Looking at lists of ‘epic product fails” it’s easy to wonder how experts in well-established companies could miss such obvious problems – snacks that cause gastrointestinal distress, for instance, or a complete misstep in brand perception (Yogurt shampoo?)

Now, though, product success could also hinge on identifying and satisfying new ‘must haves” in product attributes. Industries today wrestle with benchmarks unheard of twenty or even ten years ago. The ground rules for product – and project – success are changing to include new “must haves” like:

–sustainability in products and processes.  The Global Development Research Center even created a program for Environmental Assessment as a project management tool.

-confidentiality of personal data.  Three out of four Americans say they won’t use Google Glass because of privacy concerns.

For project managers, this means rethinking project charters with a more expansive collection of stakeholders, and a wider description of constraints, assumptions and risks.  We teach an extensive pre-planning effort (we call it the Project Success FirstStep Process^®) that covers forming the team, doing the ‘pre-work,” creating the charter (via an extensive, in-person process), and getting it approved before starting the planning phase. Everyone has a chance to put their arguments on the table.  The result is a charter, and a clear set of marching orders, that is approved by stakeholders and in line with what the customer wants.

That way, their projects or products can stay ahead of the Next Big Thing…instead of getting run over by it.

A survey of 32,000 employees revealed that people who met with their managers up to six hours a week were more inspired, engaged and innovative at work. That confirms PSI’s preference for in-person, biweekly team status meetings to shift the Worry Curve.

We know it’s difficult to make time, coordinate schedules, and reserve the room. However, consider the pitfalls of relying solely on electronic status reports – for project managers and teams:

• It encourages procrastination:  Emailed status reports and updates sit in an inbox with other email – easy to overlook or put off. It doesn’t command the attention a meeting would.

• It discourages group problem solving:  Electronic reporting deprives the project of the collective insight and support of the entire team when problems arise.

• It hinders accountability: The biggest problem electronic reporting creates is enabling team members to avoid public accountability for their tasks by hiding behind email.

In-person meetings create team commitment to the project, to each other and to their own roles in the project, while project managers find it easier to monitor progress, see deviations from the plan and tap the insights of the whole group to find solutions.  Being in a room together drives accountability, results, and a sense of community.

It’s a lot better than hiding behind an email.

Andy Rubin, the creator of Android, is launching an incubator for innovators…and it reminds me of a familiar mindset.

His Playground Global LLC will provide support and advice to tech startups making devices for consumers or businesses. This “studio” lets inventors do the fun stuff (creating new products). Playground handles the operations – the scut work, so to speak.

I think “scut work” needs an image overhaul. It’s how Things Get Done. Improving how Things Get Done is a worthwhile investment – but you wouldn’t know from some responses project managers tell me they get when pitching Project Success Method training to senior management:

“It’s just more overhead”

“We bought software to handle that”

“How much can anyone learn in just two days?”

“It’s micromanagement”

It’s like the joke about making politics and making sausage – but it’s the “scut work” that takes a new product from a blank screen to a sales floor. Improving that process is a worthwhile investment that’s paid off for our clients in time and money again and again – and saved weeks of panic-driven overtime by team members caught in a time crunch.

“Paralysis by Analysis,” “Information Overload,” “TMI.”

If the key to a successful project is controlling time, one timewaster to eliminate is over-reporting. Some managers spend too much time tracking too many activities at too low a level of detail.

Luckily, reporting doesn’t have to be like doing your taxes, if you have some guidelines on how much detail is enough:

Each activity should produce a deliverable or change in product status with just enough information to indicate a change in status.

• Subdivide long-term activities into tasks of about a month, so you can track and monitor progress reliably.
• As a rule of thumb, a good level of detail is between three and fifteen working days.

Of course, some large, complex projects – just like large, complex tax returns – need some outside help. Our hands-on course in Control Methods & Practices with Microsoft Project streamlines controlling the performance of projects characterized by complexity and dynamic change.

A concise reporting strategy lets everyone spend their time on the project and not on reporting. Whoever said “the Devil is in the details” was likely a project manager.

Are you getting the most out of your workplace conflicts?

PSI considers project conflicts a feature, not a bug, especially in the chartering process. A skilled facilitator uses conflicts (in resources, scheduling, timing and more) to flag problems and solve them. The key is having the right skills and credentials:

-They understand the contents and value of a good project charter

-They can lead a diverse group in a complex discussion for two hours or more

-They have no stake in any particular outcome

Two out of three won’t fly here. Although your company’s project manager seems like a logical choice, neither the project manager, the customer, nor the project sponsor should be facilitators. Team members will either withhold problems (thus not solving them) or consider the process a charade and their input won’t be heeded. Either way, the project suffers because not all problems have been addressed and because the project team has limited commitment.

Some companies tap someone from HR, or get someone from the International Association of Facilitators. Call me biased, but for a chartering process with a proven track record of success, outside experts from PSI, who can facilitate and consult on the project, are your best bet.

This year society reached a game-changing milestone.

In 2015, millennials (ages 18 – 34) will be the nation’s largest living generation. They use a different playbook (There’s actually a quiz.).

The generational clash is most evident in the workplace, where recruiters note the exodus of talent. The stakes are high (between $15,000 and $25,000 for each replacement). Are project managers (with neither hiring nor salary authority for team members) vulnerable to millennial staff turnover?

Not necessarily. Some of the qualities millennials value are:

-The opportunity to be part of a team

-Challenges and opportunities for career growth

-Guidance and support available when needed.

The Project Success MethodÒ incorporates these factors. It is a fast, cost-effective way for millennials to learn how to get things done, while instilling workplace values and techniques that will benefit them and their employers long-term.

Compared to that, who cares if they never heard of an answering machine?

Connect with me:

• LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/clintpadgett
• Twitter: @clintpadgett

Clint Padgett is the president and CEO of PSI. Since joining the firm in 1994, he has provided consulting, training, and account management to clients in a wide range of industries. His project experience covers many traditional and special applications, including: product development, equipment installation/startup, facility construction/moves, marketing, software/hardware system implementation, and international sporting events. He is a graduate of the Georgia Institute of Technology with a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering. He also holds a master’s degree in business administration from the Fuqua School of Business at Duke University. He is associated with the Project Management Institute, the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers, and the Product Development & Management Association, among others. Additionally, Clint is a published author and frequently speaks at conferences on the subject of project management, including the Executive Education program in the Scheller College of Business at the Georgia Institute of Technology, where he is an adjunct professor.

Leaders like Bill Gates worry that Artificial Intelligence will create havoc. Even now, ethicists grapple with the unintended consequences of automated programs – like illegal activity.

The fascination with AI is part popular culture and part business savvy. It’s tempting (in cost and time savings) to automate – to remove or limit the human element and personal interaction.

It’s a false economy.

Several studies prove that nothing beats face to face meetings for transparency, trust, cohesion, and persuasiveness. Leaders of in-person meetings obtain better information. They pick up on cues by individuals and ‘read the room” as a whole to get subtext that no software or AI program can detect.

More important, periodic, in-person meetings of team members makes sure the Worry CurveÒ is shifted. Teams reinforce mutual accountability and support each member.   As they continue to meet and solve problems, their commitment to the project, to each other and to their own role grows in a way no software can duplicate. It’s a lot more satisfying than monitoring via Skype or filling in boxes in a software program.

And of course, with face to face meetings with real people, you can rest assured some AI software isn’t blowing the project budget playing internet poker or doing insider trading.

At the start of most ventures, problems seem far away; future challenges seem manageable. It’s “the Honeymoon Period” – the most enjoyable and durable part of a personal relationship; in business, less so…

…and it’s the biggest obstacle to project management success.

My book, the Project Success Method, reveals that during a project’s “Honeymoon Period,” everyone thinks there’s plenty of time, and the project scope and complexity itself is underestimated. PSI calls this “Uninformed Optimism.”

About halfway through the project, the team begins to sense that things are not going very well. Poor planning, lack of focus, and ineffective controls lead to a sense of foreboding. Worries increase. Teams fragment, quality suffers, and budgets explode before the deadline is reached.

Our approach not only accepts that there’s an expiration date for the Honeymoon Period – we move it up.

With our Shifting the Worry Curve^® method, we offer some common sense steps at the outset:

-the team meets face to face to develop a project plan

-individual team members commit to specific activities

-team members meet regularly (every two weeks) to report their status and solve problems

Clients have told me how their teams appreciate not facing a Mount Everest of problems towards the end of a project. By avoiding the Honeymoon Period, team members remain engaged and committed to their projects because they have successfully managed the most critical dimension of project performance: Time.

It’s not happier ever after, but it’s close.

That’s Incredible….

….is not always a compliment.

You don’t need a Brian Williams-like meltdown to lose credibility. The biggest credibility risk for project managers and staff is how they handle time estimates for task duration.

True, they’re fighting human nature: the planning fallacy – that people are naturally optimistic in estimating their own task duration.

One solution is to add staff when the project is late. This happens so often (and is so ineffective) that it generated Brooks Law, summed up in the adage, “Nine women can’t make a baby in one month.”

Our solution is to temper that optimism by introducing deadlines sooner. As important, however, is how we train project managers to gather duration estimates. The worst thing a project manager can say to an activity manager is “Why should it take so long?” PSI teaches managers that it is more important to secure the activity manager’s commitment to the duration estimate than the estimate itself. The commitment is more important.

Otherwise, team members will over-inflate their time estimates anticipating the pushback. We call it the “escalating estimate padding and slashing game.” Trust is the first casualty.

My book describes multiple processes for determining a reasonable time estimate, but there are some quick, additional tips:

• Don’t challenge time estimates that are too long. Challenge the ones that are too short.
• Ask how many working days (not hours) would get the activity done.
• Reassure staff not to worry about the inaccuracy of the time estimates, but to worry about the activities that haven’t been identified yet.

Above all, remember that without the team’s full commitment on the time estimate, the project schedule is simply incredible. And not in a good way.

A recent Wall Street Journal article described a photo of a war scene as “grizzly.”  Another article said a politician was “unphased” by protests.

This happens so often there’s a word for it.  “The Cupertino Effect” is over-reliance on spell-checker software that produces mistakes.  In college, the worst outcome is a C+, but the stakes are higher in project management.  I’ve seen the poor techniques created by dependency on project management software:

-insufficient collaboration

-gaps in scheduling

-disengaged staff hiding behind software and email

It lets staff avoid accountability and ownership of their tasks.

PSI insists our clients put everyone in the room for the first planning session, because software doesn’t lead projects, people do.  Despite initial pushback, our clients uniformly say the conversations, commitment and ownership is incomparable.  The Project Success Method^(SM) doesn’t let people hide; it harnesses the power of collaboration.

Once people get out from behind their screens and engage, they develop ownership, accountability, and true teamwork in a process that is collaborative, actionable and that everyone believes in.  Software alone can’t do that; the human element makes the difference.

…Or else you’ll have people scanning a photograph wondering where the bear is.

Connect with me:

• LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/clintpadgett
• Twitter: @clintpadgett

Clint Padgett is the president and CEO of PSI. Since joining the firm in 1994, he has provided consulting, training, and account management to clients in a wide range of industries. His project experience covers many traditional and special applications, including: product development, equipment installation/startup, facility construction/moves, marketing, software/hardware system implementation, and international sporting events. He is a graduate of the Georgia Institute of Technology with a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering. He also holds a master’s degree in business administration from the Fuqua School of Business at Duke University. He is associated with the Project Management Institute, the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers, and the Product Development & Management Association, among others. Additionally, Clint is a published author and frequently speaks at conferences on the subject of project management, including the Executive Education program in the Scheller College of Business at the Georgia Institute of Technology, where he is an adjunct professor.