PHASE 1

Phase 1 – Take a Deep Breath and...

COLLAPSE

The Situation
Terrence calls a meeting with the three key people in the project. It is the
first time he has given his personal time to this issue in several months. His
board have told him that a whole year of delay is unacceptable, and that
handing the project over to Acme would cost a fortune AND still result in a
year’s delay. He comes to this meeting with a thin hope that all is not lost…

The Meeting
Terrence: “Shawn, let me ask you this question first – did we choose the
wrong software solution?”

Shawn: “No, we didn’t. The Acme Finance solution is the best out there. It
can do everything we need. The problem is that it cannot do anything until
we finish telling it exactly what we want from it. It has endless potential,
which needs to be realised through customisation. It was always going to
be this approach, just not this much pain.”

Terrence: “So I understand your team has been busy figuring out what you
want this software to do. Are you done with those questions? Do you know
now?”

Shawn: “Yes, but there is always the caveat that it won’t look exactly like we
expected once it deploys.”

April: “There are never any guarantees on that Shawn, that’s what
acceptance testing is all about. But we are nowhere near that stage yet. I
was looking at design changes your team wanted as recently as last week.
This is why I don’t think you guys are truly done with changing your
minds.”
Rahini: “Folks, please, lets not go down that path today and waste
Terrence’s time. This discussion is about what to do next. I think we can all
agree that things aren’t where we want them. The important point now is
what do we do about this. As I see it we have three major choices ahead of
us. We carry on as we are, accepting that this whole project will not get
fully done until another financial year. Or we kill it, and hand the whole
thing over to Acme to manage in their own way, and pay them accordingly.”

Terrence: “Let me jump in here and say that I am not really here today to
discuss either of those two options. So…?”

Rahini: “Or, we redesign the project in such a way as to meet the most
important criteria from here on. We redo the scope, the expectations, the
resources and the management of it. Nothing is sacred, we effectively
convert it into a recovery project with a brand-new project charter and
mandate.”

Terrence: “That sounds drastic, but I guess its at the same scale of the
problems we would face with the other two options. Are you up for that
kind of change to your project Rahini?”

Rahini: “Actually, I may not be the project manager by the end of that
process. You will need someone with bigger guns than me, and I don’t see
you handing me that kind of firepower.”

April: “What are you saying Rahini? That you don’t think you can do this?”

Rahini: “April, let me be blunt. A large part of why we are in this situation
has been due to the fact that I, as project manager, have been regularly
sidelined on strategic project decisions whilst you and Shawn had your
own battles. If you want this project to succeed, the new project manager
will need to be bigger than both of you, at least in terms of executive clout.
I’m honest enough to say that probably won’t be me.”

Terrence: “I can’t appoint anyone else until I have a clearer idea on who I
need, what they will need to do, and why. Rahini, you reported directly to
the project board on this. Why wasn’t this power problem made clear
earlier?”
 Rahini: “It was, but my reports were not exclusively for the board, they got
copied to both Shawn and April as well. I did raise the issues in the
beginning, but that didn’t land well on some desks. The feedback I got was
to “use diplomacy” to solve it. Unfortunately, that turned out to be
something that both the finance and IT teams were largely immune to once
they realised I had no real power. You might need to give the next project
manager something more to work with.”

Terrence: “Are these two really that bad?”

Rahini: “You tell me Terrence. When this project started these two couldn’t
decide who should be in charge. Neither could you, so you hired me as
a diplomatic solution, but the battles continued.”

Terrence: “So, you are done then?”

Rahini: “No, I am here for as long as I can be effective. But I am done with
being diplomatic.”

Terrence: “Right, well that part is pretty clear at least.”

The Questions
Terrence asks for your input and ideas on the following:
1. What is really at the root of why this project is in so much trouble?
2. What should we do now to make sure we are aware of all of the problems and challenges?
3. What should I do about Rahini? I am encouraged by her sudden assertiveness, but if she says
she is not the right person – shouldn’t I believe her?
 ANSWERS
Take a Deep Breath and...
COLLAPSE

I doubt there is a single reason for the current project trouble, however, I
believe a significant cause is the project and its major stakeholders appear
to not know what the final product is meant to be. The final output of the
project that meets the needs of the users and the business, which is a
functioning finance software package, was either incorrectly defined in the
business case. Or, due to scope creep represented as “endless
customisation”, has become something different over the last eight months
and is at risk of not meeting expectations or deliver any benefits.

A recommended action is to conduct a project audit and health check that

investigates the unknown or hidden causes of project trouble. Its required
for decisions to be made to either proceed with project recovery or stop the
project. Investigation processes must include all project information
sources such as reporting, performance metrics etc, as well as interviewing
all stakeholders, for example IT team (project), finance team (users) and
Acme Finance (suppliers). To ensure that truthful information is collected,
the project needs a recovery project manager who is neutral with no prior
project involvement. This neutral approach to understanding the project
troubles can build trust with the stakeholders by reducing any
preconceptions and is therefore important in gaining honest information.

I think Rahini has important information relevant to project recovery, but

she’s right in that she isn’t the person for the RPM role. She may have
shown the necessary assertiveness in the meeting, but there is risk of the
two leaders reverting back established behaviours that don’t recognise
Rahini with any level of power. Instead, an RPM empowered with a
mandate to do everything possible to get the project back on track, not
necessarily as per the original deadline and scope, but completed with
reasonable benefits and value for the business, is vital.
RE: Phase 1 – Take a Deep Breath and...
COLLAPSE

There are many problems. These are design creep, imbalance of power
amongst stakeholders and a deep established culture of project ownership.
There is also uncertainty about what the end product needs to accomplish.
Terrance, you also need to take responsibility, as it has been unclear from
the beginning of the project who is in charge, resulting in lines of authority
being left muddy.

Project culture has a major influencing factor and needs to be revised. What
people believe, how they behave and their habitual activities etc all play a
part within project culture and this is impacting this project. We can
overcome this by implementing a culture recovery strategy, which can be
used to change the culture in a recovering project. Given Shawn’s and
April’s strong personalities I recommend that we use the Rebuild strategy
which can set new benchmarks or targets by triggering new behaviours
and encouraging behaviours that will favour this project. Let’s encourage
Rahini to lead by example and let good outcomes be rewarded.

I believe that Rahini is the correct person to recover this project. She must
assume the position of RPM immediately. Given that the project needs to
change in many areas, this is an ideal opportunity for Rahini to take
advantage of the situation, i.e. changing the project culture. If the IT and
finance department cannot change, then maybe the people may need to be
changed. Rahini should keep morale up, motivate all stakeholders
particularly the finance and IT team and eliminate uncertainty. She should
also carry out a pain Intensity / impact graph exercise to gain an overview
of what involvement stakeholders should have going forward.
Take a Deep Breath and...
COLLAPSE

There are positive elements of this project that makes it worth rescuing,
that goes hand-in-hand with the benefits envisaged with the financial
solution. There are still opportunities to be taken with this project,
considering the technology continues to be valid; funding is still robust;
there is a reliable customer base and a stable leadership within the
organisation.

The problems we have just discussed with design, tailoring, project

ownership and even fear that the project will not be realised before the
year rollover, to me indicates the root of why this project is failing is one of
inadequate stakeholder engagement strategy. It appears that both Finance
and IT have not been involved in such a way that all their needs and even
capabilities have been properly mapped out and defined.

In order for us to be aware of all the problems and challenges, we must

establish and agree on a communication plan, so we can not only re-
establish the project’s scope and boundaries, but also ensure any issues are
known and tackled beforehand. In essence, we need to immediately stop
this cycle of internal dispute and establish a collegial environment where
all stakeholders work together and clearly understand each other’s needs
and expectations.

In response to your question about Rahini, I believe the work she has done
so far and the insights she gathered about this project should not be wasted
during the recovery process. Instead, they will form part of the discussions
we will facilitate with all the parts involved in the project. Rahini’s
experience will assist me and the RPM in gathering the potential issues and
developing an appropriate mitigation strategy.
Question 1:

The project faced different issues because the design was not developed
according to the requirements and the project management support were
not existing during the requirement gathering and project initiation as the
current situation is describing that the application that is developed is
working according to the requirements but the application customization is
required and that customization should be part of the project
implementation but that were not the part of the project implementation
phase and after implementation the client is observing that the project
customization is required hence it is basically due to the lack support from
the side of the client as they did not provided correct requirements to the
service provider.

Question 2:

Now the project management team is required to focus on the redesign for
the project plan as the Shawn and the April is required to accept the roles
and responsibilities as the project can move towards the success if the
internal politics will be avoided and the team will focus on the
communication with each other in order to support each other and to
complete the project successfully. The project management plan will be
much helpful in order to plan the resources, cost and time and it should be
well managed based on the requirements for the successful completion of
the project.

Question 3:

I believe that the Rahini is having the complete understanding about the
strength and weaknesses of the others as she is best observer and she can
convince the stakeholders and all other project team members to focus on
the project management strategies for the success of the project and she is
best communicator so she can manage in effective manner if she is having
the role to work as a member of project management team
Question 1:

One of the themes coming through the meeting notes and background
to this project, is a poorly defined and supported Project Organisation
chart. The project manager is clearly communicating a lack of power,
particularly when issues have been identified and reported
on. Delegation of authority supported with a clearly defined
organisational chart, is a key enabler in delivering project
success. Another noticeable absence is the role of the Project Sponsor,
this would create an accountability layer. This resource would be
primarily concerned with ensuring the project delivers on the
business benefits, while also representing the organisation. This is a
vital leadership role and one that champions the project, this includes
selling and marketing it throughout the organisation. This position
would also act as an escalation point for decisions and issues that are
beyond the authority of the project manager.

Question 2:

Stakeholder engagement is critical in clearly understanding and

defining the problems and challenges. Utilising a more effective
project methodology that effectively breaks these deliverables down
into stages should be introduced. A methodology such as Prince2 will
help to clearly define business benefits and the supporting
deliverables to meet these requirements. At the moment, the business
has identified a clear time constraint, while still not narrowing the
scope of delivery. Introducing this methodology will help to develop a
clear and structured set of requirements, with the supporting
approvals process, understood by all stakeholders. The result of this
being, manageable and authorised stages of work focused upon
delivering effective business outcomes in a timely manner.
Question 3:

One of the biggest setbacks in a project can be the loss of inherent

knowledge gained of the organisation. The current Project Manager is
qualified, however is demonstrating an element of frustration, due to a
lack of support. It would be my opinion that Rahini is executing
project management tasks effectively, however it appears that she is
unable escalate her concerns effectively, based on her level of
authority. Solving for the project organisational chart with
appropriate delegations of authority would enable Rahini to more
effectively perform in this role. Further, due to the time constraints of
the project, replacing this role would have consequences to project
delivery.

PHASE 2
Phase 2 - The Audit
COLLAPSE

The Situation
After the last discussion Terrence has met with the Bizless company board.
They have unanimously decided that any chance of completing this project
within the current financial year should be vigorously explored. A recovery
mode is the only option the board will consider at this stage. Its on!

Terrence has commissioned an audit into the project to find out what is really
going on. This was done by an independent project consulting firm, who
applied all of the project audit techniques you have suggested. In summary of
their findings are;

Business failures

1. The board originally accepted highly flawed estimates about the

requirements for project completion and failed to consider such
flaws as a strategic risk.
2. The business value, benefits and strategic outcome priorities were
not adequately communicated to the project team and its primary
stakeholders.
3. The board displayed a disproportional interest in quality and cost
constraints, with inadequate enforcement of milestone deadlines to
meet the company’s strategic financial planning commitments.

Leadership failures

4. A lack of proactive project sponsorship has created a power vacuum

which was unable to resolve the fallout from competing interests.
5. Lack of clear delineation between the roles of project sponsor,
project team, project supplier and project customer, resulting in
overlap and confusion between them.
6. A lack of proper supervision by the board on project governance
meant they had too little awareness of the stakeholder conflicts or
their causes.

Performance failures

7. Project team members retained inappropriate loyalties to their IT

origins, creating a power imbalance that non-IT stakeholders felt a
need to respond to.
 8. Slippages on the major constraints were not effectively escalated to
the appropriate authority levels of the organisation, and became
accepted as “the norm” by project management.
9. No single point of overlapping expertise (finance AND IT) was
engaged in the project team, relying on the resolution of competing
interests via negotiation which was not successful.

ANSWERS
The Audit
COLLAPSE

I believe the most important failures to address are points 3, 5 and 8 from the
audit findings, although all should be assessed to check for potential
interrelatedness or interdependencies.

Solving failure #3 would help increase focus the project and stakeholders on
the critical element of time as that appears to be the most inflexible project
constraint. It can also assist the project board and stakeholders determine
which outcomes of the software system are prioritised, modified or dropped
from the project scope if need be. Project outcomes that take too long or
external factors that critically influence the project delivery date (such as
impending law changes in two regions) can be prioritised if more oversight to
the schedule and milestones is applied.

Addressing point #5 will assist gaining project and recovery alignment

amongst the stakeholders through role clarification. Providing clarity of
project roles, responsibilities and accountabilities creates greater
understanding of the project needs which prevents time, effort and resources
being wasted on unnecessary work. Solving this problem also contributes to
resolving failure #8.

Solving point #8, will address the unchecked scope creep and lack of change
management allowing appropriate levels of work to be accomplished. For
example, requests for work outside of the scope and/or plan should be
escalated to the project manager to address and not the IT team. The PM then
ensures the change is formalised through the appropriate change
management process and escalated to the project sponsor or board where it is
authorised or rejected if it does or doesn’t meet the overall strategy for the
project.
The audit may have missed if the project methodology was adequate for the
project or specific components of it. Due to the requirement for some
customisation, an Agile approach could have been recommended for software
component customisation. This allows for user input, rapid iterative
adjustments and product delivery whilst still adhering to schedule constraints
and deadlines.

The Audit
COLLAPSE

All the audit findings are important. However, because of the

interconnected nature of projects, it is difficult to prioritise the audit
findings. This is because solving one failure will impact on others. For
instance, defining the project roles (#5) ought to impact the lack of
proactive project sponsorship (#4). This is because the project sponsor
will be aware of what is expected of their role. Similarly, having a point of
overlapping expertise (#9) can mitigate inappropriate loyalty displayed by
team members (#7). This is because having common ground will assist
communication which will allow the two groups be better aligned.

From this point, I believe a review of the communication strategy and plan
is missing. Several of the audit findings relate to inadequate
communication of information. Why were the benefits and priorities not
adequately communicated to the project team and stakeholders? How
should they have been communicated, and who by? If the project team
were more aware of the strategic outcomes (#2), then slippages on major
constraints may have been mitigated (#8). This is because the project team
would have understood why the importance of constraint slippages. If the
project team had understood why slippage on constraints was important,
they may have been better aligned, softening the effect of inappropriate
loyalties (#7). And if the project team were more aligned then there would
be less stakeholder conflict, and the effect of less efficient project
governance could be mitigated (#6).

Because of the interconnectedness, solutions will affect more than one

audit finding. This means what solutions are used will be important. And a
good communications plan will either support the solutions or be a
solution.
The Audit
COLLAPSE

Now that we have an understanding of what has happened and why, it’s
time to analyse every identified problem. However, I think that some of the
most important failures are:

#1. It seems that the Board accepted flawed estimates about requirements.
This has resulted in poor planning. These issues have led to scope creep.
It’s important that the scope be redefined so that the project can be better-
planned and hence produce an achievable schedule.

#5. Lack of clearly defined roles amongst stakeholders such as IT and

finance can be seen as a core issue within this project. Not only can this lead
to confusion, but it can also result in stakeholders pursing their own
interests resulting in opportunistic behaviour to maximise their own
individual benefit.

#8. It seems that slippages on major constraints were not effectively

escalated and this became somewhat normal behaviour. This can be a
result of incomplete project planning, poor control and inadequate
tracking. It’s important that these constraints are met not only to support
the success of the project but so that the team can experience small wins. A
simple solution like creating a Gantt chart (that is updated regularly) may
help resolved this issue.

I think that the auditors may have missed the fact that there was no
communication strategy in place or that the current one is not working. I
believe that a communication strategy would have provided a clearer
understanding between all stakeholders of the project, particularly within
the initiation phase. Moreover, the project could have been planned and
executed more effectively and mitigated many errors that have occurred
thus far.

The Audit
COLLAPSE

The consulting firm has highlighted failures that appear to be impacting on

the project’s performance. Amongst them, some key elements can be
emphasised as the most important failures we will need to tackle. In the
case of business failure, the inadequate communication of business value,
benefits and outcome priorities meant the project team and main
stakeholders were not fully aware and engaged with the value to be
delivered before the start of the project. The lack of a clear business value
in a project can create an environment where parties begin to fill the gaps
prioritising their own needs. This is evidenced with the internal dispute
between Finance and IT, with the latter taking an unplanned ownership in
the design and project management.

The stakeholder divergence underlined above also points to a failure in

leadership, particularly in respect to inadequate supervision by the project
board. The lack of involvement and guidance from the executive board
caused key stakeholders to make isolated decisions breaking the overall
project dependencies. The existence of these two failures, i.e. business
value not well disseminated and poor executive board supervision, has
allegedly contributed to a performance failure, in relation to problems not
being properly escalated to the appropriate authority levels. This is also an
important element contributing to the project deficiency in that, without an
escalation mechanism, issues might not be considered, investigated and
resolved in time before it becomes major project performance.

While the audit undertaken has flagged relevant failures to the project, it
provided limited information on compliance with the project methodology
and adequate risk assessment. The decision to have most of the project
steps carried out internally without a formal project management approach
appears to be a major factor in the failures raised in the audit, impacting in
the definition and communication of business justification and
establishment of tighter constraints in relation to timeframes and budget.
Of particular importance in the context of an apparent lack of a prescribed
project management approach is the lack of a proper communication
strategy. Many of the problems noted beforehand and also hinted in the
audit indicate communication within the project is following a habitual and
cultural organisation path, with minimum consideration to an agreed
communication plan.

Similarly, the audit appears to have missed the importance of an

adequate risk management. Projects such this one undertaken at
Bizless requires a risk management planned and executed in
accordance with the level of risk the organisation is prepared to handle.
The Audit
COLLAPSE

The audit findings are basically leading towards the mitigation of the weak
points that can lead to disturb the project success and it is of great
importance to focus on the audit findings and the project is basically based
on the different phases that are associated with the each other.

Business failures

The audit finding based on the point 1 is leading to impact the project as the
requirements of the business are not according to the objective so it is like
the business failure and the project failure is basically based on the different
strategic risks that can occur during the project so these are required to be
resolved.

The business failures are also associated with the non-reorganization of the
business values as the business values if not recognized then the project
cannot be leading towards the success and the in the last the financial
position of the position is also part of that business failures.

Leadership failures

The leadership failures are also leading to disturb the project but it is
basically when the business resources and the other prerequisite are
achieved but in case if the business prerequisites are not available then the
leadership for what purpose?
Hence the leadership failures are basically dependent on the business
requirements or prerequisites whether that are fulfilled or not.

Performance failure

The performance failure can be analyzed based on the predefined roles and
regulations that the business requirements with help of leadership are going
towards the success or the failure.

Most importance points to overcome the issues

According to my understanding the most important is to resolve the business

failure first at that one is basically the financial (#3) and then the (#2) values
of the business because the timelines can be managed based on these and
after that the leadership should be observed based on the (#6) governance
of the project as it can lead to success. After managing the business and
leadership aspect the project performance can be observed and managed
based on the project finance and IT involvement (#9) to overcome to
business and IT issues.

Lastly, the audit is not missing anything as it is comprehensive analysis

based on my experience.

The Audit
COLLAPSE

While there are many factors that have led to this point, ultimately the
project is failing because it will not meet the primary goal of being ready for
the next financial year. The biggest business failure has been the lack of
enforcement of milestones (#3). The design creep may have allowed
additional functionality to be realised from the end product, but has caused
the end product to become undeliverable.
It has been stated that the organisation is in a comfortable position to
finance the project and perhaps this has led to the “blank cheque” mentality
within the finance team, making them comfortable in pushing the envelope
with the design. In order to solve the issue of milestones being ignored, the
board needs to enforce them, underpinning their importance based on the
required deliverables.

Regardless of the roles within the project identified in #5, the lack of board
supervision (#6) has been the largest leadership failure in the project.
Bizless need a formal chain of communication between the project team
and the board as the status of the project should be reported frequently to
enable the board to understand the project position. This needs to be the
responsibility of the PM and in the current red state, of the RPM.

Tying in with issue #3, slippages were not escalated as the teams worked to
suit their own needs rather than the needs of the project. Finance ran away
with the ball while IT focused on the design and tailoring of the project
while no one party addressed the looming issue of slippage. It was these
slippages (#8) which have pushed the project back and have it in the
current red state.

I believe the audit has failed to highlight the ineffectiveness of Rahini as a PM.
While Terrence had a frank discussion with her about whether or not she would
stay on to see the project through, the audit should have highlighted that the
stakeholder in the position to take control of the project failed to due to a
hierarchical imbalance. Rather than being employed under April, Rahini should
have been placed either parallel to or above both April and Shawn for the
purpose of this project, since she was employed specifically for that role. Rahini
would then be in a position to pull the finance and IT teams into line and report
these slippages to the board.

PHASE 3
A Power Struggle
COLLAPSE
The Situation
The failure audit has highlighted some serious concerns that will need to be
addressed. There is a general agreement among stakeholders that the audit
is accurate. The question now for Terrance is how to move forward, and
specifically what to do about the project manager role.

The pressure Terrance has from his company board is to try every effort to
get the project done on time. In his mind this almost rules out the idea of
bringing in a brand-new person to run the project, unless he can be
convinced of that. For now, he wants to see if any of the three existing
senior leaders could be a good choice to run the project from here on. He
calls a meeting to discuss it with them.

The Discussion
Terrence: “I want to know who you all think should be the project manager
going forward. All options are open. April, tell me why IT should run this.”

April: “It is our people who are doing the work. We are the project,
managing our own work makes the most sense. Finance is our client, our
customer, and should be treated – and behave – as such. We are in the best
position to deal with the daily decisions that are needed to meet all of the
constraints.”

Terrence: “Ok, thanks. Shawn, tell me why Finance should run this?”

Shawn: “This project is far too complex for April’s team. Everything about it
needs a financial understanding, but the IT team is all about what sits
underneath…”

Terrence: “Hold up a second Shawn, you are telling me why it shouldn’t be

April. I want you to tell me why it should be you.”

Shawn: “Right, sorry. This is not a build project, it’s a customisation project.
Every decision affects how finance operates, and very little affects the
technology underneath. Finance is so entwined in this that it makes sense
for us to be managing those daily decisions, whilst relying upon IT as a
resource supplier to the project.”

Terrence: “Good arguments both. Back to you April, tell me why it shouldn’t
be Finance?”

April: “The last few months is evidence enough. Shawn is right when he
says that finance is deeply entwined, but that means his team continually
loses track of the cost and schedule constraints that exist outside of their
own finance outcomes. Quality is their only goal, and you can’t run any
project, let alone a recovery project, on that basis.”

Terrence: “Boom. Ok Shawn, fire away.”

Shawn: “April is correct that we are focused on quality. You know what
happened last time there was a hiccup with payroll. There can be no
failures in finance. The costs to the company could be catastrophic if we
mess this up. If we get relegated to mere customer status we might get a
result that costs us far more.”

Terrence: “Wham. Ok, Rahini, your views on this, please?”

Rahini: “Either of them could run this, but neither of them should because of
all of the reasons they have both presented so far. They are both right, and
they know it. Unfortunately, this means that they will continue to fight for
what they know is right. If one is put in charge the other will merely fight
back. The recovery project will be doomed.”

Terrence: “So who do you think should run this, since you have already said
it shouldn’t be you?”

Rahini: “Actually, I said it probably won’t be me because I doubt you will

give me what I need to do it. This might be further explained when I say
that right now the only suitable person who can effectively lead this
recovery project is you, Terrence.”

Terrence: “Nonsense. That’s not going to happen, no matter how suitable it

might seem.”
Rahini: “True, you cannot be the recovery manager, but whoever is should
have your level of clout and power, and you will need to be a more active
project sponsor. That means you will have some regular operational duties
to perform in it.”

Terrence: “More sponsorship I can do, but I need someone to be the PM.
Shawn, April – I agree with Rahini that putting either of you in charge
would not end the conflict that has undermined the project. I WANT you
two fighting for your teams, but in a good way that leads to compromise
and success. I also agree that this project has suffered mostly through its
leadership and governance issues. So if it’s not you two, then - do you agree
with Rahini? Do we need new blood?”

Shawn: “No, I think Rahini can still run this. Bringing in any new project
manager now will have a knowledge gap that we don’t have time for. We
can restructure things to give her more authority. I don’t see you spending
any more time on this.”

April: “I agree with Shawn. Rahini is the right choice. She has gotten caught
up in the battles so far, and that’s something that Shawn and I can learn
from going forward. However, there is too little time left for anyone else to
come in. Until now her project management has been viewed as merely
operational task tracking. If we raise that to a more senior function, then it
might work.”

Terrence: “Rahini, they both want you. You still think you aren’t right for
this?”

Rahini: “They both want me because they have a history of bossing me

around. They feel that keeping me in this role is their best chance of
reaching their own goals of project dominance. Replacing me brings in a
new dimension to the balance of power, an unknown that they will have to
work with. I am the easy path, or so they think.”

Terrence: “I happen to agree with you. You said before that there is too
much negative taint on the existing project management of this project. If I
did want you to stay on, how could you make that work?”
 Rahini: “Create a new role of Project Recovery Manager. Either for me or
for someone that sits directly above me. Give that role full control over the
budget, resources and benefits realisation. Have it report not to the project
board, but to you directly. That role would be personally accountable for
the outcomes they sign up for but would have full access to you as the only
and final arbiter and decision maker on anything needed to get that done.
Then don’t let anyone else go around them to get to you directly.”

Terrence: “So, April, Shawn, lets assume I take Rahini’s advice - you still
want Rahini to run this project on that basis? This is not the same Rahini I
hired last year, this one has teeth, big sharp ones and she clearly isn’t afraid
to use them. I would also have to give her the power to chew you both to
bits. How is that going to land on your desks…?”

The Questions:
1. Who should be the recovery project manager? Can any of these stakeholders
take it on after all that’s happened? Or do we need to take the risk of bringing
in someone new and fresh?
2. Do I need to give the new RPM the power that Rahini suggests? Why is this an
important thing?
3. How can I ensure that the new RPM will actually deal with the very things that got
us in this mess, and not end up making the same mistakes again?

ANSWERS
A Power Struggle
COLLAPSE
Terrance, the current stakeholders cant take on the role because the
recovery process needs a completely new unbiased approach. Shawn and
April cant provide that as the behaviour they've developed over 8-9 months
of the project is highly unlikely to change simply because they said they
can. They both still have the belief they are right regarding the direction of
the project and conflict will remain or even escalate between them. Rahini
is not the best candidate for the RPM role either, for all the reasons that she
has stated in previous meetings, but also because she isn't completely
blameless for the project’s current state, intentionally or unintentionally.

I recommend considering the independent principal consultant who

undertook the project audit after our first meeting to be the recovery
manager. The risk of bringing in someone new is sufficiently decreased as
they would have developed an understanding of causes of trouble through
the audit process. The recommended RPM has gained an insight into the
root causes of the trouble, an understanding of the business case and
analysis underpinning the project including the strategy driving it. They’ve
earnt the trust of the stakeholders as well, evident by stakeholder
participation in the audit and how forthcoming they were when providing
information.

The RPM certainly requires you to assign them the power Rahini suggests,
the mandate and authority needed to make the changes necessary for
getting the project back on track must be bigger than the project problems,
stakeholders and their issues. The mandate granted to them for the audit
can be expanded to that of the recovery. Repeat mistakes can be avoided by
establishing clear parameters for success and recovery processes
conditions with the RPM and the stakeholders in the same forum. I also
suggest where you can, putting in place recovery performance KPI’s tied to
incentives for the RPM to additionally focus their efforts towards recovery
success.

A Power Struggle
COLLAPSE
I believe that Rahini should adopt the position of RPM. Rahini is a very
different person than she was a year ago. She is more empowered and retains
her neutrality in relation to the political forces that dominate the project. I
believe that Rahini can champion the project in a very positive way. I believe
that her resilience has let her down in the past but I am encouraged by her
recent behaviour and I am confident that she can recover this project. I agree
with Shawn and April that bringing in a new person as RPM would not benefit
this project. An external person will conduct their own investigation / analysis
and this will take additional time. Rahini already has a deep understanding of
the projects accomplishments and failures and should remain RPM until this
project has been completed / closed.

I believe that the RPM should have full authority over the project and this
should be noted in the PID and or mandate. Without authority, team members
don’t have any obligations to carry out tasks. Having authority will enable the
RPM to direct project staff to prioritise the finance project over their other
their day-today activities. The RPM could also provide answers to questions
that the project team have and make decisions quickly avoiding timely
approvals from the CEO or the project board.

To ensure that the RPM will successfully recover this project they will need to
analyse the findings from the audit, learn from the projects past pitfalls,
improve communication and stakeholder management and redefine the
project scope. The RPM could also carry out a project health check to mitigate
additional risks.

A Power Struggle
COLLAPSE

Existing stakeholders such as April, Shawn and Rahini possess traits that at
first glance would be considered beneficial for the management of failing
projects. They know the organisation well and are knowledgeable of its
processes and staff interactions. They have been part of initial discussions
about the project and have participated in some stages of the project
customisation. Nonetheless, an external project manager would have a
fresh perspective of the project and be able to impartially scrutinise its key
elements, especially the reasons as to why the project is failing. In fact, a
qualified project manager from the project consulting firm which
undertook the audit could potentially perform as a recovery project
manager. The main advantage of that is the fact they have actively
investigated the status quo of the project, placing them in a better position
to engage with stakeholders and to recommend the changes to be executed
as part of a new project strategy.

The recovery project manager must be given sufficient power to influence

stakeholders and be able to make necessary changes to the project. The
reason for that is because he/she will hold a position of trust requiring full
access to information, which would otherwise be confidential to others,
even the previous project manager. The need to also understand the
organisation’s strategy warrants someone with full authority, able to
enquiry stakeholders internally and externally, if required. In essence, the
RPM will need to dissect the project in a way that has not been done before.

To ensure the appointed RPM properly deals with the issues which caused
the project to fail in the first place, he/she needs to certify all required
investigation is undertaken in order to learn all the intricacies of the
project and to develop new success factors and strategies to achieve them.
Similarly, the RPM will need to be granted power, authority and have the
drive to mitigate and or remove the causes as to why the project is
failing. And, particularly for this scenario, it is crucial that the RPM
establishes a communication strategy which deliberately encourages
collaboration and commitment to this new phase of the project.
A Power Struggle
COLLAPSE

Question 1

The Rahini should have the position of the recovery project manager as she
is having the solutions in order to recover the project. The Rahini is having
the skills to judge well and to find the weak points so she can recover the
project in appropriate manners. The Shawn and April are correct that new
person would not lead to complete the project successfully and the Rahini
should have the position of recovery project manager as she can resolve the
issues that are occurred in the project.

Question 2

The RPM is having the authority to manage the project is good way and this
authorization is important because without that the project team would not
do the different activities that are important for the completion of the
project. The RPM will lead to authorize the project team to fulfill the different
activities as that are important to complete the project because roles and
responsibilities are needed to be identified.

Question 3

The new RPM (Rahini) will manage the things in appropriate manner
because she is having the reasons and solution of these specific reasons that
are leading to resolve the different issues that occurred in the past and it will
lead to complete the project successfully.