The worst error in scheduling

---

The worst error in scheduling is to have a milestone depend upon two or more tasks scheduled (planned) to finish at the same time.

Here's a footnote to that witticism: It's assumed the two tasks are independent, meaning:

• They don't share resources
• They don't have the same vulnerabilities to a common risk
• The progress, or not, in one does not affect progress in the other

So, what's the big error here?

• First, as regards milestone success , each of the tasks leading into the milestone is a risk to success (success means: it is achieved on time)
• Second, total risk is the product of all the input risks (as seen by the milestone) . 
• So, whereas each task coming into the milestone may not be too risky, say by example 90/10 (*), three tasks of 90/10 each would present a risk to the milestone such that success is reduced to about 73/27

(*) 90 successes out of 100, or 90% chance the task will finish on time, or early.

What are you going to do about this?

Bring on the time buffers! (**)

• You might be able to add a buffer on one or more of the input tasks to raise the success of that task to 99/01, or so
• You might be able to add a buffer following the milestone, such that any late success is absorbed by the buffer (This tactic is called "shift right" by schedule architects)
• You might be able to reorganize the schedule to eliminate this milestone, or one or more of its input tasks.

(**) A scheduled event of zero scope, but a specific amount of time, aka: a zero-scope time box.

---

Buy them at any online book retailer!

Can you spend $1M in a month?

---

Here's the challenge: On your project, can you spend $1M in a month?

Take a minute and think about it.

Consider:

• If you've got 100 people with an annual payroll of $15M, then yes, it's possible, even likely
• If you've got 20 people with an annual payroll of $3M, then maybe, with overtime and some material charges.

Got your answer?

Good!

Then here's another challenge: If you can spend $1M in a month, can you do a $1M project in a month? Are they one and the same thing?

Consider:

• It's hard to get 100 people up and moving coherently to start and finish something in a month (that $1M may disappear into "start-up" inefficiencies)
• It's not too hard to get 20 people moving, but you might have to really work on motivation if you think you're going to spend $1M on people, but there may be tools, training, facilities, etc that will absorb funds.

So, having thought about it, maybe if you really need your 100-person team, 2 months and $2M is a better thing to have;

And, if you only need your 20-person team, even with overtime, you will be hard pressed to spend as much as $1M

What does all this mean?

You've just made some 'estimates' (gasp! that dreaded word)

Perhaps a bit crude and rude, but at least the 'breadbox' is somewhat defined

Never let it be said that nearly every minute of the day we are not making estimates:

• How long to get to the computer (home or office)
• How long for that meeting
• How much time to spend on email
• How much to spend on a car, hotel, or even a cruise
• On, and on, estimating!

---

Buy them at any online book retailer!

Which comes first .... A or B?

---

This is not about the A/B argument in Agile methods. 

This is about get the elements of project scope sequenced in the right time order 

• Does "A" come before "B", or not, and 
• Is there a dependency between "A" and "B"? 
• If not, then the sequencing question may be moot. If they are truly independent, then they can be scheduled for convenience, or according to some other dependency, "C"

But if the "A" before "B"? question is viable, then ...

Sequencing is the first task in forming a schedule, but only after you figure out the scope.

 

A before B

If you understand the nature of A and that of B, then if there is a dependency between them vis a vis time order, then getting A done before B sounds easy, but sometimes it makes you wonder!

• Is there a preamble to B that should be done before A is completed?
• Are the resources for A and B in conflict or not available; such could affect the "preamble" activity.
  
• Can B really start after A, or are there other dependencies on the start of B?
  
• Do I really want B to start, or do I want to pause and start C somewhere else? 
• If I start B, immediately after A, have I introduced unnecessary risk or other impacts?
  

Schedule depends on sequence

So, if you're thinking about sequencing, you're probably also thinking about schedule: how long it's going to take?

Or, the other way around: if you are working on a schedule, you have to get the sequence down first. 

 

From time to time, arguments boil up about scheduling tools, like MSProject and others. The usual thinking is that these tools are "so last century" and haven't kept up with more agile planning techniques. 

 

And, worst of all, these older tools promote waterfall (gasp!) scheduling, which is demagoguery for finish-to-start precedence. 

 

Finish-to-start precedence is a sequencing concept. If you pooh-pooh such precedence, I challenge you to put up the roof before the walls are in place.

It's all about the sequencing

First, you have to know what you are going to do. To wit: you can't sequence that which you don't know about, and furthermore, even then there may be sequencing errors you discover once you understand the full extent of the scope.

 

For any project, step 1 is to assemble (or define) the elements of scope by some affinity criteria. (Using the roof-after-walls example, get all the roof stuff in one grouping, and all the wall stuff in another grouping. That way, you can sequence the roof group after the wall group.)

Advice to PMO

At the PMO level focus on the major sequences that drive toward value-add milestones.

---

Buy them at any online book retailer!

Of clocks and time

---

What does this mean?

You have the clocks, but I have the time!

It means:

• If you are a tactical thinker, and I have the patience for the strategic, then I'll win in the end
• You may win all the battles, but I'll win the war (See: American revolution war with England)
• You may misunderstand the fundamentals of the project nemesis. You may be too lazy to understand; you may be the one that kills the messenger; you may be drinking your own Kool Aide (See: group think, bubbles, silos, small inner circle, etc)
• You have mistaken the tree for the forest
• You have a serious case of 'confirmation bias'

---

Buy them at any online book retailer!

Let it be mensurable!

---

To be mensurable is to be 

• Measurable
• Calculable
• Estimable
• Determinable

And, why do we care?

Enter: risk management

To compare two dissimilar risks violates the rule that risks to be compared must be similarly mensurable.

In a recent post, Matthew Squair, writing at 'critical uncertainties' makes the point that early on ....

(and I quote Squair)

".... lockdown sceptics were pointing out that your risk of drowning in a pool, in California, was much higher than that of dying from Covid 19 so why to worry? if you feel this is intuitively wrong, in fact wronger than wrong, you're right.

One of these risks is based on an independent probability. That is if I drown in a pool it's not going to have an affect on the probability of my neighbour drowning. But, on the other hand if I have Covid 19 you'll find the probability of my neighbour having Covid 19 is dependent on that; that is, the probabilities are dependent.

In one we truck along with a base rate of events unaffected by each other, in the other the events can affect each other and the risk can suddenly blow up.

To be very clear the two risks are immensurable and not directly comparable."

He goes to point out that many such immensurable comparisons are being made in the Covid space, such as the risk of getting Covid itself compared, incorrectly, to the risk of blood clot from a vaccine, etc.

---

Buy them at any online book retailer!

Tactics and strategy

---

Consider this military bit or wit, and put it in the context of a PMO dealing with tactics and strategy, as well as tactics and logistics on complicated and complex projects. Are you the professional or the amateur?

"There is an old—and misleading—bit of conventional military wisdom which holds that “amateurs study tactics, while professionals study logistics.”

The truth is that amateurs study only tactics or logistics, while professionals study both simultaneously.

The most brilliant tactics ever devised are pointless when the supplies needed to execute them do not exist, while all the supplies in the world are useless when a commanding officer has no idea how to effectively employ them."

Quote from "Field Marshal: The Life and Death of Erwin Rommel"

by Daniel Allen Butler

---

Buy them at any online book retailer!

You are a fiduciary

---

Alex Korda, a British businessman in the late 1930s, was quoted as saying about a project budget, with a shrug:

“A lot of money—other people’s money, of course, but still a lot.”

Let me offer some advice: when it's other people's money (OPM), it could be career-shortening to shrug off the budget or the budget overruns.

And, by the way, as a PM, you have a fiduciary responsibility to always act in the best interests of your "client". In this case: whoever's money it is. If it is not yours, then you should walk a mile in their shoes and handle their money the way they would.

---

Buy them at any online book retailer!