Since project resources know management is likely to load them up with more new tasks they protect themselves with due date promises that take into account what is likely to happen (more tasks) and more multi-tasking. Management can stop this by ensuring fewer active projects in the system at any one time. Flow should be their number one priority!
6. Increase Project Flow – Take Advantage of Little’s Law
(See a Resource Standing Idle is a Major Waste)
In Part III we saw that the belief "a resource standing idle is a major waste" must lead to multi-tasking and as consequence projects take longer, projects are at risk of missing their due dates and budgets because of the added time, and resources must be frustrated by all the changes in direction they must make – switching between projects. Project managers must be frustrated by the due date and budget problems they face.
Lets change the practice. Professor Little tells us less is more. If we have fewer active projects, then multi-tasking must be less and according to Little speed and quantity will increase. If speed and quantity processed increase, then due date and budget reliability must also get better. Seems simple. (You saw the potential if you played my little game described in a previous post)
So, lets stop (freeze) at least 25% of all projects. To do that we need to have unambiguous, unequivocal priorities to decide which projects will be worked on and which will be stopped – for now. This might be difficult!
Once we have made the initial step (at least 25% of all projects are frozen) then we might as well tell resources to always finish a task they have started before they tackle a new one. (there may be exceptions like situations similar to writers block when a resource needs a ‘change of air’ to get going again.)
If we freeze at least 25% of projects then some resources may be idle. Since many times projects and project managers complain of inadequate or insufficient resources we can now staff projects more appropriately – so lets also do that.
There may still be time available for some resources. Projects (initial tasks) are often started without having completed the necessary preparations. Now resources should be available to complete such preparations quickly – for those projects still active and those soon to be thawed and restarted.
When I describe the situation like this it seems to me that with 25% or more of projects frozen I run the risk of considerably speeding up project flow – and I don’t see any negatives for the organisation or for management.
However, I see a really big obstacle – it is ‘a resource standing idle is a major waste’ and management behaviour in relation to this. If a program or portfolio manager wants to try something like this, then he must ensure management support before he starts. Without that support the frozen projects will almost certainly be forced to restart again – before it is time.
Tell me, what are the risks of ‘FREEZE’, if any?
Imagine what could happen to the flow of projects in your organisation!
If flow, speed, quantity and reliability all get better, what are the implications for your organisation – for profits and profitability; for project costs; for customer satisfaction? Let me know please – the impact will likely not be the same for everyone, every project environment nor every company.
References:
- http://web.mit.edu/sgraves/www/papers/Little's%20Law-Published.pdf
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little's_law
- http://mitsloan.mit.edu/newsroom/2006-little.php
Technorati Tags: 6-Sigma, Continual Improvement, Cost, Costing, Critical Chain, Efficiency, Execution Management, Goldratt, Project, Project Execution, Project Management, Project Manager, Risk Management, Theory of Constraints, TOC, Little's Law
iv>
No comments:
Post a Comment