About this Video

• Video Title: How to Avoid Project Portfolio Failure - Part 2 | Episode 197
• Channel: CorneliusFichtner
• Speakers: Cornelius Fichtner, Joel Fle
• Duration: 00:30:27

Introduction

This is the second part of a two-part podcast interview discussing project portfolio failure. The interview focuses on identifying common causes of project failure and offering solutions, particularly through a synergistic methodology. The first part covered seven areas of failure; this part examines four more.

Key Takeaways

• Cost Estimates: Inaccurate cost estimates, often underestimated intentionally to increase project selection chances, lead to project failure. A better system links requirements to tasks to accurately track and project costs.
• Workflows and Warnings: Undefined workflows lead to unproductive staff. A system providing daily assignments and timely warnings of potential delays is crucial.
• Staff Productivity: Low staff productivity stems from factors like unclear correlation between performance and compensation, office politics, schedule dependencies, and ineffective performance evaluation. A scientific, impartial method for measuring individual productivity in various labor categories is needed.
• Resource Allocation: Current resource allocation methods are inefficient, often assigning top talent to less important tasks. A synergistic system automatically allocates resources to the most crucial tasks based on productivity and labor category.
• Synergistic Methodology: The interview advocates for a synergistic methodology that addresses the problems highlighted in both parts of the podcast. This methodology uses software to improve project selection, requirement management, scheduling, costing, staff productivity evaluation, and resource allocation.

The first interview discussed three major causes of project failure:

1. Project Selection: Companies often don't select the best projects due to a lack of comprehensive criteria and a flexible system to prioritize projects based on importance.

2. Requirements: Ambiguities and changes in requirements are significant contributors to project failure.

3. Schedules: Poor scheduling practices, including neglecting dependencies and overestimating task durations, frequently lead to project delays and failures. The interview also briefly touched on costing and testing as additional contributing factors. The synergistic method is presented as a solution to these problems.

Not directly, but inaccurate cost estimates are a critical factor in project selection. Project sponsors often underestimate costs to improve selection odds, leading to the implementation of projects with unrealistic budgets and ultimately contributing to project failure. The problem isn't the estimate itself, but the flawed process leading to its creation and use in project selection.

The interview suggests that low staff productivity is often due to a lack of perceived correlation between performance and compensation, the influence of office politics, schedule dependencies, and the overemphasis on self-promotion rather than actual work. The solution proposed is a scientific, impartial system to measure individual productivity in each labor category, allowing for fair and objective performance evaluations and salary adjustments.

Organizations typically allocate resources through meetings between key executives, the project office (if one exists), and the project manager and/or sponsor. This process often involves debates and significant delays in acquiring or reassigning resources. The process is slow, inefficient, and often doesn't match the best resources with the most important tasks. There are also delays in removing resources from projects when they are no longer needed.

The synergistic system solves resource allocation problems by automatically assigning labor categories to tasks instead of specific individuals. It prioritizes tasks based on project importance and assigns the most productive available resource within the necessary labor category to the highest-priority tasks. This process repeats until all tasks are allocated, with the system reporting any resource shortfalls to allow management to address them proactively. The system also allows for manual overrides to assign specific individuals to tasks or to exclude certain individuals from a project. This approach ensures that the most productive resources are allocated to the most critical tasks, improving efficiency and reducing delays.

Apora is presented as a quantum leap above other project management tools because it offers a holistic, portfolio-level view, unlike other tools which focus on individual projects. Apora uniquely provides features like automated resource allocation, requirement and schedule scanning for quality assurance, a unique costing methodology, and staff productivity computation with cost-effectiveness analysis—features not found in competitors.

Joel recommends two main improvements: First, enhance requirement creation by ensuring each requirement is a single, uniquely identifiable statement without adjectives or adverbs. Second, improve schedule creation by structuring tasks to begin with action verbs, defining clear durations, and assigning resources to all low-level tasks. He also suggests that project managers should seek training on how to write effective schedules, rather than just on how to use specific project management software.