The Government Manager's Guide to Project Management

Jonathan Weinstein PMP, Timothy Jacques PMP

• Publisher: Berrett-Koehler Publishers
• Year: 2013
• Print ISBN:
  9781567264173
• Edition: 1
• eBook ISBN:
  9781567264319
• Topic: Business
• Subtopic: Government & Business
• Index: Business

This realistic cross-section of the project management discipline in the federal arena will help anyone leading, working on, or affecting the direction of a project team. It covers the entire scope of project management from organization to methodology, technology to leadership. This volume focuses on the three project management organizational dimensions of culture, systems, and structure. Federal practices and successes in the areas of communication, project leadership, stakeholders, and key competencies are highlighted. The book offers clear and practical advice drawn from a variety of project management successes in the federal arena.

Chapter 1

THE EVOLUTION OF FEDERAL PROJECT MANAGEMENT

We need to internalize this idea of excellence.

— PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA

Throughout history mankind has labored to achieve amazing feats that defy our imagination: the great pyramids of Giza, the Taj Mahal, the Great Wall of China, the D-Day invasion. Human beings—and governments—naturally seek to apply resources toward the creation of monuments, public works, and war. Although such efforts have spanned thousands of years, only in the past 60 years has the discipline of project management come to be formally recognized and defined.

The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) describes the federal government as “the world’s largest and most complex entity.”¹ In terms of scale, the federal government expended over $3.5 trillion in fiscal year 2012 on operations and myriad projects to develop and provide new products and services—from bridge construction to aircraft development, from AIDS awareness to nuclear material disposal. The expenditure of these funds represents the single largest government marketplace in the world, employing many millions of people directly or indirectly.

The U.S. government is a massive machine, yet no single central civilian entity has the authority for establishing, promoting, or enforcing standards and guidelines for the project management discipline across the federal government enterprise. The absence of this authority is not the result of a conscious decision to allow different agencies and departments to adopt the system that works best for their particular circumstances. Rather, project management within the federal government has grown and thrived seemingly at random, developing idiosyncratically in the various agencies, laboratories, and field offices where the federal government works and where support for project management is strong.

PROJECTS IN THE FEDERAL SECTOR

What is a project? The classic definition is a temporary endeavor undertaken to create a unique product, service, or result. The product, service, or result is developed through a specific effort that includes a beginning, middle, and end. A project is different from a program, which has two general definitions in the federal government. We define program as a group of related projects that are managed in a harmonized way and contribute to the achievement of a common goal. A program often includes elements of ongoing work or work related to specific deliverables. A vivid historical example is the Apollo program, which encompassed distinct projects aimed at developing a vehicle, buildings, control hardware and software, etc. The government also uses program to mean a continuing overall operation or grouping of services, such as Medicaid or the Small Business Administration’s loan guaranty program.

Projects satisfy a deeply held need in the human psyche to commune and conquer. Projects are designed to create change and are at once logistical, political, physical, and mental. They demand our attention and require us to work toward a common goal. Projects are the manifestation of hope—a wish for things to be better in the future if we work hard enough—combined with the need to carry out a finite activity, to set measurable goals and objectives, and to be able to declare success when the goals are reached and the objectives are met.

When everyday work is performed, we invoke the mechanisms of process management. When current work is aimed at achieving a specific goal or objective, the mechanisms of project management—scoping, scheduling, and measuring—are involved in an effort to increase the likelihood of success and realize our ambitions for some future achievement.

Manager Alert

Infusing project management within an organization that views work as process management is as much a cultural transformation as it is a procedural one.

Project management asks us to measure twice and cut once. Philosophically this approach makes sense, but when measuring twice costs millions of dollars and takes many years, the demands on a project intensify. The forces that drive project management are largely contextual, evoked by the mission and structure of the host organization. The dynamics in the federal sector revolve around authority and power, scarcity and abundance (two elements that frequently cohabit in an organization), and change readiness and acceptance. Other factors come into play as well, and for these reasons, no two organizations will follow the same exact style of project management.

Projects in the federal sector differ in many ways from projects in other sectors or industries. The Project Management Institute (PMI)² has identified several factors that affect how project management works in the public sector,³ particularly for large projects:

1. A wide array of important stakeholders is involved. Projects may involve input from or output to world leaders, Congress, high-ranking appointees, taxpayers, policymakers, special interest groups, and others. Managing powerful constituencies increases project complexity and invokes new dimensions of communication management.

2. Project outcomes often have great consequences. Launching spaceships, consolidating military bases, developing a vaccine to fight a pandemic, and building billion-dollar bridges all represent potentially significant public consequences. Because public projects are highly visible, a failure can live on for a generation or more.

3. The revolving political landscape means constant change. New administrations arrive every four years. Congress is in a state of gridlock while shifting priorities with the changing political winds, and agency leadership changes frequently. With each political cycle comes a new or revised set of priorities, legislation, and often a new approach to management. Civil servants and appointees are challenged to work together to effect change in the context of current political and ongoing organizational priorities.

4. Public scrutiny magnifies mistakes. Publicly funded projects must endure—indeed, must embrace—a continuous open window to the public. The public includes individual citizens, special interest groups, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and corporate interests. While some federal projects are shielded from continuous external inspection, freedom of information laws and the public sentiment can influence a project manager’s approach or the project’s execution or outcomes.

5. Dramatic failures can lead to intense oversight. Examples of “extreme” failures in federal projects (such as the response to Hurricane Katrina and oversight of the financial industry) often elicit intense reactions from key stakeholders, especially Congress. However, project management is a highly contextual field and Congress has not yet adopted laws specific to project management practices.

Past legislative attempts have sought to establish trigger points for greater oversight, even project cancellation, if major projects begin to fail, as with Senate Bill 3384, the Information Technology Investment Oversight Enhancement and Waste Prevention Act of 2008. Even in the absence of legislation, however, it is possible to codify the structural components of project management, and the federal government has been moving steadily toward instituting more formalized processes.

In this context, project management in the federal government is both exciting and challenging. Successful project managers must deal with the realities of fickle priorities, political administrations, tenuous budgets, and the tangled web of regulations, laws, and policies that direct federal activities. Yet the federal government, with all its subordinate agencies, departments, administrations, and commissions, still must take the long road to successful project management, implementing one piece at a time. How did such a complicated environment come into being?

THE EVOLUTION OF PROJECT MANAGEMENT IN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

The government has used documented planning techniques since the earliest days of the nation. Journals, lists, and diagrams characterized planning documents dating back to the late 1700s. These documents often took the form of correspondence regarding administrative details.

The term project did not come into its current usage until the early 20^th century. Throughout the nation’s early years, project meant something akin to an undertaking, an endeavor, or a purpose. Compare that with today’s dictionary definition of the word, “a collaborative enterprise, frequently involving research or design, that is carefully planned to achieve a particular aim,”⁴ or PMI’s more focused definition, “a temporary endeavor undertaken to create a unique product, service or result.”⁵

Over the next 120 years, the management of projects evolved in engineering, construction, scientific endeavors, and other increasingly knowledge-centric fields. Although there was little apparent emphasis on project management as a discipline, many of the foundational concepts of management were forming at this time. Formalized project management evolved out of the management theory emerging during the industrial revolution, when concepts like standardization, quality control, work planning, and assembly construction were beginning to take hold.

In 1911, Frederick Taylor published the seminal work Principles of Scientific Management, in which he defined many of the elements of project management today: task planning and instruction, job specialization, and effective supervision. Taylor’s worldview emanated from the factory, and his theories shifted the emphasis from the worker’s role of defining and resolving task problems to the manager’s role of significantly influencing task problems. The federal government adopted these private sector-based theories and management paradigms, creating multilayered organizations staffed by managers of managers. Where manufacturing organizations were organized around assembly lines, government organizations were organized into self-contained and organized units, some oriented functionally and some operationally.

A colleague of Taylor’s, Henry Gantt, worked alongside Taylor literally and figuratively in the development of modern management theory. Gantt’s ideas greatly influenced key project management theories in use today. In particular, his ideas on work planning have contributed to modern scheduling practices. Working with production facilities that were developing weaponry and goods for the U.S. government, Gantt understood that production and assembly work was sequenced, segmented, and measurable. He devised a concept called the “balance of work,” which presented work as measurable units. Workers were required to fulfill a day’s quota of work. This work could be reduced to a plan and laid out on a graphical horizon, which later became known as the Gantt chart.

Project management began to take on its modern form after World War II. The first substantial evidence of government-based project management was the Navy’s Polaris missile project, initiated in 1956 as part of the fleet ballistic missile program, with Lockheed Missile Systems Division as the prime contractor. The Polaris project delivered a truly complex product, the most advanced submarine-based nuclear missile of the day, at a time when the United States was determined to win the nuclear arms race.

The use of multiple major contracts for one product was a new development. There were no tools for integrating the various contracts and understanding the impact on the overall program of schedule changes by contractors. To address the complexity and uncertainty associated with Polaris, the Navy’s special projects office developed the project evaluation and review technique (PERT). PERT was a key element in an “integrated planning and control system for the Fleet Ballistic Missile program.”⁶

Other optimization practices were developed during the 1950s, including the line of balance (LOB) programming model, which preceded PERT, and the management operation system technique (MOST), which improved on PERT estimates. The commonly used work breakdown structure (WBS), a multilevel outline of the work to be performed within a project, was introduced as a concept in concert with the implementation of PERT and came into formal use in the early 1960s.⁷ With the development of these new planning and reporting tools to assist in the management and integration of major weapons system components, the project management discipline demonstrated that truly complex endeavors could be estimated and organized effectively. It was during this period that the term project management was coined.

In a concentrated effort to address the increasing complexity of projects, several other key concepts emerged during these early years. The DuPont Corporation developed critical path methodology (CPM) in 1957 to s...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Copyright
• ABOUT THE AUTHORS
• CONTENTS
• PREFACE
• ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
• CHAPTER 1 The Evolution of Federal Project Management
• CHAPTER 2 Fitting Project Management into the Organization
• CHAPTER 3 Building Strong Teams
• CHAPTER 4 Leveraging Technology for Project Success
• CHAPTER 5 The Crucial Role of Communication
• CHAPTER 6 Leadership and the Project Manager
• CHAPTER 7 Engaging Stakeholders
• CHAPTER 8 Project Management Competencies and Skills
• CHAPTER 9 The Federal Project Management Framework
• CHAPTER 10 Understanding Project Performance Management
• CHAPTER 11 The Promise of Project Management in the Federal Government
• ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
• REFERENCES AND RESOURCES
• INDEX