Recently had contact with a software implementation where processes were too complicated, feedback took too long, no formal processes existed for the implementation, user community backing was missing, there was little awareness of the risks and how they were already impacting or about to slam-dunk the project?
These are a few of many, regular symptoms of a badly managed implementation. Except in cases of scope reduction or inaccurate reporting, these projects will always come in over time and budget, completely missing their targets, assuming clear targets were set out on commencement of the project.
Working through a few points and relating them to recent experiences will make it quite clear how easily avoidable the above traps are. Let`s look at some of the roles of the project manager in supplying and receiving environments as well as where this role is their primary or secondary role.
History shows that placing project managers in the leading roles dramatically improves the chances of success. This success is again improved when the project manager is experienced, especially in the field of the implementation at hand.
When looking at most software implementations, there is always one organisation supplying and one receiving, unless it is internal, in which case it is between departments rather than companies. With that in mind, consider that the supplying and receiving project managers must play different roles within the same implementation.
Without a healthy relationship between the implementers and receivers, an enjoyable and successful project suddenly becomes a real pain, fraught with conflict.
Malcolm Meintjes, project manager, Fulcrum Business Solutions
The supplier needs to ensure the product is well prepared and ready for implementation, the implementing team is skilled and ready to go, and the offering is clearly laid out to the client. The receiving project manager would naturally need to ensure that what is offered is what is required and clearly understood by the user community and that they are either ready or plans are in place to get them ready.
Is their primary role in the organisation actually project management, or is this secondary to another fulltime role? Other points to consider include the timelines, method of implementation and testing, etc. It goes without saying that the costs and billing methods of all activities including travel and accommodation are clearly defined. How many projects run into financial queries because the expectations were not clear? Clearing up the arrangements and expectations upfront with documented confirmations can easily prevent this. Too many people are uncomfortable with discussing the financial details of projects and this only results in frustration on both sides when unexpected invoices arrive, suddenly order numbers are expected and not yet ready, activities not expected to be billed are billed, etc. Regardless of how smooth the implementation is going, this issue alone can completely sour the relationships built during the life of the project. Let`s face it, without a healthy relationship between the implementers and receivers, an enjoyable and successful project suddenly becomes a real pain, fraught with conflict and those flexibilities shown by both parties suddenly tighten up with everyone going back "to the book" throwing all co-operation out the window.
In order to prevent or resolve these problems, the first step towards success is realising there is in fact a problem. Some organisations are too "busy" and don`t "have the time" to look into these problems. Always consider that when solving any issue; first look to yourself and your own company to see what can be improved. Not only will this reveal positive steps that can be taken, it will also show that a genuine effort is being made to solve the issue rather than finding scapegoats.
"Dedicated" project manager roles make a definite improvement to the success of projects. If a fulltime project manager is not viable due to the short time requirements, then seriously consider contracting in. If a project manager is not delivering as expected, check the processes, the learning curves, the support system, etc. Remember the project managers are not the only people who determine the success of implementations. They are only as good as their teams. Teams, of course, also include the executives, sponsors, IT infrastructure personnel, etc.
Take a look at the last three implementations, regardless of your role, and relate them to the above points. Hopefully most of them measure up favourably. If they do, take a moment to appreciate the fact that you are positioned in a well-organised system. If not, make an effort to improve future implementations.
Remember that the most consistent approach towards success is to "play the ball and not the man".
Share