Shipulski On Design

Archive for the ‘Fundementals’ Category

Stop, Start, Continue is a powerful, straightforward way to manage things.

If it’s not working, Stop.

If it’s working well, Continue.

If there’s a big opportunity to grow, Start.

Sounds pretty simple, but it’s often executed poorly.

The most dangerous variant of Stop, Start, Continue is Start, Start, Continue.  Regardless of how well projects are doing, they Continue.  The market has changed but the product hasn’t launched yet, Continue the project.  Though the technical risk is increasing instead of decreasing, keep your mouth shut and Continue the project.  Though resources have moved to different projects (that have recently started), Continue the project and pretend progress is being made.  And though Continue is a big problem, Starting is a bigger one.

With Start, Start, Continue, the company’s eyes are too big for their stomach.  Because there is no mechanism to limit the start of new projects based on the available resources (people, tools, infrastructure), projects start without the resources needed to get them done.  In the short term, there’s a celebration because an important new project has started.  But a month later, everyone on the project team knows the project is doomed because the project is largely unstaffed. And because of the tight lips, no one in company leadership knows there’s a problem.  The telltale signs of Start, Start, Continue are long projects (insufficient resources) and a lack of Finishing (too many projects and too little focus).

There is a little-known process that can overpower Start, Start, Continue.  It’s called Stop, Stop, Stop.  It’s simple and powerful.

With Stop, Stop, Stop, stalled projects are stopped and resources are freed up to accelerate the best remaining projects.  Think of it as moving from Continue existing projects to Accelerate the most important projects.  And with Stop, Stop, Stop, there is no starting.  None.  There is only stopping, at least to start.  Pet projects are stopped. Long-in-the-tooth projects are stopped. Irrelevant projects are stopped.  And even good projects are stopped to allow great projects to Start.

With Stop, Stop, Stop, at least two projects must stop before a new project can start.  And it’s better to stop three.

The result of Stop, Stop, Stop is a glut of freed-up resources that can be applied to amazing new projects.  And because the resources are unallocated and ready to go, those new projects can be fully staffed and can make progress quickly.  And because there are now fewer projects overall, the shared resources can respond more quickly for double acceleration.  And with fewer projects, there are fewer resource collisions among projects and fewer slowdowns. Triple acceleration and a lighter project management burden.

If your projects are moving too slowly, use Stop, Stop, Stop to stop the worst projects.  If you have too many projects and too few resources, Stop, Stop, Stop can set you free.  If you want to Start an amazing new project, use Stop, Stop, Stop to free up the resources to make it happen.

Before you Start, Stop.  And before you Continue, Stop. And instead of pretending to Stop or talking about Stopping, Stop.

Show them how the work is done.

Ask them what they saw.

Praise them for what they recognized and describe what they didn’t.

Repeat

Explain how the work is done.

You do work, and they watch.  Then switch places.

Ask them what they felt and what questions they have.

Praise them for their openness and answer their questions.

Repeat.

Ask them how the work should be done and listen.

Praise them for their insights and suggest alternative approaches for consideration.

Choose the work together.  They do the work. You check in as needed.

Ask them how they felt while doing the work. Ask if they have questions.

Praise them for sharing, validate their feelings, and answer their questions.

Repeat.

Ask them to do the work.

They choose the approach and do the work.  You do something else, but stay close.

If they ask questions, answer them.

Check in with them after the work is done, but they own the agenda.

Repeat

Ask them what work should be done next and listen.

Acknowledge their discomfort. Explain that it’s supposed to feel like that.

They choose the work, they choose the approach, and you stay away.

If they ask questions, answer with more questions.  They can work it out on their own.

Check in with them after the work is done, but make it a social visit.  That’s how pros treat other pros.

Image credit – skyseeker

When there are too many projects, all the projects move too slowly.

When there are too many projects, adding resources doesn’t help much and may make things worse.

To speed up the important projects, stop the less important projects. There’s no better way.

When there are too many projects, stopping comes before starting.

All projects are important, it’s just that some are more important than others.  Stop the lesser ones.

When someone says all projects are equally important, they don’t understand projects.

If all projects are equally important, then they are also equally unimportant and it does not matter which projects are stopped.  This twist of thinking can help people choose the right projects to stop.

When there are too many projects, stop two before starting another.

Finishing a project is the best way to stop a project, but that takes too long.  Stop projects in their tracks.

There is no partial credit for a project that is 80% complete and blocking other projects.  It’s okay to stop the project so others can finish.

Queueing theory says wait times increase dramatically when utilization of shared resources reaches 85%.  The math says projects should be stopped well before shared resources are fully booked.

If you want to go faster, stop the lesser projects.

Image credit – Rodrigo Olivera

You can’t see if you don’t look.

You can’t look if you’re distracted.

You can’t be distracted if you’re living in the present moment.

You can’t live in the present moment if you’re sad about the past or afraid of the future.

You can’t be sad about the past unless you want it to be different.

You can’t be afraid of the future unless you want to control it.

You can’t want the past to be different if you accept things as they are.

You can’t want to control the future if you accept you have no control over it.

Yet, we want the past to be different and we want to control the future.

When you find yourself wanting the past to be different or wanting to control the future, focus on your breath for a minute or two.  That will bring you back to the present moment.

And if that doesn’t work, go outside and walk in nature for fifteen minutes then quiet yourself and focus on your breath for a minute or two.  That should bring you back to the present moment.

Everything gets better when you’re sitting in the present moment.

The projects you choose define the problems you solve.

The problems you choose to solve define the novel value delivered to the customer.

The people you choose to run the projects set the character of the projects.

The choice of the projects’ character defines how the people feel about working on the projects.

How people choose to feel about working on the projects influences the character of the projects.

The people on the projects choose how the problems are solved.

How people choose to solve problems defines how well the problems are solved.

The choice around how well problems are solved sets the level of goodness delivered to the customer.

The level of goodness you choose to deliver to the customer governs the incremental revenue you create.

It doesn’t seem right that the amount of incremental revenue is a choice.

But, when you choose the right projects and the right people to run them and you choose the right problems and the right people to solve them, incremental revenue becomes your choice.

image credit — officallychaz

When there’s a disagreement between the stated strategy and the active projects, believe the active projects.

When there’s a formal objective to reduce the number of meetings and the number of meetings doesn’t decrease, the desired outcome isn’t really desired.

When there’s a desire to reduce costs and there’s no hiring freeze, there’s no real desire to reduce costs.

When it’s acknowledged that there are too many projects and more projects are added, the doers’ morale tanks while the approvers’ credibility is decimated.

When people don’t talk openly about the mismatch between words and behavior, it does not mean they’re unaware.

When there’s a mismatch between words and behavior, people see it.

If you want your new product development projects to go faster, reduce the number of active projects.  Full stop.

A rule to live by: If the new product development project is 90% complete, the company gets 0% of the value.  When it comes to new product development projects, there’s no partial credit.

Improving the capabilities of your project managers can help you go faster, but not if you have too many active projects.

If you want to improve the speed of decision-making around the projects, reduce the number of required decisions by reducing the number of active projects.

Resource conflicts increase radically as the number of active projects increases.  To fix this, you guessed it, reduce the number of active projects.

A project that is run under the radar is the worst type of active project. It sucks resources from the official projects and prevents truth telling because no one can admit the dark project exists.

With fewer active projects, resource intensity increases, the work is done faster, and the projects launch sooner.

Shared resources serve the projects better and faster when there are fewer active projects.

If you want to go faster, there’s no question about what you should do.  You should stop the lesser projects to accelerate the most important ones.  Full stop.

And if you want to stop some projects, I suggest you try to answer this question: Why does your company think it’s a good idea to have far too many active new product development projects?

Image credit — JOHN K THORNE

When there’s a disagreement, listen before you talk.  And if that doesn’t work, listen more. With this approach, disagreement cannot blossom into a problem.

When there’s a decision to be made, make it.  There are problems with any decision you make, and you might as well learn them as soon as you can.

When there’s a change coming, get people together and talk about what’s coming. One thing to remember – the talking you do before the change is much more meaningful than the talking after the change causes problems.

When an important project is behind schedule, pause the project.  Nothing causes dialog, problem-solving, and movement of resources like pausing an important project.

When person A says one thing to person B and another to person C, call a meeting with A, B, and C and within fifteen minutes the source of the problem will be apparent to all.

When someone doesn’t do what they said they’d do, send them an email asking when they’ll do it.  Then, at the same time every week, “reply all” to your email and ask them when they’ll do it.  That way, they get to see the ever-growing, time-stamped record of their problematic non-performance.

When there’s no owner of the problem, there can be no solution.  And that’s a big problem.

When it’s your problem, solve it.

When someone tries to give you their problem, don’t take it.  Like any gift, if you don’t accept it, the would-be giver still owns it.

When there are no problems, there can be no learning.

Image credit — Rob Oo

Companies that are good at planning their projects create roadmaps spanning about three years, where individual projects are sequenced to create a coordinated set of projects that fit with each other.  The roadmap helps everyone know what’s important and helps the resources flow to those most important projects.

Through the planning process, the collection of potential projects is assessed and the best ones are elevated to the product roadmap.  And by best, I mean the projects that will generate the most incremental profit.  The projects on the roadmap generate the profits that underpin the company’s financial plan and the company is fanatically committed to the financial plan. The importance of these projects cannot be overstated.  And what that means is once a project makes it to the roadmap, there’s only one way to get it off the roadmap, and that’s to complete it successfully.

For the next three years, everyone knows what they’ll work on.  And they also know what they won’t work on.

The best companies want to be efficient so they staff their projects in a way that results in high utilization.  The most common way to do this is to load up the roadmap with too many projects and staff the projects with too few people.  The result is a significant fraction of people’s time (sometimes more than 100%) is pre-allocated to the projects on the roadmap.  The efficiency metrics look good and it may actually result in many successful launches.  But the downside of ultra-high utilization of resources is often forgotten.

When all your people are booked for the next three years on high-value projects, they cannot respond to new opportunities as they arise.  When someone comes back from a customer visit and says, “There’s an exciting new opportunity to grow the business significantly!” the best response is “We can’t do that because all our people are committed to the three-year plan.”.  The worst response is “Let’s put together a team to create a project plan and do the project.”.  With the first response, the project doesn’t get done and zero resources are wasted trying to figure out how to do the project without the needed resources.  With the second response, the project doesn’t get done but only after significant resources are wasted trying to figure out how to do the project without the needed resources.

Starting new projects is difficult because everyone is over-booked and over-committed on projects that the company thinks will generate significant (and predictable) profits.  What this means is to start a new project in this high-utilization environment, the new project must displace a project on the three-year plan.  And remember, the projects that must be displaced are the projects the company has chosen to generate the company’s future profits.  So, to become an active project (and make it to the three-year plan) the candidate project must be shown to create more profits, use fewer resources and launch sooner than the projects already on the three-year plan.  And this is taller than a tall order.

So, is there a solution?  Not really, because the only possible solution is to reduce resource utilization to create unallocated resources that can respond to emergent opportunities when they arise.  And that’s not possible because good companies have a deep and unskillful attachment efficiency.

Image credit — Bernard Spragg NZ

There are natural limits to the amount of work that any one person or group can do.  And once that limit is reached, saying yes to more work does not increase the amount of work that gets done.  Sure, you kick the can down the road when you say yes to work that you know you can’t get done, but that’s not helpful.  Expectations are set inappropriately which secures future disappointment and more importantly binds or blocks other resources. When preparatory work is done for something that was never going to happen, that prep work is pure waste.  And when resources are allocated to a future project that was never going to happen, the results are misalignment, mistiming, and replanning, and opportunity cost carries the day.

But how to know if you the team has what it takes to get the work done?  The answer is a capacity model.  There are many types of capacity models, but they all require a list of the available resources (people, tools, machines), the list of work to be done (projects), and the amount of time (in hours, weeks, months) each project requires for each resource.  The best place to start is to create a simple spreadsheet where the leftmost column lists the names of the people and the resources (e.g., labs, machines, computers, tools).  Across the top row of the spreadsheet enter the names of the projects.  For the first project, go down the list of people and resources,  and for each person/resource required for the project, type an X in the column.  Repeat the process for the remainder of the projects.

While this spreadsheet is not a formal capacity model, as it does not capture the number of hours each project requires from the resources, it’s plenty good enough to help you understand if you have a problem.  If a person has only one X in their row, only one project requires their time and they can work full-time on that project for the whole year.  If another person has sixteen Xs in their row, that’s a big problem. If a machine has no Xs in its row, no projects require that machine, and its capacity can be allocated to other projects across the company. And if a machine has twenty Xs in its row, that’s a big problem.

This simple spreadsheet gives a one-page, visual description of the team’s capacity.  Held at arm’s length, the patterns made by the Xs tell the whole story.

To take this spreadsheet to the next level, the Xs can be replaced with numbers that represent the number of weeks each project requires from the people and resources.  Sit down with each person and for each X in their row, ask them how many weeks each project will consume.  For example, if they are supposed to support three projects, X1 is replaced with 15 (weeks), X2 is replaced with 5, and X3 is replaced with 5 for a total of 25 weeks (15 + 5 + 5).  This means the person’s capacity is about 50% consumed (25 weeks / 50 weeks per year) by the three projects.  For each resource, ask the resource owner how much time each project requires from the resource.  For a machine that is needed for ten projects where each project requires twenty weeks, the machine does not have enough capacity to support the projects.  The calculation says the project load requires 200 machine-weeks (10*20 = 200 weeks) and four machines (200 machine-weeks / 50 weeks per year = 4 machines) are required.

Creating a spreadsheet that lists all the projects is helpful in its own right.  And you’ll probably learn that there are far more projects than anyone realizes.  (Helpful hint: make sure you ask three times if all the projects are listed on the spreadsheet.)  And asking people how much time is required for each project is respectful of their knowledge and skillful because they know best how long the work will take. They’ll feel good about all that.  And quantifying the number of weeks (or hours) each project requires elevates the discussion from argument to analysis.

With this simple capacity model, the team can communicate clearly which projects can be supported and which cannot.  And, where there’s a shortfall, the team can make a list of the additional resources that would be needed to support the full project load.

Fight the natural urge to overcomplicate the first version of the capacity model.  Start with a simple project-people/resource spreadsheet and use the Xs.  And use the conversations to figure out how to improve it for next time.

Defend – Protect your success in its current state.  In short, do what you did last time and do no harm.

Extend – Modify and adapt your success. In short, sell similar offerings to similar customers.

Transcend – Obsolete your best work before someone else does.

All three elements can be important to a company’s success and longevity, but it’s more important that the company’s resource allocation aligns with its priorities.  But how to tell if the company’s resource allocation matches its priorities?  Well, even though I was the one that asked it, I think that’s the wrong question because how a company allocates its resources DEFINES its priorities.  Though we don’t usually think of it that way, I think it’s a good way to think about it.  It’s a straightforward thing.  If it’s a priority, allocate the resources. If it’s not a priority, don’t allocate the resources. But there’s confusion when a company declares its priorities but those words contradict how resources are allocated.  Here are two rules to help navigate the confusion:

Rule 1. When there is a difference between how people spend their time and what the company says is a priority, company priorities are defined by how people spend their time.

Rule 2. When there is a difference between how the company spends its money (projects, investments, equipment, other) and what the company says is a priority, company priorities are defined by how the money is spent.

We’re all pretty clear on what the company says are the priorities, but how do you tell if the words are aligned with the actual priorities?  Well, measure how the resources are allocated – measure how you spend your time.

Open your calendar and move forward in time by one month and you will see a collection of standing meetings.  These are the meetings that are on the schedule and are the meetings that WILL happen.  Sure, there will be other meetings that come up, but the standing meetings, the regularly recurring meetings, are a good indicator of how you’ll spend your time.  For each meeting in week five, determine if the meeting is a defend, extend, or transcend meeting.  If the meeting agenda defines work that protects things as they are, that’s a Defend meeting.  If the meeting agenda defines work that modifies or adapts success, that’s an Extend meeting.  If the agenda defines work that obsoletes what’s been successful, that is a Transend meeting.  Categorize the meetings of week five and tally the hours.  Then, repeat for weeks six through eight.  You now have a good measure of your resource allocation and the company’s priorities.

If all the meetings are Defend meetings, the company’s priority is to defend what’s been successful.  This indicates the company’s priorities have a short-term bias.  If this is the case, I hope you have an unfair monopoly.  If not, you might consider adding some medium-term work to adapt and extend your success. If half the meetings are Defend meetings and the other half are Extend meetings, that’s a better balance between short-term and medium-term priorities.  But I hope there are no startups in your space because, without some Transcend work, one of them might soon eat your lunch.  If almost half are Defend, another almost half is Extend, and some are Transcend congratulations.  You have a reasonable balance of short and medium priorities and a splash of long-term priorities.  I’m not sure the balance is exactly right, but it’s at least a great start.

A similar characterization/quantification can be done for how the company spends its money.

Take a look at the open job requisitions on the company website.  Do those positions do work that defends, extends, or transcends?  Count them.  What does the data say?

Review and tally last year’s capital equipment purchases.  Did they defend, extend, or transcend? Do the same for this year’s capital budget.  How do you feel about all that?

Count the people who do projects to keep the production line running (defend), count the people who do new product development projects with the same DVP as last time (defend), who do new product development projects that adapt the DVP (extend) and who do technology development that builds on the DVP (extend) or decimates your best product (transcend).  What does the tally say?

Review this year’s training budget.  What are the relative fractions of extend, defend, and transcend?  Do you feel good about that?

There is no best ratio for defend, extend, and transcend.  What’s important, I think, is to be objective and clear about how the resources are allocated and to be open and honest about how all that aligns (or not) with the stated priorities.  And most important of all is what you do when there’s a mismatch between resource allocation and the stated priorities.

Image credit — Tommy Wong