Projects are defined in the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK) guide by two key features. The first, a project is temporary, with a beginning and an end. With defined scope, resources, and schedule. It is not ongoing such as routine operation and maintenance activities.
Secondly a project delivers a unique product, service or result (Project Management Institute (PMI), 2008). As a facility manger one will be faced with the execution of many projects. These projects can be tenant moves/relocations, new construction, renovation, roof replacement, building equipment and LEED® implementation, just to name a few. Regardless of the type of project, the overall goals are the same. The completed project should meet scope requirements, be within budget, and within schedule. This is known as the triple constraint, scope, cost and schedule.
As many facility managers and project managers have experienced, there are many forces working against projects being deemed successful. One survey showed that 37 percent of projects are deemed failures (Krigsman, 2011). This becomes even more crucial as executives and business are pushing for efficiencies, productivity, and increasing the bottom line during a slow economy. This is an opportunity for a facility manager to shine—failure is not an option.
Causes of troubled projects
All of the major challenges that face project execution can be avoided in the planning phase of a project. It is here where the fates of projects are determined. Michael Krigsman’s study identified the five top causes of troubled projects:
- Unclear, lack of agreement, or ambiguous requirements;
- Lack of resources;
- Unrealistic schedule;
- Planning is based on unreliable or insufficient data; and
- Risk is unidentified or ignored. To sum it up, projects tend to fail when they are developed in a vacuum or bubble.
So what is a vacuum?
Webster describes a vacuum as emptiness of space, devoid of matter, and a state of isolation from outside influence. When a project is developed in a vacuum it lacks the influence and matter needed to develop an accurate project plan. A project developed in a vacuum will be based on false assumptions, developed without input from end users, subject matter experts’ opinions are not considered, unrealistic expectations are set, and project risk are ignored.
This “vacuum” method of project planning will in nearly every case lead to a waste of resources if not project failure. To get out of the project vacuum or to break the bubble one needs to address these quandaries. A facility manger will need to act as a project manager and be ready to address these issues head on. The facility manager will need to insist on being a part of the planning process as early as possible. These are essential as the project vision develops to ensure that outlining project questions get vetted. Questions such as business case for the project, alternative solutions, can the project deliver business need within resources, and mitigation of risk (Goodpasture, 2010).
The business case begins with a high-level idea from the business, on expected results, key discriminating features (KDFs), and functionality. Facility managers need to see this vision to reality. A facility manager being active early on the project is able to keep in tune with the business case and business environment. An active facility manager can make adjustments to the project and project priorities. Higher business-level considerations such as business financials, more urgent priorities or loss of project sponsorship is a cause for project adjustment (Kendrick, 2004). Operating in a vacuum as a facility manager will result in loss of perspective to the big picture. In a situation where the business environment changes significantly, a project may experience a loss of acceptance. An expensive renovation to a break area may not be accepted as a business success, if business is down and employees are being walked off the jobsite. A pulse on the business is essential.
End users are crucial to project success
High-level stakeholders may initiate a project with a vision or mission, but this vision or quasi-scope must be fully realized. The exact scope is value-driven by the end users and not plan-driven by high-level sponsors. When customers and end users are excluded from this exercise or their involvement is postponed till later in the project development, project hiccups will be experienced. Resulting in schedule delays, scope creep or redefinition, and cost escalations.
One incident of this can be portrayed in a tenant relocation project from an existing lease facility to an owned facility. Assumptions of user requirements are used for outlining the scope required for the renovation of the owned facility without engaging end users. In turn the schedule and budget are also defined. With this approach discoveries are made late, which can result in schedule delays, and cost increases.
These delays and cost increases impact expected payback milestones (lease money recaptured) and extend time frames for return on investments (ROI). In contrast, a new construction project developed with the ability to engage end users early during the project development phase, show desired results. The project team had full access to end users. This allows the team to develop not only an accurate account of what is needed and wanted, but also analyze lessons learned from an existing facility. Lessons learned outline What Went Right (WWR) and What Went Wrong (WWW). Projects executed in this fashion, allow the project team to relay a more accurate picture to upper-level stakeholders on the triple constraint.
During project development subject matter experts (SMEs) can be utilized to strengthen the reality of a project. SMEs can include end users and customers. For facility management projects these experts usually include engineers, construction contractors, furniture vendors, architects, interior designers and facility staff. Utilizing their experience and insight, a high-level feasibility analysis can be produced to validate that the project deliverables are realistic. In addition, SME’s help assess the project overall, contrasting the cost and value estimates using ROI analysis or some other business evaluation technique (Kendrick, 2012). By excluding or ignoring information from SMEs, projects are set to disappoint stakeholders and project sponsors.
Lessons learned
In addition to SMEs there is also historical information and lessons learned. These are additional tools in the facility manager “tool box” that need to be recognized and explored. A facility manager, managing a project outside a vacuum or bubble, will take heed of this data when developing a project plan. Information and data arm the facility manager with weapons to burst through project planning bubbles and bring reality and substance to a project in a vacuum.
When these things are ignored and left by the wayside one puts a project in jeopardy. When this may become difficult is when early assumptions are shown to be invalid. The time to address invalid assumptions is as early in the project lifecycle as possible.
One lesson many facility managers learn early is that bad news must travel fast, so that it can be corrected, addressed and mitigated. Ignoring items and moving forward on a project with the notion that, we will muddle through, is what gets facility managers in trouble and causes them to lose credibility within an organization.
To avoid developing a project in a vacuum, a facility manager must be ready to address project risks. The mentality of blindly pushing ahead, or worrying about that hurdle when we cross it, is a sure sign of a project bubble. To avoid that path the first objective will be to determine and identify project risks. SMEs and the project team are essential resources when identifying risk. Once risks have been identified a risk matrix can be developed. Risks consist of two parts, the risk probability and the potential impact of the risk. Grading or scoring these events would then take place to help prioritize and assess risk. At that point a risk mitigation plan can be developed.
The chart above (Figure 1) shows an example of a simple risk matrix.
Risk mitigation
Once a risk factor can be determined for all identified risk, a mitigation plan can be put into place for each risk. Mitigation plans take four forms. Mitigation plans can be; 1) Risk avoidance: change project plan to avoid risk, 2) Risk transfer: transfer to another entity (contractor, designer, vendor), 3) Risk mitigation: minimizing impact or probability of risk and 4) Risk acceptance (PMI, 2008). Note that risk can also be positive, and considered an opportunity. In this case a facility manager would want to exploit, enhance, or identify the best way to take advantage of a project improvement opportunity. When projects are developed in a vacuum one misses opportunities to enhance projects, and fails to address risk and developing a risk plan. Ignoring risk is to plan in a bubble, which is no plan at all.
To increase the probability of a project being a success, your project team members must be allowed the time and energy to vet the project. This includes the utilization of SMEs and their resources, end users to better define scope, an opportunity to address risk, and assuring the project makes business sense. Acknowledgement of discoveries made (good or bad) must be addressed and made visible to stakeholders.
Achieving project success
A facility manager has to be a skillful project leader and ensure all these areas are covered in an open project environment. When this is done right, schedules are forty percent more likely to hit their targets, projects failing to meet budgets are reduced by fifty percent, project scope quality is sixty percent improved, and stakeholder satisfaction is nearly seventy percent improved (VitalSmarts, 2006). This is what we all want as chief executive officers, stakeholders, customers, and facility and project managers.
A reality check goes a long way. Does the project make business sense, build feasibility, usability, timelines, scope and cost? As a facility manager, one needs to address the real tough questions. If not they will come up again late in the project with the potential to destroy chances of a successful project. Facility managers lead by making everyone accountable for creating a safe environment for crucial conversations to take place in an open environment, not in a vacuum of false reality. FMJ
