Managing Unrealistic Project Schedules for Architects and Engineers
As an architecture or engineering project manager, I’m sure you’ve never been forced to accept and include in your architecture or engineering project schedule any unrealistic data – most likely resulting from your project sponsor or your boss making a promise on a target end-date. Never? Right!
We all know that this happens all the time, and the result is:
• In most surveys on project management, many project managers and teams complain that they work on unrealistic schedules for their architecture or engineering projects.
• The same project managers and teams are still being blamed for not meeting those project schedule dates.
• Sponsors, bosses and organizations do not seem to be learning anything from this; and
• The same pattern goes on again and again, unresolved.
I tell architecture and engineering project managers that I coach that they should stop complaining about unrealistic project schedules and start doing something about it. I am still appalled at architecture and engineering project managers accepting to meet dates that do not make sense, or try to meet them without discussing the effect on cost (fast tracks cost more) or on quality.
Eventually, they end up having to play the role of scapegoat on a sinking project because they failed to challenge their sponsor, boss or other power, when they applied their magic thinking on these projects.
It is a fact that sponsors and bosses are here to make things happen, and the faster the better. And this is quite alright. It is also a fact that many of them just do not have a clue about what they are asking you to achieve. When I tell project managers that their sponsors or client very often do not understand the conditions required the meet the dates they “force” on them, some are quite surprised. I ask them why upper management would set such unrealistic goals…and if really think their bosses are stupid?
Unless architecture and engineering project managers present the facts and stop accepting unrealistic dates without conditions, they will not do an effective job of helping their management better understand the nature of the projects in question. When they do understand the situation, they will hopefully provide adequate resources and timeframes.
So, who’s the problem? The one asking for results, or the one not explaining the conditions required and complaining the schedule is unrealistic…after accepting this situation by default?
Here is an example of such a situation and how a project manager can help the project sponsor or client become a better project stakeholder and supporter. During a recent coaching session, a project manager told me that he was working on a new project involving the development of new injection molded plastic components. They had worked on similar projects for many years and testing and adjustments on the new molds always took between two to five weeks before going into production because of the sheer complexity of this piece of equipment.
The project sponsor provided a project end-date that did not really make sense, particularly because of this historical constraint. The sponsor was told that the only way the project schedule could be met was if the testing and adjustments could be completed in a week, something not achievable for this type of mold. The sponsor went into “magical thinking mode” and told the project manager that, he felt that the testing and adjustment would go extremely well and that the one week time frame would work.
So, what could the project manager do?
I told him that he had to go along with the unrealistic schedule ….but to make sure he documented in the project charter the fact that this date was based on the sponsor’s assumption of a one-week testing and adjustment period for the new mold. Then, once the mold has been tested and the adjustments required to make it work were finally known, I told the project manager that he would have to return to the sponsor with the charter and get his new estimate for the mold adjustments, so that it can be documented again.
I told the project manager that his sponsor would learn something important. Among other things, he has to accept ownership for imposed unrealistic delays (and that he will, because he is not an unreasonable person) and that he better leave things he doesn’t know about to those who do..
Many architecture or engineering project managers react strongly when I talk about challenging their sponsors and clients on obviously unrealistic imposed project schedules and end-dates. They think they put themselves at risk by doing that. In fact, the contrary happens. If you do not challenge and explain why these schedules are unrealistic:
• You will have very poor team mobilization because your project team will not buy into this schedule, and they will work on other projects, rather than be part of a projected failure.
• You will fail to meet the schedule for your architecture or engineering project.
• You will be the scapegoat for this project because you accepted it without asking the right questions.
• When you tell them at the end that the project schedule was unrealistic, you will be asked why you did not tell them at the start.
• You are on your way out as a successful AE project manager.
Project sponsors and clients are not unreasonable, and they are not stupid. They try to do their best with the information they have and the promises they are also forced to make. They deserve better from architecture and engineering project managers than silently working on unrealistic delay and failing.
And unless project managers do their job of challenging, informing and counselling their sponsors and clients in matters of realistic delays on their project schedules, they will continue to work on projects where it’s expected that a four feet thick concrete slab will cure in two days or where the paint will already be dried before we apply it. If you take the time to explain it to them, everyone can understand what is realistic, including your project sponsors and clients.
About the Author
Claude Emond is one of the founders and president of Qualiscope Enterprises, a project management consulting, coaching and training firm based in Montreal, Canada. He has degrees in chemical engineering from Canada’s Royal Military College (BEng) and Montreal McGill University (MEng), a MBA from Ottawa University, workshop leadership training from Le Centre Quebecois de la PNL, and is a certified PMP. He has over 25 years experience managing major public and private projects. He teaches project risk management in the Schulich School of Business Master certificate in project management and the PMP certification revision class for PMI, Montreal He is one of the authors of the current PMI Standards for Portfolio Management. Claude can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org
Generic accounting software programs fall short on providing the functionality that A&E firms require to be successful. This paper discusses the limitations of generic accounting systems and why A&E firms should consider moving to an A&E Industry Specific Accounting Platform to increase profitability and project success. To access the full report “Top Considerations for Adopting an A&E Industry Specific Accounting Platform” <click here>
- AE Industry News
- Firm Management
- Finance Accounting
- Project Management
- Business Development
- Government Regulations
- Deltek Clarity AE Industry Study
- PSMJ News
- Ajera Software Updates
- Talent Management
- Software Implementation
- Government Contracting
- Ajera Training
- Resource Planning
- Deltek Ajera CRM
- ASC 606 and IFRS 15
- Revenue Recognition
- Time and Expense
- Kona Business
- Financial Management
- KPIs and Analytics
- Talent Management
- Merger and Acquisition
- Client Management
- Ajera Case Study