Client-Centered Project Management

Client feedback and anecdotal evidence would suggest that most A/E firms are better at "doing projects" than managing them. In other words, we're more competent in the technical aspects of projects, and less so in the areas of client service, quality assurance, team coordination, and financial and schedule control. Of course, there are many exceptions. But in general, I think this is a fair assessment.

We would expect technical professionals to be more inclined to focus on their respective technical disciplines, sometimes to the neglect of other important project components. That not only aligns with their competencies, but is typically the part of the project they enjoy most. Next in the likely hierarchy of priorities is the delivery process, the internally-driven project execution, controls, and documentation.

All too often, the third priority is what should come first—serving the client. Question my ordering of priorities? Consider the relative expenditures of time and money that your firm makes in mastering these three project elements: technical expertise, delivery process, client service. Does your firm invest the most in improving how you serve clients?

A month ago, I argued in this space that client service should not be viewed as a distinct function, but instead as the "sum of all actions involved in satisfying the client." Now let's apply that principle to project management. Indeed, delivering projects is the primary way you satisfy client needs. Yet it's not uncommon for project work to become somewhat disconnected from the overarching mission of serving clients.

 The responsibility of every project manager is to prevent this from happening, to instead keep the client at the very center of the project. Let me describe some of the distinctives of client-centered project management through four primary stages of the project: (1) project definition, (2) project planning, (3) project execution, (4) project closure. 

Project Definition. Many think of project definition as merely determining the scope, schedule, and budget. But equally important is clarifying the needs driving the project, what outcomes the project must achieve, and the resulting business benefits. The client-centered project manager will ensure the project is properly defined before proceeding, including the following:

• Clarify project goals
• Uncover the strategic and personal needs behind the project scope 
• Benchmark the client's service expectations
• Identify what business objectives need to be achieved for project success

Project Planning. Proper planning often gets the short shrift in A/E projects. PSMJ concludes that poor planning is the number one cause of project failures. Your project management plan should not only describe what needs to be done, but how you're going to do it. The client-centered project planning process should consider the following:

• Define the scope that best satisfies the client's needs and ambitions
• Actively engage the client in the planning process
• Document the client's role in making the project successful
• Seek client endorsement of your project management plan

Project Execution. This stage is the crux of the project, of course. But failing to adequately define and plan the project often leads to problems here. On the other hand, engaging the client up front is no excuse for not working closely together throughout the project. One firm specializing in client feedback has found that clients generally grow less satisfied as the project design is completed and leading into construction. Why? I can only speculate, but communicating regularly with the client in these latter stages is clearly important. Client-centered project execution includes:

• Periodically seek client feedback on performance
• Communicate regularly with the client
• Be proactive in addressing changes or problems
• Take steps to prevent mistakes, not just catch them
• Promote collaboration to provide the client with the best possible solutions
• Improve project team performance by connecting them with the client

Project Closure. The importance of this project stage is often underestimated. There are a number of reasons why it deserves special attention: Inefficiency tends to increase at the end, in part because the project team is often transitioning to other projects. Some problems tend to be pushed to the end of the project, which can lead to an untimely effort to resolve them. And it's important to confirm that the client is happy with the end result. A client-centered approach to closeout will typically include:

• Maintain appropriate focus on the project as it nears the end
• Ensure that personnel reassignments don't impede a strong finish
• Work closely with the client to ensure that the project has met expectations
• Conduct a final debriefing to identify areas for improvement 

These are but a sampling of the steps you can (and should) take to accomplish your foremost project goal—satisfactorily meeting the client's needs and expectations. This goal provides needed context for all other project activities. What additional steps does your firm need to take to deliver client-centered project management?

The Real Innovation Is Getting Things Done

Recently I facilitated a planning meeting for an engineering company in need of fresh strategy after years of flat growth. But the ideas the group came up with in two planning sessions broke little new ground.

Later I led a workshop designed to teach emerging leaders how to promote innovation in their respective offices and departments. We employed several techniques known to expedite the creative process—stretch goal planning, associative thinking, brainstorming sessions, and cross-disciplinary collaboration. But again the group fell short of coming up with truly innovative solutions to our sample problems.

Perhaps these results point to my deficiencies as a facilitator. Or maybe it's unrealistic to expect real breakthroughs in a span of a few hours (as one participant observed, "It's hard to produce inspiration on demand"). Indeed, in my experience, real innovation is usually the product of a prolonged iterative process. Or sometimes it comes suddenly, unexpectedly, without any formal prompting.

Absent fresh ideas, both groups nevertheless came to an important conclusion: The actions they listed, while not really new, had not been accomplished. In many cases, they were common-sense steps that had been identified before, but remained unfinished or untried. "Maybe if we really did these things," one participant suggested, "that would be innovative enough."

I think he may be onto something.

Consultant David Maister wrote that "much of what individuals and firms do in the name of strategic planning is a complete waste of time and about as effective as making New Year's resolutions. The reasons are the same in both situations. Personally and professionally, we already know what we should do...but we don't do what's good for us, because the rewards (and pleasure) are in the future; the disruption, discomfort and discipline needed to get there are immediate" (from Strategy and the Fat Smoker).

Every firm would like to come up with a unique marketplace strategy. But if you are unable to implement that strategy, what good is it? On the other hand, imagine the firm that merely accomplishes what we all know we should be doing—excelling at business development, delighting our clients, developing our people, improving our productivity. Would that firm not have a substantial competitive advantage, even minus any novel ideas?

Maister observed that he saw little meaningful differences in the strategic plans of competing professional service firms. Any leading insights or new services or pursuit of growing markets were quickly replicated by other firms. The best firms, however, excelled in putting their plans into motion. It was their follow-through, not their strategy, that truly set them apart.

Clearly innovation is a powerful force in business. Yet the companies we all admire and want to emulate have succeeded not just because they've had great ideas, but because they've been able to bring them to life. They are implementation masters. In fact, many top companies have prospered by building on others' innovations (e.g., Japanese companies that dominate U.S. market share with products developed from American inventions).

Perhaps the real innovation in the A/E industry is the ability to succeed at what most firms are unable to achieve. Doing what we all know we should be doing, but can't for whatever reason. How can your firm get over the hump? I've written on this topic before, but let me add a few additional insights (including from Maister):

Align short-term operational goals with long-term strategy. The two are often in conflict. For example, the push to meet business unit profit goals may discourage managers from investing money and nonbillable labor into new services or expansion plans. It's not that you can't do both, but you need to remove the obstacles to acting in the long-range interests of the company. One such obstacle may be a reward system that favors only short-term achievements.

Personalize corporate strategic goals. Strategy often exists as a disembodied vision of what would be good for the firm but not necessarily for the people involved in making it happen. That ignores a basic truth: People are more inclined to do what's in their own best interest. The most powerful form of strategy is that which achieves personal ambitions. It's not always possible to bring the two—corporate and personal goals—into alignment. But you should take what steps are available to make company success personally rewarding for those most responsible for it (by the way, don't overestimate the value of financial rewards).

Deal with leaders who won't lead. In my extensive work with strategy implementation over the years, there's one cause of failure that trumps all others—the unwillingness of some influential managers to support the strategy. The may resist loudly or quietly, but the result is the same: It usually undermines attempts to move forward. It's hard to convince staff to work hard towards achieving strategic goals when some key managers treat them as optional.

Maister put it this way: "Professional firms are afraid of this conclusion. They try to work around the skeptics, the nonbelievers, and the nonparticipants in their senior ranks, preferring to hold on to revenue volume rather than put together a senior team whose members are equally committed to reaching [strategic goals]. That's fine, but you can't call it strategy."

Nor can you call it innovative if you can't get the organization out of neutral. Strive for the best ideas you can come up with, but if you must, settle for ordinary goals pursued in extraordinary fashion.