Posts

Are your team planning sessions not getting the results you expected? Is it because the same few people in the room seem to be the only ones contributing fresh ideas? Well, it may because these people are unintentionally dominating the sessions in a way that shuts others off from the creative process, to the point that others think it is better to be seen supporting that person ideas, rather than to risk presenting their own. If this is the case then try this technique to see if you get a better result.

Let’s say there are nine people involved in a planning session and that two of these, for various reasons, good or bad, might dominate this session – (Matt & Joan). The nine people are told that they will be split into three groups (Red, Blue, Green) and that each group will be given a different business issue to work on. During the time they have together, they are to go through a process of generating some ideas, agreeing on one to take forward, and developing some actionable steps to put their adopted idea into action. They will then need to present this back to the entire group for review and discussion. Now to level the playing field we will allocate each person a number (1,2 or 3) and then split them into their respective groups and commence the process.

At some point during the process a halt is called – okay let’s not call it a halt, as it is not a coffee or toilet break, it’s a micropause – while you tell to them that people with the numbers one need to move in a clockwise direction to the next group, and those with a three are to move in an anti-clockwise direction to the next group. Those with the number two are to remain where they are. It is important someone remains with their original group to maintain continuity. Now have them continue where they left off.

Again at some further point during the process call for another rotation, repeating the same sequence as before. At the end of the final session, this is the group makeup that will present the plan back to the entire group.

How does this approach solve the original problem? Well by moving people around during the sessions it limits people’s ability to dominate and influence the output of each group. A dominant persons input into any one group is limited to one-third of the total time it takes to define the plan, and they are only one voice of seven people who will have input into it; it levels the playing field. Conversely, if you did not rotate the group, then they have 100% influence across the group they are in and be one voice among three.

Here are some additional tips if you are going to experiment with this process.

• Don’t make a dominant person stay with the group (e.g. a 2), you need to rotate them or it defeats the purpose
• Don’t have too many rotations as it will also impact planning, have enough to stop anyone from dominating
• Don’t participate as a group member, act as a roving facilitator and observer; and if you see someone dominating a group, then trigger a rotation
• The length of time in between, and number of rotations is not an absolute; for instance, if you are brainstorming you may have more during that time
• Don’t divulge the real reason for this approach, that is a bit like calling your bank to say you’ll be popping over in 5 minutes to rob them
• This works best if you get the lay of the land in terms of the mix of players beforehand, so do your homework work first. Who the experts, who are the more senior people etc. Who is likely to lead and who is likely to follow.
• Have fun.

Because the groups rotate this effectively means everyone has input into each group’s plans. This can make presenting back to the whole group easier, as less time is spent on ‘explaining the concept’ and more getting input and feedback. You may find criticism more constructive, given everyone ultimately had an input into each plan.

What comes to mind when you hear the words ‘Monte Carlo’. If you are like me then you are probably having visions of European holidays, the Monaco Grand Prix, sunshine, beaches, and an opulent casino on of the French Riviera…..….. nice but that’s not what I am referring to here –  Monte Carlo is also a method that is used to determine probability using random numbers to generate scenarios. Not quite as exciting as the former, I agree, but interesting and useful in the right context. In this post I will show how the Monte Carlo method can add value to improve a project budget estimation. Its actual application is not limited to budgeting, for example, it could be used to predict queuing times for an event based on the number of open entrance gates etc.

Okay let’s get started, say you are asked to provide a 2020 FY budget estimate +/- 20% for a project; you do your research, and come to the following conclusions. You estimate the project will take three years to complete, with material costs for the project costing $7.5m and with the addition of project labour costs bring the total cost to $15m.

In compiling your estimate you have taken into consideration the following three variables that may impact the final cost. Firstly, between now and purchasing the materials for the project, the material costs could change. You think that with some clever negotiation you might be able to reduce those by up to 10%, but you acknowledge there is also a risk of a price increase of 15% due to production costs, etc. Secondly, for the project labour costs you do not see much chance to reduce them, perhaps 1% at the most, conversely given labour shortages rates could increase by up to 15%. Lastly, there is the time to complete the project, your most optimistic view is that could deliver three months earlier than expected, which would save on labour costs. You also think there is a risk that it could run over by up to nine months, due to political uncertainties, which would obviously increase the labour costs.

If we assume these three variables only change in increments of 1% or by working days to complete, then how many possible different project budget scenarios could we generate by changing the variables in the ranges that we specified earlier? By my calculations, it’s 115,362.

Now one may choose to simply calculate the worst scenario and the best scenario to help assess where to set the upper and lower limits for the estimate, but this may yield a variance of greater than +/- 20% and gives no indication of probability. Another option is to use the Monte Carlo method to determine the project cost and suitable budget ranges. The Monte Carlo model that I have built in Excel uses the original project costs and will effectively roll the dice 5,000 times on your estimate, each time making random changes to the three variables within the ranges specified. So one pass of Monte Carlo (it takes seconds to run) effectively calculates 4.3% of the 115,362 possibilities.

Here are the results. Of the 5,000 simulations, the median cost for the project comes to $15.6m. The maximum cost is $17.2m and the minimum is $14.2m. There is a 50% chance that costs will be within +/- 3% of the median cost and an 80% chance that costs are within +/- 5% of the median figure. I ran a second simulation (another 5,000) and the difference to the median was only a few thousand dollars and there was no change in the min and max values.

The accuracy of your results will, of course, depend on the data you use in the model and the number and range of variables, but one should see from this example how it works. If you want to explore Monte Carlo further there is plenty of information on the internet showing you how to build your own models in Excel, or there are people out there selling prebuilt Excel models. If cost is not an issue then you might explore programs such as @Risk or Crystal Ball which have Monte Carlo capabilities.

The 2nd value in the frequency chart is the number of occurrences in the range. E.g. 14,500, 98 = 98 estimates between 14,000 and 14,499.

Microsoft’s Project Management software has been around for a long time and its one of the most popular project management software scheduling tools available in the market. It is a tool that has benefited from years of development and refinement. The downside being is that the retail price reflects this, with the standard version coming in at $859 per single user license. So what if your budget does not extend that far? Well, there are plenty of alternatives out there, but they all come at a price too. For those who have no access to funds for scheduling software, the fall back is usually using office productivity tools such as MS Excel – which is problematic if there is a lot of scheduling involved; however, it doesn’t have to be that way, there is an open source alternative out there.

Project Libre is open source software initiative that aims to provide an alternative to MS Project. You can find a link to download it here: https://www.projectlibre.com/product/projectlibre-open-source

Its layout is similar to MS Project Standard, so if you have used the former it is not too hard to adapt to the Project Libre. The product features a Gantt chart, network diagram, WBS and a task usage screen along with a resource sheet.

If you were to do a detailed comparison then MS Project will come out on top in terms of features etc, that’s not the point, it really comes down to a question of economics, and what represents the best value for your needs. If you do not have any budget or you are new to scheduling software and want to get try it out then Project Libre could be a great starting point.

A question that often results in much debate in online forums, is one about what constitutes – by way of an example – a Start to Finish precedence relationship in project management. I will clarify the differences in precedence relationships in this post.

Precedence relationships are the associations (links) formed between tasks on a project WBS (Work Breakdown Structure). There are four basic types of precedence relationships, these being:

1. Finish to Start (FS) – by far the most common you will see, where the preceding activity must finish before the succeeding one can start;
2. Finish to Finish (FF) – where the succeeding activity cannot finish until the preceding task finishes;
3. Start to Start (SS) – the opposite of FF, where the succeeding activity cannot start until the preceding task starts;
4. Start to Finish (SF) – you very rarely see this type; it is where the succeeding task cannot finish until the preceding task has started.

Let’s now look at some examples for each of these. If you are rewiring the 240v supply in a building. The preceding task could be to isolate the mains power feed. This task must finish before the succeeding task of removing the old wiring begins (unless you want to get electrocuted), so this is an FS relationship.

 

A project to install a large water tank might have a succeeding task to fill the tank with water, but this cannot be completed until the preceding task of fitting the overflow system to the top of the tank is completed, so this is an FF relationship. You could structure this as an FS relationship but the total time then goes from 4 days to 7 days to complete the work.

An example of an SS relationship is where there is a project to sculpt a set of hedgerows for a botanical exhibition. The clearing up of the clippings can be done in parallel to the trimming, but cannot it start before it; again you could structure this as an FS or FF.

Now comes the tricky one, the Start to Finish relationship. The conversations online offer lots of examples, not always correct as some are simply Finish to Start relationships in reverse order. E.g. ‘Remove wiring’ cannot finish until ‘Isolate mains supply’ has started. This suggests you can start to remove the wiring with the main supply still active, as that task is started but not finished – sounds like a recipe for fried chicken.

For SF relationships the preceding activity must have started in order for the succeeding activity to complete. I can recall an example from a project to replace a booking system. The new system came online alongside the old one. The preceding task was to ‘Capture forward bookings (new system)’, once this started, the succeeding task, to ‘Cease forward bookings (old system)’ could then be completed; this is an SF relationship. This could be treated as an FS relationship, however, there is a risk that service would be disrupted in the gap between ceasing and starting bookings in the systems – not fried chicken, but more likely frazzled customers.

Note that this is different from say a scenario where you go-live with new a new booking system (preceding) and then decommission the old booking system (succeeding); this would be an FS relationship, as you would be starting the processes of decommissioning, not finishing it; whereas ‘Cease forward booking (old system)’ is completion of an activity.

In summary SF relationships are so rare, that for the most part, we need not concern ourselves with them. An easy way to remember them is to think of a hostage situation on a bridge. The ransom payer (succeeding) is not going to complete handover of the money to the hostage taker (preceding) until they see the hostage start walking towards them.

Following on from my last post about using strategy maps to track performance, here is another type of map you can create, it’s called a benefits map. I find benefit maps can be a great starting point to help identify and communicate the potential benefits that can come from solving business issues.

For this post, I have created a hypothetical example based a commercial building owner who is having problems with tenant parking at one of their sites. The key issue is that there is simply not enough parking for all of the tenants in the building. Complaints are on the rise, tenants are overflowing into visitor spaces, and there is increasing competition from new developments in the area that may offer better tenancy solutions.

The building manager is seeking to address this problem by developing a mobile application that will allow tenants and their visitors to select and reserve parking spaces on site. It is expected that this will improve the situation, as many allocated parking spaces remain unoccupied for large periods of time. E.g. tenants being overseas on business or away on holidays. It will also provide a point of differentiation as it will allow tenants visitors to pre-book and register a car space before they arrive.

To assist in the development of a business case to secure the necessary funding, the building manager could use a benefits map, to help identify the issues, outcomes, benefits, objectives and solution features, and to understand the cause and effect relationship between these elements. The advantage of using a benefits map is that it provides a holistic view of all of these elements allowing them to easily communicate and reach consensus on an outline of what to include in the business case. Here are some tips for putting together a benefits map.

• You may find it easier to start with a blank wall and sticky notes, especially If you are working with others. It usually takes numerous attempts to clarify the elements and get them in the right order.
• Be careful with drawing the relationship lines, you don’t want something that looks like a bowl of spaghetti. If there are boxes with no relationship lines, then you need to ask the question why? If the issues do not ultimately trace back to the solution, then how will they be addressed?
• Ask yourself what is your reason for creating a benefits map, what do you expect to achieve in creating one, always start with the end in mind.
• Understand the current appetite for benefits within your organisation. This can be a bit of a moving feast; if the organisation is undergoing some financial pressure then the emphasis on benefits maybe around cost and demonstrating such things as cost saving and reducing headcount. If the organisation is focused on growth it may be around generating market share or revenue. Keep this in mind when you are teasing out your benefits. Make sure you understand what is the organisation’s current focus, otherwise you risk having a benefits map with nice benefits that no one really cares about.
• You’ll notice in the example provided that the benefits are in the centre of the map and all roads lead to these benefits. While there are no hard and fast rules about how to structure benefit maps or what to include, for this example I favour this layout because it clearly shows the issues that business is facing and the outcomes it is seeking to the left and the objectives and solutions to the right; all of which trace back to the benefits in the centre. There is always the temptation to start with your solution and work from there, however you risk ending up with elements derived from your solution rather than the business issues. This is sometimes referred to as a solution looking for a problem.

Once you have your benefits map in place then you can start thinking about drilling down on the detail for each of the elements.