dealing with risks in gap-based delivery

8/14/2019 Dealing with risks in Gap-Based Delivery

1/7

Sharing thoughts on Gap-Based Delivery in Programs

Risk management in Gap-based delivery

Ricardo Guido Lavalle, PgMP, PMP

This case is an actual one.

I had been called to take a huge cloud project out of the mud. It had been poorl initiated, and

the customer hadn!t properl staffed its side, and ultimatel had come "ith an old#fashion, authoritativeProject $irector. The relations bet"een parties could hardl be "orse.

The project had a fairl reasonable risk plan. The plan hadn!t foreseen the lack ofcommunications among stakeholders and bet"een provider and customer. The status meetings had no

meeting minutes. %oon after I initiated meeting minutes and the proved effective to depict the seriousgaps that populated the project, the &ustomer!s Project $irector canceled regular status meetings and

forbade email ans"ers from main customer!s plaers. In change, she put a nominal PM bet"een her

and our project management. The PM had no po"er at all, other than 'uestioning minimal stuff in theschedule, and no decisions and agreement could be made valid. In ( months I had not a single private

meeting "ith the Project $irector. In the "hole project!s duration "e had no access at all to the internal#

to the customer schedule and risks.

)ere, a non#planned, unkno"n risk had triggered at e*ecution time, let!s call it +proper

communication between parties is not granted. -aturall the Plan could not deal "ith it no provisionscould have prevented it once the project had been initiated the "rong "a "ith the "rong people.

The first assessment I made, the project "as scre"ed. -o Plan could deal "ith the man gaps

and faults it had.

Thus a tactical, "orkaround emergenc plan "as put in place.

The $octor had said m father had had a sick hearth, "ith main

arteries blocked, but that over a long time he had developed a

peripheral, much less efficient arterial mesh, et efficient enoughto someho" make the blood distribution for a rather long "hile. I

don!t kno" if that "as true at all, but I liked the idea./hile complaining for the e*isting gaps and tring ever "a to

get and provide feedback and status b the formal procedures, "edeveloped peripheral communications channels. /e needed to

promote the entire team as communication channels. /e empo"ered customer!s ke people "ith

privileged information the could use. This promoted a quid pro quospirit. In some cases the strategbackfired. 0or instance, "hen the nominal PM "as probed "ith privileged information she immediatel

reported it, so that informal channel had to be canceled on the spot. 1ther channels succeeded in

diverse levels of efficienc.
http://gbdelivery.blogspot.com.ar/http://br.linkedin.com/in/riglav/http://gbdelivery.blogspot.com.ar/http://br.linkedin.com/in/riglav/http://gbdelivery.blogspot.com.ar/http://gbdelivery.blogspot.com.ar/http://gbdelivery.blogspot.com.ar/


2/7


2 the time of the first deliver "e had a fairl trustable vie" of the customer!s relevant

milestones and e*pectations, risks and issues. 1n the other side, our channels had been fed back "ith

strategic information, current internal and operational status and success factors, and so criticalsnchroni3ation information reached the relevant levels in customer!s side. The project "as delivered

"ith negigible dela.

Lessons learned first, a gap#based, tactical approach to risks "as effective in the absenceof a

+straight, planned "a. %econd, the gap#based approach "as justifiedjustbecause the whole projectwas in risk, not because the risk impacted just a couple activities. In fact, "e needed to reprogram

man tasks, "ith the painful conse'uences this carries. The end results "ere being compromised, and

the actions "ere oriented justto secure the end results, not to put the project on track 4according to the

official minute task schedule5, to compl "ith the e*isting schedule, or "hatever.

Risk managementcannot be overemphasi3ed. If

ou are an e*perienced program or project management

practitioner ou have alread perceived that Risk,

%takeholder, 6thics7, 8ssumption, 9ualit, %cope, Timeand &ost management are all mutuall interdependent.

There are program managers that prefer to approach the

project b the Risk side, other b the %takeholders: side,a lot from a &ost side. That!s all#right as long the

manager remembers that his;her dut is to come to a

happ end "ith the program or project still able to becalled a program or project, not in pieces. The conscious

manager "ill seem to be caring for just one dimension, but that!s just an e*ternal perception because of

the manager!s bias.

The seasoned practitioner kno"s he;she needs to governthe "hole pack from current status, through the gap until a

success status. In tactical times, "hen the Plan is not "orking

because of terrain realities, some priorities among the Triple&onstraint dimensions can change, but it!s the manager!s

responsibilit to balance them in order to maintain the program!s

integrit and "orkable balance.

7 /ell, 6thics is usuall considered as kind of unmovable dimension. I invite ou to readm discussion on ethics and gap#

2ased deliverif ou "ant a broader elaboration on the matter.
http://gbdelivery.blogspot.com.ar/http://gbdelivery.blogspot.com.br/2013/10/ethics-in-gap-based-delivery.htmlhttp://gbdelivery.blogspot.com.br/2013/10/ethics-in-gap-based-delivery.htmlhttp://gbdelivery.blogspot.com.br/2013/10/ethics-in-gap-based-delivery.htmlhttp://gbdelivery.blogspot.com.br/2013/10/ethics-in-gap-based-delivery.htmlhttp://gbdelivery.blogspot.com.ar/http://gbdelivery.blogspot.com.br/2013/10/ethics-in-gap-based-delivery.htmlhttp://gbdelivery.blogspot.com.br/2013/10/ethics-in-gap-based-delivery.htmlhttp://gbdelivery.blogspot.com.ar/http://gbdelivery.blogspot.com.ar/http://gbdelivery.blogspot.com.ar/


3/7


The dashboard and the risks

In a previous postI depicted the Tactical $ashboard for a program. It!sintent is 'uite the same as $amian Mc


4/7


Foreseen risks, unplanned. This is not necessaril a project fla". 6ither because their lo"

probabilit of occurrence, because of their unmanageable 'ualit 4+what if the world blows

up?5, or because our team is confident the can manage them as the sho" up "ithout toomuch disturbance, our team decides not to manage them.

Unforeseen risks, unplanned yet budgeted. =ou include some percent of total budget in order

to deal "ith unforeseen risks. =ou are b the "a a great negotiator if ou can commit mone

from finances! area for such immaterial things.

Plain unforeseen risks.

0or risks ou didn!t provide a contingenc or a "a to avoid them in the Plan, ou have t"o"as to deal "ith them

8s soon as the are identified and 'ualified, if the are manageable in the conte*t of the

e*isting provisions in the Plan, m advice is to do so. Let!s sa a team member got sick and ou

hadn!t a replacement, but the tasks in the schedule do suffice to deal "ith the situation throughschedule engineering, b making use of slacks or b getting a "aiver for a tolerable dela, ou

just do it and accommodate the immediate impacts and due communications.

If the risk can either risk the final results of the project or it ma promote such a perturbation

that could evolve in a major crisis even after the project deliver or program completion, oucertainl need to get tactical and make a bridge for that gap.

These risks "ill be part of the tactical dashboard
http://gbdelivery.blogspot.com.ar/http://gbdelivery.blogspot.com.ar/http://gbdelivery.blogspot.com.ar/http://gbdelivery.blogspot.com.ar/http://gbdelivery.blogspot.com.ar/


5/7


The manager "ill probabl need to get "aivers from the sponsor, the e*ecutives and ;or the

steering committees in order to proceed out of the Plan.

The manager "ill tr to assess "hich risks can actuall be moved to regular, Plan#managed

risks. The lesser the critical tactical risks, the more focus, hence the more chances.

8 thorough stakeholder!s risk thresholds levels assessment "ill need to be conducted. /hile

ou and other stakeholders can stand the involved levels of stress the solution poses, man

relevant stakeholders ma not be read to stand them.

Remember that declared risk threshold levels are not the same as "orking thresholdlevels. /hile a stakeholder ma sta muted "hile the project or program is in normal

condition, it!s probable he;she "ill take advantage of the crisis and ask for a risk

threshold change.

8s financial and time concerns are the most immediate and more visible impacts, specialcare must be e*ercised "ith them. 4this of course can change if the priorities are different,

like reliabilit #space projects#, environmental impacts #social, agriculture, marine

projects#, etc.5.

It ma happen, too, that a planned risk evolves in an unforeseen "a into a danger for the theprogram or project!s ultimate goal, in "hose case ou "ill need to process it in tactical mode>.

You should try to process as many risks as possible according to the Plan, if necessar b

altering it. This "ill re'uire ou to activate proper governance devices. 0or instance, ou "ill probablbe re'uired to make a &hange Re'uest that "ill need to be processed b the established changeprocesses for the program. That is the best practice, the recommended "a to do things unless ou have

no other option but to get tactical and in need topullthe program through the gap 4b using gap#based

deliver tactics5 instead ofpushingit according to the Plan.

> -otice I use +tactical risk management and similar e*pressions in a loose "a, not necessaril related to some attemptsto sstematicall deal "ith tactical risks. In the conte*t of Gap#2ased $eliver there is no other sstematics than the

ver focus on bridging the gaps "ith ever usable and proportionate#to the problem device or tool. Gap#2ased $eliver

is about focus and attitude, not tools.


6/7


-otice that m solution to the crisis in the &loud project

depicted above "as good enough as to deliver the project in its

first stage, but it did not solve the severe management problemthe project had.

M intervention "as intended strictl to take the project

out of the mud until first deliver, but that "as not enough as to

bring a comprehensive ans"er to the initiation defects andsubse'uent structural project issues. That "as not in the scope of

a tactical intervention, and needed much more support and a

drastic conte*t change. 8nd certainl the same emergenc PM "asn!t the appropriate person to do so.

Tools. The tools ou "ill make use of are the same ou "ould use for Planned risks. =ou stillneed to assess the risks for 'ualit and 'uantit. =ou still need to assign a responsible. The can even

produce #after the mitigation# secondar risks. /hat changes is not the nature of the risks but the

timing of them, their criticalit and the e*ecution conte*t.

You are to be blamed

0or ou "ill be constrained to come "ith a course of action in a

hurr, and in a conte*t that!s not the happ times in the planning phase.?alues and priorities "ill seem to have temporaril changed 4but ou "ill

be accounted according to the originall established values in our Plan5.Most probabl ou "ill be dealing "ith the risk in a fu33, nois, dirt

conte*t, "ith ever ee and finger pointed to ou and "ith a lot of peopledesperatel looking for someone to blame.

The ?6R= first comment ou "ill hear "ill probabl be +WHY

wasn't that risk mapped in the Plan?.

=ou are the PM, so ou are the first person to be accountable 4@toblame5. It!s natural and foreseeable. If ou don!t accept this fact ou are

not et used enough to manage projects or programs.

In the best case, namel if the risk hadn!t been mapped because it couldn!t be mapped in

advance at planning time, ou!ll need to invest a couple meetings and emails in order to make it clear.0or instance, a solar burst suddenl burned our antennae. 1r ou had planned for the Tea part

not approving the budgetar la"s in the A%, but ou couldn!t foresee that the opposition in some

countr ou are e*ecuting the program or project "ould suddenl decide to do the same.

In an organizational strengthening program I managed in Buenos Aires it happened, right

before its launch, that a theater with thousands of young people attending a rock event caught fire and

more than 200 people died.

he tragedy had happened in a private spot, but it seems that safety inspectors had e!changed


7/7


waivers for bribes, thus the "overnor had some kind of indirect responsibility on the events.

#e had took provisions for some $0 representatives being changed in the middle of the

program because of elections %thus we needed to plan for the new stakeholder&s scenario%. #hat we

failed to map was the governor being put apart by the new representatives. #hile the program did not

fail, it was severely shaken, and some components could never been deployed, thus affecting the final

benefits outcomes.

8s a final note, ou should differentiate bet"een critical, results#endangering risks from thosenast, not necessaril too dangerous et trouble#carring risks. Most of these risks have to do "ith

bureaucratic concerns or communication issues. 6ither a purchase process "as not properl follo"ed,or someone in the team made an inopportune statement in a meeting or to the journalism. The can

branch in une*pected "as and even become critical risks if not properl managed and contained.

Risk management is not and it "ill never be a closed issue. That has nothing to do "ith tool

availabilit but the ver nature of comple* sstems. Profession "ill manage to record ever possiblerisk ou can find in a specific kind of project. /hat catalogs and risk list could never account for is the

inherent non#linear characteristic of comple* sstems and the volatile nature of human beings. Thanks

God.

It is not the critic who counts. 'ot the man who points out how the strong man stumbled

or where the doer of deeds could have done better. he credit belongs to the man who is actually

in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood( who strives valiantly( who errs

and comes short again and again( who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions( who

spends himself in a worthy cause. #ho)at the best)knows in the end the triumph of high

achievement, and who)at the worst)at least fails while daring greatly so that his place shall

never be with those timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat.

Theodore Roosevelt

The length of this document defends it well against the risk of it being read

Winston Churchill

###o###

?isit gbdeliver.blogspot.com
http://gbdelivery.blogspot.com.ar/http://gbdelivery.blogspot.com/http://gbdelivery.blogspot.com.ar/http://gbdelivery.blogspot.com/http://gbdelivery.blogspot.com.ar/http://gbdelivery.blogspot.com.ar/http://gbdelivery.blogspot.com.ar/

dealing with risks in gap-based delivery

Documents