Don’t reinvent the wheel, just realign it.
– Anthony J. D’Angelo, founder of Collegiate Empowerment
In the face of challenging project delivery, and the critical need to grow, evolve, and improve, practitioners do not always know where to turn to improve their capabilities and processes. Lacking other guidance, some organizations try to achieve an improvement approach through internal consensus building. This is certainly a method that encourages everyone to get along; however, it is not always the best way to move forward.
Well-meaning leaders may assemble teams of participants who may lack relevant experience or insight. In an effort to make up for the lack of background and knowledge, an organization may engage in extensive research or waste critical time trying to ‘figure it out’ on their own. Sometimes that research may include reaching out into the ether of the internet and utilizing downloadable, generic templates and processes.
Watch Out for Generic Process Templates
Unfortunately, these downloadable, generic templates will not help the situation. Inventing an answer through consensus will not make the cut either. So, what is the answer? At Transforming Solutions, we are in favor of leveraging proven processes and methods. Our proven practices have been successfully leveraged repeatedly. We believe this proves them valuable.
Processes and methods must have repeatedly worked in a variety of situations – this makes them proven practices. To be sure, practices should be tailored to fit an organization’s purpose. Aligning or tailoring these practices is key. However, the tailoring exercise should be more than rearranging the steps, changing out corporate logos, and swapping the order of stoplights on a status report. The process of tailoring requires insight, experience, and even battle scars.
If it Isn’t Broke, Don’t Reinvent it
Here is an example of an organization that chose to invent a process and was unsuccessful:
A multi-year, multi-tens-of-millions of dollar program needed to track budget and schedule. Instead of using proven cost performance index (CPI) and schedule performance index (SPI) methods, the program team invented their own versions of these global standardized mathematical equations. This was analogous to saying “Einstein’s equation of relativity doesn’t work for us, so we’ll make our own version”.
The project schedule was laid out in immense detail but was poorly managed and provided a false sense of security. Backing a plan into the desired result of the designed math was difficult. On top of this, the plan did not provide easy-to-understand insights to progress. Due to the poor design of the schedule and the ‘invented algorithms’, the program team regularly spent several ‘man-weeks’ per month generating revised cost and schedule numbers. The reporting was done even though it was relatively well understood that the numbers did not represent the real state of program progress. The invention of non-proven tracking methods impaired the project.
Did They Do it on Purpose?
You may wonder why an organization would choose to use tracking methods that required them to reinvent the process (rather than realign it), especially when they were falling behind and overspending. Finding the true issue in the schedule and budget was made more challenging by the customized math. As a result of this similar-but-different approach to tracking status and cost, the true reality of the program was hidden. This makes one wonder: was this creation of alternative methods done on purpose? The entire management team was aligned to the ‘invented’ approach. Groupthink had already done its damage. Against coaching from consultants, including yours truly, several finance analysts, and some vendor partners, the management team exemplified an emperor with no clothes situation. Sure, it ended up gaining the company more money, but it was as if they were purposely hiding the truth.
After more than a year of reporting status in an artificial way, the management team still did not fully understand what was needed to complete the large-scale effort. This was the case despite the abundance of resource function graphs, risk logs, engineering drawings, and project critical path representations generated every month. For this program, a lack of good methods and a lack of transparency impacted effectiveness.
Tailor it “Fit-for-Purpose“
Proven templates, processes, and methods should be leveraged and customized to meet your needs. When leveraging standardized templates, it is crucial that you work on customization with someone that has experience. Engaging experts will help assure that you do not leave out key data points. Experts understand which data is the most impactful. Great design celebrates the marriage of form and function. Think about the value of a status report with proper health metrics. Consider an issue log’s value with appropriate aging data, and assess a risk log with line-item currency valuation of risk. Reinventing does not always prove useful. Why invest the time, money, and cycles of trials to reinvent a process that already works well? Instead, follow Mr. D’Angelo’s adage and realign (rather than reinvent) the wheel.
Mature Your Organization’s Capabilities
If you are looking to mature your capabilities and do not want to waste cycles reinventing, TSI can help you by sharing proven practices for effective delivery, organizational change management, business process improvement, and technology assessments. We will work with you to align our proven practices to your needs, your environment, and your culture. Drop us a line and let’s work together to align a wheel for you.
