Additional Random Bits from the NASA PM Challenge, 2012

The annual NASA PM Challenge is a really good meeting. The speakers are generally excellent and the material covers a wide range from project management fundamentals to the latest great and innovative management ideas. The ratio of outstanding talks to duds is excellent at this conference. Following up on my last post about Norm Smith’s talk at this meeting, here are some additional random ideas, lessons, and thoughts I noted from various talks at the conference:

  • Be wary of SPI: it does not care if the work performed was on critical path or non-critical path items. Your project may be more or less on track than SPI indicates.
  • For typical projects, CPI does not change significantly after 20-30% of project completion. If the CPI is not good at that point, significant intervention is likely needed to correct it.
  • Good PM risk reduction technique: ask “If I gave you some $, what risks could you reduce for how much?”
  • Listen to learn.
  • Think “I get to” vs. “I have to”.
  • Contracts need to acknowledge and provide for iterative and collaborative risk management.
  • Contracts should support and provide for strategic as well as tactical collaboration.
  • How many technical innovations from the past 20 years do you use daily? How many management innovations from the past 20 years do you use daily?
  • Sometimes you have to cast away past successes to reach new ones.
  • No one comes to work wanting to do a bad job.
  • Adapt to your team, not v/v.
  • Starting a new online platform? Seed it with content before going live. People won’t come back if there’s no point the first (few) visit(s).
  • Take your job seriously; don’t take yourself seriously.
Posted in General | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Managing Cost, Schedule, and Scope is not enough.

Project Management 101 teaches the need to actively, and simultaneously, monitor and manage a project’s cost, schedule, and scope. Project Management 102 might add risk management to the list as well. These ideas have become fundamental tenets of project management and have been around for decades, yet projects still fail. Are project managers simply not learning these lessons and not actively managing this crucial project management trinity? Or, perhaps, is there something more that’s needed?

I certainly agree that a project must manage its cost, schedule and scope. I’ve even written about the importance of doing so, but this alone, as countless delayed, over-budget, and failed project have told us, is not enough to ensure project success. A project must first be addressing the right issue. Is the result of the project what is needed? A project also needs a project sponsor who can provide support when needed and work internal and external stakeholders to develop a consensus for and enthusiasm about the project. Additionally, a project needs overall stakeholder involvement and buy-in. And finally, a project needs good change management. Change will happen; it’s how it is handled that can make or break a project. Without properly addressing these items – project purpose, sponsor and stakeholder involvement, and change management – even proper managing of cost, schedule, scope and risk will likely still result in a failed project.

Norm Smith, in a recent talk I attended, (you can read more about Norm Smith and his ideas at his website: http://www.smithops.com/Training.php; I definitely recommend watching Norm’s brief video via that link), broke this list down (and improved it) as:


  • Situational Awareness
  • Enfranchisement
  • Boundary Maintenance

Situational Awareness is understanding where you are in the project, where you started, and where you are going. Schedules and project plans are often the tool used to create this awareness, but they don’t always work for that purpose and they are often used more as a means to themselves, and not as a tool designed solely for situational awareness. Norm stressed the importance of using a schedule to the detail needed to provide the right amount of situational awareness. You don’t always need each work package broken into half-day tasks to successfully manage a project and maintain situational awareness.

Enfranchisement is fairly simple – getting your team and stakeholders (including the project sponsor, which I had separated out, above) united in the project mission. This task is crucial if you are to efficiently deliver the right products and overcome unexpected surprises thrown at you along the way.

Boundary maintenance is akin to scope management and change control. It is making sure the project does what it is supposed to do, not more, not less. It is also responding appropriately to the change which is inevitable for most projects.

In this new light, managing cost (ex., Earned Value Accounting), schedule (ex. Work Breakdown Structures, Microsoft Project), and scope are simply tools used to create the situational awareness and boundary maintenance that are the real core components necessary for a successful project. Don’t let these tools control the project. They are not the essential tools for a successful project; they are simply tools, and not the only ones available at that, that may help you create the real elements needed for project success.



If you’re interested in project management, especially as it pertains to large projects, Scot highly recommends the annual NASA Project Management Challenge meetings. Some of the best talks he’s ever heard have been at these meetings.

Posted in General | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

On systems, processes, and paperwork

Lately, I’ve come across several proposed new systems, processes, and forms —  all developed to address an assumed real, but unstated need.  In most cases, I could see a useful purpose for the new system/process/form,  but it usually wasn’t provided to me explicitly.  I didn’t know if my interpretation of what this new proposal was all about was shared by those directing it so I often feared I would be wasting my time by doing something that wasn’t what was actually wanted.

Developing a common framework and tools for management tasks makes sense, but there must be a system behind them, else you just end up creating a bureaucracy instead of an effective, efficient system.  I see several things to address before implementing a new system, process, or form:

  1.  What is the purpose/goal? What problem are you trying to solve?
  2. Who is your audience?
  3. What are the requirements needed to fulfill your objectives within your target audience?
  4. What are the implementation costs?
  5. What are the costs of non-implementation?
  6. Given all the above, is implementation the right approach?

There’s nothing terribly new here, but the items above make a good checklist to go through before starting a new formal process.  If you don’t address the first three points, you may end up spending a lot of time doing something which propels you no further down the road.  In addition, if you don’t evaluate the costs of what you’re proposing against the current incurred costs in light of your available resources, you risk spending too much time on something that is ultimately not going to improve your situation enough to be worth it.

Large projects need a fairly broad framework in which to operate.  They also, typically, staff a project office sufficiently to help produce and support this framework.  While smaller projects can also benefit from this same framework, typically the cost of doing so is prohibitively high.  So, smaller projects must think carefully about what it can do, what it can’t afford not to do, and ignore the things it can afford to not do.  Going through a similar checklist as above ought to help decide into which category a proposed new system belongs.  (Actually, I’m sure this same approach works for large projects as well — we are all resource-starved these days.)



Speaking of checklists, Scot found the book “The Checklist Manifesto” by Atul Gawande a very good read and a great strategy for helping to ensure routine tasks are done correctly every time. Packing for trips, as an example, got immensely easier once checklists got involved.

Posted in General | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Musings on the future of Astronomy

The future of astronomy seems clear to me right now. It goes through ESO.

That’s not particularly bad, especially if you’re an ESO member, but if you’re not, things may be a little less good. With the addition of Brazil, ESO has begun its expansion beyond Europe and it’s no secret that several other non-European countries are currently considering joining ESO. ESO stands to gain even more attention if one of the competing Giant Segmented Mirror Telescopes (GSMT: TMT/GMT) do not take off or appear to get the critical national support they need to attract and hold new funding partners. The world’s astronomers may have no choice – join ESO or stay out of the large telescope game.

Now, I have nothing against doing science with “small” (< 8m) telescopes. There is a lot of attractive and compelling science to be done there. The “smaller” telescopes offer more opportunities to innovate by using new observing techniques and equipment, having access to larger amounts of telescope time, and affording the opportunities for high-risk, high-gain projects that couldn’t be assigned time at the larger telescopes. But if you want a balanced national program, you are going to want access to the world’s largest telescopes, as well.

In the thirty meter telescope era, funding and general support for the 8-10m telescopes will decrease. No problem for ESO – it has a full house of telescope of different apertures and functions, working in conjunction to support one another and produce a well-balanced suite of capabilities for its user community. It is more of a problem, however, if you’re a single (or even dual) 8m telescope owner like Gemini, Subaru, or Keck, for example. Mauna Kea astronomy is some of the best in the world, and yet, without a GSMT for its community, and in the face of shrinking budgets as its telescope owners either divest themselves from the Mauna Kea telescopes to invest in a GSMT or ESO or simply to reduce their commitment to astronomy, Mauna Kea telescopes will decrease in relevance. ESO is great, but for the good of astronomy, we can’t let Mauna Kea, we can’t let non-ESO astronomy, fade away.

One possible solution has been discussed for ages, but never fully endorsed or implemented. It is starting, however to reappear in several different forms for different, but related reasons. We must somehow unite the telescopes on Mauna Kea into something greater than the sum of the individual observatories.  There is a VLT right now on Mauna Kea, but we just don’t operate it as such. Actually, when you consider the unique strengths of even just the 8-10m telescope on Mauna Kea, we have a potential uber-VLT in our midst. Add community access to Gemini South and you have a facility which could conceivably span both northern and southern hemispheres – a very worthy competitor to the VLT.

Establishing some sort of Mauna Kea Federation has several advantages: 1) it would allow each observatory to concentrate on what it does best, reducing the costs incurred in trying to provide each independent community access to the entire spectrum of wavelength and resolution coverage on the sky, 2) it would allow each facility to offer a capability in its strong suit that is currently beyond anything it can currently afford to do, 3) it would form a natural community to not only fund, but properly feed and support, a non-ESO GSMT, and 4) through shared resources, it would provide each community with better access to tools and facilities than any community currently has.

In the inevitable funding cuts that will certainly come to the current Mauna Kea telescopes, the disparate Mauna Kea communities must join together if they are going to continue to have access to the level of infrastructure they are used to. It is unlikely that any existing Mauna Kea observatory will be able to offer the same range of wavelength and resolution in cutting edge instrumentation with the high levels of support that it currently does. Downgrade your capabilities or unite. There will be no other choice.

So, given all this, how do we unite the current Mauna Kea telescopes? I don’t at all claim to know the detailed answer to that one, but I think the path includes the word federation. We must find a way to allow each observatory to retain its current identity and functional systems while allowing each observatory to develop capabilities that both play to its own strong suit and are attractive not only to its own community of users, but to the communities from the other telescopes as well. I don’t think this task is all that hard (the large Mauna Kea telescopes have some natural complements to each other already), but it will take a change in mindset to implement. In the meantime, I think each facility ought to be increasing its strengths and planning for a future where these strengths are traded for high-level capabilities at the other facilities. Playing to our strengths is a good strategy even in the absence of a Mauna Kea Federation. As each facility further develops its strengths, though, it will find that not only is its community enjoying the new benefits, but other communities will start looking for ways to get access themselves. By making our facilities the best at what we can each do best, we will start driving the demand for some sort of federation at both ends: our own communities will start wanting access to capabilities in short supply at our facilities and other communities will start wanting our unique capabilities to complement theirs as well. If we do this right, need and desire from both sides will help us find a way form our more perfect union.

Realtime demand is a more effective motivator for change than is forward thinking and long term planning, however accurate and omniscient it may be.


Scot has nothing against ESO, and actually thinks they have a great facility and approach to fulfilling their communities’ needs, but for the good of astronomy, he thinks a little friendly competition and rivalry is a good thing. He’s pretty sure the ESO community would say the same thing, if asked.

Posted in General | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

I am can be powerful!

The other day, someone came into my office with a bad idea for a project of mine. I regularly get bad ideas from this person, so I naturally have just set myself to resisting whatever this person (let’s say a “him”) says and hoping he’ll go away and leave me alone so I can do what I know is best anyhow. Sometimes, though, this person wins and I end up begrudgingly doing what he suggests, even though, I know it’s the best thing to do.  Either way, I usually fight his ideas.  Because mine are better.

Or so I thought.

On this particular occasion, I lost myself and somehow decided to listen to this person and find out why he thought this idea was good, even though my initial reaction was that my own plan was better. I decided this time to really hear what he had to say, though, and actually discovered there was a good idea here that I had missed. I still didn’t like the implementation he put on his idea, but there was a good idea behind it all, a good idea I was about to dismiss entirely. After a few more moments of discussion, we actually arrived at a new plan, that was better than either one of our original ideas. He walked away happy and I had a better solution than I would have otherwise.

By being willing to listen, by exploring this seemingly bad idea for just a moment before dismissing it, by looking for the idea’s motivation and treating this person as a real person with skills and motivations I made someone who I might have considered a time sink into someone who can actually help me do my job.

Now that’s power we can all use and learn!



While Scot acknowledges this story is slightly fictional, and really only slightly, he writes it as a good reminder to maintain an open approach to ideas and people.

Posted in General | Leave a comment

Real vs. fake work: What are emails, meetings, etc.?

A couple years back, a group of us at work put together a series of classes designed to help people better communicate and manage their tasks more efficiently.  We present them in a sequence we think makes logical sense: Email Management, Task Management, Setting Deadlines and Following-up, and Better Meetings.  There is a common refrain heard during our classes that the material is all fine and good, but people just don’t have time to practice and do all the techniques we discuss.  People who try to do these things complain that doing so leaves them no time to get any real work done.  They say this as if being busy were excuse enough to avoid these responsibilities, as if responding to emails, managing task priorities, following up on task requests, and properly leading and preparing for meetings were optional things that can be skipped when they are busy.  I no longer wonder so many people think sending emails (if no one responds to them), setting priorities (if no one pays attention to them), doing work requested from others (if no one ever checks in to see how things are going), and attending meetings (if no one ever prepares for them) are a waste of time.

While many of us would like to spend all our time doing only that part of our work that we enjoy, whether it be writing software, designing or building new instruments, conducting research, or whatever,  few people have that luxury either in their organization or perhaps ever in their own work lives.  So, let me say something very unpopular: answering email is real work.  Making sure you are working on the most important thing to be working on in any given moment is real work.  Following up on tasks you depend on that others are supposed to be doing is real work.  Attending meetings is real work.  These things are not fake work. They are not pointless tasks that don’t further your organization’s objectives (well, at least they shouldn’t be – more on that later).  They are part of the necessary ingredients for running and working within an organization.

Now, all that being said, I do admit that not all emails contain useful information or necessary requests for action, not all tasks on your todo list are of equal importance,  and some meetings seem to have no practical purpose, but these examples should be the exception, not the rule.  What most treatises on managing your email and tasks and running better meetings leave out, for example, is the first step: eliminate as many unnecessary emails, tasks. and meetings as possible. Try sending less email; you’ll probably get less in return.  Pick up the phone if there’s a complicated issue involved rather than sending 12 rounds of email.  Call a meeting if many people need to be consulted on a complex issue.   Accept new tasks only if you can make the time to devote to them.  If a meeting isn’t making a decision, why are you having it?

Eliminate extraneous emails and meetings, but do process the rest fully. This is real work.  If you have too many tasks on your plate to manage; too many people to follow-up with, too many meetings to attend, then you probably aren’t getting everything done and you might as well select which tasks aren’t going to get done by purposefully eliminating them from your plate rather than letting random fate dictate what tasks you do and which you don’t. When you’ve prepared yourself a plate of tasks appropriate to your available time, manage those tasks properly; follow-up with others needed to help you complete your tasks and projects. This is necessary work.  This is real work.

Recently an attendee from one of our classes asked me if David Allen had any quantitative evidence that regularly emptying your inbox actually made you a better performer at work.  Although he had a slightly different point in mind, I responded, in part, as follows:

No, I don’t believe David Allen has any quantitative evidence that emptying your inbox is a good thing. I’ve never seen any, at least.  I also don’t think he needs any. Do we need numerical evidence to show that listening to our phone messages is a good thing? That writing down action items assigned to us at a project meeting is a good thing?   To me, emptying my inbox is about understanding my tasks and workload; I can then decide, by choice, how to handle each task (do, delegate, delete, file, re-negotiate, etc.) and be confident I am not letting some critical request on my time go unnoticed, lost in my inbox.

The email inbox represents a task list. Some tasks can be dealt with quickly while others take more time. But if we don’t go through that task list and make decisions about which tasks to do and which not to do, we are letting chance dictate which tasks get done and which not, simply depending on which emails we happen to look at. (We also make ourselves uneasy, wondering what we’re missing or forgetting about that’s contained in that inbox.)  Emptying our inboxes is not about completing all the tasks that the emails represent, but about getting the tasks out of our inboxes (it’s called an inbox for a reason) and into our task management systems where we can decide when to schedule/do the work. David Allen’s point is that it is just as necessary to process our email inboxes as it is to answer our phones, get our mail, respond when someone knocks on our doors, etc.

What David Allen doesn’t address, is how to minimize the number of potential tasks that come to us via our email inboxes.  That is something we tried to include in our classes, though, since we believe it’s a key part of the solution to getting our inboxes under control.

So, if you don’t have time to handle your email properly, manage your tasks and your requests of others sufficiently, attend and lead productive meetings, then the first step is to eliminate clutter from your work life.  Cut down on the emails you send, filter emails you know don’t need attention right away, unsubscribe to some mailing lists.  Delegate, re-negotiate or reject tasks you aren’t going to get done.  Eliminate unnecessary meetings from your schedule.   But once you do these things, your work isn’t done unless you manage your emails and tasks, check in with those working on tasks for you, and come prepared to make meetings productive.   These tasks are necessary. They are real work.  They may not be the most glorious of tasks on your plate, but if you don’t do them, the rest of your real work will likely suffer.


Unfortunately, Scot isn’t perfect, either, in making sure all the necessary non-”real” work gets done in his life, but he has found that when he does do it, things go more smoothly and this has been pretty good motivation to make the time to try to do these things right.

Posted in General | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Superficial pleasantries vs. honest relationship building

In my last post, I discussed some thoughts from reading Conger, Lawler, and Finegold’s Corporate Boards book. Here is something else that caught my eye in that book that has near universal applicability -not just to corporate (or observatory) boards.

In a section of the book on how boards can/should review themselves, the authors write about why most boards don’t end up reviewing themselves in any meaningful way:

There was a concern it might cause disharmony in the group. It was that primitive notion of what creates more effective teams. ‘Effective’ teams in this case, are where you skirt issues of difficulty, or personal differences. It’s more like ‘We want to be able to have a drink together and like each other’ as opposed to ‘If we confront ourselves on real issues, we’ll deepen the relationship.’

There’s not much more that needs to be said after the authors’ summary.  Too often people, managers, team leaders, team members, employees, fail to raise an issue for fear of being confrontational, of being thought of as not nice.  There’s a common (mis)perception that if we confront people, if we speak up when something is wrong, then we are not being nice; we are not being good colleagues; we are poisoning the congenial atmosphere. This attitude is, of course, silly, as the above passage points out.  By not confronting the real issue, by not making these tough decisions, we may establish a superficial pleasantness, but we don’t ever dig any deeper and build real understanding that leads everyone to peak performance and a more satisfying environment.

Confronting people does not make you tough or mean. You can confront someone in a mean, objectifying way, or you can confront people in a helpful, supportive, personal way.  We’ve all heard of stories (usually told of great managers) who fired someone only to have them return some time later and be quite successful. Were these people fired in a mean-spirited, impersonal way? Probably not. They were probably fired with sincerity, reflecting on the fact that their employment in their current role was not only not working, but was of little benefit to either party.  They were fired with honesty.   They thus created the opportunity to learn from life’s problems.  Firing, reviewing, confronting someone with malice or dishonesty at heart does not provide a foundation from which anything greater can develop.

Same behavior, different attitude. You can “be mean” and confront someone or you can “be nice” and confront someone.  Honest confrontation meant to improve the relationship, the teamwork, and the results is not only healthy, but necessary for high performance.   Skirting around the interpersonal issues gives you two people who can go drink together, but who won’t ever build a bond and a team that will lead to greatness.



While Scot hopes he will never be fired with either good or bad intentions, he does look forward to opportunities to develop an honest, deeper understanding with his colleagues, although seizing these moments is still not always as easy as he would like.

Posted in General | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Balancing Two Boards

Gemini has two Boards – the Gemini Board from the international partnership agreement and the AURA Board. It’s actually a bit (well, OK a lot) more complicated than this. The National Science Foundation (NSF) is Gemini’s Executive Agency. They collect and distribute the funds for Gemini from the Gemini partnership. They also provide the funds for the US part of Gemini. AURA is our Managing Organization and is basically responsible for the management of Gemini. They have their own board and a specific oversight committee for Gemini, the AOC-G. The Gemini Board is basically our governing body, being the representatives of the partner countries to Gemini’s operating board. If each of these agencies, boards, and committees wants a review twice a year, Gemini would (and quite nearly does) end up with a major review a month. This would be bad enough, but as you can imagine, with so many organizations, boards and oversight committees, it can get a little confusing figuring out who is responsible for what and to whom. The lines of control and authority are blurred and complicated. The Gemini Board sets Gemini’s direction, yet Gemini’s Director takes home a salary provided through AURA. The reviews from the different groups in the observatory’s governance structure often end up commenting on the same aspects of the observatory while leaving other aspects untouched. In some areas, everyone wants their piece of the action, to have their say, while other aspects escape without much scrutiny at all. Overall, it’s a recipe for confusion and disorder.

The Gemini Partnership Agreement specifies the general roles of the Gemini Board, the Executive Agency, and the Management Organization. but of course not those of each of their boards and oversight/review committees. So, even if everyone read and understood the Partnership Agreement, there would still likely be confusion. The Partnership Agreement and Management Organization’s contract will be up for renewal soon (~2015) so we have an opportunity in a few years to simplify this whole structure and come up with an organization that has clearer and cleaner lines of authority and responsibility. In the meantime, though, we still have to make things work a little better than they do now. The unclear lines of communication and authority are hindering us from becoming a true high performance organization with a single team able to focus on a common mission.

Balancing Gemini's Boards takes some care and thought, but should not be too difficult if can agree on a clear division of roles and responsibilities.

In their book, Corporate Boards: New Strategies for Adding Value at the Top, authors Conger, Lawler, and Finegold define the primary roles of the corporate board as follows:

1) giving strategic direction and advice
2) overseeing strategy implementation and performance
3) developing and evaluating the CEO
4) developing human capital
5) monitoring the legal and ethical performance of the corporation
6) preventing and managing crises
7) procuring resources

With only a little study, these 7 roles divide up fairly nicely to those potentially of the Gemini Board and those of the Managing Organization. The Gemini Board represents the partnership’s interest in Gemini. AURA and its boards/committees represent Gemini’s management and staff. A natural division, therefore of these roles would assign #s 1, 2, 6, and 7 to the Board and #s 3,4, and 5 to AURA. This division of roles lets the Gemini Board concentrate on strategy and resource procurement (partners, development funding, etc.) while AURA concentrates on human resources and legal operational issues. Allowing AURA the time and focus to concentrate on developing, evaluating and supporting Gemini’s human resources would be a nice benefit to this approach and would help Gemini develop and keep its best home-grown talent for future roles within the Observatory.

This division of roles also allows the opportunity for the Gemini Board to review AURA’s performance and, if we’re really being open to new ideas, to have the AURA Board, or even better, an NSF (our Executive Agency) review committee, evaluate the Gemini Board’s effectiveness. Each Board reviews Gemini in the areas of its domain, and each Board (and/or the NSF) reviews the other Board to keep everyone honest and help ensure everyone is working as optimally as possible, together, to push the Observatory forward. This sort of separation of powers is very consistent with the responsibilities of the Gemini Board, Executive Agency, and Managing Organization detailed in the partnership agreement. The Board is given the fiscal and strategic responsibilities for the Observatory as well as oversight/review of the Managing Organization. The Managing Organization is given the responsibility to develop management plans, employ key Gemini staff, and carry out Board decisions. They are thus also the likely choice for the roles of top personnel development and review within the Observatory. The roles I’ve defined could easily be agreed upon now with only a slight extrapolation necessary from the partnership agreement, and formalized, after some time to see how it works, in the next partnership agreement.


These are interesting times for Gemini, perhaps even more so than on average. Scot hopes discussions like this one happen often and broadly while we discuss and form the structure and organization of Gemini into the next decade.

Posted in General | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment