This article is a continuation of the article titled “Draining the Project Management Swamp: The First Mistake.”
In the previous article, I discussed how I tried to drain a swamp that was expanding around my cabin. My mistake was that I focused on the exit of the swamp, ignoring the entrance where the water was dispersing in multiple directions. I related it to project management and how trying to eliminate large amounts of work early on isn’t always the best move. The project may appear on time, when in reality, the project is simply stuck. In this article, I’ll discuss the second mistake I made: focusing on the input.
Water entering the cabin property from the fence line was pathless and meandered everywhere. Focusing on the inlet, I dug a trench to direct the flow of water into the original creek bed. After several hours this was proving to be a success. However, when I walked down the river, the outlet I had carved was blocked, and the area surrounding the cabin was even more flooded than before. At the inlet, my excavation had disturbed the soil, letting enormous amounts of silt, sticks, and pine needles accumulate at every twist and eddy, filling the stream bed with debris that eventually damaged all the water at the outlet.
In project management, focusing on the “input” of work can similarly “flood” the team. This often happens with project managers who get ahead of themselves and have great prospects for a project that hasn’t been planned. It happens when a project manager focuses on the little things that are irrelevant to the main goals of the project, such as promotional items, company parties, and pay bonuses. Everyone is probably guilty of this in one way or another. In fact, this is often a problem I face. Once, when I was managing a small project at a retail store, I was convinced, before I even started the job, that I would make twice the amount they asked. So, I worked harder and faster, but soon felt overwhelmed. Pushing the comfort zone is good, of course, but sometimes the work is already pressing enough.
After trying both the entrance and exit of the swamp, I failed and the ground was so sodden that the deck on my cabin was tearing. With more effort, I found that the only way to drain the swamp was to slowly dig the trench along the path of the original stream, excavating only small chunks at a time. It was more about following the path of the creek over and over instead of cutting big chunks off the inlet and outlet. By doing this, the water was channeled into a single path, and I was actually able to direct the flow in a way that the movement of the water would help naturally dig the trench deeper and remove any debris that was accumulating.
Similarly, in project management, the methodologies used must be naturally effective, carrying the project on its own momentum. Focusing on the inputs and outputs of a project can be extremely counterproductive and can provide misleading information about the status of the project. Like the job at the swamp outlet where I thought I had drained it all, the wrong methodology or tool (or the wrong project manager) can make the project seem done. And, like the job at the inlet of the swamp where I thought I had channeled the flow, inefficient project management methodologies and tools can make the project appear to be going according to plan. In reality, all the manpower at the exits and entrances just keeps the project and its team members “flooded.”
