If you were in the business of racing cars, you wouldn’t want a car that’s built from a blueprint that ensures every car will turn out the same. You would expect your car to be unique, to be customized to fit the circumstances: the racetrack design and conditions, the length of the race, the driver’s style, etc. You would also want to take advantage of the latest and the best in fluid hydraulics, aerodynamics, materials science, and automotive engineering—anything and everything possible to cut time off the race. On the other hand, if you were in the business of building and selling race cars, the opposite is true. Assuming there was a demand for them, it would work to your advantage if all race cars were designed and built the same—cars like cookies that could be made from the same recipe, in the same mold. Consistency, repeatability, and conformity are concepts you would likely embrace.
In the manufacturing arena, consistency, repeatability, and conformity are desirable conditions that fall under the umbrella of variance reduction. Rightfully so, manufacturers put considerable effort into ensuring process variance is minimized. But variance in the project arena is not necessarily a bad thing. By definition, projects are distinguished from processes by the fact that no two are identical. All the more so when it comes to projects that are in a race for time.
Every few years, it seems, a new methodology comes along that promises to revolutionize the practice of project management—at long last the proverbial silver bullet. Each of these comes with its own jargon, a prescribed set of procedures, and a costly price tag for “certifying” people at various levels to be the implementers of the methodology. By their very nature, each is intended to ensure some degree of consistency in the way things are done. In combination these factors have the effect of elevating the methodology of choice to sacrosanct status—putting all heretics at risk of being burned at stake. When this mystical state is achieved, the efficacy of the process ceases to be questioned and the “methodology manufacturers” can begin raking in a fortune selling one-for-all “race cars.” At this point the process serves as its own justification, defended by an army of advocates who have a vested interest in promoting and maintaining it.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not against structured methodologies—they have their place. But, it’s important to be clear about what a particular methodology is designed to accomplish—or better yet, what it actually accomplishes when it is put into practice, including any unintended consequences. You may not see it labeled as such, but every structured methodology is predicated on an organizing principle. If followed to the letter the methodology would require you to adhere to a prescriptive process for planning and/or executing your projects. The more definitive the methodology, the more restrictive it is. If, for instance, the intent of the methodology is to ensure no detail is overlooked, then you would rightfully expect it to prescribe a set of checks and balances to ensure that if there are any cracks, then nothing will fall through them. An entirely different set of measures would likely be specified if the methodology is organized around the intent of minimizing risks or to maximizing flexibility to accommodate changing requirements.
As with the race car analogy, every project that is deemed critical enough to enter the race for time should be looked at through a new set of lenses. If rapid delivery is truly a priority, any conditions or restrictions imposed by a particular methodology that would slow you down are tantamount to “red tape”—regardless of the good they are intended to serve for other purposes. This is not to suggest that every accelerated project should begin with a clean sheet of paper. But, in lieu of a straitjacket methodology, I suggest a “flexible framework” that will serve as a guide in identifying and exploiting acceleration opportunities that are unique to the circumstances. Also, in lieu of a “Certified Master Poopah” in this or that aspect of a structured methodology, pay careful attention to the person who is chosen to drive the race car—the project leader who is the “best fit” for the project—this project in particular.
