Hands up if your project charters, statements of work, project plans include..

* key deliverables

* key resources

* key outcomes

* milestone plans

* key risk

* roles and responsibilities

I’m sure you will all raise your hands.

Now, hands up if you are clear on the competencies of the team and the expectations of attitude, focus and pace.

Now what do I mean by this, why do I say explicitly and why is it important.

By competencies, attitude, focus and pace I mean…

Have the core competencies required of the project based on risk, complexity, subject area been explicitly pulled out.

Based on the level of experience of the resources on the team (including sponsorship) has the level of empowerment vs oversight and control been considered – and clearly communicated.

From a governance perspective has consideration been given to the risks of the project and complexity of the change , the competency and experience of the team and how they are likely to work together.

For a more junior team selected to develop through the delivery of a more complex project the oversight, support and governance from more senior Ed members of the business may be needed to steer and direct the efforts of the team in the right direction.

For a more senior project team who can be empowered to deliver its could be more about governing expectations and being clear on accountabilities and maybe getting out of the way so the team can deliver.

From an attitude perspective how will the team drive the most positive behaviours through the project phase. How will it drive confidence, enjoyment and determination. What interventions will be put in place to support the team in being confident, enjoying what they do and having the reliance and determination to overcome challenges that the project will face… it’s more than comms it’s facilitation, it’s providing interventions that keep the energy high and providing the tools to share the fun.

In terms of focus – is the project clear on the level of clarity or ambiguity it is facing. If there are a clear set of requirements be they regulatory or contractural then that dictates one set of approaches to driving the project forward.

However if the project is ambigious, testing a market, looking to launch a new product, service or experience then that drives a whole different set of things to focus on.

And by pace I mean the underlying expectation of progressing with pace to fail fast (ambigious projects)!or with pace to do everything to succeed (projects with clarity)

It’s so critical that projects and change programmes consider the softer qualitative aspects of change.

Those projects that consider the softer side are pulling on the more human centric aspects of change. They are recognising that ..

1. people are at the heart of all change efforts. They are managing the attitudinal aspects of the change and investing in creative comms, engagement programmes and rituals to increase the emotional attachment to the change effort.

2. bringing clarity to ambiguity will no doubt lead to plans changing . A cottage industry of bureaucratic forms tracking the change in the what and the how which have no material change in the top line multi year outcomes can drown a project team from focussing on the right things.

3. the need to deliver at pace with empowered teams that can progress with “fit for pace and fit for outcome approval processes” are key.

Projects can over burden themselves with preparing for monthly boards and approval processes . Where you have the right team and right sponsorship with the right competencies based on the risk and outcomes of the change in flight then decisions should be able to be made within the team (including the sponsor) rather than waiting for the oversight committee to endorse the recommendations of the competent team.

The key for a project success is about time, cost and core milestones but it has to also be about competencies, attitude and pace.

Look at the most successful projects and the least successful projects my hypothesis is the most successful would have focussed on project management discipline but also would have paid attention to team building and fit for purpose governance

Would you agree?