Modeling requirements, on the surface, to many of our stakeholders often seem easy or simple, but they are actually quite complex and can take a long time to master. This “complexity” is driven by many things including; different types of modeling (process, data, use case, interface, and scope modeling) size of project, methodology, approach, stakeholder preferences, and time to model. As a result, I often see Business Analysts frequently needing to repair, reconstruct, or renovate their requirements models which is not always a good thing nor does it always make sense. One of these works for me and the other two do not.

Renovation – it works. When I think of renovation, I often think of process improvement efforts. Continuous improvements. To reinvigorate something, make new, revive. It is about keeping value, being future focused. This concept for any business makes sense to me. This type of remodeling works because it is often driven by ideation, some kind of Enterprise Analysis, Six Sigma, Lean, or other approach. It, perhaps, can even be seen as an attitude or force that drives how you work, but it is different than repairs or reconstructions, which do not work for me.

Repairs and reconstruction – do not work. Why do we have to repair or reconstruct our requirements models? When I think of repairing or completely reconstructing requirements models, I think of rework. I do not like to work much as it is, so the idea of doing it again is not exciting to me. A classic example is the process flow diagram. Let’s run through a scenario:

1. Business Analyst schedules meeting with stakeholders to discuss process.
2. BA interviews stakeholders during meeting.
3. BA takes notes and goes back to cube to work on process flow.
4. BA schedules new meeting for review.
5. BA reviews process flow with stakeholders at meeting.
6. Stakeholders rip the process flow to shreds.
7. Go to step 3.

And there you have it. A potential infinite loop of rework! And this loop is costing a lot of time and money. Time you probably did not have to begin with. So we need to ask some questions. Did you understand your stakeholder’s point of view? Did you have the correct stakeholders? What approach to your model did you take? The approach is very important. It drives how and when you model. Is there a different way of doing this? How about this as an alternative:

1. Business Analyst schedules interactive process modeling meeting with stakeholders to discuss process.
2. BA facilitates stakeholders during meeting to “interactively” develop the process model together as a team during the meeting using white board, post-its, or other preferred materials.
3. BA gains agreement/consensus on the process model at the meeting.
4. BA takes picture of agreed upon process flow with smart phone and goes back to cube to create a final version in the company’s diagramming tool of choice.

Less steps, less rework = less cost and less chance of needing repairs! If you do your stakeholder analysis up front you can get the right people. The stakeholders, together as a group, will provide their viewpoints during the meeting. The approach requires less time. Remember, for this approach to work, the BA must be a strong facilitator (a theme in the BABOK®).

So with regard to repair and reconstructing requirements, I am not a big fan. An anonymous salesman once said, “Genius is the ability to evade work by doing something right the first time.” What you are really doing is evading the rework. I cannot agree more. Renovation will be needed some year in the future, but if we can avoid the repair and reconstruction on our current projects our work lives will be more enjoyable. Modeling is complex, but if we can do something proactively to limit repairs and reconstruction, well, that is where the true value of your requirements “home” will be kept up and you will not have to wait for the market to rebound.

The Big Remodel was posted at ProjectBrief Blog. | http://www.watermarklearning.com/blog

Of course, there is no “right” a lot of the time.  In my classes, for example, I instruct and inform, but I also facilitate discussions about the options, and the students decide what’s going to work for them.

This brings me to the recent Facilitation Skills Workshop class I taught.  In this class, we learn about different facilitation techniques and then the students do the work; they actually facilitate each of the 12 sessions throughout the class.

Maybe you are like many of the students in this class who are terrified of speaking in front of groups. Their hands shake, they sweat, and some have a hard time breathing.  This fear is not unlike other fears and there is often a visceral response.

It is amazing to watch those folks who are terrified of facilitating get up in front of a group and, with some preparation, tools, and guidance, actually help the group accomplish a goal.  It is enormously validating- for them, the participants, and me.

The last session of the 12 sessions is one in which the facilitator brings the class to consensus on the top 5 characteristics of a good facilitator.  My last class came up with the following Top 5 Characteristics of a Good Facilitator:

1.     Neutrality
The facilitator cares that the group achieves their goal in the session, but they don’t care what the results look like specifically.   

2.   Preparedness
A facilitator needs to be prepared for their session. Facilitation might look easy, but it is hard work. Taking time to understand the group and issues, as well as practice the skills and techniques to be used make for a far more effective facilitator and one who will be much more likely to help the group achieve its goals.

3.   Energetic
A facilitator needs to be neutral, but that doesn’t mean they should be comatose.  Bringing some energy to the session helps keep people focused and engaged. 

4.   Clear idea of Purpose/Agenda
A good facilitator needs to start with a clear understanding of the goal of the session and the tools they might use to achieve that goal.  In short, be flexible, but have a plan. 

5.   Positive
An effective facilitator makes the participants want to achieve the session objective.  Even if it’s addressing a problem, a positive tone will encourage participants to own their part of the outcome.

It wasn’t necessarily the list I would have come up with, although those are certainly things we talk about in the class.  As I sat in the back of the room watching them come to this conclusion together as a group, facilitated by one of the students, it was an interesting and, in some way, teachable moment.  For me.

Facilitation Top 5 was posted at ProjectBrief Blog. | http://www.watermarklearning.com/blog

A lot of project work gets done through informal, undocumented communication channels.  This is not only OK, it’s actually necessary.  Imagine if every conversation or information gathering effort we conducted required a documented plan.  The fact is a lot of good data can be mined from the water cooler and coffee klatch gatherings.

There are two types of this informal network: the grapevine and the rumor mill. I would suggest that while both are informal, undocumented communication channels and that they may include many, if not most, of the same people, they are significantly different.  The grapevine is an asset worth using; the rumor mill is something to avoid.  

How are they different and what makes one an essential part of a project manager’s communication strategy and the other a liability?  In my mind, it comes down to content and effect.

First, the nature of the content is qualitatively different between the two channels.  On the grapevine, information is  rooted in truth.  It may not include the whole story, but the information available is fundamentally true.  It is often a great source of information about prevailing attitudes, for example.  A project manager might tap into the grapevine to find out how people are responding to an organizational change of some kind. 

In addition, grapevine content is generally not specifically about individuals.  The vine is more about ideas and things, and less about who did or said what.

Content on the rumor mill, on the other hand, is highly specious.  Often the information obtained from the mill is patently false or so distorted by innuendo or editorializing as to be of little value. Of course, it’s not presented that way.  In fact, you can usually tell if you’re tapping into the rumor mill by a qualifying comment such as “My brother’s roommate’s cousin heard….”  The qualification serves the purpose creating distance between the information and the person spreading it; it’s a way of deflecting ownership for the information. 

Furthermore, the rumor mill is generally where you hear a lot about specific individuals and a lot less about ideas. Name dropping on the rumor mill is rampant – and generally not a place where you want your name mentioned. 

Still, it’s not always crystal clear as to which channel you are using based on content alone.  Effect is also important to consider in order to distinguish between the vine and the mill. 

The effect of the grapevine is positive (or at least not negative).  Use of the vine results in shared perceptions, level setting, or improved understanding.  The effect is not damaging or demeaning to others. When you are working the grapevine, you don’t feel uncomfortable about getting the information.  Grapevine conversations don’t inspire ducking into empty conference rooms to avoid being seen.  You come away from a grapevine conversation feeling like you could share what you learned with others without feeling like you violated a confidence or compromised anyone’s integrity.  You are comfortable with your name being associated with grapevine information.

On the other hand, the effect of the rumor mill is generally negative.  The purpose is really to provide cheap entertainment.  It’s the “You’re not gonna believe what I heard” factor.  When you are grinding on the rumor mill, you may look behind you or over your shoulder to see if anyone sees you.  These are the conversations that make you want to find an empty conference room or somewhere to avoid being seen.  Rather than about ideas or things, the rumor mill is almost always about people, and it’s generally not flattering.  The effect is usually that someone is shamed or demeaned or at least presented in an unfavorable light.

The savvy project manager will always make good use of informal communications channels in developing relationships with stakeholders, getting buy-in, managing expectations, and keeping the project on track.  The ethical project manager will know which type of informal channel they’re using, when it makes sense to use it, and when it’s best to disengage.

Grapevines and Rumor Mills – Assets or Liabilities? was posted at ProjectBrief Blog. | http://www.watermarklearning.com/blog

I hear this from project managers on a regular basis and it always brings me back to one of the truisms in project management: The project manager is responsible for project success. 

This is concisely articulated in the Project Management Institute, A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK® Guide) – Fourth Edition:

As the person responsible for the success of the project, a project manager is in charge of all aspects of the project including, but not limited to:

• Developing the project management plan and related documents
• Keeping the project on track in terms of budget and schedule
• Identifying, monitoring and responding to risk, and
• Providing accurate and timely reporting of project metrics

This is reasonable and I teach this to my students.  Yet, it’s not enough to simply declare that the PM owns the success of the project.  There are numerous qualifiers to project success resting on the PM’s shoulders.  In this article, I’d like to focus on roles and responsibilities as it relates to ownership for project success: Specifically, a project manager’s ownership for project success or failure makes sense only when others take ownership for their part of the project, as well.

For example, sponsors have to own their role on the project.  What the PM needs from the sponsor may vary depending on the project as I’ve written about in other articles. But it’s generally safe to say that an unsponsored project leaves a project manager destined for failure.

In addition, team members have to own their responsibility for the quality of the work they do.  (If possible, the PM can replace poor performers on the project, but that’s not always the case.)  Mistakes or errors in execution don’t necessarily doom a project to fail. Requiring that the PM take responsibility for the work of others, however, will eventually make it difficult to achieve any agreed upon definition of success. Team members have to own their work results – good and bad.  

Third, everyone needs to own their role in communications.  The basic communications model includes responsibilities for senders and receivers of messages.  As the sender, the PM can send clear updates, ask well-defined questions, request specific information, and provide timely reports as planned.  Stakeholders also have a responsibility to clearly acknowledge updates, definitively answer questions, provide requested information, and consume project report information as planned.  This is simple on the surface, but often exceedingly difficult in practice.

None of this is news.  Roles and responsibilities are essential and there has been plenty written about the importance of doing so early to alleviate all sorts of project problems.

Yet how often do project managers feel like they’re being asked to win at a game of tennis without someone on the other side of the net?  They willingly own the project success or failure, but it doesn’t feel like others have been as enthusiastic in claiming ownership for their piece of the project outcome.

Make no mistake: I am not looking for a way for PM’s to abdicate responsibility.  In fact, it’s the PM’s job to make sure everyone is clear on all aspects of ownership.  So, yes, the PM owns the success of the project.  And the next time you hear one step up and say “Yes, I will own the success of this organizational investment of time, money and resources,” make sure everyone waits for the follow up request: “And here is what I will need from each of you.”

Who Owns Project Success or Failure? was posted at ProjectBrief Blog. | http://www.watermarklearning.com/blog

In any interview process, the key to being successful is to be prepared. However, we often get caught up with the one thousand and one things we have going on and we do not prepare as well as we should or (cringe!) we even wing it. Besides preparing a list of questions, one of the things that I do when I go into an interview is to have my checklist that helps drive my process. I used to struggle with being prepared until I related my experience with that of the hostage negotiator. Guess what? They have to be very prepared and they have a checklist too. Let’s see what their checklist looks like and then translate into BA speak to see if we can be more successful!

The hostage negotiator arrives on the scene and goes through their checklist (Credit to “howstuffworks.com” and “Ed Grabianowski” for the hostage negotiation checklist steps):

All questions “Q” are from the Hostage Negotiator. All answers “A” are from the Business Analyst and how you might respond.

Q What has occurred?
A As a BA you need to know all about what has occurred and what has not. Make sure you dive deep and understand the reasons for the project, the issue and/or the reason for why you are interviewing. There is a reason that your interviewee is holding requirements hostage and being difficult. Get a good layout of the situation so that you can approach it from a stable point of view. A perceived unbalanced approach could enflame the situation more. You must understand the context of the problem you are trying to solve.

Q Who initiated the call?
A Stakeholder analysis – it is NOT just for PMs! Determine who is driving the project you are on and why. The sponsor is your friend and should be your biggest supporter. Know what they want and why. Do they have a relationship with your difficult stakeholder? They might be able to help.

Q Time of occurrence?
A Does time really matter? Absolutely. Why was this project pursued at this time? What are the impacts of doing this project now vs. later? When does it really need to be completed? How does the timeframe impact your difficult stakeholder? It will certainly impact the questions you might ask during your interview.

Q What is the nature of the surrounding scene?
A Do you understand the political landscape of your environment and how it impacts the project you are working on? What about how it impacts your difficult stakeholder?

Q Police injuries? Suspect injuries? Hostage injuries? Other injuries?
A What relationships have been damaged in this “hostage” crisis? Have people, processes, data or systems been impacted, cutoff or disallowed as a result of this requirements hostage crisis? Will there be future injuries?

Q What kind of contact has been made with the suspect? When?
A What contact have you made with your interviewee? Did you just email them and set up a meeting? How well do you know this person? Did you reach out to them as soon as you knew they were involved? After the kickoff? Not at all yet? How you answer this question may give you insight as to why they are being difficult.

Q Is the situation locked in?
A Rarely have I come across a situation that is truly locked in. You may feel that it is locked in but as you explore what it means to be a good Business Negotiator (or Hostage Analyst) you will find that you can affect the outcome in a positive fashion. Remember, your difficult stakeholder wants something and there is always hope of influencing them.

Q Where are the suspects located?
A Know the dynamics of team and business. Geographically dispersed? Teleconferences not working? You may need to travel to more effectively to deal with the situation.

Q Where are the hostages located?
A More than likely the requirements being held hostage are locked up in the stakeholder’s mind and are not documented anywhere. However, do not assume that this is totally true as you may have access to materials that you assumed did not exist. Ask – you just never know. Maybe they are being difficult because they expect you to do all the work of pouring through volume after volume of mind numbing facts.

Q Where are the non-hostages?
A What is the state of other requirements elicitation and documentation? Is there a bigger problem here or is it just the one person? Make sure you know what you have and what you do not. Maybe there is another crisis just around the corner.

Q Where are the suspect’s observation points?
A What powerbase does your stakeholder have? Will they only operate from their home-base (their cube/office, their floor, favorite conference room, working from home)? What are they doing when no one is talking to them? Do they only have rules for you?

Q What firearms, explosives, and chemicals could be used/located on the site?
A What could your stakeholder do to sabotage your efforts if their needs are not met? What tactics will they employ? Do they have access and power to do so?

Q What is the description/profile of the hostage taker?
A Key stakeholder analysis. Do you truly understand your stakeholder? WIIFM – what’s in it for me? Do you know what’s in it for them? Is their effort to hold these requirements hostage unintentional or a directed effort to prevent things from moving forward? Are they in favor (accepting) of what you are doing?

Q What is the offender affiliation/public support like?
A Do you know who they influence and who influences them? Do they have support or are they left on their own? If a decision is not made in their favor will it affect you?

Goodness, there is a lot to think about in interviewing difficult stakeholders and this was all from the eyes of a hostage negotiator! And this was just the prep piece – there is also the techniques of the hostage negotiator and more that we can be inspired by and innovate. I realized early on that preparing was difficult and it took a lot of work. I also learned that when I looked at things a little differently I could introduce something new into my process which is an act of innovation. The result? My innovation = better preparedness = more “hostages” (requirements) released = requirements trash turned into stakeholder treasure!

Turning Requirements Trash into Stakeholder Treasure – Part 2 was posted at ProjectBrief Blog. | http://www.watermarklearning.com/blog

Why do we do this to ourselves? 

Project managers know they should be getting input from the team on planning and the estimates for their work.  And they often do.  It’s what happens after that that’s problematic – namely, the input is ignored.

Why would we ignore the team, the people who know what it takes to get the work done?  Often because the answer they give is not what the customer or some other stakeholder wants to hear.

But who wins in this scenario?

The customer may think they do, but the team can only do so much, and if the project is late, the customer really isn’t getting what they want.

The project manager doesn’t win.  Their team is frustrated with them because any trust they might have had in the project manager is compromised as soon as they realize that the PM didn’t really want to know how long it would take.  In addition, the sponsor, customer, and other stakeholders lose confidence in the project manager because the deliverables are late.

The team surely doesn’t win.  And it only takes them until day 2 to realize that they’re going to lose!

If we ask someone a question, let’s ask because we really want to know the answer.  If we ask the team how long it’s going to take to get it done, let’s make sure we are willing to use the information we get, even if the answer isn’t what other stakeholders think they want to hear.

All stakeholders should have a reasonable chance of looking good past day 1.

On day 1, we look great. It’s day 2 that kills us! was posted at ProjectBrief Blog. | http://www.watermarklearning.com/blog

What about someone that keeps backing away every time you get close?  Was that Howie Mandel Syndrome (mysophobia a.k.a. germaphobia) that you just encountered, or did you forget to use deodorant again?  It simply may be that they are not ready to take you seriously yet.  Distance can make the heart grow fonder, but it can also be a trust barrier.  Body language is a very useful social skill and a powerful tool that can really help increase the success of your efforts.  I know many people who are able to read and use body language with ease; they have an instinct for it.  Conversely, I know people that, unfortunately, are completely unaware that there ever was an issue to be noticed, and that they could have prevented it if they had read it in the body language around them.  Think of the power this can give you in the work environment!

I am a notorious people watcher.  I love to take a break from shopping at the mall (or wherever I am) and sit down on a bench and just watch people.  I look at their body language, and I try to figure out their story.  Some stories are beautiful, like the couple sitting together, drinking their coffee but not speaking.  Initially I think, are they angry?  Who didn’t take out the garbage?  No, they are simply comfortable, and they are communicating volumes as they reach out and gently touch each other’s hands in understanding.  Some stories are sad and some are hysterically funny but each one tells me something that I can use.  I use it constantly at work every day.

My boss just crossed his arms.  My colleague just tilted her head.  My VP just mirrored what I did when I crossed my legs.  The SME on my project keeps twirling her hair.  My developer keeps tapping his feet.  The Architect is pacing.  The sponsor keeps opening and closing their laptop.  These ALL mean something and it is your job to figure out how to read it and use it to increase your success.

How about a demonstration in reading body language?  You are trying to sell your boss on a new approach for your project and he just crossed his arms.  What does that mean?  He could be shutting down and not willing to hear what you have to say.  He could be cold (if so, I say put on a sweater!).  He could just do it out of habit.  If he is shutting down you are probably better off to wait it out and try another day on this new approach.  You need to influence your boss without authority and he is giving you a potentially strong signal that he is not ready to listen.  Result?  You have read body language correctly to avert a crisis, and your idea lives to be told another day in another way.

You are now walking by your VPs office who does not appear to be busy so you stop in and say hi (yes, it really is okay to bond with your VP from time to time).  You sit down and, as you are talking about your project, you cross your legs out of habit.  Guess what?  Your VP just did the same thing.  Coincidence?  Probably not.  This is usually a sign of comfort or respect so you need to use this opportunity.  Tell the VP about the new idea for the project approach!  Result?  You have read body language correctly which allowed you to influence without authority and get your idea circulating that will give you a greater chance of success. 

So, take some time out to do some people watching next time you are at the mall or your favorite restaurant.  Figure out their story and what their body language is saying.  It could be very helpful the next day at work.  Body language – it does a body good to know how to read it and use it.  What do you think?

For more information on body language and influencing without authority:

• Attend our class “Influencing Without Authority.”
• Read the book Kiss, Bow, or Shake Hands (The Bestselling Guide to Doing Business in More than 60 Countries) by Terri Morrison
• Read this article: Influencing Without Authority: Rev Up Your Internal Consulting Skills: Part 1 (Why Don’t We Have More influence) by Elizabeth Larson and Richard Larson  (A member login is required to access this article)

Body Language: Social Skill and Powerful Tool for Success was posted at ProjectBrief Blog. | http://www.watermarklearning.com/blog

Below are three keys for increasing chances for sponsorship success in your organization:

1. Show small successes.  You’d probably like to see huge, sweeping change in this area, but let’s be realistic.  Our organizations and sponsor-level folks simply don’t have the bandwidth for that.  Our best bet may be to think small.  In fact, create an experiment that you can use to slowly, organically grow the idea of sponsorship in your organization.  

First, identify projects that suffered from lack of or poor sponsorship.  Without pointing fingers or blaming, be prepared to show where and how projects failed the organization due to an inadequate partnership between the PM and the sponsor.  Perhaps a key scope decision didn’t get made in an early project phase and resulted in subsequent scope creep, for example.

Then find a good partner to be the sponsor for the experimental project, someone who would be willing to try things differently next time.  Identify this person and make your case before your next project assignment.  If necessary, they may need to politic to get assigned as sponsor, so giving them advance notice will help.

Commit to partnering on your next project and be prepared to share the results with others in the organization.  Hopefully, the project will go better than the poor or unsponsored projects and you can use your results to inspire others. 

2. Make yours a sponsor-safe project.  Remember that sponsors are often ineffective in this role because they don’t really know what’s expected of them.  In his article, Avoiding the Accidental Project Sponsor, Ken Hanley points out the disconnect between our expectations of sponsors (they own them, right?) and the fact that they seldom get any training on how to be sponsors!  Would we hold anyone else to such high expectations and then assume they intrinsically know how to do what’s expected? 

Students often come out of my project management class with the feeling that their first task is to educate their sponsors.  And that’s great – as long as we make it safe.  Ask them to help you help them.  It requires professionally thick skin to own the fact that you need help from a subordinate in doing your job.  Remember:  If you haven’t had experience with good sponsorship, you don’t really know what to expect either, so learn together.

3. Be committed to making your sponsor look fabulous.  Take a page out of Vidal Sassoon’s book: “If they don’t look good, you don’t look good.”   If they look good, the project looks good and so will you.  Be intentional in thinking about how your actions and project results can reflect positively on them. 

Good project sponsorship in an organization is a win-win-win.  What works for the project works for the organization, the sponsor, and you.

Increasing Chances for Sponsorship Success was posted at ProjectBrief Blog. | http://www.watermarklearning.com/blog

Finally, Mrs. Bear comes along and asks “If you had a mommy, what would she do?”  Choco explains that his mommy would give him hugs and kisses, sing and dance with him to cheer him up, etc.  When Mrs. Bear suggests that she could be his mommy, he happily goes home with Mrs. Bear and meets her other children, his new brothers and sisters: Ally (a baby alligator), Hippy (a baby hippo), and piggy (a baby piggy).  (Lemme tell ya – Hallmark commercials have nothing on this book when it comes to bringing me to tears.) 

For us adoptive parents, this is a favorite story because we define ourselves as parents not by our biological relationships and how much our children look like us, but by our emotional and personal relationships, how we treat each other and meet each others’ needs.  Love, not blood, makes us good mommies and daddies.

How many project managers feel like Choco, wandering corporate halls looking not for a mommy, but a sponsor, asking “Are you my sponsor?” 

What exactly are these PMs looking for?  What do their sponsors need to “look” like?  Who should their sponsor be?

 Too often, like Choco, we think sponsors need to “look” a certain way.  Unlike Choco, however, project managers are typically looking for someone who doesn’t look like them: sponsors need to be “higher” than they are. 

And that is quite true.  Whether it’s resolving cross-functional conflict, securing resources, or championing a project at all levels of the organization, a peer isn’t going to be able to help you with the things that you need from a sponsor. 

But sponsors don’t have to look a certain way.  They don’t have to have a particular title, work in a particular office, or have certain letters after their name to be effective sponsors.  Commitment and availability, not position, make us good sponsors.

I remember a student in one of my Project Management Fundamentals classes who suggested that her company’s CEO was the sponsor of all of her projects.  After all, she explained, that’s whose name was in the box labeled sponsor.  Now, this was at a Fortune 100 company and she was a novice project manager.  Upon hearing this, I thought to myself “I’ll bet you’re good, but I’ll bet you’re not that good.”  I’m fairly certain the CEO of that company did not have regularly-scheduled meetings with her to be updated on the project status.  In fact, I’ll even go out on a limb here and suggest that he probably didn’t even have a clue who she was.

So, unfortunately, that project manager didn’t have a sponsor; she had a name in a box.

Who makes for a good sponsor isn’t so much a function of what they “look” like, i.e., where they sit on the organization chart or whether or not they get invited to the executive 3-day offsite meetings.  It’s more about their ability to “do” what it is the project manager needs from them.   My last article, What’s on Your Sponsorship Short List?, highlighted some of the things project managers may need from sponsors.  The answer as to who will make the best sponsor must start there. 

For example, if capital acquisition isn’t a component of a project, a sponsor may not need to be someone with a say in budgetary expenditures.   Or, perhaps a project in which the project manager is relatively new to the organization and may need more assistance with navigating political terrain may benefit from a sponsor who is a little “closer to home” on the org chart.

Regardless of what is needed from the sponsor, there is one thing that every sponsor must be able to do for any project manager on any project: Be willing and available to develop a real, working relationship with the project manager.  Whoever management decides is the best person to sponsor a project, it must be someone who will actually make time on a regular basis to meet with the project manager and to consume information about the project in order to do what is needed from them.  A name in a box on a project management plan cover page does not a sponsor make.

In fact, I would rather have a “real” sponsor who is less senior but actually interested and engaged in the project and able to meet my needs, than have a senior executive who will never have time for me — even if it means that my sponsor may have to run some things up the chain of command for decisions periodically.  Those time delays are likely to be significantly less than the project inertia that results from an absent, disinterested sponsor.

So, sponsor assigners: When deciding who should sponsor organizational projects, don’t make Chocos out of your project managers!  Find out: What does Choco need and who is the Mrs. Bear who will be available and interested in making sure he gets that?

Because project managers of sponsorless projects wandering the halls may not be a sight that brings anyone to tears, but it is pitiful – and avoidable.

Next, Project Sponsorship – Strategies for Increasing Sponsorship Success.

Are You My Sponsor? was posted at ProjectBrief Blog. | http://www.watermarklearning.com/blog

Fortunately, I have not been in a situation in which I wondered if I should do that. Unfortunately, I think this student had a specific situation in mind. It’s a tough question, especially if the person who is being difficult is a peer or more senior than you.

I can’t think of how you would ask someone to leave a meeting without making somewhat of a “scene,” and I don’t think it’s ever in anyone’s best interest to do that, including you. Of course, how to handle this kind of situation depends on many things such as the purpose of the session, how long it is, who else is in the meeting, how much time is left in the meeting, and other considerations. But I can think of some questions I would ask before suggesting how best to handle this.

First, have all reasonable steps for controlling the meeting been taken? Have the objective and desired outcomes been defined ahead of time and included in the invitation, for example? Have ground rules been defined, agreed upon, and posted? Has an agenda been provided that includes time for each topic and topic owners?

What other attempts been made to corral this difficult behavior? For example, have they been asked to hold their thoughts? Have their concerns or ideas been captured onto the “parking lot” so the meeting can continue as planned? Have techniques been used that provide an equal opportunity for everyone to participate, such as going around the table and soliciting comments or ideas from each person?

If the answer to these questions is yes, and it truly seems that this person is really out of control, the best answer may be to call for a 10-minute break. At a reasonable point in the session, simply announce that there is going to be a short break. Note the current time and write the time you will resume on the white board or somewhere so that everyone can see it. (Even if people aren’t expecting a break in this meeting, people will get up and take advantage of the time.)

Then, during the break, task 1 has to be stabilizing yourself. Many of us would be riled up in such a situation. I would likely feel frustrated, angry, embarrassed, or confused in such a situation, so I would need a couple of minutes to collect myself. If this is the case for you, let the offender know that you would like to talk with them in a minute or so, and then go to your desk, down the hall, or wherever you can go out of site. Take a few deep breaths and get yourself calm and collected.

Next, talk to the offender privately. Sincerely ask them if they are aware of how distracting their behavior is and if they are aware that they are derailing the objective of the meeting. It may honestly be that they are not aware of their behavior and its consequences. It never ceases to amaze me how many students share situations in which a difficult person was confronted about their “difficultness” and they had no idea. Sometimes making someone aware of their behavior is all that’s needed to change it.

Finally, I would solicit their help in finishing the rest of the session. Remind them of the objective of the session and help them see how they are a part of achieving that, which is why, of course, they were invited.

Easy? Absolutely not. And I wouldn’t suggest that it may even be politically wise to do this if the offender is a person way “above” you on the corporate ladder.

But controlling meetings takes courage, and it’s not easy. If it were, all meetings would run smoothly and be a good use of organizational resources. And I don’t hear from too many folks who feel that’s the case.

What has worked for you in similar situations?

What to do with Meeting Saboteurs? was posted at ProjectBrief Blog. | http://www.watermarklearning.com/blog