Program and Strategic Life Cycles

 In the last post, we covered the use of the Return Map for a Project, throughout its Life Cycle.

Here, we will augment that with some diagrams for Program Planning.   We use something like this for a Business Plan, to manage a group of three to six projects of similar technology.

The notion here is that the tactical plan 'fits' all of the projects using these strategic choices.  But naturally, time reveals new information, and changes occur.   The next diagram shows how we manage those evolutions

Obviously, the successive Product Plans shown to the right are archived just as was the Project Plan shown in the previous Post.   The post-mortem learnings from studying these iterations later is invaluable

Finally, because a program has multiple threads, there is a concomitant investment strategy for the projgram, showing various specific outcomes, project by project.   This is an old "actual" set of data

The more important investment strategy to focus on, though, is the longer-term one of multiple successive programs, each with relatively new technologies, etc.  These, in today's terminology, are the disruptive successive waves that must be dealt with to stay abreast of dynamic competition.   Note that the stakes get higher with succeeding waves (making an assumption that the company has successfully mastered each round vis-a-vis competitors.  In my experience, many corporate management teams stumble on the third round--"can't we wait until we see if "4Y" is going to happen before we commit to "9X" investment in the third?"   Metaphorically, NOPE.   But many, even most, do.   

So, lots to think about with these two posts.  The intriguing point for me is that this quick succession of six graphs (and the concomitant aperiodic review adjustments) is essentially unknown in Technology Management programs at every college and university.  Their focus is on bullet point-by-bullet point lists for Project management only--dull, uninspired, almost never followed, and certainly not too useful.  To go beyond project management to program or multi-program strategic management is totally absent.

Sigh...  and we wonder why large corporations stall and wither.

Project Life Cycles and the Return Map

 I've enjoyed several meetings with Aidan McCullen now.   He "fell in love" with my semi-memoir PERMISSION DENIED a mere twelve years after it was published.

We have now conducted two in-depth interviews of the book material, with a third one scheduled for nest week.   I'll post some of the material later (these are 90 minute interviews, so they're not a 'quick look').

What has impressed both Aidan and me is that this material feels very relevant today, although some of the exmaples are ancient (1970's era, for crying out loud).   In particular, the segments about Project Life Cycle and the use of the Return Map (Harvard Biz Review only 35 years ago), coupled with what we now know about using multi-display comparative graphics in Situation Rooms (see AstroVirtual THIS YEAR, not 35 years ago), are incredibly powerful techniques.

Importantly, though, the segments about Program and Strategic Life Cycles are novel--he and I agree that this material is NOT KNOWN WIDELY, in fact is hardly known at all, and certainly is not taught in any college or university, nor hardly covered by any business consultant.  Why not?  And would it help?

So, I am toying with doing a 2nd edition.   Here's a snippet from the wrap-up for the current Section IV.

See what you think . . . . 

"The key message is that there is an important inter-relationship between the life cycle of a specific project, where it fits into a larger contemporaneous program, and where that program fits into an overall strategic plan.  Teams that understand this build much stronger long-term success rates for their company

"Some significant points arise regarding the Return Map

1. This sales and profitability forecast is compiled originally AT THE START OF THE PROJECT from input of every business department -- R&D, Marketing, Sales, Manufacturing, and Quality Assurance -- thus helping to build team cohesion

2. The Return Map is redrawn, adjusted in other words, at EVERY checkpoint along the way.  This means checkpoints during development, at product release to manufactuing, and to sales, and KEY, at the 6 month, 1 year, and 2 year sales anniversaries.   

3. Those intervening Maps are KEPT, archived, and put into a multi-display Situation Room for periodic reference and certainly for Post-Mortem assessment.   THIS IS ALMOST NEVER DONE, and this is the most significant team-building learning experience that any group can indulge in, IMHO.

AstroVirtual Inc. has both a White Paper about a major project for which this was done, as well as a White Paper about Situation Rooms and their utilization.   

Here's an incipient Return Map:

And here is the Updated one, at the next Checkpoint

 

Whoops, profitability is eroding.  Why?   First of all, R&D is late by 7 months.  And Sales are now predicted to slow dramatically, from 50,000 units total in 24 moths to 8,000 units in 17 months.  Profits? this activity will break-even at 41 months after sales release instead of 22 months originally estimated, and total profit at 42 months will be only $300K instead of $2M.   

Such a graph will generate lots of discussion, along with some finger-pointing and jousting.  But what it might also do is generate action on a possible new sales strategy or a cost-saving approach, or ???.  In other words, all departments might be able to help, instead of just blaming R&D for a bad schedule.

Done over the life of a project, these maps provide ample areas of debate and tuning of estimates, and in my experience, garnering a much more cohesive 'team' approach to the difficult question of project management and success.

Thoughts?