Have you ever heard the joke about how a camel is simply a horse designed by committee? It’s one of my favorites for two reasons. First, well, it’s funny. Second, it clearly illustrates the inherent danger of having too many people making decisions for a project.
So whether your project is horse- or intranet-related, take my advice. Appoint a single, dedicated project manager if you want your project to run smoothly.
Unfortunately I learned this the hard way during a recent client intranet redesign initiative that had two project managers on the saddle. (Spoiler alert: When two project managers are put in charge whose motivations aren’t aligned, the results are guaranteed to be a rodeo.)
Now before you decide that you are the exception to this rule, let me tell you more about what happened.
First, Some Background
The intranet redesign and migration project in question was for a regional organization. If I’m being totally honest, the scope of the assignment itself was, in many ways, the initial source of the problem. (Phew! Glad I could finally confide in someone.)
As you can imagine, an intranet redesign and a content migration are very different tasks. Redesign requires us to think deeply about how to enhance the user interface; this typically involves heavy user research and graphic design. Whereas migrations require technical analysis and decision making around what content and solutions are relevant and should be brought over to the new platform.
Here’s Where Things Went Wrong
My mistake was allowing the project to go forth with two jockeys from my client’s end. As you might imagine, the project manager from the communications department was primarily interested in the design of the new intranet. They loved the native functionality of the product, but wanted to inject their brand and corporate identity into the portal. This is where they found the most value-added by our delivery team. On the other hand, the IT project manager was more concerned with structure.
In case you were wondering, both managers had equal influence over the budget, as well as the same equity in the investment. Naturally, our project stalled each time the two project managers decided to settle the debate through the medieval art of jousting.
Believe it or not, one of the project managers didn’t even show up to the kickoff meeting. This not only got the project kicked off on the wrong foot, it also set the tone for the rest of the engagement. Throughout the project, there was a consistent lack of consensus around decisions, which was then compounded by approval delays.
At Portal Solutions, we characterize this scenario as the “Mystery Stakeholder,” which basically means not all of the right people are engaged when buy-in is needed. This ALWAYS causes delays and puts pressure on the budget.
Let’s face it, unanimous consensus is a rarity for any project. But this wouldn’t have been such a big deal if every decision didn’t have to pass through both managers for their stamp of approval, meaning some trots took twice as long to complete.
The Multiplier Effect
At this point, you might be thinking to yourself, “Well, if I want to have two project managers, all I have to do is bake the time for the duplicate effort into my project plan, right?” If not, perhaps you may be thinking, “What is the author’s fascination with horses?”
Truth be told, I really only have a good answer for the first. When two project managers don’t agree, there’s a multiplier effect that comes into play. Each time the two project managers drew their opposing lines in the sand, we had to go through another round of discussions and refinement, which led to further delays. In retrospect, I can’t even quantify how much longer the end result took to achieve because there were tangible and intangible sources of delay.
But this split leadership approach didn’t just waste time. We also wound up with an end result that was not as focused as it could have been. Focus yields innovation and ambiguity stifles it.
Collaboration Is Not the Enemy
Before all of my doomsday rhetoric scares you, let me be clear about one thing: I’m not saying that you can’t have any collaborative decision-making in a project. In fact, I highly recommend you form a governance committee to handle tactical, day-to-day decisions for your portal and a steering committee to make high-level strategic decisions and provide sponsorship.
That said, there still needs to be one person who takes ownership of the project (think: product owner). All clients that have worked with us in the past fundamentally understand that we are consultants. While we aim to advise on best practices and simplify business processes, it is not our place to make many of the organizational decisions that your average project calls for. So if nothing else, think of having a single decision maker on your side a necessary requirement to ensure success for our team.
Final Thought
Big projects like this aren’t easy, so I get why organizations might be tempted to have more people involved. I hope my experience will help you quickly leap over this common error in judgment. Because even when there are a lot of people involved at a high level, there needs to be a single person who is empowered to make the final decision.
So heed my warning and stick with a single equestrian. It’s the best way to keep people happy, and it will improve the chances of your project coming in on time, on budget and not looking like a camel.
