Managing projects by comparing the planned task duration with execution is a widespread practice. In most cases, it is also one of the parameters in the appraisal of resources working in projects. Despite the widespread use, managers are also aware that the uncertain reality of project environments can cause actual durations to be different. The difference has the potential for erroneous decisions and consequent disharmony in the workplace. According to Error Management Theory, when making decisions under conditions of uncertainty, two kinds of errors can occur – 'false positives', i.e. deciding that a risk or benefit exists when it does not, and ‘false negatives’, i.e. failing to notice a risk or benefit that exists. If managers use the planned durations as a way to evaluate resource performance, there is a chance of managers being unfair because of a ‘false negative’ measurement bias: declaring an efficient person as inefficient. The fact that a person was late as per planned duration does not necessarily mean that he/she was inefficient. Maybe he/she gave his/her super best despite the uncontrollable uncertainties, and his/her special efforts prevented potential additional delays. One cannot deny the presence of 'false negative' measurement bias, but there could be an argument about the extent of bias (or its statistical significance). Well there is no study in public domain evaluating the statistical significance but we can refer to our collective experience. It is not uncommon for most resources with lower grades to blame systemic reasons for their low performance. We cannot just ignore them as 'excuses'. The unfairness of most appraisal systems in the project environment is perhaps one of the 'open' secrets of the project environment. We call it a secret because whenever you confront managers with the problem, many claim that, with adequate experience, they can arrive at the 'right' or the ‘correct’ reference single point task duration. Statistically speaking, the words ‘right’ or 'correct’ estimate sound like oxymoron. With few clarity questions, one can understand that the word ‘accurate’ is usually interchangeably used with the word ‘realistic’. So, what is a realistic estimate? It is a duration considered achievable in a typical environment of uncertainties. This implies that the estimate is adequately protected (or buffered). If most task durations are buffered to protect from uncertainties, then a resource completing work on planned time does not necessarily mean that he/she is efficient. So there could be a second error in decision-making: the ‘false positive’ measurement bias or the inefficient person being declared as efficient. A resource completing a task as per planned duration could also mean that the resource was lucky in execution (no uncertainties hit the task) but expanded work to use all the hidden buffers in the task. Now, how big is this bias? Well, let us refer to our experience again. Most resources grudge the high efficiency ratings of their colleagues. The star grades are almost always debatable. Managers are intuitively aware about these biases. So, in many cases, they rely more on their experience with resources to 'curve fit' the mathematics behind the efficiency ratings. The challenge before us is to evaluate the efficiency of the resources or in other words check if the task was done by the resource in the fastest possible way. How do we know if the task was done in the fastest possible way? One yardstick could be the shortest time ever achieved in the past for the same or similar task. Is this the correct measure? Let us look deeper. The 'shortest time' for any task can be achieved very rarely because a lot of uncertain things that influence the task time have to turn out favourably, all at the same time. This is very rare indeed. Thus, in almost all instances 'as fast as possible' would still be longer than the 'shortest time' ever achieved. Now, if the 'shortest time' ever achieved in the past is the measure of 'as fast as possible', how many times can we claim that the resources completed their tasks 'as fast as possible'? Almost never!!! Let us try a radically different approach.In execution, we just do away with any reference point to planned task duration. Let the resources and the management close their eyes to the task level planned 'targets' along the road to project completion. But when we remove the milestone dates they find themselves in an environment without targets. Then how does one control? A new working culture is needed to suit the new environment. Let us borrow the new work culture from a relay race, where in execution, each runner runs as fast as possible. So we want a relay race culture, wherein execution, resources move 'as fast as possible' or in other words the planned task durations best assumed as zero in execution. But we still need a mechanism to know whether a task was done 'as fast as possible'. We know that we cannot use any benchmark duration because each time level of uncertainties affecting the task is different. So let us add a small caveat to our goal – do your tasks 'as fast as possible – under the given circumstances'. Now, the picture is completely different. 'Given circumstances' will always be different for different projects (although the task may be the same). Managers have a role to play to ensure an environment of enabling circumstances. One of the chronic reasons for delays at the task level is the environment of frequent priority changes, where resources are forced to multitask, while the elapsed time goes up for tasks. The other reason for chronic delays is the lack of preparedness before the start of the task, which in turn leads to resources waiting for specs or decisions or, even worse, frequent rework. As a first step towards ensuring the right circumstances, managers should eliminate bad multitasking and then ensure resources have all necessary preparations ready before the start of a task. Even after ensuring the two steps, there could still be some uncontrollable Murphy, which can cause tasks to be delayed. If that is the case, then the factor which determines the task time is the speed and quality of resolving obstacles that come in the way of task completion. So what is required is a daily review process that will ensure speedy and effective decision-making to resolve obstacles. It should facilitate quick surfacing of obstacles followed by quick removal of the same. If the process ensures that obstacles are immediately highlighted to the appropriate level of management who then takes immediate steps to remove them, we can safely presume that the all systemic reasons are in place to ensure that the task is done 'as fast as possible – under the given circumstances'. If the enabling processes are put in place, one should see a drastic reduction in the elapsed time of tasks, and only after that the problem, if any, of resource efficiency is surfaced. In other words, if there is an issue with individual resource efficiency, it can only be observed after putting the enabling processes in place. When we have all the enabling processes in place, what we now need from resources is a commitment to stay focused on the task till the agreed completion criteria. A manager who is actively involved with the task execution (and hence understands all circumstances associated with the task) knows exactly which resources displayed the desired behaviour. We can have an evaluation and feedback method focused on identifying and encouraging the right enabling behaviours and discouraging the wrong dysfunctional behaviours. Without an easy calculable numeric, the suggested evaluation may not look ‘objective’, but it will not be disputed if the resources are given immediate direct feedback on observation of the behaviour. The method suggested is exactly the way a football coach evaluates the individual performance of the players – only by observing them. The players do not have any individual output-based measures. The only output measure is for the team as a whole. With enabling processes, an effective feedback system and a team goal, we should not only enhance resource productivity but also bring about harmony in the workplace.

Key Takeaways

In the pursuit of efficiency, evaluating resources based on past benchmarks can be flawed. A revolutionary approach involves a relay race culture, urging resources to move 'as fast as possible' in their tasks and adapting to given circumstances. A supportive working culture and effective daily reviews to swiftly address obstacles can foster a harmonious workplace and boost productivity.

Enabling resource productivity in project environments

<h4>Enabling resource productivity in project environments</h4>

Download PDF

A relay race culture, wherein resources complete tasks “as fast as possible” under any given circumstances can ensure that projects are completed in the least possible time. Find out how can we ensure this.

Let's Empower Growth