He was upset. His project was off the rails and he could not understand why.
His team had defined the problem and found what was supposed to be the best software solution, from the company’s preferred supplier.
They had skipped defining the current state (‘as is’) so as to not waste time on the past.
They had defined the ‘to be’ to ensure minimal software customisations and yet they were not successful. The users kept finding things wrong or missing with the new system.
The benefits, which looked great in the business case, were diminishing monthly.
The governance team was deserting him, sending proxies or resigning all together.
How it was all going to work and come together was still unclear.
He had been asked by the CEO what his area would look like after the system was installed – he could not easily answer the question.
He was looking at both a cost and time overrun – but the remaining available value hardly justified it.
When he asked why this was all happening, he was told that this is quite usual.
“There must be a better way,” he thought.
Another Project Sponsor walked into the bar …
She was happy. Her project was nearing completion ahead of time and under budget.
The first Sponsor asked her why she was so happy – how come she was so in control of her project?
“Simple,” she replied.
“We started with our end defined. We defined our desired business outcomes – the business end states we wanted to achieve after the end of the project.
“We analysed the current state in detail and then defined our new requirements in terms of simplified step-by-step processes – how we want to do business, complete and make money in the future.
“We developed a business case based on a set of change plans that would move us from our current state to the new end states with their attendant benefits and value.
“My governance team took on the role of protecting this value – religiously. No scope changes or deviations without a full value-impact analysis.
“Our list of desired business outcomes pulled the focus of the project together. Everyone, including the CEO, knows what the project is about, the end states we are delivering and what our measures of success are.
“The system solution was only selected after we rigorously tested that it could perform our new, simplified processes as we had defined them. The fact that it aligned with the company’s technical architecture was a bonus.
“The few customisations we’ve allowed were individually cost/value assessed. Most proposed customisations were rejected as they were not worthwhile.
“The business has been involved since day-1, and this has generated a momentum for change.
“And we’ve already delivered over 20% of the benefits.”
“Isn’t that what you’ve done?” she asked brightly.
The first Sponsor ordered another drink. A big one!
In Conclusion
Which project would you rather be associated with?
Which project sounds more like the ones you are currently associated with?
The difference is in how these projects were approached.
The orthodox, cost control-based approach to projects too often leads to the first scenario – heartache, headache, and frustration.
The TOP Programs’ value delivery-based approaches lead to the second scenario – less angst, less effort, and cost, plus more value.
Now there is a better way.
