PM World Today Letters To The Editor

"We need to be interpreting practices based on current understanding rather than those of 1979".

Dear Editor:

James H. Dobbins, PMP, Ph.D. writes at length in your Project Management World Today PMPerspective, January-February 2004, on the subject of CSF and Risk Management. He makes great reference to John Rockart's seed paper on Critical Success Factors for management: "Chief Executives Define Their Own Data Needs", published in the March-April 1979 issue of the Harvard Business Review. Well and good. However, he goes on to say:

"When I looked at almost all of the research results published in the literature, I found that:

1. Most of the CSF are not stated as activities.

2. Nothing indicates whether all good PMs do all the CSF on the list. If some did not, did they fail? If not, was what they did not do, or not do well, really a CSF?"

and

"Since most manager's don't have a clue about what a real CSF is (most think it is just "the important stuff"), to identify the CSF for a manager involves a lot more than just asking them what their CSF are."

The reality is that "Critical Success Factors" (CSFs) are static factors or conditions in the business environment which, if absent are likely to lead to project failure, or at least suboptimal project achievement. Their presence, however, does not mean that the project will be successful, only just more likely to be successful. CSFs are generally the responsibility of the sponsor or guiding management.

Today's project managers should be identifying Key Success Indicators (KSIs) or Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) more or less the same thing, and managing their projects accordingly.

CSFs are defined as: "Those measurable factors, listed in order of importance, that when present in the project's environment are most conducive to the achievement of a successful project. Examples include: Project objectives aligned with corporate mission; Top management support; A culture of open communication, etc. http://www.maxwideman.com/pmglossary/PMG_C13.htm

KSIs (on the other hand) are: Those project management indicators that:

* are determined at the beginning of the project and listed in order of priority
* reflect directly on the key objectives of the project, and
* provide the basis for project management trade-off decisions during the course of the project

And, after completion of the project:

* are most likely to result in acceptance of the project and its product by the project's stakeholders as being "successful" in terms of "customer" satisfaction, and
* can be measured in some way, at some time, on some scale.
http://www.maxwideman.com/pmglossary/PMG_K00.htm#Key%20Success%20Indicators

Both professors Jeff Pinto and Peter Morris have written on this subject. Given that Dobbins is currently writing a book "detailing this entire process so a manager can follow the process as described therein and implement the model without the need of an interviewer to walk them through the process on their first implementation" one sincerely hopes that Dobbins has done due diligence in his research on "what a real CSF is". We need to be interpreting practices based on current understanding rather than those of 1979.

Max Wideman, FPMI

Email:max_wideman@sfu.ca
Web: http://www.maxwideman.com/

Reference: Canadian Firearms Program Case Study

Answering your call on feedback about the Canadian Fire Arms Program, I
note the following:

1. In a program it is essential to get a clear picture of the objectives involved. There is barely any mention of these objectives in the audit: it is explicitly aimed at getting answers to financial and cost issues. In my experience this is what makes governmental bureaucracies weak: vague objectives, large bureaucratic systems and limited, procedure focussed auditors. The heavy emphasis on financial and procedural issues even enhance the resistance of these bureaucracies against external audits.

2. Objectives often have to do with impacts to be reached in open democratic societies. The dynamics of public opinions, behaviors and eventually resistance are not taken into account. Also the administrative and political realities of modern government (in Canada to be exemplified by strong provincial power bases vis a vis national
government) are being neglected. So what is missing is a thorough analysis of stakeholders, affected groups and relevant implementation partners. This is what the audit is missing too.

3. There always is in projects and programs a tendency to underestimate costs and to be overoptimistic about benefits. After the final go nof a project, it is extremely difficult to stop the project. Prestige and ambition of committed people cause a sort of "in-group" tendency in the project or program: it makes projects and programs nearly unstoppable. This is further enhanced by politicians who are only interested in legislation and not in practical implementation obstacles. Optimistic planning and theoretical lawmaking go hand in hand: in public
administration this is called the implementation gap.

Theo van der Tak
program manager
Amersfoort, The Netherlands
Emai: theo@vandertak.info