IN SEARCH OF: Business Processes Supporting Strategy Execution and Innovation
I had one of those “you’re messing up” conversations with a person who I have given permission to tell me such things. Miki, who writes Leadership Turn, said that my PMO emphasis seems forced and only for a big company audience. I agreed. The “Office” in PMO seems to conjure up a large group of people running projects. While that may be true, my emphasis has always been how to best set up business processes to execute strategies and bring innovative business processes into a company- any company.
The mechanism to do strategy execution and innovation is what we should be concentrating on, not whether it is a PMO or not. Typically projects are required to improve and change each area. I still believe that the PMO-like processes related to strategy execution and innovation are applicable to every company or entity- they are just smaller scale and probably less formal in smaller organizations. For example, a 2 person consulting firm still has to have a process to determine if a project is going to support a pre-existing strategy. Likewise, the same 2 person firm needs to look outside, do research if you will, to find innovations to potentially apply to their business and create the follow on projects to support the innovations.
Interestingly, most companies miss miserably on executing strategies and innovating because they lack the business processes to support them. Amazingly, the big company rarely sees a PMO as the mechanism to support this and the small company doesn’t formalize a process to get it done.
Tell me about the business processes that you use or have experienced that supports strategy execution and innovation. How are they different from what a PMO would do in a big company?
Don’t miss an update or post, SUBSCRIBE via RSS or via EMAIL.
Tags: Agile Software Development, board-of-directors, collaboration, execute-strategy, executive, governance-board, innovation, investment, lean, PMO, portfolio-management, project, project-management, project-management-office, project-portfolio-management, selling-projects, software-development, strategy, theory-of-constraints, value, value-sellingRelated Stories
POSTED IN: Best of the Best Practices
22 opinions for IN SEARCH OF: Business Processes Supporting Strategy Execution and Innovation
ActiveEngine Sensei
Dec 7, 2007 at 7:21 am
While I do agree that the concept of PMO may seem to be a corporate level activity, I still feel that the concept of a centralized series of resources is key to maintaining continuity and consistency across critical initiatives.
A PMO can very effective to breaking down barriers to communication, as they retain project knowledge, and therefore business process knowledge which can be redistributed. Too many companies suffer from “tribal tales”, where you have to get knowledge from repeated interviews because everything is regard as secret and in people’s heads.
Bob Turek
Dec 7, 2007 at 3:58 pm
Yes- I like to say centralized functions or business processes (vs. resources) to inject an element of standardization into the execute strategy/innovation activity.
I’ve also suffered through the “tribal tales” approach to get up to speed with almost every software company that I have worked for. Also, some of the worst internal project management processes I have experienced are in consulting firms that do a pretty good job of running projects for clients. What is it about firms that promote their project management skills to clients that allows them to be poor internal project managers?
ActiveEngine Sensei
Dec 7, 2007 at 7:50 pm
“Shoe makers without shoes!” From one perspective, if you earn the dollar by having the best brightest out on engagements, then the internal stuff will rarely gets the same attention.
Having been on the bench between gigs, I witnessed projects being handed off that were passed between 5 - 10 people, and you can imagine what a mess that was. I was lucky in that I had skills that kept me out at the clients and away from that type of dis-function.
In some respects, the PMO that is resident at company has to be even more effective at the juggling act since they have greater stake in the game than the consultants who can move on to the next gig. Consulting internally requires a different touch, and there is more at stake when things do not go as well.
I enjoy reading your posts - you do a great job at framing up these issues.
Bob
Jan 1, 2008 at 11:39 pm
Sensei- just reread your comment. The passing projects between 5-10 people comment reminds me of one of the key problems in PMOless companies: bad multi-tasking that is typically created by poor resource control which in turn results from poor project control. I also recently pre-posted (for 1/4/08) on “commitment” which is a quality that is sorely missing from the “resources”- i.e., people use the resource management problem to shuttle between gigs and to avoid making and keeping commitments.
Rodney Brim
Jan 15, 2008 at 3:22 pm
Bob, good questions and observations. We’ve found that “projectizing” strategy is essential for execution, but its driven from much more of an outcome (where are you going, what are you going to do to get there and why are you making that choice, and how would you measure it) derivative than a task and resource based PMO approach.
We avoid complexity like the plague. Strategic Execution starts looking really SIMPLE:
1. Goal +
2. Plan +
3. Metrics +
4. People working the Plan +
5. Regular Follow-up to Review Progress & Adjust the Plan. One more SIMPLE observation, if you don’t do these SIMPLE STEPS… for whatever reason, you’re most likely going to be in the 90% group that doesn’t execute.
I’ve got more detail in my blog if you wish to know more or respond - at http://www.managepro.com/blog/index.php/category/strategy-execution/
Rodney Brim, CEO
http://www.ManagePro.com/Blog
Bob
Jan 15, 2008 at 6:46 pm
Rodney- thanks for commenting. Hope to see more of you. The actual strategy development process is something I do not deal with much- I’m with you on the simplicity issue though. What I have learned is that projects must align with strategies and the PMO can develop the information, for a governance board, to make decisions on which projects to do, what the priority should be, and which projects to cancel. The act of aligning projects with strategies assumes that strategies are already in place. The PMO would be linked with the strategy development process if they were doing research on business process innovations outside their company and industry; the PMO would be responsible for developing a business case for an innovation which might affect strategies. All of this logic can apply to a smaller company- you just have to have a PMO-like function and a couple of executives that act as the “governance board”. Bottom line- I was not suggesting that the PMO develop strategy. That being said it sounds like your firm does do strategy development consulting- I’ll check your link out. What do you think of the role of the PMO that I described?
Bob
Jan 15, 2008 at 6:53 pm
Rodney- one other thing that is really the most important point: getting rid of, and not doing proposed, projects that don’t align with strategies is one of the best ways to improve strategy execution.
Rodney Brim
Jan 15, 2008 at 8:34 pm
Bob, I agree, strategies need supporting projects, otherwise they have no real legs to stand on. They also need to be measured and regularly reviewed - a governance board in your language. I haven’t found that stripping out projects that don’t align with the strategy to be terribly effective at getting strategy executed, although it sure helps at keeping the organization on focus. We build the technology to be able to link strategy with project outcomes on a daily basis, including their scorecards, and what I was trying to describe in the earlier comment, was that a) often that’s missing, so strategy loses its punch, and b) that sometimes developing projects to support strategy works best when you reverse engineeer them, starting with the outcome in mind, keeping the steps limited to what’s critical. It’s a leaner, more critical thinking-based approach to projects, with less emphasis upon durations, dependencies, earned value and other standard project components.
Rodney Brim,
http://www.managepro.com.project_management_software.html
Bob
Jan 24, 2008 at 3:31 pm
Rodney- I like the point b) in your comment. This is like a technique/approach called value selling where the problem is id’ed very clearly first and then the most valuable outcomes are identified. Also a more recent post (http://www.projectmanagement411.com/the-best-tech-and-user-collaboration-links-to-value/) has a great link to an agile software development process called domain driven development that addresses projects from much the same perspective. Take a look and let me know what you think- it really has more to do with getting users and IT to communicate but also addresses the value orientation (unusual for a software developer). Thanks for commenting.
C. Coates
Jan 30, 2008 at 3:36 pm
I have been working with organizations on an integrated process of strategy development through online software for execution management. I find that, as with some of the other commenters, that - aside from ensuring that strategy itself is of value - the critical problems for organizations is the willingness of management to embed disciplined execution processes into the organization - software and such can help but in the end it’s the discipline of having everyone accountable for consistent rtracking and exception-based reporting.
Bob
Jan 30, 2008 at 7:20 pm
Mr. Coates- thanks for commenting. Hopefully we will see more of you on this blog. I completely agree with the tracking and exception reporting discipline. There are other processes that can help with strategy execution having to do with how projects are prioritized and managed- i.e., PMO and governance board processes that centralize control of projects and their alignment with strategies. What software are you using? Is it a package or homegrown? I’d be interested in hearing more about how it works.
C. Coates
Jan 31, 2008 at 2:14 am
Bob
Thanks for the note. I got involved in all this coming from the perspective of having run and invested in and having been on the Boards of a number of emerging growth and other larger companies and nonprofits. I felt that what was lacking was a truly systemic approach that 1. Involves Board, Management and lower staff as appropriate 2. that focuses on the entire process from strategy development to execution - and that cascades the strategy process down into the organization - so that lower level planning follows a “strategic” process (this builds alignment and trust) 3. That uses online software for exception-based tracking (I have created a number of solutions that are very simple for implementation teams compared to large performance management systems) 4. That embeds all the history of the process so that new members of the team/board can understand how the organization got to where it is and 5. That employs an annual audit process so that strategy management is part of the ongoing Board oversight and management reporting rather than a one-time event.
Bob
Jan 31, 2008 at 2:03 pm
Cullen- the “focus on the entire process” and “history of the process” points really jump out for me. As to linking strategies to tactics and then the projects to accomplish the tactics, have you been exposed to Eli Goldratt’s Viable Vision process? I know a little about it and like the strategy tree approach (also called strategy mapping by some). I’ve used a strategy mapping approach (first overall goals that are fed by strategies that are fed by tactics) in selling and scoping large business solution projects- it always seems to be something that executives rarely do and is key to aligning projects with strategies.
Bob
Jan 31, 2008 at 8:31 pm
Cullen- also curious as to whether you’ve seen governance boards supported by a PMO-like organization to assist strategy execution through project prioritization.
C. Coates
Feb 2, 2008 at 9:28 pm
Bob
Thanks for the notes and my apologies for the delay in responding.
A few of thoughts, comments:
1. I haven’t seen Goldratt’s work. Sounds interesting and I will see what I can find.
2. My approach is to end the process with a set of “goals” that then cascade into Programs., Projects and Tasks - fairly plebian. To get there I go through a process that is primarily issue based planning rather than idea based planning - the ideas coming out of an analytic/research process depending on needs of the organization.
3. The processes I use end up bringing alignment across teams/ departments etc.
4. I believe in “cascading” the strategy process into the organization which drives the execution planning.
5. I find that most organizations/people have little patience for real disciplined execution but the best companies/organizations insist on it and have strategy reporting/auditing embedded in their systems.
6. I see the “governance” piece as being integral to all of it so the Board gets involved as appropriate either directly (as in nonprofit organizations) or through an oversight role in which case they are the recipients of reporting out of the execution processes.
Bob
Feb 4, 2008 at 1:01 pm
Cullen- check out (do a search on) Gerald Kendall- he specializeds not only in viable vision but how project management and project portfolio management play into the approach. He, along with a co-author have written an excellent book on this.
Rodney Brim
Feb 4, 2008 at 6:53 pm
Bob,
I’m a week late in getting back to your question. I read the blog you referenced on Domain Driven. Actually my first thought was, wow why use such big words - now I have to figure our what that means? In fact why invent a new vocabulary for a challenging but straight-forward need to write the desired outcome in a way that both parties can understand and build a work plan towards, in Sensei’s case, the development team and the “expectant” customer group?
But to your question, yes there’s a big overlap between the concept of development domain, and defining an outcome. I think they just represent differences in how much detail is fleshed out.
One other comment - as I was enjoying the dialogue between you and Cullen. I operate with the perspective that Strategic plans are simple horse bets, based upon the assumption and what-ever research, that those strategic goals and plans will get you across the finish line (more profitable growth) than a slate of other initiatives (horses). What I’ve noticed is that often strategic plans represent anything but what will really drive growth - e.g. they aren’t accurate in pointing the organization to that outcome. Eg. it can be focused on mission statements, internal alignment issues and conflict issues, etc. Then when the PMO office gets dragged into supporting it, it generates a “Why are we doing that?” response.
A different marketing based development of a strategic plan is looking at what kind of Value Proposition is being rewarded in the market. Geoffrey Moore has an excellent review of that in his book, Living on the Fault Line.
One final note, I did some more thinking about the drivers and hiccups in supporting strategic plan and put a Hub page up about it at, http://hubpages.com/hub/StrategyExecution
Rodney Brim
http://www.ManagePro.com/Blog
Bob
Feb 4, 2008 at 8:57 pm
Rodney- I think the point is not that it’s creating a “new” vocabulary, it’s that two different entities are NOT talking to each other in the first place; this results in similar structures (with different vocabulary) being created in the same organization. That being said, I think that the processes work AND are different from the “norm”. Your comment about the PMO causing the “why are we doing that?” response is interesting: I see this as a positive because what is probably happening is that the specific strategy is being questioned - if this is done at a governance board session, then the governance board better have a good, and quick, answer, or the projects attached to the strategy will be questioned, and supported half-heartedly, by the whole organization. I commented on your hubpage also. Good post- this is NOT rocket science- it’s all about understanding that it’s valuable enough to spend time on.
C. Coates
Feb 5, 2008 at 9:49 pm
Bob
Very interesting series of perspectives. I can add a couple of minor points - mainly about execution management and alignment.
Addressing a point from one of the earlier notes - I have found that issue-based strategy deelopment rather than idea-based strategy development avoid presupposing outcomes and leads both to better strategy choices and also helps the alignment process. on the execution side I have been using an application that I created using the online QuickBase platform (owned by Intuit) - it enables nontechnical people like me to create simple but very effective workgroup productivity apps and I have implemented a number of clients on tracking systems that ensure that the implementation teams are all kept in the loop
Bob
Feb 7, 2008 at 12:36 am
Cullen- I think I understand “issue” vs. “idea”, especially in relation to alignment, but it would help me, and I’m sure others, if you give a brief example of each.
I’ve been in the software business for years (ERP/SCM, decision support systems). I would appreciate an email with a couple of examples of how you used the QuickBase platform. “Simple” and “effective” is a great goal in software.
Cullen
Feb 7, 2008 at 7:49 pm
Bob
Basically I find that people like to be involved in “strategy stuff” - it’s fun like marketing. I also find that when people get together to “do” strategy they generally come to the table each with their own agenda - they know what the strategy should be and secretly want to convince others that their ideas are the best. (For example I rarely meet CEO’s who admit that they really need help with strategy or that they don’t have strategy in place) So I find that the starting place for good strategy development is with processes I use to identify key issues across the organization and then force prioritization - this tends to bring people together as they can begin to see how their colleagues view the organization. It also lays the foundation for whatever “ideas” are later selected as the prioritized goals - prioritized goals must align with prioritized issues in general - at a minimum.
As to software, I have created an online solution on QuickBase that enables a team to establish goals, programs, projects and taasks - to assign accountabilities, budgets and timelines and then to have exception-based reporting to show notifications of due dates and to enable people to go into meetings with reports showing only those prioritized proejcts that are off track - much like the new CEO of Ford (formerly with Boeing) is doing manually with his management team as I understand it.) This can then be linked with performance evaluations so that tasks in the performance plan are directly linked in an integrated system with the overall strategy management process.
Bob
Feb 7, 2008 at 10:06 pm
Cullen- thank you for your continued comments. I’m going to have to summarize the comments/issues in a couple of posts because all the cross talk is great. I think I understand what you mean by “idea”- I posted on the dreaded “idea man” awhile back; i.e., someone who simply keeps shoving ideas into the “system” without doing any work- and some executives are the worst offenders. Those who understand this hire good operations people to focus them and keep them on track. The prioritizing-of-issues process sounds very good- mirrors a process at the PMO/governance board level in relation to projects- project portfolio management prioritization. You talk a little about execs learning about each others issues/processes/challenges- the Goldratt Viable Vision process (also referenced in Gerald Kendall book mentioned in previous comments) has an executive workshop that was called a 4X4: 4 days of executives doing nothing but presenting/discussing their respective operations to each other. This way you get a more level field to play on; the next 4 days are spent putting together a strategy tree and prioritizing strategies, tactics, and projects. There is obviously a lot more detail- one of them being applying the Theory of Constraints to the process (Eli Goldratt). Again, thanks for commenting- you add a knowledgeable and practical voice to this blog that is gaining more readers every day.
Have an opinion? Leave a comment: