Ten Common Problems on Poor Performing Programs

PM World Today – August 2011 (Vol. XIII, Issue VIII)

PM WORLD TODAY – PM ADVISORY – AUGUST 2011

Ten Common Problems on Poor Performing Programs

By Bob Prieto

Program Management involves dealing with a scale and complexity that goes well
beyond that experienced in many projects. These challenges are compounded by new
linkages across multiple projects; indirect inter-dependencies as a result of “constraint
coupling”; and new risks and opportunities which may lurk in the white spaces between
projects. The greatest sources of poor performance in large programs, however, have
more to do with the context and frameworks established than the new and often hidden
risks.

This paper identifies ten common problems found on poor performing programs and
provides the program manager with a convenient diagnostic tool to assess his
program’s susceptibility to degraded performance. Periodic review of these problems
experienced on many programs facilitates early corrective action and improved program
performance.

© 2011 Bob Prieto
PM World Today is a free monthly eJournal - Subscriptions available at http://www.pmworldtoday.net Page 1


1.0 Planning Basis Not Well Founded

Large, complex programs require a well thought out and developed foundation upon
which to build the program structure consisting of a program execution strategy and
plan, a supporting organizational framework, and an infrastructure of processes and
procedures that tie the program together. But just like any structure, programs will only
perform as good as the foundation upon which they are built.

In programs experiencing problems related to an inadequately developed planning
basis there are several root causes that are routinely identified. These include:
 Program team begins work without detailed program and project execution plans.
 Strategic Business Objectives (SBO) not well defined or communicated.
 Project team does not spend sufficient effort to gather and understand all
relevant information

 Flawed planning assumptions driven by bias that limits consideration of best
ideas
 Limited buy-in from the team

 Lack of team alignment results in a culture lacking trust setting the stage for
micro-management, slowing the program down

A structured process, beginning with identification and articulation of Strategic Business
Objectives, strategy definition, careful project portfolio selection, structured alignment
and complementary organizational change management can help organizations avoid
many of these planning basis problems.

2.0 Team Not Well Defined or Lacking Requisite Skills
The best strategy, plans and tools are only as good as the individuals assigned the
responsibility to utilize them. Skills must match requirements as well as likely challenges
the program will face. Clear responsibilities must be assigned and an assessment
conducted of existing team and individual skills gaps. These gaps must be addressed.
Programs experiencing team definition and skills problems typically experience one or
more of the following root causes:
 Team skills not consistent with changed requirements the program requires.
 Lack of program management training.
 Team never possessed required management skills.

 Team members unaware of their roles and responsibilities.
© 2011 Bob Prieto


 Team members function inconsistent with desired program outcomes.

 Team members frustrated by lack of role, responsibility and outcome definition.

 Roles and responsibilities not discussed early enough in the program

 Team member expertise does not match program requirements requiring them to
function outside their comfort zone

 Role is out of one’s expertise

 Lack of education to expand team member skill sets.

RACI (Responsible, Accountable, Consulted, Informed) chart development can serve to
provide role clarity as well as be extended to identify requisite skills. Training programs
can be identified and tailored to meet specific program team needs in many instances.

3.0 Lack of a Culture of Responsibility, Authority & Accountability; Lack of
Organizational Change Management

The “soft” issues really do matter and by any measure the “soft” issues are hard. In the
previous section we looked at some of the people issues we need to address in large
programs but even more is require. Team culture, a focus on change and a recognition
that people change in different ways at different rates are all important to program
success.

When programs suffer from a lack of a culture of responsibility, matched with requisite
authority and accountability, we should not be surprised since an assessable set of root
causes typically have shown themselves well in advance.

Additionally, inadequate attention to planning and managing the change process itself
can be a major contributor to poor program performance.

Root causes that should be watched out for include:

 No formal way of evaluating the work
 Lack of feedback from other team members (360 Review)
 Weak performance review processes – poor performers continue to receive
strong performance evaluations.
 Roles and responsibilities not clearly defined and well communicated

© 2011 Bob Prieto


 RACI (Responsible, Accountable, Consulted, Informed) charts inadequate, non
existent or not followed.
 Lack of cascading metrics (Key Performance Indicators (KPIs))
 Infrequent assessment of program quality, progress and achievement
 Project teams lacks a values statement; team culture not built and reinforced

 Underestimating the difficulty and impact of change

 Lack of recognition that change is a multi-step process

 Inadequate description of the new or desired team culture

 Change agents and early embracers of change not adequately thought through

 Evaluation of teamwork not conducted on a regular basis

4.0 Flawed Baseline

In some instances program failure or underperformance is assured from the outset. A
principle cause of such “assured” failures is weak planning and weak associated
baselines. In reality serious program execution planning has not happened.
Many factors can contribute to flawed program baselines including pressures to produce
the “right” answer, when “right” is based on a strategy of hope and a dream. Strong
baseline centric execution improves program performance but such execution can only
be as good as the desired baselines.
In many instances of flawed baselines we find that articulation of the program’s
Strategic Business Objectives have not been clearly articulated or agreed to.
Some symptoms of flawed baselines include:

 Timeline Not Realistic

 Known unknowns not sufficiently identified and provided for

 Planned on best guess basis; not credible with execution team

 Flawed baseline planning process repeated across multiple projects in program

 Baseline not communicated, managed to or reported against.

 Scope not well defined

© 2011 Bob Prieto


 Work Breakdown Structure lacked sufficient detail

 Assumptions not well thought out or limited in scope

 Assumptions not documented, communicated and tracked

 Risk Analysis Inadequate

 Risk drivers not identified

 Risk evolution over program not considered

 Risk realization not planned for; inadequate risk management plan

5.0 Weak Program Execution Plan

Well defined Strategic Business Objectives, a solid baseline and an aligned program
team contribute to strong program performance. At times however problems still arise
because of an associated program execution plan that was mismatched to the
program’s objectives, strategy and constraints. And while we may have clearly defined
roles and responsibilities at an earlier stage they may not match with the requirements
implicit in the program execution plan.
Factors contributing to a weak program execution plan can include:

 Execution strategy did not build on defined Strategic Business Objectives and
program scope

 Execution plan did not align with selected strategy

 Execution plan was not resource loaded (time; $; constrained resources)

 Execution plan not aligned with risk management strategy

 Roles and responsibilities not clearly defined

 Execution sequence does not adequately recognize interdependencies and
“constraint coupling”

6.0 Weak Execution

The best of plans, poorly executed, will not produce the outcomes we want. The list of
factors contributing to weak program execution could take volumes to describe but from

© 2011 Bob Prieto


observation and experience the following warrant closer inspection and attention by the
program manager throughout the program.

 Inadequately structured decision process

 The value of time in decision making not recognized
 Decision dates not established, recognized or respected
 Seeking perfection in the face of uncertainty
 Uninformed direction undermines management team effectiveness
 No sense of priorities – “kangaroo” management
 Lack of understanding of links and interdependencies
 Role of project constraints not understood
 Relationship power seeks to trump clear organizational roles and responsibilities
 Inadequate team alignment
 Inadequate team training
 Change not controlled resulting in scope growth, cost growth, schedule slippages
and changed risk profile
 Work process durations, reviews, approvals not well defined or respected
 Work processes are not streamlined
 Too many people have approval authority

7.0 Poor or No Communication Plan

In real estate the mantra is location, location, location. In program management it is
communication, communication, communication.
When we fail to heed this admonishment in the execution of large programs we
experience difficulties in many aspects of the program. Everything becomes just a little
bit tougher.
Communication is always a challenge and one of the greatest problems encountered is
the perception that it exists. This is often not the case in programs experiencing
performance difficulties. Some symptoms of a weak communication plan include:

 Importance of communication not recognized
 No understanding of when and how communications will be delivered.

© 2011 Bob Prieto


 Frequency of communication does not support program needs
 Continuous communication between organizational levels does not occur
 Good program dashboard does not exist
 Program status, action items and their closeout are not tracked and reported
 Critical path activities and their dates have inadequate visibility by the program
team
 Linkages, interdependencies and precedence are not discussed or adequately
communicated
 Absence of strong change order process allows informal decisions to be made
without adequate communication
 Approved changes not communicated to team in a timely and comprehensive
manner
 Fear of retribution discourages issue identification
 Broad team awareness of information and issues does not exist

8.0 Lack Of Strategic Audits

The word “audit” often stirs emotions associated with fear and avoidance. Done
correctly, audits can provide great value to program teams by bringing the fresh eyes
that programs require. In large programs these audits must go well beyond the fiduciary,
quality and safety audits common to large programs by looking at issues related to
governance and strategy.
Programs with a weak audit framework are often characterized by:

 Program progress not tracked or monitored from outside execution team

 Audit process not used to drive program progress – people do what is measured

 Audit of quality process not used to drive quality improvement.

 Audits not conducted on a regular basis throughout entire program (project
selection, initiation, execution, closeout)
 Audits do not assess program skills needs (management and other), resourcing
plan and actual skills and levels (requirements/resource mismatch)

© 2011 Bob Prieto


9.0 Team Not Reinforced

Team performance is a measure of program success. But do we truly have a team?
Many of our activities related to alignment and organizational change management are
focused on building such teams, but they must be sustained throughout the life of the
program. The concept and reality of one team must be continuously reinforced.
When teams come off the track three common root causes typically show up:

 Silos allowed to exist and develop value destroying behaviors

 Common values not continuously communicated and demonstrated

 Information not shared

10.0 Weak Lessons Learned and Best Practices

We learn by doing and we learn by our mistakes. We also learn from others. Program
teams must be learning organizations. This is one of the contributions that a strong
team culture provides. Knowledge capture, sharing and management contribute to
sustained superior performance by program teams. Where this lacking we may find:

 Close out of major phases does not occur letting lessons learned to be lost and
best practices to not be communicated in timely manner
 Lessons learned are incorporated without review to ensure they represent best
practice (no unintended consequences)
 Inadequate knowledge management processes

Conclusion
Understanding, avoiding and continuously looking for, and addressing, the common
problems experienced in poor performing programs is essential to high performance
programs. This assessment of program readiness, both to begin as well as continue on,
can be aided by a structured assessment of the program to determine whether any of
the potential problems exist or might emerge.

The checklist that follows can provide a convenient tool for such an assessment and
can be incorporated as part of the ongoing strategic audit process.

© 2011 Bob Prieto


Common Program Problem Checklist

1.0 Planning Basis Not Well Founded
1.1 Program team begins work without detailed
program and project execution plans.
1.2 Strategic Business Objectives (SBO) not well
defined or communicated.
1.3 Project team does not spend sufficient effort to
gather and understand all relevant information
1.4 Flawed planning assumptions driven by bias that
limits consideration of best ideas
1.5 Limited buy-in from the team
1.6 Lack of team alignment results in a culture lacking
trust setting the stage for micro-management,
slowing the program down

2.0 Team Not Well Defined or Lacking Requisite Skills
2.1 Team skills not consistent with changed
requirements the program requires.
2.2 Lack of program management training.
2.3 Team never possessed required management
skills.
2.4 Team members unaware of their roles and
responsibilities.
2.5 Team members function inconsistent with desired
program outcomes.
2.6 Team members frustrated by lack of role,
responsibility and outcome definition.
2.7 Roles and responsibilities not discussed early
enough in the program
2.8 Team member expertise does not match program
requirements requiring them to function outside
their comfort zone
2.9 Role is out of one’s expertise
2.10 Lack of education to expand team member skill
sets.
© 2011 Bob Prieto


3.0 Lack of a Culture of Responsibility, Authority &
Accountability; Lack of Organizational Change
Management
3.1 No formal way of evaluating the work
3.2 Lack of feedback from other team members (360
Review)
3.3 Weak performance review processes – poor
performers continue to receive strong performance
evaluations.
3.4 Roles and responsibilities not clearly defined and
well communicated
3.5 RACI (Responsible, Accountable, Consulted,
Informed) charts inadequate, non existent or not
followed.
3.6 Lack of cascading metrics (Key Performance
Indicators (KPIs))
3.7 Infrequent assessment of program quality,
progress and achievement
3.8 Project teams lacks a values statement; team
culture not built and reinforced
3.9 Underestimating the difficulty and impact of change
3.10 Lack of recognition that change is a multi-step
process
3.11 Inadequate description of the new or desired team
culture
3.12 Change agents and early embracers of change not
adequately thought through
3.13 Evaluation of teamwork not conducted on a regular
basis

4.0 Flawed Baseline
4.1 Timeline Not Realistic
4.2 Known unknowns not sufficiently identified and
provided for
4.3 Planned on best guess basis; not credible with
execution team
4.4 Flawed baseline planning process repeated across
multiple projects in program
© 2011 Bob Prieto


4.5 Baseline not communicated, managed to or
reported against.
4.6 Scope not well defined
4.7 Work Breakdown Structure lacked sufficient detail
4.8 Assumptions not well thought out or limited in
scope
4.9 Assumptions not documented, communicated and
tracked
4.10 Risk Analysis Inadequate
4.11 Risk drivers not identified
4.12 Risk evolution over program not considered
4.13 Risk realization not planned for; inadequate risk
management plan

5.0 Weak Program Execution Plan
5.1 Execution strategy did not build on defined
Strategic Business Objectives and program scope
5.2 Execution plan did not align with selected strategy
5.3 Execution plan was not resource loaded (time; $;
constrained resources)
5.4 Execution plan not aligned with risk management
strategy
5.5 Roles and responsibilities not clearly defined
5.6 Execution sequence does not adequately
recognize interdependencies and “constraint
coupling”

6.0 Weak Execution
6.1 Inadequately structured decision process
6.2 The value of time in decision making not
recognized
6.3 Decision dates not established, recognized or
respected
6.4 Seeking perfection in the face of uncertainty
6.5 Uninformed direction undermines management
team effectiveness
© 2011 Bob Prieto


6.6 No sense of priorities – “kangaroo” management
6.7 Lack of understanding of links and
interdependencies
6.8 Role of project constraints not understood
6.9 Relationship power seeks to trump clear
organizational roles and responsibilities
6.10 Inadequate team alignment
6.11 Inadequate team training
6.12 Change not controlled resulting in scope growth,
cost growth, schedule slippages and changed risk
profile
6.13 Work process durations, reviews, approvals not
well defined or respected
6.14 Work processes are not streamlined
6.15 Too many people have approval authority

7.0 Poor or No Communication Plan
7.1 Importance of communication not recognized
7.2 No understanding of when and how
communications will be delivered.
7.3 Frequency of communication does not support
program needs
7.4 Continuous communication between organizational
levels does not occur
7.5 Good program dashboard does not exist
7.6 Program status, action items and their closeout are
not tracked and reported
7.7 Critical path activities and their dates have
inadequate visibility by the program team
7.8 Linkages, interdependencies and precedence are
not discussed or adequately communicated
7.9 Absence of strong change order process allows
informal decisions to be made without adequate
communication
7.10 Approved changes not communicated to team in a
timely and comprehensive manner
7.11 Fear of retribution discourages issue identification
7.12 Broad team awareness of information and issues
does not exist

© 2011 Bob Prieto


8.0 Lack Of Strategic Audits
8.1 Program progress not tracked or monitored from
outside execution team
8.2 Audit process not used to drive program progress –
people do what is measured
8.3 Audit of quality process not used to drive quality
improvement.
8.4 Audits not conducted on a regular basis throughout
entire program (project selection, initiation,
execution, closeout)
8.5 Audits do not assess program skills needs
(management and other), resourcing plan and
actual skills and levels (requirements/resource
mismatch)

9.0 Team Not Reinforced
9.1 Silos allowed to exist and develop value destroying
behaviors
9.2 Common values not continuously communicated
and demonstrated
9.3 Information not shared

10.0 Weak Lessons Learned and Best Practices
10.1 Close out of major phases does not occur letting
lessons learned to be lost and best practices to not
be communicated in timely manner
10.2 Lessons learned are incorporated without review to
ensure they represent best practice (no unintended
consequences)
10.3 Inadequate knowledge management processes

© 2011 Bob Prieto


About the Author

Bob Prieto

Author

Bob Prieto is a Senior Vice President of Fluor Corporation, one of
America’s largest engineering, construction and project
management firms, where he is responsible for strategy in support of the firm’s
Industrial & Infrastructure Group and its key clients. He focuses on the development,
delivery and oversight of large, complex projects worldwide. Prior to joining Fluor, Bob
served as chairman of Parsons Brinckerhoff Inc. He served as a member of the
executive committee of the National Center for Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation, a
member of the Industry Leaders’ Council of the American Society of Civil Engineers
(ASCE), and co-founder of the Disaster Resource Network. He currently serves on a
number of committees looking at issues related to infrastructure delivery and resiliency
and disaster response and rebuilding. Until 2006 he served as one of three U.S.
presidential appointees to the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Business
Advisory Council (ABAC) and previously served as chairman of the Engineering and
Construction Governors of The World Economic Forum and co-chair of the
infrastructure task force formed after September 11th by the New York City Chamber of
Commerce. He recently completed ten year tenure as a member of the board of
trustees of Polytechnic University of New York culminating in its merger with New York
University. Bob is the author of “Strategic Program Management” published by the
Construction Management Association of America (CMAA) and more recently a
companion work entitled “Topics in Strategic Program Management”.

© 2011 Bob Prieto

Ten Common Problems on Poor Performing Programs

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Similar to Ten Common Problems on Poor Performing Programs (20)

More from Bob Prieto (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Ten Common Problems on Poor Performing Programs