Gabriel’s scarcity rent - it’s management stupid!

Some weeks are so hectic that you simply don’t have time to write. And if you do, it’s not because you’ve had the chance to sit back and reflect about something, but because you have some free time in-between things to be done. That’s the case for today: a few free minutes.

The day began in Madrid, in the Indian embassy, queuing for such a simple and stupid thing as a visa. It’s incredible how certain processes are still done as the last century, or even the previous one. The fact is that if you want to travel to India from Barcelona, first you must go to Madrid to get your visa. The alternative is waiting around three or four weeks to have it.

And if you went there without a warning, you’d be astonished to know that they only issue a limited number of visas, clearly outnumbered by the people that need them. So the queue starts around two hours before they open. By the time they unlock the doors, there’s enough people waiting to fill the entire waiting room. If you arrive at ten, just forget the visa. Come back tomorrow (in Spanish “vuelva usted mañana” although the Indians speak more English than Spanish). And that’s the only way for the 46 million inhabitants of Spain to visit the 1,100-million-people country.

Well. I finally made it. I was sixth on the line. Then, to the airport to take a plane back to Barcelona. And from the airport to one of Barcelona’s marinas: the Olympic port, built for Barcelona’s Olympics 15 years ago.

From air planes to boats: time to sail. That’s why I am here for. I am to renew my sailing licenses and, following legal requirements, I need several navigation hours with a captain instructor. A good way to ensure that people actually know about boats before granting them the right to sail them. That’s what I am here for.

Time for the final comment. Where is management in all this? Well. Ask it to Captain Marcos Rivera. In a ship, there’s only one captain. Such affirmation is something that we tend to forget. Authority is not a very popular value these days. It is still necessary nonetheless. Someone has to decide. There must be someone in charge, asessing the risks, analysing and drawing conclusions, and then, finally, deciding.

That doesn’t mean that he (or she) is the only one to think. That would be a great loss of value, rationality, thinking capacity, a loss of options. Empowerment is still essential (and compatible), as it is dissent. But there’s a limit to it. And when the captain decides, the others must follow.

Have you ever felt that, in a project or a workgroup, the problem was that the decisions were not actually being made? Or being enforced? Have you ever felt that authority was missing? That indecision and ambiguity was undermining the whole execution? That’s when a good methodology for making decisions is needed.

There’s a time when every task becomes critical: just give it enough wandering time and you’ll see. IT comes a time when further procrastination is no longer possible. That’s when a chieftain is needed.

The average project manager is affected by all sorts of diseases. One of the worst, that could be labelled as project manager’s myopia, in line with other sectoral diseases like manager’s myopia (that is related to perfectly managing something that should not be done at all) or marketeers’ myopia (when we further seek perfection to our product, to an extent that our customers do not demand neither understand or value).

Project manager’s myopia is something similar to paranoia, albeit in a much lesser way. There are some symptoms to be aware of:

• Reality denial, we still are working as if things were like they used to be,
• Reality avoidance, skipping focus on the symptoms of change,
• Deflection, blaming change on others or seeking scapegoats that temporally justify mismatches,
• Projection, attributing one’s feelings to other people, we have this disconnection because of someone else,
• Splitting and radicalism, there are final groupings into good and bad things, good and bad people, good and bad customers… greys tend to converge into black and white only
• Somatisation, in late stages people can even become ill to avoid facing reality

Ok, those are extremes, but what is it that usually happens?

Sometimes we simply focus so much on a project’s completion and success that we tend to forget that projects are not isolated realities but that they are inserted into organisations. With time our big project is able to evolve and change. This is something that we can naturally accept and live with. In fact we need a big dose of flexibility when driving our project through execution, when risks are being faced and decisions being made.

But the project is not the only thing that is about to change through its lifetime. The organisational reality in which it must fit is going to change also. A change that can even be induced or catalysed by means of the project that we are taking care of.

And what do we do in the face of change? First we still keep the serious intention of managing the match, usually following a stakeholder model like this one:

This stakeholder matrix represents the main groups of stakeholders, or people that have a say, that we have to manage. They are divided in four groups related to the power and influence they have and their importance (or stake):

Those are reasonable and wise words but, in the end, when the project has overcome the frustration and hysteria phases, we are so focused on the final deliveries that we tend to forget about stakeholders at all. And then the mismatch occurs and blows up on our faces. That’s when the aforementioned symptoms start to occur.

There’s another model that I especially like. Made by Holland and Skarke, projects the need for change with an additional dimension: time.

The model is taken from an article focused on IT and organisational alignment, but it’s also applicable in many other contexts. It says clearly that we must be manage two projects at the same time:

• Getting the system ready for the users, our main goal or the project that we are struggling to manage to completion
• Getting the users ready for the system, the often overlooked part.

Getting the users ready for the system will entail much more than the simple stakeholder engagement described with the classical approach. In information systems will be related to the user acceptance processes that we know should be analysed and managed, but in many other contexts, user acceptance must not be taken for granted. The users must be ready for the new infrastructure, and that means that they must not only know about it, but about the benefits it entails for their work processes, the alignment with their own personal and organisational objectives and the motivation to learn to use, and effectively use them.

Only this way we will be able to quickly climb the productivity drop in the adaptation curve, and only this way we will be able to adapt the deliverables to what the organisation expect: actively managing both ends of the final acceptance bargain.

Star Trek is not the encyclopedia of life. Even though it contains so many interesting ideas about leadership and management, with different styles depending on the series, that is worth knowing about.

One of the scenarios that is a reference in the Star Trek world is the Kobayashi Maru scenario, which is a “lose-lose” or “no-win” scenario. Regardless of what you do, you’re doomed. We can see this kind of scenarios in everyday life: from organisations that have a couple of conflicting objectives to pursue at all costs, pyrrhic victories or military victories that are so costly to win that are not worth-it (ring a bell?), or the kinked curve of demand for oligopolies, that can only begin competing between itselves bearing huge losses. Even the Spanish Inquisition’s confessions were like that: torture until pleaded guilty and then executed: every move made it worse.

The original Kobayashi Maru scenario was a test for Star Trek commanders. In the simulator they received a distress call: a ship had been stranded on the other side of the border. They were subsequently faced with the decision of whether or not entering into enemy zone, underpowered, to try to rescue the crew of the Kobayashi Maru.

There was no escape, the only option was not to try the rescue.

One briskly student devised a  solution: cheating. Cadet Kirk did in his third attempt. Strangely enough, tweaking the simulator was considered original thinking. Probably that was only because it had not been attempted before. In time Cadet Kirk became the infamous Captain Kirk.

Sometimes, regardless of what you do, defeat is unavoidable.

Yes, I’m exagerating a little, but this has been a hell of a Kobashi Maru week. And to you all there that have Kobayashi Maru weeks once in a while, there’s still a message of hope. The Kobayashi Maru scenario had a meaning and purpose.

Because it wasn’t an intelligence or ability test. It was a character test. How do we face odds and specifically unsurmuntable odds? After all managing death is a way to learn to manage life.

Paraphrasing another Star Trek classic, Mr. Spock, “fear is the mind killer”. Sometimes the worst might simply happen, and what’s important then is how to handle the situation, how to keep your own control and integrity under adverse or inauspicious circumstances.

Making the most out of it. That’s how you learn to be better, and how to bounce back and subdue the next possibly conquerable odd. Don’t let circumstances drag you down, because you need to keep fit for the next, possibly unforseeable, challenge. And it may well be one you can cope with.

One of the things that happen to often in program management is that contractors, specifically their project managers, want to be too nice. Yes, of course they must be nice, but not that nice.

I’m not talking of nice presents or sumptuous dinners. I’m talking of making too much promises. Well, it’s understandable when you don’t have the contract but, once you have it, it’s a most annoying practice.

Reality is stubborn, bull-headed, disobedient, especially to the wishes of a project manager. It’s not her but her team who is really doing the hard work and, as they try to please her, they will tell her whatever she wants to hear… until the milestones get closer and the completion gets -or should get- nearer.

Then, nervousness gives way to hysteria and the hidden truth arises and comes out of the closet. The project is not going well. Guess what? Now hard decisions must be made, there’s almost no time and they (we) all go crazy.

Follow my advice: it’s all about managing expectations correctly. Too eager to please, sometimes we are too optimistic and make our projections forgetting risk management, inefficiencies, overheads, limited budgets, mistakes or that people are simply people.

If you are realistic in your predictions, and still take out a small bite allowing for some slack, you’ll be able to actually achieve what you have promised. Even, on the eyes of your benevolent customer, the under-promise might become an overachievement. You won’t lose your face but keep your credibility and increase your perceived efficiency.

Even in the worst case, it’s better to know the truth. Maybe the customer decides not to go ahead with the contract, but that will be better for you because there is no glory in projects that are doomed beforehand. Or maybe you and your customer can discover a better way of doing things, put some safeguards in place or simply make some drastic measures that might increase the probability of success. In any case, honesty is always a good advice.

I’ve tried to describe all this in the following expectations model:

It’s all about aligning expectations and results. The credibility zone is along that line but also tending to the overachievement. In short, people might expect you to do things better as they thought you would, but they won’t forgive if you do worse.

When you go down the credibility zone, there’s only danger: dissatisfied customers are your worst enemy: they may spread the word of a poor job.

Still there’s another danger zone in the upper left hand: giving too high achievements when you’ve managed poor expectations. In this case the problem is the bottom-line: probably you’ve spent more resources than were necessary and your customer would have been satisfied with less. It seems to me you should make a better use of your resources, or handle a few of them back to your organisation: after all they have a cost, although you might not perceive it. But with less capital employed, the profitability grows higher.

Remember: don’t be the one to put the rope around your own neck but do your best to keep it healthy instead. You might have much more leverage than the one you think you have.

As the average reader of this blog knows, and wordpress knows such individuals exist to my amazement (THANK-YOU), I do several things in my job, one of them is the integration of the baggagge system in the Terminal South (or Terminal D) in Barcelona’s airport.

Well, it used to be one of them… but it has been growing and growing, absorbing my time and effort, sometimes with complex things, of course, but very often with little and silly things, sometimes simply to overcome the lack of communications between parts in a huge project, sometimes just repeating the same things again and again.

Organisations prepare themselves to manage projects. They start shyly with one and, if they are able to envisage an strategy, they include project management into their capabilities. There are models to describe how project management competencies are integrated into organisational capabilities. Different organisations are at different levels, and thus are able not only to manage projects but also to increasingly learn from them.

But, at the end of the day, panic happens. That’s when they forget everything and start to triple-check everything based on the gut feelings of people, high enough in the ladder, that don’t really know about the systems to be implemented. Trivial things get inflated and strategic things suddenly obviated.

That’s what has happened to me with the Terminal 5 syndrome (to know more about Heathrow’s Terminal 5 click here). It will take some time to settle. In the meantime some issues have been enshrined as the most relevant by the organisation and are draining a lot of resources. Yes, organisations are able to learn a lot about project management but, when panic starts, they sort of regress to a previous state, top level managers want to micromanage what they still don’t know anything about, and reality gets distorted to adapt to the top management expectations.

A hard critique? Fortunately the tide is just a tide and we will be able to focus the existing energies on the real issues… having top management’s attention is very helpful as long you can manage it in the right direction, and to help you instead of interfering.

When you think of building a terminal you always think of huge construction works. And yes, that’s the bulk of the budget, and sometimes the most spectacular part. But in a 80/20 rule fashion, that 20% ends up entailing 80% of the work. As I like to say, the devil is in the details.

For example, in Barcelona’s airport, we started 2006 doing something like this:

The horizontal axis is roughly equivalent to one mile. The South Terminal was beginning to take shape. It was still divided into several parts instead of being a single building. That’s the way it was decided in the tendering process: there should be a few smaller cakes instead of a big one. A dilemma between having to co-ordinate or letting more companies participate. It was decided towards the latter… no wonder co-ordinating has been one of the main issues here.

But three years later, with the building almost done, we are focusing on a lot of different and much smaller things. Things like the following:

The white structure you see is inserted to the glass block. The purpose of the structure is to hold a couple of flat screens to be able to inform the passengers for the boarding process. It is thus provided by a different company than the one that is building the green glass block, the one that is providing the energy, the one that is providing the communications (that the screen will surely need in order to work), and the one that is providing things such as the air bridge or the cooling systems.

Yes, it’s all about interference again. In this case, as we get closer to the endgame, the different paths start to converge into one set of critical paths, all interrelated with each other. There’s no more unique critical path, but every single path becomes dependent on the others’ every delay: a web of interdependencies, a critical network instead of a path. 

My impression is that this part is much trickier than the other one. Finishing something is much more difficult than just going along with it. Slack has been consumed: the endpoint is not far anymore, pressure is increasing, hysteria is hovering, and we have to go down to every detail.

And studying for the final exam doesn’t help. In fact I sometimes arrive so tired that I don’t have the will to do anything. Still I have to. I strive to find some free time whenever, sometimes eating a quick sandwich and hurrying to imitate the waiting passengers in any available coach. The only difference is that they are waiting for something, just passing the time. I, on the other hand, I’m trying to use it. My macbook comes with me wherever I go, preview -for PDFs- and powerpoint to take notes always ready.

It’s funny how the process here is the other way around. When I studied the people, processes and financial modules, it was a matter of going into detail, of submerging into a wealth of information and trying to find the details, the reflections, the hidden wisdom, sometimes simply the stories behind, the assumptions, the reasoning. In fact that was a mistake because my teachers didn’t want me to prove that in the assignments: they just wanted to test that I knew the basic models. And I paid a price for going too far.

Now I’m going back to the basics. An exam is a place where you have to prove that you understand the basic reasoning, its assumptions, and apply it to some cases. It’s something like the terminal, but backwards, from detail to widely accepted models. That’s what they expect from me, and that’s what I should be giving them… I’ll try to refrain myself from doing otherwise.

I was interviewed by Widget Finn for the Times, and she wrote the following article:

The disastrous debut of Heathrow’s Terminal 5 was a nightmare experience for all involved, but for Gabriel Mesquida it has proved a valuable live case study for his MBA dissertation.

Mesquida is a programme manager for Aena, the Spanish equivalent of British Airports Authority, that is in charge of the expansion of Barcelona’s airport. He is responsible for the coordination of projects in the information systems, communications and security programmes. His dissertation for the distance-learning MBA that he is doing at Henley Management College is on managing airports for the future, so he is watching carefully how the Terminal 5 saga unfolds.

He says: “Our terminal is similar in size to Heathrow, which is considered the plane capital of Europe, and I visited T5 several times when it was under construction. I was impressed, at the time, by how much detail they were going into over safety and they were scrupulous about everything.”

But when the terminal opened it became apparent that there would be other useful lessons to be learnt – including how to manage a meltdown. “An MBA has a foundation of theory but it should be practical, so having a live case study means you can watch events as they unfold and draw conclusions from them.”

The conclusions may be different when the case study is current rather than from a textbook comments Dr Richard Barker, director of MBA programmes at Judge Business School. He says: “One of the benefits is that you don’t know the outcome, which simulates the management situation more effectively. With a five-year-old case study there’s a result to the story which is difficult to escape. You can look at different options that management had at the time but knowing what happened influences your ability to assess the case.”

Mesquida is already putting into practice some principles of leadership from his MBA that were highlighted in the Terminal 5 episode. He says: “Resources are important, but people are far more so and leadership is everything when you have a flock of people wandering around a huge new infrastructure. However carefully you prepare, the unexpected can happen, and that is when your staff should have the flexibility to use their initiative. If the company has a blame culture people will be reluctant to take risks or do anything except cover their own backs.”

Durham University Business School uses live case studies in boardroom simulation exercises where students focus on a real company. Dr Julie Hodges, director of MBA programmes, explains: “They look at the strategic data, where the company is now, what challenges and issues it’s facing, then students come up with recommendations based on the information.” But textbook cases also have their value. “These give an historical perspective so that the issues can be put into context. More data is available and we can identify the medium and long-term lessons.”

Textbooks’ case studies are polished, tried and tested so they are easier from a teaching viewpoint. Barker points out that they are also pigeonholed into subject areas. “They may be labelled a strategy or marketing case, which isn’t always obvious when you’ re trying to deal with something in the boardroom.”

He can predict some of the labels that will be put on Terminal 5. “I see it as an operations management case – make sure your operation works before you start overloading it, or a people management case – train your people properly and handle recovery situations effectively.”

Mesquida agrees that more lessons will emerge from Terminal 5 as time goes by, but together with his MBA learning, it is already shaping his decisions for Barcelona airport. He says: “We need performance indicators and a more systemic approach. Stakeholders and users shouldn’t have the impression that you’re out of control or they’ll feel abandoned. They must be kept fully informed of what’s happening and how you plan to remedy the situation.”

Terminal 5’s launch onto the world stage may have been a fiasco but, clearly as a learning resource for business students, it will run and run.

Thank-you Widget

What happens if in a meeting something is said and you think it’s not right? Easy. You say no. You can say it softer or louder, directly or through complicated verses, but you say no. That’s all.

Now let’s add another ingredient to the soup: power. Some people have more power than others, and I’m referring to an organisation. And you are the one not to have it. Unlucky you. And relationships are in a touchy state… you no longer can afford to say no… but you still have to disagree. What can you do?

Just remember that you can acknowledge something, being either the cat or the mouse, and that doesn’t mean you agree. It means you’re still able to listen. Don’t let your defensiveness show through your lack of attention. Don’t let your position, whatever it is, impair your education or politeness, you’re still a professional.

You don’t have to think that listening, and acknowledging what you’ve heard means yielding. Nor you should thing that expressing your point of view means winning. It’s good to put your cards on the table even so to understand everyone’s position. And it’s something that speaks highly of you to acknowledge the position of the other, the only compromise is on behalf of your professionality.

Still if you are the mice you have to find ways to make the ideas move around the table, to show contradictions in the other’s position. Just visualise their ideas from your point of view “so you mean that if things are done like this then… but if they are done that way like you say, those issues are no longer problematic… is this, thus, what’s at stake?”. Don’t refrain to be challenging “… isn’t that a contradiction” or even reassuring yourself “isn’t this more less the same I was saying” and minimise the differences “could that be that our only difference is where we locate that square… is that really so important?” or don’t fall into distractions “aren’t we moving out of track here?”.

And last, but not least, wherever you are, don’t make it personal. People are not at stake here, issues are. The rather provocative “could you express this less personally?” requires to have shown interest in the other person, to have been careful about showing attention, to avoid gestures that show rejection, to avoid aggressive voice tones. Only then you’ll be able to mediate yourself, be able to reconcile whilst being an active part, keeping the link open whatever happens…

I’m too busy these days. That’s why my blogging activity has been errr… nullified. And having to cope with my MBA is far too harsh. A lot of side activities have suffered a lot. Right now I feel I’m even paying too much for my gym!

This morning I’ve had a surprising meeting. I can’t talk too much of it because of confidentiality reason, and because I know that at least one of the people in the meeting checks this blog (hi!). But the thing is something like what follows:

We had a project. We changed it a couple of years ago to accommodate a different corporate sensibility. We excluded some parts that had to be provided by the “official” corporate provider. Now it’s getting late and we really need those parts, and the central sensibility ends up saying that it’s not sensible to provide those parts, that should have never spun off the project.

Which are the alternatives? either find a compromise or change the project again. But the project would suffer from delays if it had to change again. Too late for changes.

What surprises me is that the reasons that I exposed today were also exposed two years ago. Then they weren’t a problem. Now they are. Why? The devil is in the details. And when people have to start assuming responsibilities for their decisions… they baulk out.

Why should we be discussing philosophy in a late execution phase? I expected a quarrel over completion dates, that’s true, but never a review of the bottom line. Didn’t we talk about all this before? Didn’t we understand each other?

Is the proximity of completion a necessity for people to effectively listen and think practically? Is it true that from the distance everything is possible and people just don’t care? Is it the way we do things around here?

If people could really share in advance, listen to each other, try to understand… things could be different. But I guess is easier to let the time sleep by. And to assume that an old idea of yours just matures and becomes universal with the march of time. Then you slam it on someone else’s face and say “I already said that, two years ago!”

But even when that happens, the game of retreats is utterly useless. I firmly believe that people should be accountable to themselves, and my duty is to still be constructive and try to push things ahead amid the unexpected difficulties.

As you probably know, lately I’ve been thinking a lot about organising people. That’s great because in fact I am studying Human Resource Management (again) and the content without the reflection is just data. And there’s much more than data to learning. (Remember my old post Ackoff’s spectrum of learning?)

There’s so much philosophy on purpose. Ok, let’s change the word from purpose to strategy. Which is the strategy of your (my) company? The obvious answer is…

Let’s stop for a moment. I need your attention here. I’m going to ask again in bold:

*What’s the strategy of YOUR company?*

Do you really know? Think again.

Don’t cheat. It’s not a valid answer to say that the board does know. That’s not enough. For any strategy to be effective it must permeate the whole of the company. Not just to be in the board’s minds. No way.

Usually the use of the word strategy makes us defensive. True, this is nothing that affects us. Or maybe it does affect us but it’s nothing that we have a say on.

Wrong answer for an effective organisation. If the strategy is not only top-down but bottom-up, we should have a say. In fact I really think we should.

Let’s swap words again. Let’s talk about purpose. Purpose is not a scary word but, at the same time, has a lot in common with strategy. And ask yourself another question.

*What is the purpose of your job, of your post?*

That is easier to answer, but not quite. Is that really what you are doing? Don’t you think that’s the first thing that you should be clarifying with your boss? Along with a complementary question: what’s the purpose of her/his job? How do both purposes match?

This kind of questions should be asked periodically. Let’s not fall into the management trap. Let’s not end up being increasingly efficient with something that, at the end of the day, we shouldn’t be doing.

Let’s ask again.

*Are you being held accountable for the things you should be doing in your post or simply by the things you’re doing, for a few of them or, even worse, for things you are not doing and neither related to?*

Or in a more positive (and extrinsic) fashion:

*Are you being rewarded coherently with the purpose of your post?*

Why is that question important? Well, first there must be a clear purpose to our job, although probably one that will change quite often, but then all the metrics should match. And when I’m talking about metrics I’m not only thinking of “hard” financial metrics, but also the soft, and often much more important ones, from customer satisfaction to employee turnover rates, and the cause of these rates.

But these reflections wouldn’t be complete if we didn’t close the circle.

*Do this purpose match the strategy of the company? Is the accountability matching that purpose and strategy?*

Because if we could answer this question, we would be effectively knowing, and working for and along the strategy of the company. The strategy wouldn’t be tongue-in-cheek or lip service. It would be a common tool, a shared vision, something that would help the whole company move in phase and amplify its efforts. It would be part of a glue that would tie the parts tighter to the whole.