| I am struck by how often
failure is blamed on a lack of discipline. You often hear
losing coaches cite this as the reason for a big loss.
I don't recall the last time I heard one say that his
team lost a game because of his players' lack of skill.
I think a breakdown in discipline is also one of the key
reasons why program and project management teams fail
to meet expectations.
The first program I ever managed had a clear set of
priorities. I understood the mandate, and so did everyone
else on the team. We set an ambitious schedule and started
to work fervently. Not too long into the program the
customer wanted to know what performance he was going
to get. I replied by categorizing the performance parameters
into three bins:
- Performance you will get.
- Performance you may get.
- Performance that there's no way you will get.
Did that cause an uproar! The customer demanded everything
in the second bin be moved to the first, and most everything
in the third bin be moved to the second. My immediate
impulse was to agree, but I managed to overcome that.
In my heart, I knew that we would never meet the already
ambitious schedule if we had to deliver more performance.
"No" was my answer.
| The result
would have been largely different had senior management
or I failed to maintain discipline. |
"If you don't give me better performance, then I am going
to get the program cancelled," the customer argued. Fine.
He attempted to carry through on his threat, but senior
management, to their credit, came down on my side. The
program turned out to be a huge success, but the result
would have been largely different had senior management
or I failed to maintain discipline. Since then I can't
tell you how many times saying "no" has kept the programs
I've managed on track.
Program and project managers have to be vigilant about
maintaining discipline. So many temptations exist. Development
programs are a really good example of how this occurs.
When using a cost reimbursable approach to pay for them,
we can be sorely tempted to plan as we go, excusing
ourselves because of the risk involved, or because we
did not think we had enough time to plan adequately.
Government is particularly susceptible to this kind
of behavior. Watch out!
Requirements grow. Work scope grows. Cost and schedule
grow.
 |
| A performance
test firing of a U.S. Air Force Expendable Launch
Vehicle project -- not the same kind of performance
Terry Little is talking about in his article, but
there is probably just as much bang for the buck
in his suggestions about how to maintain project
discipline. |
Commercial companies only rarely use a cost-reimbursement
approach when investing in risky projects. Rather, they
do fixed-price, incremental investing, and put a high
premium on detailed planning. They place a fixed amount
of money into a research or development project with the
expectation (but not a guarantee) of a certain result.
Periodically, or when the money is gone, they look at
interim results (compared to plan) and decide whether
to invest more funds. This makes for a very disciplined
approach that program and project managers in government
can learn from.
Successful program and project managers understand
the value of maintaining discipline on a project. Being
disciplined is not easy, and requires strong will power.
It pays to always be thinking about key decisions where
you've either acted to maintain discipline or allowed
a breakdown to occur. The payoff is a better understanding
of why discipline is important to your project and what
your role is in fostering a disciplined attitude for
the entire project team.
|
Terry
Little is currently the head of the Air Force's Center
for Acquisition Excellence. Before that he was the Program
Director for the Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile
(JASSM). He is one of DoD's most seasoned program managers.
He entered the Air Force in 1967 and served on active
duty until 1975. In 1997 he was promoted to the grade
of SES.
