By Alex Laufer and Jeff Russell
The rationale for setting project
objectives is obvious: without proper objectives (translated into technical
requirements) the project team might try to do the task right without doing the
right task. The example from Alice in Wonderland articulates it succinctly: “If
you don’t know where you’re going, any road will get you there.”
Indeed, the negative implications of
poorly defined requirements have been discussed in the literature. To avoid
these negatives, the common recommendation is to develop the complete set of requirements
prior to embarking on the means for accomplishing them. However, the following
story, told by Dr. Michelle Collins from NASA, suggests that some project
managers do not accept this recommendation.
At
a meeting of NASA Project Managers, the group was involved in an exercise on
requirements. She narrates:
“You are given a project to
develop the software for an Automatic Teller Machine (ATM). Write four
requirements… The group was a mix of senior and junior Project Managers (PMs).
We broke into pairs to come up with the four requirements for the ATM, and then
we regrouped to discuss our findings. Several of the pairs consisted of one
senior PM and one junior PM…All three senior PMs gave requirements that were
extremely brief and general; the junior PMs offered lengthy and fairly explicit
requirements.”
An
example of a pair of responses follows.
Senior Project
Managers
|
Junior Project Managers
|
Functionality
|
Provide money in the form of
$20s with no fee and warn Home Office of empty condition at least one hour in
advance of becoming empty.
|
Reliability
|
With minimal annual
maintenance, the ATM does not break down.
|
Security
|
The ATM communicates with the
Home Office continuously including a video feed.
|
User-friendly
|
The ATM accepts at least 10
major credit cards and operates in 6 major languages with complete
instructions provided where a withdrawal transaction, including printing the
receipt, occurs in less than 60 seconds.
|
Prior to discussing the intriguing question
of why the veteran project managers exhibited caution and refused to elaborate
the requirements, we will share results of three relevant studies. In the first
study, 39 experienced project managers at
11 large US corporations (e.g., AT&T, DuPont, Exxon, General Motors, IBM,
and Procter & Gamble), were interviewed by the first author. Each interview
lasted about a half-day, and it focused only on one project which was studied in
great detail. The results showed that these project managers did not adhere to
the rule “Define the problem, then solve it,” or, “Objectives first, means
second.” Rather, in almost all the 39 projects the requirements specification process
was not an isolated activity, and it was not completed before searching for
alternatives began.
In the second study, of 211 R&D
projects, it was found that the extent
to which the project’s business and technical goals were well-defined at the
time of initiation was not significantly related to the project’s eventual
success or failure. However, late in the life of the project the relationship
was statistically significant. Business and technical goals for successful
projects became better defined over the life of the project than did the goals
for unsuccessful projects.
The third study, of 308 decision
processes in West Germany, also demonstrated that the goal formation process was not completed before the beginning of the
problem-solving activity. This study provided the rationale behind this
behavior: namely, the insight into possible solutions influences
the decision-makers’ ideas of what they really wanted.
Indeed, a similar rationale was provided
by Professor James March of Stanford University, a well-known authority on
organizations and decision-making who concluded that: “The argument that goal development and choice are independent
behaviorally seems clearly false. It seems to me perfectly obvious that a
description that assumes that goals come first and action comes later is
frequently radically wrong. Human choice behavior is as much a process for
discovering goals as for acting on them.”
Now we are better equipped to reflect on
the opening story regarding the level of detail in the requirements given for
an ATM machine by the two groups of project managers. It seems that the experienced
project managers knew that because the scenario was posed early, at the
beginning of the conceptual phase of their task, it was advisable to first quickly
examine the means rather than immediately attempt to formulate the requirements
in great detail. Specifically, they wanted to examine the means to learn better
what they really want and if they can afford it. To use the terminology
presented in our first blog post, they realized that they are still in the
living order phase. The inexperienced project managers, on the other hand,
wrongly assumed that they are already in the geometric order phase.
In future blog posts we will present
specific practices used by successful project managers to identify and facilitate
the appropriate pace of moving from living order to geometric order, so that
they can finalize the formulation of stable project requirements, as early as
possible, but not too early.
- Collins’ story: “Lessons from NASA Project Managers,” Michelle Collins. 2001. Ask Magazine 3 (June): 26-9.
- First study: “Letting Go of Once and for All,” Alexander Laufer. 2003. Ask Magazine 13 (August): 40.
- Second study: N.R. Baker, S.G. Green, and A.S. Bean. 1986. Why R&D Projects Succeed or Fail. Research Management 29, 6 (November-December): 29-34.
- Third study: J. Hauschildt. 1986. Goals and Problem-Solving in Innovative Decisions. In Empirical Research on Organizational Decision-Making, eds. E. Witte and H.J. Zimmermann, 3-19. North-Holland: Elsevier.
- J.G. March. 1976. The Technology of Foolishness. In Ambiguity and Choice in Organizations, eds. J.G. March and J.P.Olsen,69-81. Bergen: Universitetsforlaget.
No comments:
Post a Comment