One of my column readers recently sent in this question: One of our senior project managers left abruptly in the middle of a 3 year million $ contract. What experience and education would you consider in promoting a replacement? 

Ooh, good meaty problem.  Not so simple a solution.

My wife and I frequently travel to the southwest, where we have many friends and family members. During our time there, we contact several of them to get together for lunch, dinner, or coffee.

This is very important to us because we like to keep up with what’s going on in their lives, and build upon relationships already established. Most everyone responds fairly quickly, even if it’s with, “Sorry, we’re out of town and won’t be able to get together.” We certainly understand these types of responses.

It’s the non-responses that bug me.

Each non-responder is someone we’ve always had good relationships with, and had good times when we’ve met with them. During our last trip, we knew at least two of them were busy with work and life, so we would have gladly accepted a response of, “We’re just too busy right now.” It was getting no response at all that just didn’t set well.

Read more at ProjectManagement.com.

So okay, Microsoft Project is a super flexible tool in helping you as a project manager define your project tasks, dependencies, and resources.  Quite frankly, though, the workplan you define in MS Project is only as good as the thought that goes into it.  Too often I've seen savvy MS Project users completely bungle a project because, while the tool was being used appropriately, the workplan didn't make sense to the project team and didn't reflect what really needed to be done.  The team consistently expressed confusion about what needed to be done by when because the project workplan wasn't reflective of the actual work which needed to be done.  Great exercise in using MS Project, but poor execution of the project.  Blech.

I’m a huge baseball fan. I love the strategy behind the game and how teams adapt their play to fit the need of a game. I especially enjoy how the role of a pitcher is used. Simply put, there are three basic categories of pitchers:

• Starting pitcher: The pitcher who starts the game and can last anywhere from less than an inning to a complete game.
• Relief pitcher: A pitcher who enters the game after the starting pitcher is removed for whatever reason, such as injury or fatigue. A relief pitcher can fulfill one or more roles, such as long relief, middle relief, setup, or left/right specialist.
• Closing pitcher: A specialized relief pitcher who typically pitches the last inning of a game to secure (or save) a win.

Throughout history, there have been many outstanding starting pitchers, such as Randy Johnson, Nolan Ryan and Tom Seaver, who are measured by stats such as earned run average, wins/losses, innings pitched, and strikeouts.
Since about the 1970s, the closing pitcher role has gained in prominence with notable players like Mariano Rivera, Rich “Goose” Gossage, and Trevor Hoffman. A key stat for closers is the number of games saved.

Relief pitchers, while not as notable as starters or closers, are typically comprised of career relievers or may also consist of former starters and closers. There are also some players, most notably John Smoltz and Dennis Eckersley, who began their careers as starting pitchers, but then found themselves being premier closing pitchers. Some closing pitchers even have songs that are played as they enter a game. (Any time Rivera entered a home game in Yankee Stadium, “Enter Sandman” by Metallica would be played through the PA system.)

All the players described above are baseball pitchers; it’s their role, or branding, that distinguishes how and when they are used in a game.

The pitcher analogy also applies to a project manager’s branding.

Read more at ProjectManagement.com.

So check this out.

Recently I received an email from someone who found me on LinkedIn. The person wasn’t a connection of mine, so I had no idea who he was or where he worked.

Let’s go through some of the items on the email (indicated by red letters A-F) and how it influenced my impression of this person. I changed personally identifiable information and will call him John Doe.

Hal was a new leader over a team of six followers. He committed to his manager that he would be a “learning leader,” and read leadership books to improve his skills. Almost every month in team meetings Hal included a book report on his latest book and the leadership techniques he wanted to put into practice. At first the team was receptive, but after the first few books a pattern emerged. Hal would talk about what he learned and implement the new methods . . . until he read the newest book on his list, making the previous book’s approach yesterday’s news—pushed aside. The team grew exasperated with Hal’s technique du jour only to have it replaced with a newer model. Even worse, the theory stayed just that, theory. Hal evaluated himself based on his knowledge; the team evaluated him based on his actions. Hal ultimately lost his team leader role; all that theory never making its way to reality.

A sad tale of a how a sponsor/PM relationship killed a project...

Exec identifies a need for a project and nominates self as sponsor.  PM gets assigned to project and assembles project team.  Sponsor is vague about problem to be solved other than "we need a new system".  PM can't communicate problem to be solved to the team because he doesn't understand what the problem is.  Sponsor continues to ask for more and more things to be included in project, PM doesn't have courage to say no.  PM treats sponsor as "that person in the corner office" and doesn't know how to ask for help, so he escalates everything.  Sponsor has to make some tough decisions but is unwilling to do so because of the political fallout.  PM provides bad information about decision alternatives so sponsor ignores him.  Due to changing priorities project no longer makes sense to do, but PM lobbies to keep the project going.  Sponsor loses interest because there are bigger fish to fry.  PM and team are disillusioned because sponsor doesn't care.  Project dies a slow death.  R.I.P.

While this is a fictional story, you can undoubtedly relate to most of these things happening on one project or another in your career.  The sponsor/PM partnership on a project is one of those "soft skill" factors that gets frequently overlooked when assessing a PM's skills but is a key determinant in the success or failure of a project.  Under a healthy partnership, the sponsor and PM work as a singular unit to ensure the project gets what it needs to be as successful as possible using only as many resources as absolutely necessary to secure success.  Under a less than healthy relationship the project will undoubtedly cost more in time and money assuming it even gets completed at all. 

Throughout my career I've been both a sponsor and a PM and have first-hand experience in how this relationship needs to work from both sides of the desk. Through my experience, I've locked down on ten truths which I feel are crucial to securing a healthy sponsor/PM partnership.  See if these resonate with you: