PM World Today Letters To The Editor
Letters to the Editor are comments on the Editorials, Viewpoints column or other project management notices that appear in issues of the Project Management World Today.
Wednesday, April 28, 2004
More From Michel Thirty on CSF
A Further Response to Max Wideman's Comments on CSF
Max,
With all due respect and recognizing all the work you have done on the glossary and trying to clarify terms for project management, I would still argue that CSFs can be both passive and active, depending on what you do with them. Since you quote Webster, I offer the following definitions from the Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionnary (CD Rom), which defines "Factor" as:
2 a (1) : one that actively contributes to the production of a result : INGREDIENT *price wasn't a factor in the decision* (2) : a substance that functions in or promotes the function of a particular physiological process or bodily system b : a good or service used in the process of production
4 a : any of the numbers or symbols in mathematics that when multiplied together form a product; also : a number or symbol that divides another number or symbol b : a quantity by which a given quantity is multiplied or divided in order to indicate a difference in measurement *costs increased by a factor of 10*
2 is definitely active and 4 is probably static, being there anyway and existing independently from the process. This is why I argued that generic factors would be passive, whereas specific factors are active.
The Websters Deluxe Edition (Paper 2nd Ed.) defines factor as: a doer, maker, performer, from the latin facere, to do, to make.
definition 2. Any of the circumstances, conditions, etc. that bring about a result. - MT: In this sense probably more static and depending on the context; more generic?
Concerning the use of the word CSF or KSI, I believe it could become a war of words. Like Janice Thomas et al. (2002, Selling Project Management to Senior Executives: Framing the Moves that Matter, PMI Publisher) I would argue that you have to speak the language of your stakeholders. In strategy, portfolio and program management, the stakeholders are executives and senior managers who use CSF to describe: "those aspects of the strategy in which an organization must excel to outperform competition" (Johnson & Scholes, 1997, 4th Ed. Exploring Corporate Strategy, Prentice Hall). These authors add: " One of the major shortcomings of strategy implementation in organisations is a failure to translate statements of strategic purpose into an identification of those factors which are critical to achieveing these objectives [the CSFs], and the resources and competences which will ensure success." Johnson and Scholes call the level below: performace standards; this is the bit that is quantified. I have most often seen it called Key Performance Indicators.
By the way, Peter Morris in the "Project Success Criteria" Chapter of the APM BOK recognises your contribution (Key Success Indicators), but maintains that terminology is fluid in this area". He lists: CSF, KPI, KSI, but also Success Criteria, and Key Requirement Areas as possible equivalents. In value management, we have a whole other range of words to describe the same things; specifically: "functions" and "Characterisation".
I truly believe we should be open to adapt to circumstances. Today I am educating people in industries as diverse as Rail, IT, Pharma, Finance, Air Traffic Management, Construction, Oil and Gas, etc. to name only a few. They need to share the same language. For projects, it is de facto the language promoted by PMI, for programs and portfolio, it is the language promoted by the strategy gurus and executives.
Sincere regards,
Michel Thiry, PMP, TVM
Managing Partner
Valense Ltd. Organizational Consultants
PMI Global Registered Education Provider
Mobile (GSM): +32 495 50 45 50
E-mail: michel.thiry@valense.com
Max,
With all due respect and recognizing all the work you have done on the glossary and trying to clarify terms for project management, I would still argue that CSFs can be both passive and active, depending on what you do with them. Since you quote Webster, I offer the following definitions from the Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionnary (CD Rom), which defines "Factor" as:
2 a (1) : one that actively contributes to the production of a result : INGREDIENT *price wasn't a factor in the decision* (2) : a substance that functions in or promotes the function of a particular physiological process or bodily system b : a good or service used in the process of production
4 a : any of the numbers or symbols in mathematics that when multiplied together form a product; also : a number or symbol that divides another number or symbol b : a quantity by which a given quantity is multiplied or divided in order to indicate a difference in measurement *costs increased by a factor of 10*
2 is definitely active and 4 is probably static, being there anyway and existing independently from the process. This is why I argued that generic factors would be passive, whereas specific factors are active.
The Websters Deluxe Edition (Paper 2nd Ed.) defines factor as: a doer, maker, performer, from the latin facere, to do, to make.
definition 2. Any of the circumstances, conditions, etc. that bring about a result. - MT: In this sense probably more static and depending on the context; more generic?
Concerning the use of the word CSF or KSI, I believe it could become a war of words. Like Janice Thomas et al. (2002, Selling Project Management to Senior Executives: Framing the Moves that Matter, PMI Publisher) I would argue that you have to speak the language of your stakeholders. In strategy, portfolio and program management, the stakeholders are executives and senior managers who use CSF to describe: "those aspects of the strategy in which an organization must excel to outperform competition" (Johnson & Scholes, 1997, 4th Ed. Exploring Corporate Strategy, Prentice Hall). These authors add: " One of the major shortcomings of strategy implementation in organisations is a failure to translate statements of strategic purpose into an identification of those factors which are critical to achieveing these objectives [the CSFs], and the resources and competences which will ensure success." Johnson and Scholes call the level below: performace standards; this is the bit that is quantified. I have most often seen it called Key Performance Indicators.
By the way, Peter Morris in the "Project Success Criteria" Chapter of the APM BOK recognises your contribution (Key Success Indicators), but maintains that terminology is fluid in this area". He lists: CSF, KPI, KSI, but also Success Criteria, and Key Requirement Areas as possible equivalents. In value management, we have a whole other range of words to describe the same things; specifically: "functions" and "Characterisation".
I truly believe we should be open to adapt to circumstances. Today I am educating people in industries as diverse as Rail, IT, Pharma, Finance, Air Traffic Management, Construction, Oil and Gas, etc. to name only a few. They need to share the same language. For projects, it is de facto the language promoted by PMI, for programs and portfolio, it is the language promoted by the strategy gurus and executives.
Sincere regards,
Michel Thiry, PMP, TVM
Managing Partner
Valense Ltd. Organizational Consultants
PMI Global Registered Education Provider
Mobile (GSM): +32 495 50 45 50
E-mail: michel.thiry@valense.com
Tuesday, April 27, 2004
Max Wideman Responds to the Michel Thirty Comments on CSF
Max Wideman Responds:
Call them what you will and define them how you like, but I would argue that a lot of people seem to have trouble with the definition of the word "Factor".
The definition of "Factor" is "Something that has an effect" (Webster's Concise Electronic Dictionary), for example a multiplier. It exists as an influence on, or to, a result. There are other meanings, of course, but "issue" or the "result" itself are not among them. A factor is static. It is either there, (in the project environment) or it is not. Of course if it is not there, you can attempt to put it there but most factors, such as management support, are usually beyond the purview of the project manager.
Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) come closer, but they are internal to the project process, as Michel describes. Just because academics have pontificated at length (James Dobbins for example at http://www.pmforum.org/viewpoints/2004/0506critsuccess.htm who, without providing his own definition of "critical success factors", categorically states that "CSF are activities, not goals" when really they are neither) doesn't necessarily make it right. Nor for that matter, do standards committees publishing committee-generated bureaucratese.
No, what I am interested in is how successfully the product performs in its working environment. Hence: "Key Success Indicators" (KSIs). KSIs are the link between corporate management's expectations and the resulting net benefit received (after discounting for assets consumed.)
KSIs bridge right over the project process and are what are really needed to link (Michel's) strategic corporate decision making process and the results (i.e. net benefits) resulting from program management. They are essential in selecting projects into a portfolio.
What a pity that we have to add to the confusion by mislabeling our tools and techniques (WBS is a good example.) When poor habits become institutionalized I know that it is difficult to correct them, but we must make the effort - in education establishments especially!
If you have not already read it, you can find a discussion on KSIs at this address:
http://www.pmforum.org/editorials/2004/aieosdp.htm
Max Wideman
Email: max_wideman@sfu.ca
Call them what you will and define them how you like, but I would argue that a lot of people seem to have trouble with the definition of the word "Factor".
The definition of "Factor" is "Something that has an effect" (Webster's Concise Electronic Dictionary), for example a multiplier. It exists as an influence on, or to, a result. There are other meanings, of course, but "issue" or the "result" itself are not among them. A factor is static. It is either there, (in the project environment) or it is not. Of course if it is not there, you can attempt to put it there but most factors, such as management support, are usually beyond the purview of the project manager.
Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) come closer, but they are internal to the project process, as Michel describes. Just because academics have pontificated at length (James Dobbins for example at http://www.pmforum.org/viewpoints/2004/0506critsuccess.htm who, without providing his own definition of "critical success factors", categorically states that "CSF are activities, not goals" when really they are neither) doesn't necessarily make it right. Nor for that matter, do standards committees publishing committee-generated bureaucratese.
No, what I am interested in is how successfully the product performs in its working environment. Hence: "Key Success Indicators" (KSIs). KSIs are the link between corporate management's expectations and the resulting net benefit received (after discounting for assets consumed.)
KSIs bridge right over the project process and are what are really needed to link (Michel's) strategic corporate decision making process and the results (i.e. net benefits) resulting from program management. They are essential in selecting projects into a portfolio.
What a pity that we have to add to the confusion by mislabeling our tools and techniques (WBS is a good example.) When poor habits become institutionalized I know that it is difficult to correct them, but we must make the effort - in education establishments especially!
If you have not already read it, you can find a discussion on KSIs at this address:
http://www.pmforum.org/editorials/2004/aieosdp.htm
Max Wideman
Email: max_wideman@sfu.ca
Monday, April 26, 2004
Michel Thirty Comments on Critical Success Factors
Michel Thirty Comments on Critical Success Factors
I was interested by the discussion of CSFs because I use them as a key link between strategy and projects. I practice and teach program management and define it as a strategic decision management process. I agree with a number of the statements that have been made both by Max Wideman and James Dobbins, but would like to shed additional
light on some statements that I find a bit restricted.
From the litterature on CSFs, I have found two clear positions in the definition of CSFs:
a) CSFs have been defined in many studies as key issues to be addressed in every project, in which case they are generic and apply to all projects (Pinto, J.K. and Rouhiainen, P. (2001) Building customer-Based Project Organizations. John Wiley and Sons, Inc.)
b) CSFs can also be specific expected benefits that are identified as critical for success and prioritized for each program/project by the key stakeholders. Wideman's Letter to the editor (January 28, 2004) or Thiry (in Value Management and Program Management Chapters of a book to be published by Wiley in the Fall of and edited by
Peter Morris and Jeff Pinto. Tentatively named: The Handbook of Managing Projects)
Although not everybody agrees on the definition of Key Performance Indicators (KPI), I have most often seen them as a way to define CSFs in quantitative measurable terms.
As for Wideman's claim that CSFs are static, I do not agree. They would be if the generic perspective is used, but they are not if they are strategy/program/project specific.
The Value Management method can be effectively used to define both specific CSFs and KPIs. This method is described in a Chapter I wrote recently for the new Wiley book referred to above.
"A well-managed sensemaking process enables participants to construct a shared view of a complex situation and model their expected benefits through a function diagram. This model, which has been called Function Breakdown Structure (FBS) (Thiry, M. (1997) Value Management Practice, PMI Publishing) enables the group to define CSFs & KPIs, which are the key to the successful achievement
of expected benefits.
1. The first step of sensemaking in VM is to perform a stakeholder analysis, which encompasses the identification of the
stakeholders, their classification and ranking.
2. The second step is to carry out a functional analysis, which consists of determining stakeholders' needs and expectations; translating them into expected benefits, using a verb-noun semantic -in line with the ISO Standardized way of describing processes and which makes them active-; identifying any additional benefits required and organizing all these into a FBS.
3. The next step lies in the identification of those expected benefits that are critical success factors of the program or project and their prioritization, which will support decision-making throughout the delivery process.
4. Finally, those functions that have been identified as CSFs are characterized (BSI, 2000) through the definition of KPIs,using the concept of a criterion of measure, an expected level of performance and an accepted range of flexibility (This method was standardized by the French Value Analysis Association and is now included in the European VM Standard - see below for reference). The definition of KPIs enables the stakeholders to move from qualitative to quantitative measures of success and to be able to assess benefits on clearly quantifiable terms."
During the deployment of the program and execution of the project(s) VM can really achieve management of value over time if it is used for program appraisal and at project 'gateways', which usually correspond to key milestones. These gateways generally relate to deliverables, allowing stakeholders to monitor benefits methodically. As the program or project progresses towards its outcome, the focus of VM will evolve from strategic to tactical and technical/operational level and expected benefits and context may evolve along the way, therefore VM must be an iterative process.
The appraisal process requires the program team to loop back to the formulation phase in order to reassess the validity of the original needs in regards of external or internal developments since the program was started; this includes positive or negative impact on the business of outcomes from previous cycles and knowledge management. Any change in the CSFs must be identified and examined to understand how it affects the expected benefits.
This process has been described in detail in a French Stadard on Value Management, dating from 1991 (AFNOR, Commission de normalisation, Analyse de la valeur, Analyse fonctionnelle, Expression fonctionnelle du besoin et cahier des charges fonctionnel, norme NF X 50-151, AFNOR, Paris, D�cembre 1991) and is now an integral part of the European Value Management Standard (Technical Committee CEN/TC 279, Value Management, BS EN 12973:2000, European Committee for Standardization (CEN)- British Standards Institute (BSI) Technical Committee DS/1, Apr. 2000). The European VM Standard also recommends the use of a Functional Performance Specification (FPS), which "is a document which describes user needs in terms functional performance without reference to specific solutions. It specifies the evaluation criteria, levels and tolerance of the various functions, which are acceptable to the user". (Technical Committee DS/1, PD 6663:2000 Guidelines to BS EN 12973: Value management Practical guidance to its use and intent. British Standards Institute (BSI)
I hope this will shed a little light on the subject and demonstrate that there is more than one way to skin a cat.
Sincerely,
Michel Thiry, TVM, PMP
Managing Partner, Valense Ltd.
Associate Professor, ISGI and UTS.
Email: michel.thirty@valense.com
I was interested by the discussion of CSFs because I use them as a key link between strategy and projects. I practice and teach program management and define it as a strategic decision management process. I agree with a number of the statements that have been made both by Max Wideman and James Dobbins, but would like to shed additional
light on some statements that I find a bit restricted.
From the litterature on CSFs, I have found two clear positions in the definition of CSFs:
a) CSFs have been defined in many studies as key issues to be addressed in every project, in which case they are generic and apply to all projects (Pinto, J.K. and Rouhiainen, P. (2001) Building customer-Based Project Organizations. John Wiley and Sons, Inc.)
b) CSFs can also be specific expected benefits that are identified as critical for success and prioritized for each program/project by the key stakeholders. Wideman's Letter to the editor (January 28, 2004) or Thiry (in Value Management and Program Management Chapters of a book to be published by Wiley in the Fall of and edited by
Peter Morris and Jeff Pinto. Tentatively named: The Handbook of Managing Projects)
Although not everybody agrees on the definition of Key Performance Indicators (KPI), I have most often seen them as a way to define CSFs in quantitative measurable terms.
As for Wideman's claim that CSFs are static, I do not agree. They would be if the generic perspective is used, but they are not if they are strategy/program/project specific.
The Value Management method can be effectively used to define both specific CSFs and KPIs. This method is described in a Chapter I wrote recently for the new Wiley book referred to above.
"A well-managed sensemaking process enables participants to construct a shared view of a complex situation and model their expected benefits through a function diagram. This model, which has been called Function Breakdown Structure (FBS) (Thiry, M. (1997) Value Management Practice, PMI Publishing) enables the group to define CSFs & KPIs, which are the key to the successful achievement
of expected benefits.
1. The first step of sensemaking in VM is to perform a stakeholder analysis, which encompasses the identification of the
stakeholders, their classification and ranking.
2. The second step is to carry out a functional analysis, which consists of determining stakeholders' needs and expectations; translating them into expected benefits, using a verb-noun semantic -in line with the ISO Standardized way of describing processes and which makes them active-; identifying any additional benefits required and organizing all these into a FBS.
3. The next step lies in the identification of those expected benefits that are critical success factors of the program or project and their prioritization, which will support decision-making throughout the delivery process.
4. Finally, those functions that have been identified as CSFs are characterized (BSI, 2000) through the definition of KPIs,using the concept of a criterion of measure, an expected level of performance and an accepted range of flexibility (This method was standardized by the French Value Analysis Association and is now included in the European VM Standard - see below for reference). The definition of KPIs enables the stakeholders to move from qualitative to quantitative measures of success and to be able to assess benefits on clearly quantifiable terms."
During the deployment of the program and execution of the project(s) VM can really achieve management of value over time if it is used for program appraisal and at project 'gateways', which usually correspond to key milestones. These gateways generally relate to deliverables, allowing stakeholders to monitor benefits methodically. As the program or project progresses towards its outcome, the focus of VM will evolve from strategic to tactical and technical/operational level and expected benefits and context may evolve along the way, therefore VM must be an iterative process.
The appraisal process requires the program team to loop back to the formulation phase in order to reassess the validity of the original needs in regards of external or internal developments since the program was started; this includes positive or negative impact on the business of outcomes from previous cycles and knowledge management. Any change in the CSFs must be identified and examined to understand how it affects the expected benefits.
This process has been described in detail in a French Stadard on Value Management, dating from 1991 (AFNOR, Commission de normalisation, Analyse de la valeur, Analyse fonctionnelle, Expression fonctionnelle du besoin et cahier des charges fonctionnel, norme NF X 50-151, AFNOR, Paris, D�cembre 1991) and is now an integral part of the European Value Management Standard (Technical Committee CEN/TC 279, Value Management, BS EN 12973:2000, European Committee for Standardization (CEN)- British Standards Institute (BSI) Technical Committee DS/1, Apr. 2000). The European VM Standard also recommends the use of a Functional Performance Specification (FPS), which "is a document which describes user needs in terms functional performance without reference to specific solutions. It specifies the evaluation criteria, levels and tolerance of the various functions, which are acceptable to the user". (Technical Committee DS/1, PD 6663:2000 Guidelines to BS EN 12973: Value management Practical guidance to its use and intent. British Standards Institute (BSI)
I hope this will shed a little light on the subject and demonstrate that there is more than one way to skin a cat.
Sincerely,
Michel Thiry, TVM, PMP
Managing Partner, Valense Ltd.
Associate Professor, ISGI and UTS.
Email: michel.thirty@valense.com
Wednesday, April 21, 2004
John Schlichter Comments on Max Wideman's OPM3 Letter
John Schlichter Comments on Max Wideman's OPM3 Letter
I just read Max's article on OPM3 and knowledge management. Well said, Max. It's probably the case, however, that most volunteers who worked on OPM3 (myself included) have not worked for organizations that demonstrate most of the best practices in OPM3, and most of us have not had competitors who have done so either. I doubt it is a catalog of worst practices.
Also it is safe to make a few generalizations: 1) yes, project management is widely done badly, 2) same for program and portfolio management, 3) a substantial and growing number of people do know what's commonly being done wrong (and that it's wrong), and 4) a growing number know effective things that should be done about that. And as they say, it's a journey, not a destination, and it surely did not being nor will it end with OPM3, not withstanding the marked step forward OPM3 surely is in my totally unbiased opinion.
John Schlichter
http://www.opmexperts.com
I just read Max's article on OPM3 and knowledge management. Well said, Max. It's probably the case, however, that most volunteers who worked on OPM3 (myself included) have not worked for organizations that demonstrate most of the best practices in OPM3, and most of us have not had competitors who have done so either. I doubt it is a catalog of worst practices.
Also it is safe to make a few generalizations: 1) yes, project management is widely done badly, 2) same for program and portfolio management, 3) a substantial and growing number of people do know what's commonly being done wrong (and that it's wrong), and 4) a growing number know effective things that should be done about that. And as they say, it's a journey, not a destination, and it surely did not being nor will it end with OPM3, not withstanding the marked step forward OPM3 surely is in my totally unbiased opinion.
John Schlichter
http://www.opmexperts.com
Archives: September 2002 October 2002 December 2002 January 2003 February 2003 March 2003 April 2003 May 2003 June 2003 September 2003 October 2003 November 2003 December 2003 January 2004 February 2004 April 2004 July 2004 September 2004 January 2005 July 2005 August 2005 February 2006 March 2006
