I began writing a daily Haiku in November of 2020. The election had just occurred and results were not called. As with many, this created some anxiety. Moreover, I had just blown a 230 day Duolingo streak (trying to learn Spanish in hopes my pilgrimage to El Camino de Santiago would eventually happen). As consolation therapy, I began writing Haiku and posting to my social media. Topics ranged from the whimsical to political to the periodic table (I'm up to Aluminum). Recently I passed the 160 consecutive day milestone. 

  

 

Meanwhile, I have been receiving pep-talk e-mails from AFSP (American Foundation for suicide prevention). These messages include ideas for encouraging folks to donate to my upcoming "Out of the Darkness" fundraiser. I decided to post that I would begin devoting my Haiku each day to a donor. It would begin retroactively to the five friends who had already given a donation.

 

 

 

 

Within one hour, I had five new donors. Three more donated the following morning. They keep coming. I am NOT a talented poet. Why the surge in donations? I believe that it is the novelty and curiosity factor. "What will he write about me?" they probably wonder.

 

 

 

 

The take-away for me is: it could be worth expanding our thinking as we try to encourage and influence desired behavior. It is not about manipulation; it is about having fun and making a difference for good.

 

 

 

 

By the way; the walk is coming up. If you want your own personal Haiku on LinkedIn... here you go.

 

 

 

 

https://afsp.donordrive.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=donordrive.participant&participantID=2400828

 

 

 

 

The post The Power of Non-Financial Incentives appeared first on Real World Quality Systems.

In this post, we’ll explore the what, why and how for a metric of innovation effectiveness: the do-say ratio. 

What is the do-say ratio?

The do-say ratio is a backward-looking, future-influencing metric. It is backward-looking because it relies on historical data from completed projects. It is future-influencing in that it dramatically portrays gaps between aspiration and accomplishment, thereby providing incentive for improvement.

The denominator (“say”) reflects the payoff that was expected at the time of approval and that justified resource investment. The numerator (“do”) reflects actual delivery of project results. 

My experience is in applying this to innovation projects; it could, however, be applied to many other types of projects and portfolios.

The calculation methodology is given later in this post.

Why use the metric?

Deployed properly, the metric can encourage behavior leading to improvements in both the up-front homework used to justify resource investment and in project execution. It can lead to improvements in accountability, data collection, and project portfolio governance.

The metric considers only past data. A key benefit is therefore in eliciting questions for post-project audits. The ratio is most instructive when it is used to compare multiple projects in a portfolio. Analyses of do-say differences among projects can lead to organizational learning and improvements for future project selection and execution. 

Two potential pitfalls

Not all projects are created equal

Incremental, lower risk projects will likely have better do-say ratios than shoot-for-the-moon projects. Expect to have poorer do-say ratio, including more variation, for the latter. 

Be careful what you measure

The metric can be used as a tool for punishment (as is the case for many metrics, in fact). It should not be used to assign blame, but rather to identify opportunities to improve.

A case study

I was involved in a project to help a business unit understand the factors leading to innovation project success. As part of our assessment, we decided to determine the do-say ratio for a number of past projects in the portfolio of innovation projects. The business defined a new product as one that had been on the market for 5 years or less. Leadership was interested in the ratio for both a 3 year and 5 year horizon, so the analysis was performed for both.  

Data for the denominator (“say”) were mined from minutes of project gate reviews and other meeting documentation. Data for the numerator (“do”) were mined from company financial records.

Some of the key findings that led to positive discussions and improvements included:

• almost invariably, timing of actual sales were later than predicted and peak income was lower than projected
• start date for income projections were sometimes ambiguous or inconsistent in the historical documentation
• the graphical representation of the metric was much more powerful in demonstrating need for improvement than simply presentation of numbers

An example of a typical pair of graphs (3 and 5 year results) are shown here.

After compiling data and creating graphs for various projects, we interviewed project team members to understand causes for the do-say discrepancies. We found that these graphs were profoundly helpful in provoking thoughtful discussions. Although most folks had a sense that projects were not delivering as hoped, these graphs provided a simple yet dramatic, quantitative visualization. In the interviews, a recurring theme was that customer CTQs (critical to quality deliverables) were typically not well understood/defined at the outset, or that the CTQs shifted over time. Shifts occurred because the world had evolved due to better understanding of the problem or that solutions by competition have solved the problem. It underscored the importance of avoiding VOO (voice of ourselves) during the voice of the market / customer activities, and of keeping customers engaged throughout development.

How to calculate and graphically depict the do-say ratio

1. Achieve consensus on the
   • portfolio boundaries (e.g., separate moon-shot projects from incremental product tweak projects)
   • point in the business process where the “say” snapshot is fixed; for an innovation project, a logical choice would be the “proceed to development” gate, sometimes known as the “money gate.” In this case, projects killed at that gate would be excluded from the portfolio
   • time horizon (e.g., a product with a short life cycle such as a consumer electronic would likely have a shorter time horizon than for a durable goods product)
   • metric of measurement (e.g., revenue, margin, volume)
2. Collect the data for projects in the portfolio
3. Plot the data for each project
4. Determine the area under each of the two curves for each project 
5. Calculate the ratio for each project

For an aggregate portfolio metric, 

• choose a time frame of interest
• divide the sum of all the “do” values by the sum of all the “say” values.

Summing up

The do-say ratio is a graphical and numerical representation of the comparison of what a project was expected to achieve and what actually happened. It should be used as a tool for organizational learning. It should not be used as a tool for finding blame. Many factors can contribute to good or bad results; the metric should be used to prompt conversations regarding identification of those factors leading to improved results. 

The post The Do-Say Ratio, a Metric for Innovation Project Management appeared first on Real World Quality Systems.

The post 10 Tips for Making Your Training “Stick,” Part I: Before the Training appeared first on Real World Quality Systems.

Are you on the lookout for up to date, real-life examples for class or for coaching? This article provides food for thought that might help you come up with some new and compelling real-life examples based on our shared COVID-19 experience.

Examples from a true story

Stories can enhance motivation for changes in behavior, a desired outcome in much of the training we do. [See, for example, Why Your Brain Loves Good Storytelling, Paul Zak, HBR online, October 2014.]

We are all characters in the COVID-19 story. The vaccine program and underlying development projects offer a plethora of opportunities to enhance effectiveness of project management (PM) training. How so? By incorporation of compelling examples from this shared experience.

In this article I offer an example from each of three different aspects:

• Technical skill: schedule compression
• Soft skill (which in my experience are the harder skills): stakeholder management
• Governance: diversity and inclusion in scope definition and oversight

These are but three of many possible examples; perhaps they can prime the pump in your thinking for refreshment and enhancement of your class participants’ learning experiences. And each of these examples can lead to in-depth discussions of the interdependence of the various concepts and competencies in project and program management.

Technical skill: schedule compression

As my wife and I were watching the news recently, images of the vaccine production infrastructure buildup flooded the screen. She posed the question: “how can they be doing this when it’s not even approved yet?” 

I got to man-splain the difference between mandatory and discretionary dependencies and the impact on schedule compression, depending on the risk tolerance of the project and economic stakeholders. This example clearly affords the opportunity to revisit topics of the triple constraint triangle, activity network diagrams, schedule, critical path, and risk management.

Soft (harder) skill: stakeholder management

Operation Warp Speed and the various underlying projects presented complex challenges in stakeholder management. A critical decision in managing competing stakeholder interests was when, where and how to announce that a vaccine was successful: both safe and efficacious. The desire to satisfy a small group with a premature announcement by election day was trumped by the need to reinforce integrity of the development process. Program and project leadership recognized that undermining public confidence in vaccine safety and efficacy would have been severely compromised by an announcement lacking data with supporting statistical analysis. They held to the axiom that vaccines do not save lives; vaccinations save lives.

Governance: impact of diversity on scope definition and oversight

In the recent annual meeting of the American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE), the importance of diversity and inclusion was a major theme. The conference included compelling stories (supported with data) of positive business results owing to racial diversity at all levels. We often emphasize that diversity of perspectives on teams will lead to improved outcomes. Moderna’s experience offers an example of how lack of racial diversity in leadership can profoundly and negatively affect results. Even though blacks and Hispanics have been disproportionately affected by the pandemic, these groups were significantly underrepresented in Moderna’s trials. This put their timeline in serious jeopardy.

Although Moderna’s executive team exhibits geographic and gender diversity, racial diversity appears to be absent. Was this a contributing factor to the imbalance in trial subject makeup? Or was it a subordinate group responsible for the makeup of the trial subjects? Answers to these questions are unknowable to most of us. Nevertheless, an account of this incident with these acknowledged caveats against the backdrop of photos of the executive team could open up a valuable discussion not only of the importance of diversity and inclusion at the leadership level, but also of project control (Moderna did recover) and of establishing clear project success criteria (also known as conditions of satisfaction). 

In summary...

I plan to use these three examples at my next opportunity to teach my Real World Project Management class. Many other examples can be mined from this highly topical program and the underlying projects. Each of them can provide opportunities to discuss the multi-faceted inter-dependencies amongst PM concepts and competencies. A starting point for exploring possible examples is the excellent reporting in the NY Times article: Politics, Science and the Remarkable Race for a Coronavirus Vaccine.

The post Three COVID-19 Takeaways for Project Management Training appeared first on Real World Quality Systems.