Some excellent observations over at Trend Tracker. Two in particular shot me right between the ear lobes: Graying of Small Business and Small Businesses Go Virtual. Not only do I fit into these trends, but so do many of my vendors, subcontractors, and clients.
I had a tech company that leased thousands of square feet of space to house 25 employees. Most of the time the office was empty because technologists and consultants were working with clients. And when they weren’t at a client site, they were on the Internet attached to the client’s network or with clients via collaboration software. Why not go virtual. I’m thinking how much money would be saved without the trappings of an office.
Even if you need the space for manufacturing, inventory or other services, does everyone need to be on site? How much of your administrative work can be done virtually? What a great way to reduce costs.
My dad’s been retired for twenty years now. He retired at 65 years old. He still stays busy with the house and landscaping, but I know if my health holds out I’m going to be at this keyboard contributing to another generation of entrepreneurs. I just can’t imagine becoming a shuffleboard champion.
I’ve been mentioning mind mapping (MM) more and more as noted in this blog at Part I and Part II. It’s a great tool! Chuck Frey at the Innovation Weblog has recently posted How to use mind mapping software for project management.
As you can see, mind mapping software is a powerful, flexible and highly productive way to manage your projects, goals and to do lists. They not only help you with initial project planning, but also status reporting and various aspects of project management.
He’s given me a few new ideas. Thanks Chuck!
The Secret Sauce of Business Alignment is an article touting how IT leaders make excuses to avoid practicing what they preach.
But oftentimes, while CIOs go to great lengths to modify the behaviors of their business partners, they haven’t examined and modified their own. For example, most IT organizations are accustomed to initiating projects or selecting technology without subjecting themselves to approval or review committees. While CIOs could get away with this behavior when they made pretty much all of the decisions (on behalf of the users-whether they liked it or not), that’s impossible in today’s world of shared accountability.
Having been in many presentations asking for approvals and capital for IT projects, and having guided several organizations through the technology budgeting process, I found the 5 excuses right on.
A very common question I hear is, “on whom should I rely to help with my strategy, systems and processes?” This is a good question, because managers and executives can turn to technology vendor’s, accountants, attorneys, management consultants, system integrators, in-house staff — or some combination of these.
I have the interesting perspective of having participated in business process re-engineering from the point of view of a systems integrator, a technology vendor, a management consultants and the in-house staff of a company. There is a time and place to go with different combinations.
For many small firms seeking to implement a change or just review its processes, it is an almost automatic choice to turn within itself and use it’s own in-house people. This is usually a pretty smart move. Your own people are interesting in learning new skills and procedures and to make themselves more marketable. Unfortunately they lack the experience of “been there, done that” or as project managers call it, lessons learned.
So the in-house approach works best when combined with bringing in a coach, mentor and/or consultant. Bringing one or two of these consultants on to work with or train the rest of the staff can be a great strategic move. They’ve seen many products, vendors and processes and have been there and done it many, many times before. But make sure the consultant isn’t biased to certain products, technologies or processes. Conduct an open and frank discussion with the consultant or the consulting firm’s project partner about whether or not the consulting company gets a commission for the recommendations they make, and make sure the results of that conversation are in your contract.
One of the biggest hurdles implementing or changing your processes is understanding your company’s workflow. It always amazes me how many companies do not have this well documented. Business process re-engineering will require changes to your processes and ideally will improve existing workflow inefficiencies. Consider investing in objective research and documentation before making any changes.
There is no single project plan that will work for every organization or implementation. However, I would encourage you to explore the following items:
- Invest in objective research and document your existing business processes. Find out what the core business problems are.
- Bring in a consultant when you really need help understanding your company’s business processes and to help with an overall strategy.
- Avoid outside consultants with conflicts of interest.
- Send your staff to training (general and problem-specific). Define new business processes to prepare for.
- If you plan to run the project in-house, think about bringing in a project management adviser to help.
- Anticipate the impact of changes to the business. Determine risks vs. rewards.
A very interesting article in the latest PC Magazine: Closing Microsoft. Speculative, imaginative…and amusing.
In fact, I see the entire company coasting along making more and more money with possibly one concept ahead: to close down.
An interesting study recently published in the United Kingdom — The state of IT Project Management in the UK – the definitive study. The objectives of the study were to:
- Construct a comprehensive picture of IT project and program management in the UK today.
- Develop performance benchmarks for IT projects and programs.
- Identify key drivers of project performance.
- Identify characteristics of successful project and program managers.
- Identify best practices in enterprise-level management of project and program managers.
- Anticipate emerging developments in project and program management.
Key issues covered by the research include:
- The performance of projects and project managers.
- The characteristics of project managers.
- How organizations support project managers.
- The changing nature of project management.
We found that project performance is better than has been previously thought. While the number of projects hitting all their targets remains low at 16%, the variance is much less than commonly supposed. Average overrun on budget is 18%; average overrun on schedule is 23%; average under achievement on scope/functionality is 7%. These figures suggest significant improvements are occurring.
The 82-page report is available for download at the site link above. A similar survey and analysis of US projects is expected to be completed in 2005.
