Rescheduling: Project Factors

When rescheduling a collaborative effort becomes necessary, we tend to focus on the mechanics of rescheduling this effort. To focus on this effort is understandable, because this effort's schedule is the immediate problem, but there is benefit in taking a wider view. By considering the causes of the need to reschedule the present effort, we can reduce the probability of needing to reschedule other efforts.

Among the best-known causes of rescheduling is a cognitive bias known as the planning fallacy. [Kahneman 1977] [Kahneman 1979] [Brenner 2020.6] This bias is the tendency of planners to pay too little attention to historical evidence of project performance, and too much attention to evidence supposedly related to the present effort, even when that evidence is scanty or questionable. Another well-known cause: underestimating the work involved.

In this post I consider other project-related causes of the need to reschedule. These factors aren't specific to any particular kind of project; rather they relate to how projects are conducted generally, which enables us to identify factors that are generally applicable. For each of the factors below, I offer a definition and suggestions for limiting their effects on other projects.

Miscommunication

In a recent series of posts on miscommunication, I described nine antipatterns — nine patterns of behavior that tend to produce communication confusions. One of these is the discredited McNamara fallacy. To manage an effort using the McNamara fallacy is to manage it relying solely on metrics, while disregarding any consideration that cannot be measured.

The McNamara fallacy and eight other antipatterns account for much of the miscommunication that occurs in collaborative work. Tracking the incidence of miscommunications can be useful in controlling miscommunication as a cause of the need to reschedule collaborative efforts.

Inadequate risk planning and risk denial

It can be very difficult to allocate budget
and schedule for remediation of the impact
of a risk event that hasn't yet occurred

When risk events occur, we must remedy their effects. Remedies almost always consume budget and schedule. But it can be very difficult to allocate budget and schedule for remediation of the impact of a risk event that hasn't yet occurred, especially when that allocation comes at the expense of objectives held dear. And advocating for budget and schedule to deal with such events can seem to be "negative" — even disloyal.

This dynamic even applies to risk mitigation efforts directed at reducing the probability of a risk event occurring.

Inadequate risk planning and risk denial are surely among the more common causes of delusional scheduling and therefore rescheduling. Examine the history of collaborative efforts in your organization. Estimate how many missed dates, and how much in total budget overruns, can be attributed to plans that underestimated the likelihood of known risk events occurring, or their impact when they do occur.

Hidden scope expansion

Scope creep, also known as scope expansion, is a well-known cause of budget overruns and schedule slippage. The more obvious causes of scope expansion include those traceable to added objectives. Because they're obvious, they're more manageable. But there are many other causes. See "Some Causes of Scope Creep," Point Lookout for September 4, 2002, for a collection.

Perhaps the most consequential causes of scope expansion are those that are hidden from view because they look like something else. For example, perfectionism can lead a team to invest in quality at levels far beyond what the customer requires. Perfectionism thus appears to be a quest for quality, but it excludes from the definition of quality basic factors such as on-time delivery.

A second example of hidden scope expansion is the search for efficiency. Occasionally, we fold one effort into another, claiming that the combination would be more efficient in the sense that there will be cost savings and velocity increases. But the reconfiguration itself creates delays and costs of its own, which we rarely recognize. Examine historical data in your organization to uncover correlations between rescheduling and the various forms of hidden scope expansion.

Management staff changes

One more cause of rescheduling that can occur at the project level is a change of management. Changing the occupant of the role of project manager, product owner, scrum master or the like can create a need to reschedule in at least two ways. First, the new occupant might need a short time for orientation. The new occupant needs introductions to members of the team, status of the effort, familiarization with current "hot button" issues, and so on.

Second, and more important, some new occupants want to make a mark, to put their own stamp on the effort. They might bring along staff of their own, or adjust the overall strategy of the effort. These changes can have more significant effects on schedule, whether or not they are worthwhile.

In my experience, management staff changes are often politically motivated. Interventions based on outcome optimization by preventing politically motivated management staff changes are rarely successful. Altering or preventing a politically motivated staff change usually requires political action.

Last words

Next time I will explore what I call the Reactive Rescheduling Cycle — how rescheduling itself can lead to more rescheduling.   Next issue in this series   Top    Next Issue

Projects never go quite as planned. We expect that, but we don't expect disaster. How can we get better at spotting disaster when there's still time to prevent it? How to Spot a Troubled Project Before the Trouble Starts is filled with tips for executives, senior managers, managers of project managers, and sponsors of projects in project-oriented organizations. It helps readers learn the subtle cues that indicate that a project is at risk for wreckage in time to do something about it. It's an ebook, but it's about 15% larger than "Who Moved My Cheese?" Just . Order Now! .

Footnotes

Your comments are welcome

About Point Lookout

Thank you for reading this article. I hope you enjoyed it and found it useful, and that you'll consider recommending it to a friend.

This article in its entirety was written by a human being. No machine intelligence was involved in any way.

Point Lookout is a free weekly email newsletter. Browse the archive of past issues. Subscribe for free.

Support Point Lookout by joining the Friends of Point Lookout, as an individual or as an organization.

Do you face a complex interpersonal situation? Send it in, anonymously if you like, and I'll give you my two cents.

Related articles

More articles on Project Management:

Finger Puzzles and "Common Sense"

Working on complex projects, we often face a choice between "just do it" and "wait, let's think this through first." Choosing to just do it can seem to be the shortest path to the goal, but it rarely is. It's an example of a Finger Puzzle.

Project Improvisation Fundamentals

Project plans are useful — to a point. Every plan I've ever seen eventually has problems when it contacts reality. At that point, we replan or improvise. But improvisation is an art form. Here's Part I of a set of tips for mastering project improvisation.

Design Errors and Groupthink

Design errors cause losses, lost opportunities, accidents, and injuries. Not all design errors are one-offs, because their causes can be fundamental. Here's a first installment of an exploration of some fundamental causes of design errors.

Planning Disappointments

When we plan projects, we make estimates of total costs and expected delivery dates. Often these estimates are so wrong — in the wrong direction — that we might as well be planning disappointments. Why is this?

Seven Planning Pitfalls: II

Plans are well known for working out differently from what we intended. Sometimes, the unintended outcome is due to external factors over which the planning team has little control. Two examples are priming effects and widely held but inapplicable beliefs.

See also Project Management and Project Management for more related articles.

Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout

Coming May 14: Working with the Overconfident

A cognitive bias known as the Overconfidence Effect causes us to overestimate the reliability of our judgments. Decisions we make based on those judgments are therefore suspect. But there are steps we can take to make our confidence levels more realistic, and thus make our decisions more reliable. Available here and by RSS on May 14.

And on May 21: Mismanaging Project Managers

Most organizations hold project managers accountable for project performance. But they don't grant those project managers control of needed resources. Nor do they hold project sponsors or other senior managers accountable for the consequences of their actions when they interfere with project work. Here's a catalog of behaviors worth looking at. Available here and by RSS on May 21.

Coaching services

I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenDJpmhgyaDTwBQXkhner@ChacmGoYuzfZpOvDQdRkoCanyon.com or (650) 787-6475, or toll-free in the continental US at (866) 378-5470.

Get the ebook!

Past issues of Point Lookout are available in six ebooks:

• Get 2001-2 in Geese Don't Land on Twigs (PDF, )
• Get 2003-4 in Why Dogs Wag (PDF, )
• Get 2005-6 in Loopy Things We Do (PDF, )
• Get 2007-8 in Things We Believe That Maybe Aren't So True (PDF, )
• Get 2009-10 in The Questions Not Asked (PDF, )
• Get all of the first twelve years (2001-2012) in The Collected Issues of Point Lookout (PDF, )

Are you a writer, editor or publisher on deadline? Are you looking for an article that will get people talking and get compliments flying your way? You can have 500-1000 words in your inbox in one hour. License any article from this Web site. More info