack of availability
and lack of fit continued. The sponsor continued to make vague reassuring
noises about the team members’ ability and commitment, but did not back-fill
regular jobs and did not recognize the weaknesses in the team members that had
been inappropriately assigned.
The outcome
Timelines slipped, and then project
milestones were missed. Deadlines had to be moved out several times. After some
of the milestones were missed, the sponsor still did not back-fill jobs or re-assign
weak team members. Instead, consultants were brought in after all, to complete
much of the work on the project.
The team members were exhausted long
before the project was finished, due to their efforts to do two jobs at once.
They also felt they were doing both jobs badly instead of doing one job well,
which contributed to morale problems on the team.
The project finished in fourteen months
instead of the planned ten months. Costs were higher than intended, due to the
extended timeline and additional consulting fees.
The team did make good decisions
regarding implementation of the software and the new business processes. The
company realized the expected benefits from the software purchase.
However, the perception throughout the
company was that the project was a failure before it was even half completed. A
large internal marketing effort was needed to overcome the corporate lack of
enthusiasm for the new system and processes.
Conclusion
It is critical to the success of the
project that each team member is the right person for the job.
In addition, those team members must be
available to fulfill their time commitment to the project. Back-filling their
regular jobs for the duration of the project allows the team members to
concentrate on the project work.
Copyright
2015 Debbie Gallagher
