Ever wonder why some of your organisation’s projects did not work out as well as you expected, despite the fact that your project team followed the accepted principles and practices of project management?

You may find the answer in a new global Competency Standard for  Complex Project Managers that was launched at the recent ProMAC (international project management) conference in Sydney in September 2006.

I presented a paper on organisational transformation and cultural change projects at the ProMAC conference. Organisational transformation and cultural change initiatives respond poorly to what might be called the ‘traditional’ project management methodologies, and must, in my experience, be implemented with a more dynamic approach and a different way of thinking and perceiving

So it was of great interest to hear of how some of the speakers such as Dr David Dombkins, Kim Gillis and Ids Groenhout, together with other leading project managers who together have worked on some of the most difficult (and also most interesting) projects around the world, have defined the competencies that enable highly complex projects to be delivered successfully.

What I particularly like about their approach is that the people who have defined the Complex Project competencies are also the people who are delivering results on those projects.

They have, at least partially, modelled their own successful way of doing things, so that the competencies are based on the actual factors for success in complex project management.

Those competencies will inevitably spill over into traditional project management practices, and will gain traction by virtue of their being the future standard required by major government and commercial organisations, such as military and resources organisations. The (Australian) Department of Defence holds the copyright to the Competencies, so any party dealing with the Department of Defence should study the competencies closely.

Global shortage of Complex Project Managers The need for a new competency standard for Complex Projects is driven by the crucial need to develop many more project managers capable of delivering on complex projects.

At the moment there is a critical worldwide shortfall of between 80% and 90% in the availability of Complex Project Managers. In other words, there are only 10% – 20% of the number of project managers needed to successfully handle the world’s complex projects. So there are great opportunities for those with the will to pursue a place in the profession of Complex Project Manager.

The intention of the authors of the Complex Projects Competency Standard is to create a specialist profession of Complex Project Managers, akin to other specialised professions such as barristers and surgeons.

The peak body for the profession is the College of Complex Project Managers. The initial Fellows of the College will be the eleven experienced project managers who authored the competencies, and who will be the ‘gatekeepers’ for admission to the profession, sitting as members of credentialling panels in assessing future Members and Fellows of the College.

What are Complex Projects? Complex projects include projects such as

• international aid
• defence systems
• aerospace projects
• climate change
• disaster relief
• mergers
• policy implementation
• pandemics
• national development
• change in organisations.

They have the potential to provide massive benefits, if they are delivered successfully. On the other hand, if they are not delivered successfully, they can be a huge black hole for money, effort and outcomes.

The difference is in the way they are implemented.

Complex Projects are, according to the Standard, ‘characterised by a degree of disorder, instability, emergence, non-linearity, recursiveness, uncertainty, irregularity and randomness and dynamic complexity where the parts in a system can react/interact with each other in different ways…a dynamic system that is to a large degree unknowable…Detailed long-term planning is therefore impossible…The strategy is outcomes-based, emergent and requiring constant re-negotiation… [They] are not just ‘complex adaptive systems’, but rather ‘complex evolving systems’.

As such, they require ‘a very different approach and a completely different mindset from [traditional] project managers in delivering successful project outcomes’.

That different approach and mindset are outlined in

• nine ‘new’ competencies (or ‘Views’) and
• an additional set of Key Attributes required by successful complex project managers.

The Views are broken down into more specific Elements and the Elements are reduced further to various (several hundred) Actions in Workplace. For instance:

View 3 is Change & Journey.

One of the eleven Elements of that View is Pilot Projects – symbolism and the management of meaning.

One of the seven Actions in Workplace associated with that Element is Searches out opportunities that link project values to outcomes to create new symbols of behaviour. Another is Uses the creation of myths as a key tool in cultural change.

In addition, Evidence Guides are provided for each Element. In the case of the example in the previous paragraph, one of the items in the Evidence Guide is Communication process deliberately creates symbols and myths.

From my perspective as a person engaged in organisational change and transformation, the Complex Project competencies capture many of the actions and processes that enable change to be effected successfully.

Of particular value is the section called ‘Special Attributes’ (of a Complex Project Manager), which is part 10 of the competencies. The Special Attributes are the crucial personal attributes and states of awareness that underpin the Actions.

The Special Attributes are categorised under five Elements: ·

• Wisdom
• Action and Outcome Oriented
• Creates and Leads Innovative Teams
• Focused and Courageous
• Ability to Influence.

More specific attributes of Complex Project Managers are ascribed to each Element of the Special Attributes. Some of those attributes are descriptive of finely-tuned internal processes which differentiate excellence from average performance.

For example, one of the attributes under Action and Outcome Oriented is the subtle process described as: Is perceptive to very faint signals that everything is not right before it is visible to others, and takes action.

In my view, the Special Attributes section is the single most important section of the competencies. Without those attributes, the other 9 Views and their respective Elements and Actions are less likely to succeed.

Key to success of the Competency Standard: The Complex Project competencies are based on the experience of eleven very experienced project managers (the Fellows of the College of Complex Project Managers) who between them have managed major infrastructure, defence, engineering, aerospace, resources, IT, technology, change and social projects around the world.

The competencies are, by definition, general descriptions of what those Fellows do, and how they do it.

The measure of success for the Standard will be to develop the other 80% – 90% of Complex Project Managers that are urgently needed around the world.

The key to doing that is to elicit the know-how of the eleven Fellows to a greater depth.

Each Fellow has a depth of knowledge and skill that can be captured and modelled. Their knowledge and skills are invaluable resources that can be used to fast-track the development of the required Complex Project Managers.

The models that are developed from that process can be used as a basis for designing the necessary learning activities that transfer the knowledge and skills. For instance, how do the Fellows ‘search out opportunities that link project values to outcomes to create new symbols of behaviour’? How do they ‘use the creation of myths as a key tool in cultural change’?

As they are successful in the way they do those things, and they do it in a different way to traditional project management, it is essential that those ways be identified and added to the repertoire of behaviours that up-coming Complex Project Managers can learn.

Some of the subtler Actions described in the Competencies have a high dependence on the Fellows’ ability to process information/data internally. But even those subtler processes can be modelled, e.g.: How do the Fellows perceive very faint signals that everything is not right before it is visible to others?

Those subtler aspects have little meaning (other than conceptually) to anyone who has not experienced them, and they need to be identified, because they are crucial to being able to adapt rapidly to a dynamic, evolving situation.

Even people who have experienced them often have difficulty describing the specific internal processes they use to, e.g.

• notice the very faint signals,
• make meaning out of what are often seemingly unconnected data, 
• notice any mismatch between desired outcomes and the meaning of the signals.

From the perspective of the upcoming Complex Project Managers, the question is: how do I notice the faint perceptions; how do I create meaning out of unrelated data: what do I do with my awareness to notice the mismatch?

The specific way that one person develops and applies, e.g., increased perceptivity to faint signals, may well differ from how another person does so.

But there will be common factors. For instance, the model for ‘noticing very faint signals’, is likely to include being able to:

• stop the chatter of the mind,
• suspend judgements and assumptions,
• stay present in the moment,
• scan for the very slight signals ( data, thoughts and feelings ) that may make a + or – difference to the success of the project, in any combination that may not yet have been noticed,

each of which can be developed/learned.

That depth of process makes all the difference when transferring high level skills and awareness.

Once learned, those processes of awareness can be replicated, adapted and executed to different situations with little effort.

I have no doubt that the Fellows of the College of Complex Project Managers are a rich source of many rich stories that would be of tremendous benefit to up-coming Complex Project Managers and which would considerably accelerate the learning process.

The Learning Organisation and performance improvement: You may have noticed a connection between the modelling process described above and the way that knowledge, know-how, experience and skills can be captured and replicated throughout an organisation, in any function (not just project management), instead of being lost in the busy-ness of business.

In the meantime, those readers who have a copy of my book Powerful Questions That Every Director, Executive & Manager Must Ask can glean an idea of how the modelling process works in Chapter 3: Identifying a Process, Strategy or Model. That chapter outlines the basic technique, though what I’ve suggested above for modelling the Fellows entails a higher level of skill and more depth.

If you have a copy of the recent (June 2006) Australian Institute of Management book DNA @ Work, to which I contributed a chapter, you will have read Ned’s story (pp. 232 – 237), which arose from a change workshop I was facilitating for a large organisational cultural change initiative, and which illustrates some of the Actions in Workplace referred to above: identifying and using an opportunity to link project values to outcomes to create new symbols of behaviour; using the creation of myths and legends as a key tool in cultural change; and using the communication process to deliberately create symbols and myths.

That story provides some of the ‘process’ that is so important to transferring learning and meaning in a cultural change initiative.

Ned’s story also illustrates several other attributes listed in the Special Attributes section of the Complex Project Management Competencies, and how those attributescan occur in small actions in combination to provide an excellent outcome:

• remaining focused regardless of setbacks
• willingness to take calculated risks
• taking the hard decisions
• turning threats into opportunities
• being visible and leading from the front, while delegating
• having a long term perspective
• being assertive and using situational leadership;
• defending your position and trusting your judgment on matters of importance
• asking probing questions to get to the root cause of a situation or problem
• being politically astute
• creating strong team identification.

by Christo Norden-Powers Copyright © 2007 Spandah Pty Ltd

Published in Director Magazine (Australian Institute of Company Directors)April 2005. Copyright 2005 Spandah Pty Ltd.

Asking the right question can save millions of dollars for companies.

If there is one factor that most recent corporate failures in Australia and overseas have in common, it is the failure of Directors and Executives to ask the right questions. Invariably, that failure is a reflection of an entrenched culture (e.g. HIH) that discourages challenging, questioning, probing for facts and seeking better strategies. That culture often starts (implicitly or explicitly) at the top – at Board and Executive levels.

The cost of not asking questions After the NAB’s $360 million currency trading losses in 2003, the NAB’s Chairman, Graham Kraehe, said afterwards :

“I think probably the primary thing [I learned from the recent events] is to not necessarily accept the information that is presented to you, be far more aggressive in questioning it.”

HIH lost its entire business – leaving $5 billion in debt – because questions were not asked. NAB lost around 10% of its profits. All up, over $5 billion between just two companies.

How much value is lost in other companies by not asking some simple questions – questions that

• challenge assertions and assumptions, 
• probe the facts, 
• cut through the ‘spin’, 
• clarify hidden meaning and purpose, 
• identify the weakness in a process, proposal or strategy.

From my experience working in Australia and overseas with small, medium and large businesses I have no doubt that the answer is: a lot – and it’s all unnecessarily lost profit.

The skills of hearing and asking

None of those questions needs to be delivered aggressively. In fact, they are generally far more effective when delivered conversationally, without aggression and with a constructive purpose. The skill of asking the right questions is an essential skill for Directors and Executives and is linked to the skill of hearing/noticing what is said and what is not said.

It is the latter – what is omitted – that creates many, many problems in business. Omissions can take various forms, including assumptions (data not available or not verified), generalisations (global descriptions that fail to define what is meant), partial descriptions and specifics (which avoid an alternative).

The skill of hearing/noticing what is missing is a skill of awareness that can be learned quite easily. Unfortunately it is not taught in business school.

Language and awareness

One of the elements of learning that skill is to recognize the patterns of language and conversation that expand, contract, direct and focus your awareness and thoughts, and then to learn the questions that reverse those functions.

There are some patterns of language that are typically used to influence and persuade – language that will slide your awareness and attention towards what the speaker (or writer) wants you to think, and away from what the speaker wants to avoid. These patterns are the tools of trade of skilled influencers – the honest, the dishonest and the accidental – as well as those who avoid accountability.

If you understand those patterns, and the impact they have on your awareness and thoughts, it is far easier to spot the issues and phrase a question that elicits useful information. However, you must be able to spot the patterns at the speed of normal conversation, because you rarely get a second chance.

There’s hardly a Board or Executive meeting where those patterns are not used, knowingly or unwittingly.

The function of communication and questions

Communication has a simple function – person A generally wants to communicate an idea to person B and influence B to think or respond in a particular way and/or to take a particular action. ‘Action’ here includes ‘to do nothing’.

To achieve that, the speaker/writer must use language that activates one or other of a number of processes within our consciousness that determine how we process information and create reality inside our minds. Even if A has no intention to influence a B to do X, if B understands the language to mean ‘Do X’ then the language will have that effect.

We must choose our language with care. We must also listen to language with care and be aware of its impact on us. Take for instance, the following example:

“At the time of writing, GMD [Global Markets Division] trading operations continue to manage risk responsibly in changing market conditions. Adherence to risk discipline is good.”

If you had read that in a report from the currency trading room during a Board meeting, chances are that you would think “Good job” and go to the next item on the agenda. An expensive decision. The quote is extracted from the APRA report into the irregular currency options trading at the NAB. It was part of a report to the NAB’s Risk Management Executive Committee in November 2003.

Have a look at that quote again, and consider which questions you might ask to prevent problems arising when faced with similar language. Two things stand out that signal potential problems:

1] The language is largely global. Global language expands awareness to encompass many possibilities without being specific. Sounds great, means little. Everyone believes that they understand what is meant, but when asked they all give different meanings. Like flying over a territory and not being able to see the details. For the NAB, the problems were in the details of how things were being done. You don’t need technical expertise to tackle this type of language. If the language generates global awareness, simply direct and contract awareness by asking for specifics: “What do you mean by ‘trading operations’?” “What do you mean by ‘manage risk responsibly’?” “What risk, specifically?” “What do you mean by ‘changing market conditions’?” “To which risk disciplines are you referring?” With the verbs (process/action words) you could ask: “How are you managing the risk?” “How are market conditions changing?” Then, from all the (global) possibilities, the mind is focused on what the language means in practical terms.

2] The word ‘good’. When you are dealing with hundreds of millions of dollars of exposure, ‘good’ raises potential deficiencies in the adherence to risk disciplines. The word ‘good’ is more contracted or limited than ‘excellent’. There is a gap that is unexplained between ‘full adherence’ and partial, ‘good adherence’ – ‘good’ is a comparative word: “If adherence is ‘good’, compared to what? Prior adherence or the required standards?” “Where is it falling short of required standards if it is only ‘good’?”

Those questions alone would probably have led to a review of the NAB’s procedures, and they only take a few minutes to ask. But if that is not enough, there is more. The next phrase that deserves attention is “At the time of writing..”. That phrase contracts or limits timeframe and directs and focuses the reader in some narrow band of time at which the words were written.

You can quite simply re-direct the mind and step outside of the limiting time frame by asking the questions: “What about in the months prior to the report?” “What is the position since the report was written?”

Apart from being full of global language, the two sentences have another element that directs and focuses awareness towards managing risk and adherence to risk discipline. Sounds like the trading room has everything under control. But in directing awareness to the ‘management’ of risk in positive terms, they can cause the mind to by-pass the essential issue of what exposure the bank had. To re-direct the mind back to that issue, ask: “What is our exposure.”

These are some simple questions that can save companies many dollars and generate better results by getting to the facts and identifying processes and strategies that may require attention.

Having done that, what do you do next?

The other side of the coin is that questions are an excellent, fast and very effective way to facilitate solutions, commitment and accountability. There are around 22 questions that will turn virtually any business problem into a solution and strategy with full commitment and ownership. But that is another story for another time.

A prominent neuroscientist was asked, “What do emotions have to do with learning?” His reply. “If you want to learn a foreign language quickly, fall in love with someone who only speaks that language.”

There’s no doubt that generating and tapping positive energy is one of the great challenges for business. But what about the other side of emotions – what may be termed ‘destructive’ emotions?

A couple of years ago the news media reported a punchup in the executive suite of a large Australian organisation. Tensions were high in the organisation, and not just at the higher echelons. At around that time I was asked to facilitate a solution to a conflict at operational level in an organisation, in which the senior manager in one division had been told that he would be knifed if he attended a Christmas party. That conflict was estimated to be costing the organisation $500,000 per year in lost productivity.

Most of us have seen, or felt, the destructive effects of sustained anger and resentment in businesses, at Board and Executive levels, as well as in personal life. An article by Deb Richards in the weekend Australian Financial Review in 2005 focused on anger in the workplace, and what it costs business in hard earned money.

Paul McCarthy, at Griffith Business School in Australia, estimated an average cost of $20,000 per employee per annum. That amount is calculated on the impact on productivity, absenteeism, personnel turnover, management time and the cost of implementing various HR and grievance procedures to deal with the issues created by the anger.

I think of anger and passion as two sides to the coin of creative energy. The difference lies in how we frame and direct the energy – in other words, our choices.

Anger in the workplace is often blocked or frustrated passion. The passion drives a sense of purpose, accomplishment, freedom to fully express and be the best a person can be. Empowering corporate cultures create and direct that passion and the energy that goes with it.

Tapping into that power is one of the main keys to productivity and profits. If the passion is blocked, frustration, anger and resentment soon follow, and productivity will decline along with profits.

When working on corporate culture change projects, it is easy to observe just how prevalent negative emotions can be in many businesses, and the crucifying effect on productivity. In one particular company, the managers were sending their most difficult people to our change workshops to get ‘fixed’. They considered those people to be troublemakers. However, what we found in the workshops was a little different – that most of those ‘troublemakers’ wanted to do their best for the company, but were stifled by bureacracy and a controlling management style, and expressed years of frustration in their anger. They didn’t need to be ‘fixed’. They needed tools to enable them to unblock the pipes and to direct their energy to more productive outcomes.

Once we realised that by simply providing some simple skills the negative energy could be switched 180 degrees to a positive energy with a substantial immediate impact on the organisation, we actually began to ask for ‘troublemakers’ to be sent to the workshops. Within 6 months their managers were asking to be taught the same skills.

That was how Spandah’s flagship program the MasterProcess was born. I liken the MasterProcess to the martial art of Aikido – in which the attacker’s energy is turned around to neutralise the attack with very little effort. Except in the case of the MasterProcess, the energy is then immediately directed towards a productive outcome and the art is in asking questions that change the way people think, choose and behave.

If there is negativity in the workplace, there is usually a simultaneous opportunity to improve the business, productivity and profit. Karen Weedon, a Brisbane based organisational psychologist, has researched the issue of anger in the workplace, and found that the worker starts to withdraw his or her loyalty to the company in the early stages of anger. If the situation is not dealt with in time, the worker will leave.

Weedon points out that the worker’s relationship with the boss is important in limiting the losses that arise from anger in the workplace. If they thought that the boss was a good person, they stayed loyal, despite the anger.

However, that’s no way to live. The issues simply need to be dealt with by a process that creates solutions to the core problem. Last year one of the MasterProcess participants sent me an email after their workshop, and said that, prior to the workshop, she was intending to leave her company, as she had perceived the problems that she faced there as being insurmountable and had become angry and disillusioned. During the workshop she was able to see the light, worked out a number of opportunities and strategies for changing her situation at work, and decided to take up the challenge to create a sustainable work environment.

Instead of losing a very capable person, the company now has an advocate, and has retained her energy and expertise to deal with issues that had been undermining the morale of many of her colleagues. That resolution will be worth at least $100,000 to the company just in the local work area by retaining that person’s experience and knowledge, and avoiding the costs of finding and training a replacement. Across the company, the value of the solution (which extended beyond the local area) is worth a lot more.

As an end note, I have a friend who regularly buys into, and turns around, ailing companies. Among other criteria, he looks for companies that have a couple of executives who are at each other’s throats and are limiting the potential of the company, or where the company’s leaders have created a stifling culture (there’s often a lot of ego tied up with both elements). One of my friend’s first tasks is to offer the relevant executives the opportunity to work out their differences, or (if they can’t) to receive a golden handshake. Once the warring executives have resolved their differences or (more often) received a golden handshake, he is able to shift the company to an empowering culture and return to profits within 12 months (and a few $million increased personal wealth). Nice work if you can get it.

By Christo Norden-Powers          Copyright 2006 Spandah Pty Ltd