Talking to the C-Suite? Then Speak Their Language!

One of the issues I typically see PM’s and FM’s struggling with is getting C-Suite buy-in to project and operational proposals. Yet, when you ask those who reside in the C-Suite they often respond that the information presented to them fails to address their concerns and needs. What then, are their information needs?

Understanding the priorities within your own C-Suite is critical to answering that question. Then you can decide what tactics support those priorities and craft your communications to articulate your project in a manner that clearly identifies its implications to those needs. Generally speaking, the list of things C-Suite executives care about is actually fairly short:

Alignment
Competitive Advantage
Compliance
Customer Satisfaction
Governance
Profitability
Risk Management

Put your project proposals and updates into these terms and your message will be heard and understood.

The Advantages of A Continuous Decision Making Cycle in Project Management

In case you haven’t noticed, the volume, speed, and quality of information you need to deliver successful projects continues to increase across all three dimensions. Why is it then that many of our projects are organized and managed as if they are static monoliths instead of the organic entities that they are? In any large project the risks of delivering tomorrow what you needed yesterday is significant. The speed of change in today’s business world often times means that by the time you finish a project the environment and needs that originally justified it have changed. If you have not adapted the project to the new needs as they evolve, then you will at best strand some portion of your investment at project completion. If it is a large project then you can count on the stranded portion being large as well (there’s that pesky “Law of Large Numbers” again!).

One management model that seeks to overcome this dilemma is Continuous Decision-Oriented Governance. In this model critical strategic issues are identified and continuously checked. Key project executives are responsible for conducting due diligence and making top level decisions that redirect the project while it is in progress. Best implemented with lean management teams, the executive team’s focus is on the “next” major issue/milestone, having made the mid-course corrections needed for the last and leaving tactical staff to implement those. Think of it as Just In Time decision making for the project process, but with the difference that it extends throughout the life of the project, not just the pre-construction or pre-implementation phase. In the end, this methodology can lead to an end result that supports current business needs and strategies instead of ones that are outdated at project completion.

The critical elements in this concept are information, analysis, and data-based decision making. It is a requirement that the proper tools (strategic plans, financial data, able analysis, partnered executives, etc.) be fully integrated and aligned in this approach. It puts a maximum premium on agile execution, resulting in a project that is managed from a business perspective, not a bricks and mortar perspective.

Finally, lest anyone think this sounds like a recipe for chaos and project anarchy, let me set the boundaries. This governance model is intended to work within the framework of well thought out project objectives and must continually adhere to those. The framework, however, should provide flexibility to allow the executive team leading the project room to maneuver, in order to adjust to changing business needs and take advantage of opportunities as they present themselves.

Ever Feel Like You Are Re-Learning Lessons Learned?

I know that at the end of every project you include identifying lessons learned as part of the summary process. But I sometimes wonder how long these lessons are retained in institutional memory. In really good organizations they become immediate attention items and targets for process redesign, but in most they are little more than a bullet point statement on an end-of-project PowerPoint brief.

There are ways to be more proactive in making sure these lessons learned are really learned, and not repeated. First, make the review of prior lessons learned a required part of every new project’s launch process. Secondly, make learning (both new knowledge and old lessons) a part of the project scorecard. The increased up front attention and continuing visibility / reporting through the project life cycle will pay off.

Practice What You Believe

In his book Leadership Is An Art, Max DePree told a story about the belief and commitment of the noted English architect, Sir Christopher Wren. Wren once built a structure in London and his employers claimed that a certain span he had planned was too wide and insisted that he add another row of columns for support. Sir Christopher finally gave in and agreed. He added the row of columns, but left a space between them and the beams above.

“The worthies of London could not see this space from the ground. To this day, the beam has not sagged. The columns still stand firm, supporting nothing but Wren’s conviction.”

At the end of the day Leadership is about commitment.

Commitment to your beliefs, so much so that you will choose them over expedience when hard tests come.

Commitment to your people, to be honest with them, even when it isn’t easy.

Commitment to yourself, so that you will have confidence when others don’t.

Leadership is about all of these and more, but mostly it is about how you transfer what you believe into what you DO.

The History and Future of CRE

How are CRE and FM organizations morphing themselves in order to support global enterprises while increasing their service, financial values, and leaning themselves? One answer can be found in the Integrated Resource and Infrastructure Solutions (IRIS) vision of CRE in the year 2010. Sponsored by CoreNet Global, the CRE 2010 study investigated organizational model and infrastructure trends in the industry. Here is a summary of the evolution the project traced and predicted.

Stage 1 (60’s): CRE groups formed, centralization begins, some out-tasking, few vendors

Stage 2 (80’s): Large CRE departments, some out-tasking, few vendors

Stage 3 (early 90’s): CRE departments downsize, increased out-tasking, many vendors

Stage 4 (mid-90’s): CRE downsizes again, smaller number of preferred vendors

Stage 5 (late 90’s): Small and strategically focused CRE staff, small number of alliance partners
accountable for services on a regional basis, second tier vendors support alliance partners

Stage 6 (early 2000’s): Very small CRE staff, small number of strategic partners, second tier alliance partners

Stage 7 (mid-2000’s): Very small CRE staff, a single strategic partner, vendors support single strategic partner

The evolution has been driven in large measure by mergers, acquisitions, and globalization, resulting in corporate CRE departments in large companies that are no longer the doers as much as they are the strategists. More and more we see regional/global strategic partners adding their value to the strategy mix as they leverage their advantages of scale.

If you are wondering how your organization needs to evolve in order to increase its value and remain competitive and relevant, then check yourself against the pathway outlined above. Most global and many large domestic CRE/FM organizations today are in Stage 6. And, you don’t have to be one of the big guys either. As the trends continue the trickle down affects will offer advantages to mid-tier organizations as well.

If you would like to read more about the CoRE 2010 project and how CRE practitioners are putting the concepts to work in real life, see the FM Link article at http://www.fmlink.com/ProfResources/Magazines/article.cgi?Corporate%20Real%20Estate%20Leader:corenet020507.html