Estimating Project Management Time

"How much time should I estimate for project management in a project?"
This is a very common question asked by service providers whenever they need to provide estimates for projects that require a dedicated project manager.

"What? You mean not all projects have project managers?"
Well, what I mean is that not all projects require a project manager, but all projects require some level of project management. Otherwise, how would you account for one-man projects?

Then again, that's not the topic I want to discuss. What I would want to bring to the table are some basic rules whenever project management time is estimated into a project. So, how do you do it?

A general rule of thumb being used in IT software industries is that 20% of the team's work effort is added to allot for project management time. This means that if it takes 100 man-hours to do the work, 20% is added to it for project management. Hence the total effort for the whole project is 120 man-hours.

While this is a very generally accepted manner of estimating PM time. I would caution against taking this estimate as such. There are other factors that need to be taken into consideration when estimating the PM effort. These include the following:

Duration - Effort is different from duration. Effort is the amount of work needed to do the job. Duration is how long the work is going to take. If an activity requires an effort of 80 man-hours (or 10 man-days), then it can be done for a duration of either 10 days for 1 resource or 5 days for 2 resources. See the difference? The effort for project management is higher for projects with longer duration. This is due to the length of time (duration) that the PM is exposed to the project.

Resoures - This seems pretty obvious. The more resources in the project team, the higher the level of effort needed to manage the project. This is particularly due to the channels of communication needed to coordinate work between resources. Its obviously much harder to manage more people all at the same time.

You may wonder that if we go by the previous definition of effort vs duration, then the PM estimates of a project with a shorter duration with more people would just be the same as a project with a long duration and fewer people. It's true that these cancel out with one another. However, based on personal experience, the Resource factor has a bigger impact than the duration factor.

Risk - One of the basic activities of a project manager is to manage risks in a project. Therefore, if there is a lot risks in a project, the the project manager has got a lot of work in his hands.
The amount of risks increases the amount of project management time needed in a project. This trumps the other two factors in terms of how it impacts PM estimates.
Hopefully, this information helps you make better estimates for PM time, and helps you defend any estimates that you are creating.

"Now what the heck will you be doing with all those hours?" that's going to be in my next post.

Shifting Gears

"The key is not to plan for everything... its knowing when to stop planning and start doing."

Oftentimes, I've been asked the question as to how much planning should be done on a project. Typically newbie project managers don't do enough planning. More seasoned project managers do way too much planning. The best of the bunch know when they have enough information to move forward. For those who drive stick, its like knowing the right RPM to shift gears, too little and you underpower your engine, too much and you overburn. There are no hard and fast rules to doing this. There are various conditions that determine when enough is just about right. However, there are certain truths to project management planning that a project manager needs to put to heart in order for him to have a better understanding on when to shift gears.

Truth #1. You will need to replan, again. This is an inescapable fact. Things change, and so should your plan. You can never plan for everything and so don't plan like you can.

Truth #2. Planning is a diminishing activity. The effect of planning is at its peak when you actually start planning, and goes downhill from thereon. It does not mean however that you "plan" at the start and then leave it at that. As I've mentioned earlier, the key is knowing when to stop planning.

Truth #3. The more you plan, the lesser the risk. It is for the most part, the reason why planning is performed, to reduce unknown events in a project, and hence increased preparedness. This is inverseley proportional to Truth # 2. Hence getting to the "This is it!" point is what project managers need to aim for.

So far, I've done fairly well on knowing when to shift gears. This concept is not limited to projects but rather to almost anything that involves some form of planning. Applying these truths on your everyday activities help you become an expert in identifying when to shift gears. Be it in the work place, personal activities, relationships, and all other planning-intensive activities.

Am currently looking at what's happening in the workplace and calibrating the things that I see. Sooner or later I will need to shift gears.

where the heck is middle management?

Ever since the corporate world thought of flattening their organizations, making it more lean and mean in the last two decades, the obvious victim were those in what we call "Middle Management". These were the unlucky fellows who were caught between those who set the company strategy and those who did the daily grunt work of supervising resources. Whereas I would agree to an extent that middle management is where we could easily cut some fat out of the management body, it also requires that both junior and senior management need to stretch themselves out, in order to reach one another. This is where it gets messy.
Unfortunately, some organizations still have not realized this need to fill the gap. The results have been devastating. Corporate strategies and directions are not realized and made into tangible, daily operational activities. We tend to fail miserably by not looking at this area, especially for large organizations that really need a good number of middle managers. People in middle management positions right now are overly stretched to make ends meet. There is just too much distance because managers on both ends of the spectrum (both junior and senior) just don't see the need to budge. They just expect everything to be business as usual.
I consider myself to be at the lower rung of middle-management right now. Up is still a long way to go. I honestly am finding it difficult trying to translate vision and mission, target KPI's, and corporate strategies into tactical programs that can be converted into operational activities since there's just soo much disparate activities that need to be grouped and managed together. Somestimes, it just doesn't make sense.

Rockstar Managers

Every now and then we find managers who exude unconventional wisdom, unconventional approaches, and unconventional ways by which they manage teams, organizations, and projects. Amidst these novelle activities, we often find them excelling in doing pretty well as managers and receive adequate congratulatory remarks from his/her superiors. You might then be forced to ask how do they do it and what makes them capable of achieving what they have achieved.

Ladies and Gentlemen, welcome to the world of the Rockstar Manager.

I am not really sure if there has been a term for this before, but I'd like to call it as such since it so defines these types of Managers. These managers display such qualities present in Rockstars that it is only fitting to use that term to describe them. These are the people who eventually become the Bill Gates and Steve Jobs of their organizations and are often their beloved prodigys.

So what's in these Rockstar Managers that make them so popular (and so darn good).

• Unique Persona - I don't want to use the word charm or charisma because its simply limiting the Rockstar image. A Rockstar Manager can either be charismatic or notorious or both at the same time. They have a certain presence that makes everyone know that they are there and that they need to be heard.
• Influence - What separates rock musicians from the real rockstars is their level of influence. Same goes for Rockstar Managers. You can have a unique persona but no influence and you end up being a nuisance. Influence is what gives the power to the image. Rockstar Managers know the who's who in the organization - and its not limited to the organizational structure. Rather, it also involves knowing the socio-political structure and bieng able to establish good relationships.
• Intelligence - Rockstar Managers are intelligent. They know what they are doing (even if it doesn't look that way). They have adequate knowledge of the work environment and the skills needed to survive in that environment. Just like the likes of Steve Vai or Joe Satrianni (if you don't know these folks - read up on your rock history), these are very intelligent people that make more than your average noise from rock music.
• Creativity - Rockstars are non-conformist by nature. And to be able to keep it that way, one has to have a certain level of creativity in him. This creativity helps bring out better ways of approaching projects, unique ideas and solutions, and a whole lot of "new" stuff that can only come from the creative minds of the Rockstar Managers.
• Risk Takers - Dare to be bold is the trademark of a real rockstar. Rockstar Managers are willing to take risks because this is the only way for them to know if what they think is right (or works). It just simply matches the persona of a unique and creative person.

And so to summarize the Rockstar Manager, he/she is a person that is willing to take risks for his/her creative ideas that he has carefully thought thru, and has the influence to make that happen and the unique persona to make it look good.

Yes, there are a couple out there that would fall under this category. Its a rare breed. I've seen a couple of unpolished gems our office. I hope to see them become Rockstar Managers someday.

Everything I know about Project Management, I learned from playing Poker

Well... this might not be exactly true... but it sounded real good. I want to thank my good online neighbor Meggy (http://thoughtsfromaficklemind.blogspot.com) for that idea. I just couldn't get over the fact that she actually had the different Poker combinations posted on her cubicle. Franco was probably the instigator of this.
-----
Ok, so here are some pretty nice ramblings on the similarities of Project Management work with Poker.

• "You play the hand that you are dealt." You will never always get a good hand at Poker (unless of course, you cheat). It's all in how you arrange your hand that matters. In the same way, a Project Manager will never always get the best project team. What matters is making the most out of your team. Get there strengths and use it to your advantage. Project teams are unique, and I can never recall being able to see the same hand in poker show up in another game.
• "Know when to check, call, raise, and fold". This is what separates real poker players from the plain so-called poker players. This is putting your hand in action. Different situations call for different responses. Project Managers have an assortment of possible responses to various areas of project management such as Risk Management (do i accept, transfer, mitigate, etc?), Communication Management (do i email, call, chat, etc?), and various other areas. It is therefore important to understand the possible outcome of each response to a project management area.
• "Read your opponent(s)". Having played Poker for quite some time now. I am starting to understand facial gestures, mannerisms, and non-verbal cues can truly give light to what the other poker players have. This helps me understand how to respond properly in order to win. In the same light, Project Managers should also be aware of situations that may affect the outcome of his/her Project. Reading your opponents is essentially performing Risk Management.
• "Learn to read a Bluff". Yes, bluffing is an integral part of Poker. Poker will never be Poker without this element in. After all, that's what started the term Poker Face. In the course of trying to read your opponents, there will be instances that you will be lead to believe certain conditions exists in your opponents hand that will cause you to do something less favorable (such as folding to a much lower hand). Project Managers should always learn to validate situations, conditions, and project statuses if they are what they are reported as. A validation activity/exercise by PM's always help in ensuring that the PM is always on top of the situation.
• "Learn to call a Bluff". A bluff is a way of getting what we want out of opponents. Yes, it is effectively lying - but its all part of the game. For Project Managers, this does not mean that you need to tell a lie. In fact, all this means is influencing people, events, etc. to achieve something that we want from that specific person/team. It does not incur (nor should it incur) lying. What it should have is a mechanism to go influence people positively.

Well, I hope that the next time you play Poker, you can now remember all the important stuff that I mentioned.