With little professional experience in project management,
the project being utilized for this blog post is of a personal nature. The
project involved the re-siding of a house. For their 50th wedding anniversary,
my brother, two sisters, and I decided we would gather our resources, manage
our time, and re-side our parents’ house. Having all grown up in this house, we
began developing our construction skills at a young age, as our father was the
sort to do things himself, rather than having a job be hired out. As such, in
time, we became rather skilled laborers! We didn’t know life without there
being some wall torn down, or another being built. The pre-siding state of the
house included approximately 1/3 not having siding on at all! The other 2/3 had
siding, but it was many (key word) years old and clearly in need of a paint
job. With myself and two sisters living in other states, the project certainly
required planning.
In that our brother was a very skilled contractor (licensed
professional) who had experience in the construction of homes, from
foundations, to framing, to roofing, and much more, he was the PM. Although
Stolovitch (2011) indicates the most difficult aspect of PM in managing the
variety of personalities, this was not an issue. We all knew, going into the
project, the personalities involved. They did not become an issue impacting the
progress of the project. The clients (mom and dad) were well informed
throughout the process. Their input was received, and assurances relating to
the quality of the project were continuously communicated.
Financial costs for the project were also not an issue. The
labor was free, in terms of actual monetary compensation, and the materials for
the project were set. Any equipment and tools needed were available through the
resources of my brother and father. Siding materials and painting were also set
costs. When everything appeared to be arranged and in place …. enter, scope
creep!
Primary scope creep issues which arose involved:
* Resource hours – Additional responsibilities came up,
which led to the temporary loss of a laborer. These responsibilities were not
directly related to this specific project. Rather, the laborer, had other
obligations requiring their attention.
* Weather – This caused minor issues. With the sun beating
down during certain times of the day, tasks and activities slowed in pace. This
affected individuals being exposed to 90+ degree temperatures. It also affected
the timeline of the tasks/activities involving painting.
* Expertise required – Our PM overestimated the capabilities
of the laborers … in some circumstances.
In regards to myself and the other stakeholders reacting to
these issues, an extremely significant factor related to our commitment to the
project. We all had a great deal of buy-in early on, and were highly motivated
and dedicated to the project’s successful outcome. This aspect originated a
year prior to the actual “ground-breaking”. This, combined with the PM having a
year to plan the project, allowed for each team member to at least mentally
prepare for each issue which may have taken place during implementation. One of
the most significant risk factors concerned the primary stakeholders (mom and
dad, emphasis – dad) expanding their role from client to PM. One needs to fully
understand the personality and characteristics of the emphasized stakeholder to
completely appreciate the great risk involved! This risk was a risk worthy of
the category of project-level issues, as defined by Lynch and Roecker (2007).
During each phase of conceptualizing, defining, starting, and executing this
project, communications regarding risk, in particular this risk, was clear and
consistent. This aligns with Portny, Mantel, Meredith, Shafer, Sutton, and
Kramer (2008) identifying the importance of communicating risks throughout a
project.
My first suggestion to improve upon the management of these
risks and potential scope creep involve delegation. Delegating lower priority
tasks, which is an important aspect of monitoring projects (Stolovitch, 2011)
could have occurred to a greater extent. The PM felt as though he was
responsible for more than he actually needed to be. When trouble arises, a PM
should draw from their team members as much as possible (Stolovitch, 2011).
With team members possessing a reasonable degree of skill, a brief explanation
of what to do in a circumstance would have enabled the PM to move on to more
important issues, while the team members accomplished the new task arising as a
result of scope creep. If this occurring a bit more frequently, when an issue
arose, the PM could have been more effective in keeping the project moving
forward. Following the outlines identifying roles, responsibilities, specific
deliverables, and effort/duration estimates, are important guidelines in moving
projects forward Greer (2010). With a little guidance, the PM could direct the
laborers to successfully complete some tasks, while minimally impacting the
overall project timeline. Also, the PM, in this circumstance would be free to
continue addressing his particular tasks, which none of the other team members
could perform.
I must say, it has been very enlightening to view this
“project” in such a structured, organized manner. If I might add .. the PM
(yes, my brother) really did a great job in all phases of this project … except
he expects too much of himself … a genetic flaw!!! The final outcome was
extremely close to full completion. When team members had to leave town, very
minor tasks needed to be completed.
Resources
Greer, M. (2010). The project management minimalist: Just
enough PM to rock your projects! (Laureate custom ed.). Baltimore: Laureate
Education, Inc.
Lynch, M. M., & Roecker, J. (2007). Project managing
e-learning: A handbook for successful design, delivery, and management. London:
Routledge. Copyright by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC. Reprinted by
permission of Taylor & Francis Group, LLC via the Copyright Clearance
Center.
Portny, S. E., Mantel, S. J., Meredith, J. R., Shafer, S.
M., Sutton, M. M., & Kramer, B. E. (2008). Project management: Planning,
scheduling, and controlling projects. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Stolovitch, H., (2011). Monitoring projects. Lecture
presented for Laureate Education, Inc. Retrieved from
