Howard M. Guttman

<p>Co-authored by Howard Guttman and Andrew Longman<br />
<br />
Less than half (47%) of their organization's projects always/often meet their goals, said respondents to a nationwide survey, and only one-third (33)% are always/often completed on time and on budget.</p>
<p>The survey was conducted in September 2005 by Quality Progress magazine and the consulting firms of Guttman Development Strategies and Kepner-Tregoe. A total of 1,905 responses were received from managers and individual contributors in a cross-section of industries. Questions aimed to discover how projects are generally managed in organizations; how well individual projects are led, planned, and executed; and what causes projects to veer off track.</p>
<p>Survey respondents point to a number of factors that contribute to project underperformance:</p>
<p>-GOALS: Nearly 46% of respondents said their project teams aren't often given clear, attainable goals.</p>
<p>-RESOURCES:  Nearly 69% of respondents said project teams aren't usually given enough resources to accomplish their goals.</p>
<p>-PEOPLE:Nearly 55% of respondents said the right people aren't usually selected to lead and/or serve on project teams.</p>
<p>-PROJECT MANAGEMENT TRAINING: 80% of respondents said employees don't often receive training in project management methodology before serving on a project team.</p>
<p>-TIME: Over 84% of respondents said that, when serving on a project team, employees aren't often relieved of some of their routine responsibilities.</p>
<p>-COMMON APPROACH: 62% of respondents said that it isn't customary for project teams throughout the organization follow a standard methodology to define, plan, and implement projects.</p>
<p>While responses indicate that many projects are in trouble, there is some good news. Nearly 70% of respondents said their organization's projects are always or often aligned with its strategy; nearly two-thirds said that projects are usually viewed as ways to contribute to quality and productivity improvements; 82% of those who served on a project team said their project was completed, and, of these, 89% said goals were met. But few rated their overall project performance as excellent and, more disturbingly, a significant number reported that performance was mediocre, at best.</p>
<p>"Given the survey results," said Andrew Longman, partner and vice president, marketing for Kepner-Tregoe, Inc., "it's not surprising that less than half of respondents said that their organization's financial performance was in the top third of its industry." Longman, co-author of The Rational Project Manager: A Thinking Team's Guide to Getting Work Done (John Wiley & Sons, 2005), added, "One of the most troublesome findings is the fact that so few teams use a common process. Without one, teams have to continually retreat to the dreaded question: How should we get started? And it's tough to pull apart an issue, gather and assess information, and explore options, especially in a team setting."</p>
<p>Howard Guttman, principal of Guttman Development Strategies, Inc. and an expert on creating high-performance teams, is particularly troubled, but not surprised, by the fact that so many (70%) of respondents felt that senior managers are not always the best role models for project excellence. "The behavior of senior executives has a multiplier effect down through the organization," notes Guttman. "If senior executives aren't aligned and clear on goals, roles, and accountabilities, how can others be?"</p>
<p>Guttman is also not surprised at the number of respondents who indicated that internal conflict was a problem for their project team: 51% indicated that their team dealt with conflict in a healthy, open manner, but the remaining 49% said conflicts were suppressed on their team. Guttman believes that, "The inability to transform conflict into healthy confrontation is a key reason why projects fail to deliver against their objectives."</p>
<p>An article detailing survey findings will appear in the February 2006 issue of Quality Progress.</p>
<p>Quality Progress is the magazine of the American Society for Quality (ASQ). Guttman Development Strategies, Inc. (<a href="http://www.guttmandev.com/" target="_blank">www.guttmandev.com</a>) is a Ledgewood, NJ-based management consulting firm specializing in building high-performance teams, executive coaching, strategic and operational alignment, and management training. Kepner-Tregoe, Inc. (<a href="http://www.kepner-tregoe.com/" target="_blank">www.kepner-tregoe.com</a>) is a Princeton, NJ consulting and human resource development firm known for applying its problem-solving, decision-making, and project management processes to resolve business issues.</p>