How to Successfully Deliver Projects When Known PM Methods Do Not Work?

Using only one management method in the face of constant uncertainty is a bad idea. A hybrid method — combining frameworks from different systems — will help reduce risks. In this article, we will tell you about it.

Practice shows that standard project management methods (frameworks), such as PRINCE 2 or PMBok, are reviewed at best once every three years. This means that the finished framework is either adapted to a set of problems and risks relevant at its release, often formed for a specific industry, or works only with the most common “average” problems and risks.

But in any standard framework, some of the necessary organization tools may be missing, redundant, or unclaimed. This happens with both Waterfall and Agile.

However, in addition to external factors, the success of using frameworks is also influenced by internal ones:

• Project Maturity. This is how much the company is ready to implement specific practices. In practice, organizations with an established culture, organizational structure, and processes often do not coincide with the ideology of the implemented framework. Therefore, you must make many changes and break the usual system “over a knee”. And this is not always justified.
• Almost religious belief in specific project management frameworks. Adherents of ready-made frameworks often perceive them as an ideal template that cannot be deviated from and have a negative attitude towards attempts to correct them.
• Project Teams Maturity. Most off-the-shelf frameworks come with a stable must-have set of tools. However, it is often difficult for novice teams to master them all simultaneously. This increases the resistance to the implementation of the framework and negatively affects the quality of management since incorrectly used or unused tools can lead to errors and, as a result, the realization of risks. Mature teams, by contrast, usually have a familiar set of project tools. Moreover, it can be no less effective than the set offered by a ready-made framework and sometimes even surpass it in terms of tasks to have been solved.
• Differentiated Project Complexity. An organization can run multiple projects at the same time. For example, one is implementing a new reporting form, and the other is developing a new multi-million dollar digital product that involves changing critical business processes. The goals and risks of these projects will be completely different. Accordingly, the implementation tools should be different. However, the finished framework is focused on a single, optimized set of tools. In this case, the company must choose between accepting the costs of potential risks if the necessary tools are not in the framework and the costs of using excess tools.

Hybrid Approach

The trend of a hybrid approach to project management, which has been developing since 2015, allows us to solve these problems. In the Pulse of the Profession PMI reports, the hybrid approach has been ranked 2–3 in recent years, and its use, according to research, is at least 25% of all approaches used.

The hybrid approach considers all existing frameworks and best practices, whether they are Waterfall or Agile, as a knowledge base of project management tools. That is when using a hybrid approach, an organization can select project tools that are suitable specifically for its risk structure and its drivers. Moreover, when the situation changes, you can always revise the composition of the tools. At the same time, the skeleton of the original frameworks allows you to determine the risks the tool can reduce and the boundary conditions of use, simplifying the selection of suitable tools.

Most of the tools of project management frameworks can be successfully used in isolation from their ideological frameworks without reducing the effectiveness of solving target problems. This is possible because at the heart of any modern framework is the Deming cycle (or PDCA). Therefore, the only difference between them is in the:

• duration of this cycle,
• considered management aspects,
• industry specifics,
• and the toolkit used.

For example, a Waterfall Gantt Chart can be successfully used in a project with an Agile Kanban board. But if the former is convenient for long-term scheduling, then the Kanban board is more suitable for scheduling operational tasks and items.

The hybrid approach allows not only to build a unique project management system initially adapted to the organization but also to change it flexibly if necessary. It enables parallel use of different configurations of this system without losing its integrity. For example, you can use the minimum required set of tools on simple projects or for novice teams. Mature teams can already be given an additional choice of optional tools and organizational best practices. And individual tools can become mandatory in various ways, for example, only for large, expensive projects.

How to “build friendships” among the Tools from Different Approaches

Forming a project management system based on a hybrid approach requires some knowledge and skills in project management. For example, different names can be used to designate a tool in different frameworks, so you must understand their essence. However, the flexibility of the hybrid approach allows the development of the system, gradually supplementing it as new factors are identified. Examples of hybrid approach frameworks include P3Express, The Last Planner, PM Puzzle.

For a hybrid management system to work as efficiently as possible, close attention must be paid to the completeness and consistency of its elements. Therefore, for each of them, it is essential to select tools:

• Life-Cycle and Planning Units define the vertical (from phases to daily activities) and horizontal structure of the project (for example, the various phases of the life cycle — planning, implementation, and completion);
• Roles create a framework for the distribution of functions, powers, and responsibilities (for example, sponsor, scrum master, team leader);
• Events — one-time or recurring communications among participants that ensure the completeness and timeliness of information (for example, stand-up, planning meeting, steering committee);
• Artefacts — objects or documents that allow you to record and track the status of project activities. For example, the approved project charter fixes the conditions and restrictions for the implementation of the project and also confirms the fact that the implementation has begun;
• Methods — supplementary algorithms and approaches that describe the optimal processes for obtaining an artefact or event. For example, it can be a planning algorithm that describes the sequence of actions for developing a project schedule or an algorithm for organizing a Steering committee meeting.

Some hybrid approaches may use steps as elements. This is the optimal sequence of actions within a phase or stage of the life cycle. Since the variability of steps in practice is too high, and assembly from different frameworks requires specific technology, they are used mainly for teams with low maturity, in the first place, for primary training.

When selecting specific tools within a hybrid approach, it is also necessary to check the availability of tools for each risk’s detection, prevention, and remediation. The choice of a particular tool should consider its effectiveness and ease of use so as not to generate inefficient waste of time for the project manager and reduce the administrative burden and potential resistance when implementing a project management approach that differs from the historically established one.

Also, a hybrid approach allows, depending on the specifics of the activity, to vary the completeness of the description of the system elements. For example, for an artefact (in order of increasing complexity), the description might be:

• an example,
• a list of contents without displaying format specification,
• a template,
• an annotated template (with explanations on how to fill it in),
• quality criteria,
• step-by-step instruction.

Conclusion

Unlike Waterfall and Agile, a hybrid approach allows an organization to create its own unique project management framework, adapting it as much as possible to the specifics of the activity and existing conditions. A transparent justification for including specific tools for dealing with existing risks in the system allows you to supplement it with new tools when conditions change and eliminate those that have lost their relevance.

Forming a project management system based on a hybrid approach allows you to preventively eliminate the main causes of resistance to its implementation. For example, the lack of consideration of the ongoing project’s specifics, the maturity of project teams, and the traditional (for an organization) ways of organizing activities.

Thus, the project management framework, formed based on a hybrid approach, really becomes a means of reducing the impact of problems and risks on the organization, not only at a specific time point but as the operating conditions of the organization and its risk profile evolve.