This is part 3 of our “Bad News Travels Fast” series. The beginning of the series talked about how different stakeholder groups for BAD (Big Data/AI/Data Science) projects react to good news, then bad news. We conclude our series with how to deal with the challenges brought on by bad news.
What can be done to defeat the 24-hour news cycle?
Project plans and schedules can be public without revealing embarrassing details. A good project plan includes contingencies (like the launch pad ‘automatic holds’ for rocket launches). If an event occurs eating contingency time, this can be easily reported with the corrective actions or extra work shown eating contingencies already allowed for and justified (spend, resources). A key for project plans at the conceptual and analytical stages is to focus on reporting actual progress (and not activity-based metrics).
The antidote to the ’24 hour news cycle’ eating to death a BAD Project is plans for good communications, effective use of metrics, and using each communication to educate everyone a little more. Complicated, highly interconnected, highly visible BAD Projects must have:
1. A direct communications plan (in advance),
2. Clear metrics to communicate complicated tasks and mechanics in simple ratios or scaled values
3. Updates (regular and as needed) to get ahead of the gossip.
The project metrics should make it impossible to say ’90% of the activities of the projects have been carried out achieving 40% of the objectives…’. A more successful communication strategy will sound more like this:
“The second phase (of seven) feasibility test failed due to insufficient cleaned up data (only 25% done so far ahead of a planned 20%), and 15% of the contingency schedule is assigned to continue work to achieve the milestone’, or, ‘the second phase required 12% more work than originally planned (less than 15% estimated) while the completion of the entire project is on schedule with 88% of contingency time still available (over the next 5 phases)’.
Admission of events? Absolutely and in public. Demonstration of good planning and confidence in continued outcomes? Absolutely and in public. Events in a BAD Project don’t have to trigger a Death March or a Death Watch.
Sponsors can insist on partial benefits and rewards while projects have multiple quarters to run. Projects that are ‘all of nothing’ (and are the projects to report ‘85% of effort for 10% of completions’) need to be restructured before even starting.
Good project preparation involves gaining enough understanding to spread the benefits (and political support) as part of building BAD Project justification. ‘Early outs’ providing for early termination or re-prioritizing project resources can be parts of a project plan. ‘Fault tolerance’ is a term of technical art – and represents a good perspective for a sponsor.
Senior managers like project plans with choices. BAD Projects with mid-term choices are preferred instead of irrevocably committing spend and politics to complicated projects. Especially in challenging times providing multiple endpoints (‘phases’, ‘stages’, ‘major milestones’, etc.) can provide spend flexibility and a higher reputational gain instead of a BAD Project staked to ‘all or nothing'. A BAD Project with choices (even if not desirable to sponsors or team members) is still better for the enterprise than a ‘ain’t no mountain high enough’ approach. Senior managers will find decisions quicker and be more charitable when BAD Project events come with choices.
EkaLore’s releases don’t usually get into the ‘hows’ of our topics – we save those details and value for our clients. This time clear communication on how to fix the news is our objective!
If you don’t feel prepared enough for challenges in your high profile BAD (Big Data/AI/Data Science) project, consider booking a free confidential conversation with one of our senior analysts – message me at eliot.axelrod@ekalore.com
Comentários