Fast–starting programmes

Two classic observations made by project and programme evaluators in the relative calm of the post implementation review are that project objectives (vision for a programme) are not clearly stated with sufficient clarity, and that project start up is too slow!

CITI’s experience of projects and programmes fully authenticates this finding – and there is no contradiction!’ At project initiation, the process of defining the purpose or the problem to be solved, succinctly stating the objective, and identifying critical success factors is very poorly exercised. This; coupled with characteristically vague specification of the benefits, little analysis of the fundamental business risks, and unclear and indistinct determination of the scope of the project, leads to slow early performance and false starts. It all adds up to frantic activity, long delays and frustration the project equivalent of the military’s: ‘Hurry up and wait!

CITI and other workers have focused much research on how to eliminate this project phenomenon. As is so often found, the answer lies in the application of common sense – but it only becomes common sense once it is pointed out!

The first trick is to split project initiation into 2 steps. Step 1 involves getting the key stakeholders (and don’t accept deputies!) and focus them on establishing what the problem is that has led to this project being suggested. Make sure the purpose is not a clandestine restatement of the benefits or a sly attempt to dress up a solution as a need.

Once the stakeholders have agreed the problem, get them to define the objective. Good objectives describe an achievement – a desired end-state. Objectives should not be statements of desired benefits, or yet another sly attempt to introduce a pet solution either. A good test for an objective is that it clearly defines the completion criteria for the project. This test eliminates many pseudo-objectives. These stakeholders are also the group to state what the benefits are – how big they are supposed to be and who is responsible for them.

Step 2 follows immediately after step 1, but the ‘players’ are different. Deploying the project sponsor, the project manager, perhaps a key stakeholder and 1 or 2 technical specialists (business analysts, technical architects) - the critical success factors, the scope of the project (in terms of the major persistent products delivered) and the major risks are all determined. Splitting project definition in this way focuses effort and eliminates premature initiation, with its subsequent delays.

As each of these components: problem, objectives, benefits, CSFs, scope and risks have their own tools and techniques, the application of them by even moderately experienced people has a radical impact on early project performance. We have successfully used this approach to fast start even the most complex of projects. There may be no silver bullet to successful project initiation but there certainly is a 6-chambered gun!