I am loving this conversation. Please keep going.

I am loving it because it goes to the heart of something that I care deeply about: the PM Mindset and belief system that we need to develop, as we are called upon to lead major change projects in today’s complex environment.

How do we know when to step back and let our stakeholders do their “work” and when we do need to step in and influence (sell ideas and options to) to help them absorb change when the project stalls?

To stay alive and be able to sleep well at night, how much of ourselves should we pour in our projects to make them succeed and when do we know to stay detached. And can we really stay detached and yet keep our passion for the work we are doing?

Our views on these topics reflect what we learned from our diverse backgrounds, experiences, and the scars – paper cuts we collected along the way.

So please keep the conversation going. I am thrilled with all the ideas we are sharing here.

Thank you guys.

I do agree with you that the sponsor is the ultimate owner of the project. That being said, the sponsor has brought us in, usually, because they needed help.

(I’m totally digging this convo btw…sorry Samad for filling up your blog page)

It’s interesting to me you see the “why” and “what” of a project as something that’s really none of our business. I’m not saying it’s right or wrong…that just hasn’t been my experience. (And it doesn’t help that I have a history of shoving my nose where it doesn’t belong bwahahaha).

I think the value of the PMs involvement in the “why” and “what” comes not at the beginning of the project, where what’s known about scope is being hammered out; but in the middle, where change requests start getting raised, usually because the scope is getting better definition through learning, focus and exposure.

When this happens, there’s a high potential for stakeholder conflict. As PMs I see we have a choice: get involved in the conflict, resolve it by whatever means necessary and move on…or stop all work, push back to the sponsor and get him to deal with it. “Call me when you’re ready to move on.”

Resolving by any means necessary often means taking the initiative to work out new and sometimes crazy solutions, and selling the ideas to the stakeholders, which is why I believe in what Samad’s said above.

However, I don’t think either approach is right or wrong, and there’s merits to both. My background is financial trading systems where stakeholders usually ask me to take out a mortgage on my soul before they’ll hire me. LOL

Cheers, my friend!
Geoff.
http://edge.papercutpm.com

1. I would agree with the notion that a PM needs to operate as a facilitator, bringing different stakeholders together with the aim of achieving an amicable understanding.

2. I am a bit concerned about the looseness of the term “our project”. it is only ours by the virtue of the charter given to us by the project sponsor. Ultimately the project really belongs to the sponsor and we are merely the sponsor’s agent entrusted with the task of driving the project to it’s completion. We can largely influence the ‘how’ but to a much lesser degree the ‘why’ and the ‘what’. If the ‘why’ and the ‘what’ are under review and their validity is questionable, strictly speaking it is not the PM’s business to get these issues resolved.

What do you reckon?

Cheers, Shim.

When the project becomes larger and increasingly complex, though, I find stakeholders stop agreeing on what the objectives are and start throwing food at one another instead.

As project managers, we have to get to end of job; and since we’re the ones with the purview of the project, it often falls to us to influence our stakeholders and change their positions such that we can get agreement to proceed. If we don’t do this, our projects can stall.

New ideas are really solutions to problems that people don’t know they have. In that context, I would agree with Samad that there is an element of “change agent” in what we do, because it’s often the only way to break stakeholder deadlock.

My two cents anyway!
Geoff.
http://edge.papercutpm.com

You are so right that there are “absolutely no absolutes”. I love that.

You are also so spot on when you said that we all have our own individual observations and interpretations. I think this is an exciting time that we have these blog posts as medium to have a dialogue to express our ideas and learn about each other experiences. I am thrilled anytime we can engage in these thought provoking discussions and I look forward to many rich and exciting conversations with you.

Cheers,

Samad

So just a few points:

1. I’m not sure whether or not we, as project managers have the capacity, nor the ethical or professional responsibility to “ensure stakeholders are not making choices that dilute the business objective of the project”. After, it is the stakeholders who, in their collective wisdom, helped shape the business objectives in the first place. We are given a set of objectives and if these change due to this business decision or another, it’s our job to manage that transition via scope control.
2. I wonder about your comment regarding the role of the project manager as a change agent. Looking forward to other PM’s comments on this issue. I’ve expressed my view in my earlier comment.

Keep on writing mate, that’s the only way we can enrich our collective knowledge base.

Cheers, Shim
http://www.quantmleap.com

Thank you for your comment.

You article does a good job outlining proper change management process. Thank you so much for this contribution.

And thank you for the inspiration you gave me to write this post. I never thought about this story in the way you brilliantly put it. But once I read your post, I looked at the story in a new way and I saw the parallel with what we do as PMs. So thank you and I look forward to more inspirations form you. I will be reading your blog.