Upper Management Influence on Projects

Upper managers need to understand project management practices and support the project planning process. They need to become familiar with the terminology and tooling of project plans—about project objective statements, work breakdown structures, estimates, scheduling, contingency planning, and trade-offs among scope, schedule, and resources. That some upper managers do not know about these things is unsurprising; perhaps their careers did not include training in project management. Whatever the reason, they may be unaware not only of the need for project planning but also of the effort it takes to develop the tools. If that is the case, they certainly do not know the benefits that planning can bring.

Another area where upper management actions have considerable effect on project success is in managing in a learning, creative situation. By definition, projects attempt to develop something new—something that is produced in a new way. Because a new end is sought, the project work that will bring it about is best done in an environment of learning and creativity. The repeatable processes and products of the traditional management environment are rarely appropriate, and they may actually be detrimental. Thus, upper managers need to understand best practices for managing on the learning curve.

           A learning curve shows several relationships between the amount of time devoted to an activity and the percentage of that activity that is complete at that time. The straight line indicates the normal path of progress when an activity has been repeated many times. Because the work necessary to complete the activity is familiar, it progresses at a fairly steady rate. Not all repeated activities progress along an exactly straight line, but the general pace tends to be more predictable and steadier than when work is new and must be learned as it is being done.

The curve in the figure  shows the path of progress in a learning and creative situation: the learning curve. It is common in project activities.

In creative situations, the percentage of the task completed is often low at the beginning, and then output builds rapidly as the deadline nears. This is because creative work must incubate. There is much consideration of alternative possibilities at the beginning of the task and then a synthesis of solutions as the deadline draws near. The creative process is done with the activity deadline in mind, but there needs to be enough time for the synthesizing process to take place. This emphasizes the importance of setting believable deadlines for both project milestones and the final product.

   Many upper managers feel it is their prerogative to change deadlines. Perhaps a competitor has taken an unexpected action; maybe the product is needed sooner to boost earnings. Or the upper manager may simply believe that the project is taking too much time. Justifiable reasons for finishing the project faster can always be found, and when they are, upper managers may believe they are taking appropriate action by moving up the deadline, adding people, or both. This may be effective where people are doing repeat work; indeed, it is a tried and true management response to change. However, in creative situations like projects, it is absolutely and demonstrably incorrect and probably will lead to project failure.

The basic reason is that the project constraints of outcome, cost, and schedule are interrelated: a change in one causes changes in the others. An arbitrary change in schedule thus affects the outcome and costs. To understand this relationship, look again at the figure. If the deadline is arbitrarily moved up, the creative process is short-circuited, and solution synthesis will not take place. Something will be delivered at the new deadline, but not at the quality levels originally desired. Thus, the change in schedule changes the outcome.

  The arbitrary change in schedule also has a negative effect on the trust level between the upper manager and team members. Project deadlines are best negotiated between the team and upper management, a process that builds trust. Suddenly moving the deadline without team input destroys that trust. Without trust, team morale plummets, and the project heads for disaster. Thus, taking steps that may be appropriate in repeat process environments can destroy the project that is producing the very outcome upper management seeks. Pity, isn’t it?

  Another favored action for cutting time is to add people halfway through an activity. Upper managers may do this if they do not understand the project learning curve—if they think the project is late because (for example) less than half the work is done halfway to the deadline. The expectation of straight-line progress instead of learning curve progress creates unwarranted concern. Adding people to solve the nonexistent lateness problem is a well-known folly of project management.

Upper managers often support adding people to projects. Perhaps they believe in a “bias for action”, or maybe they feel it gives the impression that they are in control of the situation. This is like making a wide detour rather than sitting in a traffic queue: it may take more time, burn more gas, and put more miles on the car, but it gives a feeling of control and a sense that something—anything!—is happening.

  Being in control depends on the definition of control. Upper management does not control a project by directing action or checking actual action against expected action. Control means checking results against expected results, and the expected results are embodied in the plan. The future is unknowable but will emerge from the spontaneous, self-organizing interaction between people called bounded instability—a state of chaos that exists between stable equilibrium and explosive instability. Businesses strenuously seek to operate in a chaotic arena in order to achieve success over the long term. This means being highly sensitive to small changes, being dependent to some extent on chance, and being ultimately constrained by business control systems. When managers employ control systems that utilize both negative and positive feedback at the same time, they sustain their organizations in a state which makes it possible for innovation to occur.

  Upper managers can apply this advice by emulating a modern manufacturing practice: fix the process, not the product. That is, provide clear goals and training for people to work on innovative tasks (but avoid commands), expect work to happen chaotically and autonomously (even if it seems out of control), and design a process that checks progress at crucial decision points (rather than micromanaging work in progress). Manufacturers today, as well as Agile enthusiasts doing software development, often follow a just-in-time concept, recognizing that work happens when it is pulled along by successor activities in small, flexible batches. This allows deviations to be spotted quickly because each task is accountable to assess its inputs and outputs.

In project management, control means monitoring deviation from the plan and then taking steps to return to the planned outcome. Still, all too often a rush is made to add people to projects perceived as being late. Referring again to the figure, project activity usually proceeds at a rate indicated by the curve on the chart, whereas uninformed upper managers expect to see progress as shown by the straight line. In other words, they expect half of project activities to be completed when half the time allotted for the project has passed. Worse, for much of the project’s life, the gap between the straight line and the curve continues to increase. This is also a measure of the increasing anxiety of these managers. Their anxiety is greatest after about 60 percent of the allotted project time has expired. At this point, the managers are wringing their hands wondering what to do, and they often add people to the activity—sometimes even when they know better—in the hope that nothing bad will happen to them this time.

  Managers often ask what to do if they do not add people and an activity is still late. If the activity is truly late and not just perceived to be, the first reaction should be to go to the project plan. Is the activity on the critical path? If not, the lateness will not affect the final date of the project, and there is little problem. If the activity is on the critical path, determine what future activities can be changed to make up for this one. An activity can be expedited by adding people before it begins or by scaling back its scope. To do this requires having a plan and believing in it, another benefit of an extensive planning process.

Randall L. Englund and Dr. Robert J. Graham are co-authors of Creating an Environment for Successful Projects, Third Edition (Berrett-Koehler 2019). This article is an excerpt from Chapter Three.