6 Specialists, 6 Industry Domains: Trends for 2008 and 2009

The Learning Review asked specialists from six major industry domains to share their thoughts on how they see various areas of employee management changing in the near future. The question, sent by e-mail, was simple: what do you think the main trends in [domain] will be for 2008 and 2009? Following are each of their answers.

Human Resources (HR) Strategies
by David Ulrich, consultant and educator in human resources management

In the next one to two years, HR professionals will face some interesting challenges.

First, they will need to manage both individual talent and organization culture. A [current] trend in HR is to focus on an individual's ability, called talentship, workforce, or human capital. But having great talent without teamwork makes people into all-star teams who do not work well together. The challenge will be to build both individual ability and organization capability. Organization capability deals with the culture and organization as a whole. HR professionals must learn to manage both the person and the process.

Second, HR needs to connect the inside and the outside. Often HR focuses inside the organization on employees and line managers. We hear the words … “We want to be the employer of choice.” HR needs to connect the inside and the outside, and use the words, “We want to be the employer of choice of employees our customers would choose.” Too often, HR professionals see their “customers” only as employees inside the firm, not taking into account customers, investors, and communities in which the firm operates.

Third, HR must learn to manage both transactions (the administrative, operational work of HR) with transformation (change, strategic, and long-term work). These are often seen as two different types of operations. The operations require efficiency through technology; the strategic requires transformation through alignment and integration.

Finally, we have found that HR professionals must have competencies to manage both people and business. Our study of over 10,000 people shows clearly the benchmark competencies required of HR professionals for the future (see www.rbl.net).

Human Performance
by Roger Kaufman, renowned researcher and professor at Instituto Tecnologico de Sonora (ITSON) in Sonora, Mexico

We will continue to expand our frame of reference—our mind-set—of our individual performance to align it with the goals of improving the organization and adding value to the external client and society. While we are getting increasingly better at … scientific and research-based individual or human performance improvement, we are increasingly seeing that no matter how well we meet individual performance objectives, those objectives must also add value for what the organization delivers to its clients, as well as [the] value … we add to all our external clients, including society.

This is the basis for what we are doing at ITSON in terms of curriculum and applied research. For 2008/2009, we and the profession will be expanding our horizons. And not a moment too soon.

Informal Learning
by Jay Cross, CEO of Internet Time Group in Berkeley, California (US)

Informal learning will continue [to grow] in importance. People do not have time [to take] many classes or workshops. The technology for facilitating self-service learning is available via the Web. Perhaps most important, empowered workers are rebelling against information deluge. They are going after what they want to learn (pull, informal) instead of taking what's thrown at them (push, formal).

Web 2.0
by Stephen Downes of the National Research Council Canada (NRC)

I was just today reading about a report from Gartner saying that software as a service (SaaS) will grow "seven times faster than on-premise software deployments during the next three years." That seems right to me, as for the most part, Web-based software is able to address many of the cross-platform issues facing application developers. And Web-based software allows a person to work with the same applications and same documents from multiple locations: their home computer, their work computer, their iPhone, whatever
This flexibility may be contrasted with desktop operating systems that have become more and more cumbersome over the years. The result of people creating on the Web will be a continued proliferation of people creating for the Web, and so I think we'll see a steady increase in user-generated content. Also coming to Web 2.0 applications is a single sign-on service—most likely OpenID—which will allow users to mix and match content from different Web-based applications.

Thus, Web-based applications will be more than desktop applications could ever be; they will be social applications supporting collaborative authoring and content creation. In other words, what we will see will largely resemble Web 2.0 as we see it today. But there will be significant improvements in performance and stability “under the hood.”

E-learning
by Tony Bates, president and CEO of Tony Bates Associates Ltd. in Vancouver, Canada

Mainly, [e-learning] will continue to grow rapidly. One of the biggest costs for many companies is employee training, in terms of the time employees are absent from work, as well as travel and lodging expenses during training. E-learning gives some of that time back to the employee. Workers like this option because they can study and still be able to spend time at home with their families.

We will see much more simulation and animation, which will allow us to reduce the time spent being trained on expensive equipment. We will also witness a shift to more blended learning programs—a combination of face-to-face training and online learning.

Finally, due to purely economic reasons, we will see the development of material for online training that will apply to different industries and that can be shared between different companies, especially for basic training.

Knowledge Management
by Javier Martínez Aldanondo, knowledge management manager at Catenaria in Santiago, Chile

Before making any predictions, we must stress that, presently, there is a lack of clarity on what we understand as “knowledge management.” My rustic definition for this much talked about concept is “how to learn from what the company already knows, so that when people need to face tasks, they can take advantage of the experience of someone who has already tried that same task before, and therefore, use what worked, and learn what caused problems to avoid making the same mistakes twice and being inefficient.”

Knowledge is an asset that already exists in the organization; you don't have to invest in developing it. It allows you to get things done and to obtain positive results. However, it is an atypical asset, because it doesn't show up in balances, it cannot be deposited in a bank, and it fades when people leave the organization. Not using this knowledge is a waste that companies cannot afford. There are two terms that will affect knowledge management in the future: innovation and intelligence.

While people are intelligent and learn from their own experiences (every day we accumulate cases and stories that we reuse constantly), organizations have a difficult time finding out what [people] know and learning from it (lessons learned and better practices), and therefore they are inefficient and lose money. Organizations need to learn how to be intelligent, and to do so they have to innovate their concept of knowledge management. Today, this concept is reactive and centered on document management and training solutions.

Companies will need to know what their employees are trying to do, and offer them support when they have issues. When I'm preparing a commercial proposal for a customer, my knowledge management system will ask me, “Do you want to know who did this before you? Do you need help with a proposal similar to the one you're working on [and] that contains sales arguments that worked wonders with this type of scenario and customer?” The organization not only will be able to anticipate to its members' requests, but it will automatically learn while it gathers experiences that will feed its corporate memory. To achieve this, it is necessary to contemplate three areas:

* work with people (experts) who have cases and histories and critical knowledge, much more than [with] documents, procedures, and systems;
* establish real business metrics;
* and, most importantly, understand what knowledge really means—how we learn and what we understand as intelligence.

The Keys to Effective Project Governance Leadership

Business executives tend to approach project governance with good intentions, but with few governance-specific skills, and with little knowledge or education on the process. It is assumed by all parties involved in a project that no such expertise is needed. This is a false assumption.

Between 2003 and 2005, Project Sponsor.com conducted an in-depth project governance study on more than 40 major Australian organizations. The study involved detailed interviews with over 130 executives, as well as surveys and reviews of governance materials and training.

Project governance is the process by which executives direct, enable, lead, and control a project to achieve specified business outcomes, benefits, and value, without actually managing the project. Governance is a hands-off management process, yet it requires full commitment and ownership, and comes with a full set of accountabilities. Unfortunately, it also comes with little support or education.

Project governance was introduced some 25 to 30 years ago as a means of transferring accountability for projects from the project (and IT) team to the business. But this hasn't worked out well, as people generally don't take on accountabilities when they don't know what they're doing.

To illustrate, just about every major IT project disaster in the past 20 years has had a governance team (or sponsor and steering committee, as it is also known as) of experienced executives who, in this context, did not know what it was doing. And when their projects failed, they fired the project manager!

To ensure the success of the project and full realization of the business benefits, project teams must communicate and transfer accountabilities effectively to the governance team, but the prerequisite is that the governance team knows what it's supposed to be doing.

Few Executives in Governance Roles Have the Necessary Skills, Knowledge, and Experience

Most governance team members are reliant on bringing their brains and business acumen to their governance roles in order to make a contribution to the project. This means that they tend to see things in terms of operational management rather than in terms of project governance—an approach that leads to the wrong type of leadership.

Here's an example, taken from Project Sponsor.com's research, to illustrate the above point. When the number of outstanding issues for one company's project had escalated to 87, the following discussion took place: “Eighty-seven issues outstanding! We need to get this down! I want no more than a dozen by the next meeting, all right?” This is an operational management approach.

A more appropriate and relevant approach would have been this: “Eighty-seven issues outstanding! Why so many? Is this number still increasing? Why are these issues not being resolved quickly? Are there any that could seriously jeopardize the success of the project? What's the level of unplanned workload required to resolve them? Will this affect the timeline or budget? If we were to dedicate resources to ‘hit' (resolve) them this month, what specific resources would be required? What could suffer as a result? What's the best way forward?”

This latter approach, which is considered one of true project governance, is focused on the nature and impacts of the issues; it is based on the understanding that unresolved issues can destroy project timelines, budgets, and effort estimates.

But to know how to take the project governance approach requires an understanding of the role and nature of project governance—an understanding that most executives in this study reported they do not have.
Few Executives Have Had Any Formal Training for Their Project Governance Roles

The most support and guidance a project governance executive usually receives is a list of accountabilities. Few ever receive any guidance on how to be a sponsor or steering committee member.

Some project teams try to be helpful by providing steering committee charters to inform executives about their roles, but in my experience, these are written from the wrong perspective—that is, from the project's rather than that of the business. Indeed, this leads us to another issue with governance—that few project managers actually understand what the governance team is supposed to do. To some project managers, the governance team is a godsend (as it takes the onus off the project manager), while to others, the governance team is a pain in the neck, always asking the wrong questions and avoiding the key issues.

The formal governance training that the few executives in our study have received has mostly been in the form of quasi-project management training, taught with the belief that if executives understand project dynamics better, they'll be better at project governance. To be frank, this type of instruction is the equivalent of teaching people how a car's engine works in order to make them better drivers. They may become more economical drivers as a result, but knowing how the engine works does not help them reach their destination, nor does it add much to their safety en route.

Overall, the vast majority (83 percent) of executives surveyed had no formal education for their project governance role, but of these, only 57 percent saw the need for any training. However, when these executives were asked to define their role, a high correlation was found between those who didn't see the need for training and those who perceived their role very narrowly, as merely “project control and oversight.”

All Executives Who Had Been Involved in a Project “Gone Bad” Recognized the Need for Training

These results all point to the one major challenge with project governance: the worse your executives are at governance, the less likely they are to be aware of what they don't know, and therefore, the less likely they will be to recognize the need for education and support—a “catch-22” (a no-win situation).

In addition, many executives that requested training only did so because they believed that there must be more to the role they have in the project. The request wasn't based on their realizing that they lack knowledge.
At a minimum, executives need to learn the following:

1. The true measures of project success.
Because of the “on-time and on-budget delivery” mantra of most businesses, many governance teams are “seduced” (fooled) into measuring success using this as a gauge rather than using the delivery of measurable business outcomes, benefits, and value within the time and cost constraints. Indeed, in a benefits management survey of 57 projects, none of the governance teams had actually defined their projects' measures of success in business terms.

The governance (and project) team needs to understand and agree on what the business measures of success are so that every dimension of the project can be considered and debated against these measures.

2. The roles of the governance team.
I remember one program management office (PMO) manager being quite embarrassed when he presented to me his organization's governance accountabilities—about 10 lines on a page.

It seems amazing that this is still a subject of debate. Depending on your governance role (investment approver, sponsor, steering committee member), your accountabilities should be clear and known—not only to you, but to your project team and peers as well.

I liken being a sponsor, for example, to teaching your child to drive. Your car, insurance, and life are in his hands, and he has control of the car. Your role is to ensure that you arrive at your defined destination safely and on time. Once sponsors understand this, they get the idea of what they are accountable for.

3. The measures of governance team success.
Although the success of the governance team is frequently measured, doing so by simply holding and attending governance meetings is not enough. The ultimate measure of governance success is the business results achieved. But waiting until the end of the project to gauge these results is too late.

First, executives need to know the measures—their critical success factors, impediments to success, leading indicators of failure, the cash burn rate vis-à-vis plan, and so on. If executives are not in touch with and informed about their project, they're not likely to be successful.

Secondly, executives must take appropriate action to ensure the project's success. If they're “fiddling while Rome burns” (wasting time with unimportant issues when they should be handling the more serious problems), the project will not be successful. Executives should not only be reactive to the project manager's requests, but proactive in ensuring no unnecessary obstacles exist.

4. The governance actions and inactions that cause projects to succeed or fail.
It often comes as a great surprise to executives that governance inaction can destroy a project as easily as wrong action can.

At Project Sponsor.com, executives are usually given a booklet titled Understanding Project Governance, which spells out 24 dimensions of governance and explains, for each one, how inaction or wrong action can destroy the project or its value. You can almost see these executives sitting up straighter and paying more attention once they know how easily they can destroy the project from their positions.

5. The necessary interactions and relationships with the project manager and the project.
The project manager is the governance team's agent. The governance team, first of all, needs to trust him or her (if the project manager loses the team's trust, they're all finished—the project is practically guaranteed to fail). The project manager also needs to keep the team informed of what is happening with the project.

Conversely, the governance team needs to keep the project team informed of what is happening in the organization (and sometimes in the market) that could have an impact on the project or its successful implementation. Many governance team members forget this.

But most importantly (and perhaps most controversial), the governance team is a resource for the project manager. It is there to sort out problems in the business, remove obstacles, take pre-emptive action to prevent risks, manage critical success factors, and champion the project through to successful business adoption.

Only when these essential dimensions (although there are others) are known and understood, and when the necessary supporting and enabling processes and materials are in place, can the business executives effectively lead, contribute to, and govern their projects.

What You Can Do

Find out what education, training, and support are available to executives. Either get senior management's commitment to introduce governance education and training (rare but useful), or find someone in your organization who sees the need. Get that person to champion an introduction to education and training, and to talk about how it helped him or her.

Then measure your project success rate. Well-governed projects should be easier to manage and deliver greater benefits.