On Wednesday, 16 March, I had the pleasure of attending in Edinburgh the annual Association of Project Management (APM) Scottish Conference, titled “Good Project Management: What Is It & Is It Transferable?”

I first came to know of APM as a student member. I have found it a fantastic community for advancing and facilitating Project Management (PM) knowledge and networking. As an early career goal, I aim to become APM Professional certified. Upon starting with Logica, I was pleased to learn there is an active connection between us and APM.

I arrived at the conference with a goal of taking away 3 main points. This is what I came up with:

1. Good PM

a) ‘We know why projects fail; we know how to prevent their failure – so why do they still fail?’ – Cobb’s paradox.
· Implementation is key = ‘Between the idea and the reality...Between the conception and the creation...Falls the shadow.’ – TS Elliot
b) Project Managers must be able to connect just as easily with the engineering director as the marketing director. Key in doing so? Using the relevant language that each person understands.
c) The responsibility of the Project Managers and PMO is to manage the dependencies of the different teams and departments.
d) Good PM requires effective governance and a focus on delivering value.
e) Good PM It is overwhelming transferable.
f) Frameworks are critical, but must be used properly. Put a framework on a project and then resize to fit your strategic and technical needs.

2. What is governance? Drawing the project to the organisations goals and objectives.
a) Project governance is a set of relationships that provides means to attain objectives and monitor performance.
b) Every project failure is a failure of governance and every failure of governance is a failure of the PM leadership team. – paraphrased from Siemens.
c) Governance means different things at different levels of the organisation – it all depends on what end of the telescope you’re looking through. Communication and transparency can overcome these differences.
d) Policy and processes must be aligned.
e) Insight to risk management in practice: current BAE aircraft carrier project near Edinburgh has identified 250 risks and opportunities; 60 of these are actively managed.

3. What is critical in managing value through delivery? Think functionality; delivery capability; seek early engagement with end users; and be effective, not just efficient!
a) Value is subjective. Think = f (stakeholder’s needs & priorities). Collectively, the sum of stakeholders’ needs represents the backbone.
b) Avoid the dash to “concrete”. Design and planning as first step is key. If less than 70% of design is not complete before “pouring concrete” – ie starting work, cost will exceed budget.
c) Key in contracts = manage performance against KPIs. One example = PM team was given incentives based on earned value performance within the calendar year. The result? They pursued production at the expense of the overall project delivery to meet the end of year goals. The better solution in this case? Change to a life-cycle earned value performance incentive.

As a closing comment, I realise that when I’m facing the challenge of meeting daily project deliverables, spending time and effort on groups like APM’s seems an unnecessary luxury. However, I have found that the inspiration and knowledge these professional communities distinctively generate allow me over the long-term to become more effective in my work. Plus, it is great to be at the forefront of shaping the future of my profession. For example, APM is pushing to introduce chartered status for PM professionals.

I respectfully suggest that whether it is APM, its PM alternative PMI, or other groups like British Computer Society, The Institution of Engineering and Technology, it is great to get involved!

Please contact me for further information on APM, including copies of presentations given at the conference, or to share your thoughts on any of the above!

In fact, this is not an impossible question to answer.

For clarity, please note these definitions:
• “reply to my e-mail”: generates any type of action; most basic example is the Receiver sending a reply e-mail; also can include Receiver talking in person to the Sender, or Receiver talking to a third person, or any other action that would not have occurred otherwise
• “not reply to my e-mail”: generates no action; most basic example is the e-mail sitting unactioned in the Receiver’s Inbox; also can include ignoring or deleting of an e-mail, whether intentional or unintentional  

First, we need to determine what the relevant factors are. Once this is established, we can then analyse each variable to estimate the probability.

Actors:
(1) Sender
(2) Receiver

Variables, ranked in importance (highest to lowest):
• i = importance of, or interest in, the subject to the Receiver (highest importance)
• I = importance of, or interest in, the Sender to the Receiver
• n = number of e-mails the sender has sent previously on the same subject
• t = time management skills of the Receiver
• N = number of other demands on the Receiver
• q = frequency in which the sender sends e-mails (lowest importance)

Putting these together, we have the following equation:
• f(probability of reply) = i + I + n + t + N + f + q

The next step is to assign a weight to each variable. This will likely vary from case to case, but in general the more important the variable the greater the weight it should have. As an example:
• f(probability of reply) = 0.3i + 0.25I + 0.15n + 0.15t + 0.1N + 0.05q

Consider two e-mails, one sent by me (a graduate) and the second Andy Green (CEO). Andy will likely generate a higher score for “I”. Consider further that Andy’s e-mail is to a senior manager and advises of an interesting article on cricket, while my e-mail is to my project manager and contains the final draft of a document for a project deliverable due in two hours. I will likely generate a higher score for “i”.

When generating a “score”, we must assign a percentage to each variable between 0 and 100.

Now we are in a position to bring this all together. Consider an e-mail that I send under the following conditions:
• subject = proposed dinner during my return to Minnesota for a holiday in May
• receiver = one of my best friends Brian
• this is the first e-mail I have sent advising that I’m returning for a visit
• Brian is extremely efficient worker
• Brian is getting married in May, and together with work, has many demands on his time
• Brian and I communicate on average once a month

Calculations to estimate the probability of a reply from Brian might look as follows:
= f(probability of reply) = 0.3i + 0.25I + 0.15n + 0.15t + 0.1N + 0.05q
= 0.3(.80) + 0.25(.9) + 0.15(.5) + 0.15(.8) + 0 .1(.2) + 0.05(.7)
= 0.72

Thus, we can conclude there is a 72% chance Brian will reply to my e-mail.

So, what does this all mean? I suggest that as we now better understand the factors determining whether or not we receive replies to our e-mails, we can focus our efforts on activities that will likely increase the score we generate for each variable.

My employer!

An engaging Logica update today thanks to my research assistants at Google Alerts! Highlights:

(1) Logica's business consulting practice an example of the integrated ecosystem model driving the iPad's success. As Steve Jobs puts it, "The hardware, software and applications intertwine." click here for article

(2) Strong performance of Standard Life's corporate business driven in part by the "5,000 member Logica scheme". click here for article

(3) Logica featured as a case study in the commercial opportunities of Green IT. click here for article