Project Portfolio Management (PPM) Today

Revolution or Evolution

As Project Portfolio Management continues to gain momentum in all sectors of the economy, one question that continues to plague my thoughts is whether PPM represents a significant departure from traditional management techniques, or does it reflect an evolutionary step, a natural addition to traditional project management techniques?

This is perhaps too simple a dichotomy, and I have pointed out false dichotomies in the arguments of other writers. But still the question continues to stand unanswered. On the one hand, PPM builds on traditional project management techniques and so it is tempting to see PPM as evolutionary, a mere ratcheting up of a discipline. And yet on the other hand I continue to see traditional Project Management cultures struggle to get their arms around how PPM changes the entire notion of why a project exists and what it's supposed to accomplish.

One significant difference is transparency. Many project management driven cultures are fearful of transparency. They prefer the relative darkness of projects that are managed by legions of inscrutable gantt charts and spread sheets. Subjective assessments. Guesswork. They like the ability to manipulate the actual progress of any project or initiative though creative interpretation. This may also reflect the sense of power, however small, of being the Project Manager. The belief that they are at the helm and can steer the ship like a captain at sea.

Another major change comes in the form of project approval. Projects will no longer be initiated because someone decided on their own that it seemed like a fun thing to do. Project initiation and approval will become more standardized, just like the procurement-to-payment process. You can't just wing it.

But are the talents and values of the traditional Project Manager actually at risk in a PPM environment? Certainly they will be forced to align themselves with the organization with greater accountability. But are they somehow less valuable to the organization? Based on observed experience, I would argue that, in sum, they are in fact much more potent and thus much more valuable.

Another major departure from traditional project management arises as senior management has greater visibility and responsibility for the performance of the project portfolio. This appears to be a significant adjustment, and one of the reasons some PPM implementations stutter several times before they hit their stride. Conflicting agendas, uncertainty, new obligations, all of these changes confront the leadership team and they struggle to get on the same page.

But like it or not, PPM has arrived and it now appears inevitable. Visibility, transparency, accountability, measurement, these things are significant competitive advantages and those organizations that figure it out first get the proverbial brass ring. And so have I answered the question? Yes and no.

For my part, I see PPM as a transformational shift, and it will bring across whatever project management disciplines will continue to add value in the new model. It will also leave behind those that don't.

Portfolio Metrics

As a followup to my previous post on IT Toolbox, Measuring Health, I would like to explore the question of performance statistics in a bit more detail.

Now that we've been applying quantified measurements internally for a few weeks, we are starting to notice a few things:

1. When you pick a standard profile for quantifying performance metrics, you accelerate the notion of "working together" versus "working on your own." In other words, a performance standard applied across projects in a portfolio leads to a shared understanding of performance and health, rather than an individualistic approach. These are not "my projects" but rather they are "our projects."

2. Applying a scorecard to a portfolio of projects immediately forces everyone to make sure that the data is in fact accurate. If a project shows up as "red" then everyone associated with the project immediately wants to know why. Is it actually red? What is making it red? Is the data accurate? These are all good questions.

3. As anticipated, a color coded Health Indicator immediately trains the eyes on what needs attention. Once the project data has been updated and is accurate, then folks want to drill into what is "red." Next, they want to drill into what is "yellow." The good news is that the purpose of Health Indicators is to focus team members on what needs attention, to simplify the effort to evaluate "how we are doing."

4. There appears to be a desire to create personal/private health profiles, which at this point I would judge to be a bad idea. This is a natural desire to anticipate a visible poor score. My view as of now is that the performance measures that produce the scorecard (aka red-green-yellow indicators) must behave consistently or you have confusion. If something is green at one level, but red at a lower level because of different criteria, that will lead to inconsistent communication and misleading indicators.

5. There also appears to be a tendency to say "but I know it says that the task is red, but I know it's green." Well, this is exactly what a quantitative approach is intended to address. If we use quantified methods, the health of a project or task is what it is. If it's 25% late, then it's 25% late. If we agree to change the target date for any reason at all, we can make it green again, but at least we all saw the evidence of trouble and made a clear decision together.

Clearly, this is an important shift away from traditional project assessments, which tend to be subjective and murky. It may take some time to get used to such a clear picture of performance health, but it is inevitable.

Any other observations on experiences with quantified scorecards for projects, portfolios and tasks?