Embarking on a project with high hopes and ambitious goals only to witness it veering off course due to poor initiation can be a daunting experience for any company.
The consequences of ineffective management frequently appear as extended timelines, surpassing budgets, and a demoralized team.
This blog post delves into the complexities of reining in a project that started poorly, highlighting the typical pitfalls that contribute to such situations and the proactive approaches that can be utilized to address these challenges effectively.
According to industry reports, globally, only 40% of projects meet their goals in terms of scope, schedule, and budget.
Also, for example in the US, for every billion dollars invested in the United States, $122 million is wasted due to a lack of project performance.
Considering these statistics, we can conclude that there are widespread challenges in project management and that there are serious financial implications associated with mismanagement.
What are the risks with poorly initiated projects?
To understand how important it is to establish processes in a project, it’s essential to reflect on what can happen if the root of the problem is not solved first.
Let’s look at what’s we are risking:
- Complete project failure
- The developed solution does not fulfil the requirements
- Late market entry
- Bad product quality
- Increased development expenses
Why is it challenging to revitalize a poorly initiated project?
Revitalizing a poorly initiated project that's already in progress can be challenging for several reasons:
Incomplete understanding
When you join a project midway, you might not have a comprehensive understanding of the initial planning, decisions made, and the rationale behind them. This lack of context can make it difficult to identify the root causes of issues.
Existing team dynamics
Projects develop a certain team dynamic and work culture over time. Coming in later may mean encountering established communication patterns, team relationships, and resistance to change.
Also, miscommunication or lack of communication about the project's status, goals, and challenges can prevent the smooth integration of new strategies. Team members may not be aware of the reasons behind the changes, which further leads to confusion and resistance.
Change management issues
The project team and stakeholders may have invested a significant amount of time, effort, and resources by the time you join. Admitting that the project was poorly initiated might be met with resistance due to the sunk costs and emotional commitment.
Time constraints
Deadlines, contractual obligations, and client expectations can create pressure to deliver results within a specific timeframe.
Risk of repeating mistakes
Understanding the history of the project is crucial to avoid repeating the mistakes that led to its poor initiation. Without a clear understanding of past missteps, the risk of making similar errors in the future is high.
Is it possible to make changes for the better in such a project?
Enlight Engineering has participated in projects of a similar nature, where our involvement commenced midway. We were met with poor project initiation which evolved into a mismanaged project that needed to be put back on track.
Let’s dive into one of our experiences.
Enlight experience: What were the main problems in poor project initiation?
The ultimate problem when it comes to project initiation in general is establishing a well-defined SDLC (Software Development Lifecycle).
This means that there was no adequate WoW (Way of Working) which refers to the absence of established processes, methodologies, or guidelines for the project team to follow. In particular, there were no defined roles, ceremonies, and artifacts that guide the team in how they should operate and collaborate throughout the project lifecycle.
The first problem was unclear business priorities. Without clear business priorities, the project team struggled to make informed decisions. Conflicting priorities would arise, leading to wasted efforts on less impactful tasks and potentially jeopardizing the overall project objectives. In the end we managed to define the business priorities:
- Stable and robust product
- Time to market
- Cost control
Also, there was no QA process which resulted in undetected defects, poor product quality, and increased post-release issues. It could have eventually led to customer dissatisfaction, rework, and additional development costs. Therefore, having systematic methods for ensuring the quality and reliability of the project deliverables is crucial.
Additionally, we were met with a development in progress without a clear direction, which meant that there was a lack of well-defined goals, objectives, or a project roadmap. Without a clear direction, development efforts lacked focus and coordination. Team worked on different aspects without a cohesive strategy.
The lack of well-defined project scope and estimates led to uncertainty about the project's boundaries, deliverables, and the resources required.
Without a clear scope and estimates, the project is susceptible to scope creep, where additional requirements are introduced without proper evaluation.
This would have led to delays, increased costs, and frustration among stakeholders.
How did we solve these issues?
The hardest part in trying to get the project back on track is the beginning.
For us, the starting point was going back to business priorities and identifying stakeholders. They were the first thing that had to be defined.
In general, our main goals were to:
- Define business needs and goals
- Establish requirements for QA
- Defining the referent WoW according to our client’s needs (coordinate with other processes, priorities etc.)
As we already mentioned, our solutions had to be in the service of business priorities, which was achieved by establishing a simple WoW.
This process of defining WoW had three different phases:
- The WoW we encountered
- The WoW we chose as adequate to the project
- Moving from the WoW we encountered to the WoW we decided to adopt
We decided that the SCRUM framework was the best suited for the project. So, to move the organization of the project into this framework, first, we defined roles (Product Owner, development team and the Scrum Master/Success Manager).
When it comes to ceremonies, the project had daily stand-ups, mini demos, and mini planning to concentrate on priority tasks and get quick feedback on implemented features, reducing the risk of spending resources on unnecessary elements.
Also, in our case, Fridays included a brief daily check-in and a mini retrospective for the team to reflect and improve.
Through mini retrospective, we were able to remove the biggest impediments, implement good practices (for example, requirements and QA process) and move towards the adequate WoW.
As for the artifacts, a backlog in the form of a Kanban board which included visually representing and managing tasks or features through columns. This allowed for a clear, real-time overview of work ages and made efficient workflow possible. The entire WoW was also documented.
Artifacts play a vital role in the project because they keep everyone informed and on the same page, making communication clear, and decisions well-supported, ensuring a smooth workflow for the team. They act as a shared guide by providing a structured and documented framework for managing information throughout the project lifecycle.
What was the result?
- An adequate WoW was established
- Tailor-made WoW which was documented and tested
- Minimizing risks to develop a solution that the client does not need
- Removal of the main obstacles
- Implementation of best practices
- Business priorities addressed
Embarking on a journey to correct the bad practices of a poorly initiated project, especially when joining in mid-way is particularly difficult. However, it is not impossible to get it back on track. In this blog post, we explored how to put into control such a project through various strategies and steps that must be taken.
