The Iron Law of Megaprojects

Mais um artigo interessante artigo no WSJ do passado Sábado, "99% of Big Projects Fail. Lego Is the Fix."

BTW, um artigo e um tema alinhado com a estória do palco-altar que se transforma na hipotética criação de uma nova zona especial de corrida, e não sei que mais. Um artigo alinhado com o relato de Antonio Nieto-Rodriguez sobre o aeroporto de Berlim. Um artigo alinhado com o que Daniel Kahnman escreve em "Thinking, Fast and Slow" sobre a "planning fallacy" e onde cita Flyvbjerg, o académico focado no artigo do WSJ referido acima que apresenta o seu livro publicado recentemente "How Big Things Get Done":

"Spoiler alert! Big things get done very badly.

They cost too much. They take too long. They fall too short of expectations too often. This is what Dr. Flyvbjerg calls the Iron Law of Megaprojects: "over budget, over time, under benefits, over and over again."

The Iron Law of Megaprojects might sound familiar to anyone who has survived a home renovation. But when Dr. Flyvbjerg dug into the numbers, the financial overruns and time delays were more common than he expected. And worse. Much worse.

His seminal work on big projects can be distilled into three pitiful numbers:

• 47.9% are delivered on budget.
• 8.5% are delivered on budget and on time.
• 0.5% are delivered on budget, on time and with the projected benefits.

It's brutal enough that 99.5% miss the mark in one way or another."

Lembram-se de Jorge Coelho dizer que o aeroporto da Portela ia ficar lotado? Há quantos anos foi? 

"Humans are optimistic by nature and underestimate how long it takes to complete future tasks. It doesn't seem to matter how many times we fall prey to this cognitive bias known as the planning fallacy. We can always ignore our previous mishaps and delude ourselves into believing this time will be different. We're also subject to the power dynamics and competitive forces that complicate reality, since megaprojects don't take place in controlled environments, and they are plagued by politics as much as psychology. Take funding, for example. "How do you get funding?" he said. "By making it look good on paper. You underestimate the cost so it looks cheaper, and you underestimate the schedule so it looks like you can do it faster.""

 

"you must organize around projects"

"a different way of thinking about knowledge work: you must organize around projects, not jobs.

...

Knowledge workers don’t manufacture products or perform basic services. But they do produce something, and it is perfectly reasonable to characterize their work as the production of decisions: decisions about what to sell, at what price, to whom, with what advertising strategy, through what logistics system, in what location, and with what staffing levels.

At desks and in meeting rooms, every day of their working lives, knowledge workers hammer away in decision factories. Their raw materials are data, either from their own information systems or from outside providers. They produce lots of memos and presentations full of analyses and recommendations. They engage in production processes—called meetings—that convert this work to finished goods in the form of decisions. Or they generate rework: another meeting to reach the decision that wasn’t made in the first meeting. And they participate in postproduction services: following up on decisions"

...

Knowledge work actually comes primarily in the form of projects, not routine daily tasks. Knowledge workers, therefore, experience big swings between peaks and valleys of decision-making intensity”

Fez-me recuar a:

• Avaliar projectos (parte II) 
• Provocação para empresas certificadas  complementada com a parte II 
• Tenho de testar isto ...

"A ideia de fazer de cada ano um espécie de projecto, algo único e irrepetível, em vez de uma continuação da rotina de sempre, é capaz de ser útil para mudar mentalidades em muitas empresas."

Trechos retirados de "A New Way to Think" de Roger Martin.

Avaliar projectos (parte II)

Parte I.

Há dias fui recordado que podia usar a palavra desassossego muito mais vezes. As PME deviam ser mais desassossegadas, deviam estar mais atentas ao contexto para se anteciparem e, depois, terem fogo no rabo e avançarem para a execução, para a transformação da organização em algo muito mais adaptado a um contexto em transição cada vez mais acelerada.

O texto de Nieto-Rodriguez (na Parte I) chama a atenção para um conjunto de perguntas-teste que devem ser feitas para avaliar do potencial de sucesso de um projecto.

Recordo esta provocação "Provocação para empresas certificadas"  complementada com a parte II e com "Tenho de testar isto ...":

"A ideia de fazer de cada ano um espécie de projecto, algo único e irrepetível, em vez de uma continuação da rotina de sempre, é capaz de ser útil para mudar mentalidades em muitas empresas.
...
Pensem nisto a sério, pensem em fazer de 2018 um projecto. Pensem em quais serão os entregáveis que pretendem ter no final do ano (esqueçam a norma e pensem nos resultados fundamentais da organização). Pensem no contexto em que 2018 vai decorrer. Que gargalos, que riscos, que oportunidades conseguem equacionar?
...
E que tal pegar num sistema de gestão da qualidade implementado e considerar 2018 como um projecto. Que mudanças teríamos de implementar para conduzir o sistema de gestão de forma a atingir os objetivos para o projecto?
.
O que me atrai é o potencial para criar algo de muito mais palpável e interessante para o dono de uma PME. Transformar um sistema de gestão da qualidade que ele não domina, que ele vê como algo à parte, numa ferramenta para atingir algo que ele valoriza, que ele deseja, que ele procura.
.
Quais são os objectivos para 2018? Que resultados quer, precisa de atingir em 2018? O que fará de 2018 um bom ano? Acha muito abstracto? Estamos no final de 2017: foi um bom ano porquê? Como poderia ter sido melhor? Foi uma mau ano? Como poderia ter sido menos mau? Não quer fazer batota e chegar a 2019 com a sensação de ter segurado no volante e ter mandado na caixa de velocidades?"

Assim, se virmos a revisão do sistema da ISO 9001 como um momento Janus, como um momento de transição entre o que fomos no ciclo de gestão que está a acabar e, o que queremos ou temos de ser no próximo ciclo de gestão, podemos transformar o próximo ciclo de gestão num projecto... na verdade num programa (um conjunto de projectos alinhados). Então, o conjunto de perguntas-teste de Nieto-Rodriguez funcionarão como uma espécie de último teste antes do kick-off formal do novo ciclo de gestão

Avaliar projectos (parte I)

Gosto de ler os artigos de Antonio Nieto-Rodriguez, sobretudo quando ele faz o que tento fazer aqui: pegar num caso da vida real e confrontá-lo com as suas ideias e, explicar porque correu bem ou mal,  aproveito sembre boas ideias.

Se calhar devíamos aplicar este questionário dele a alguns projectos em que temos dúvidas em entrar:

"Here are the six questions in the order we recommend asking them:
.
1. Is there a solid business case and a compelling rationale? (The Why).
There are two main reasons we invest resources (time and effort) in a project: either to solve a problem or to capture an opportunity. [Moi ici: É clara qual a razão de ser para avançar com o projecto? Problema? "Precisamos da certificação porque ela foi colocada numa candidatura para aumentar a pontuação na avaliação"]
...
2. Does the moon shot [project] have a committed and charismatic sponsor? (The Who).
Probably the single most important characteristic of a successful transformation project is having a strong, engaged, and charismatic sponsor. [Moi ici: Por favor ler esta pergunta outra vez. Recordo um projecto na indústria e outro no turismo que estão a marinar por causa desta falha]
...
3. Does the moon shot [project] have a clear scope? (The What).
The scope defines what the project will look like when delivered (not to be confused with the project objectives, the “why,” which we explored in question 1). The more you know about this at the beginning of the project, the better you can estimate the duration, cost, and skills needed to produce the desired outcome. The opposite also applies: The more uncertainty there is about the requirements, the more difficult it is to have an accurate plan. [Moi ici: Ler isto e recordar logo o relato que Nieto-Rodriguez faz da wicked mess que é o projecto do novo aeroporto de Berlim. Interessante, na semana passada numa formação sobre a ISO 9001 comecei exactamente pela pergunta: O que fazem? Qual é o vosso negócio? Para chegar à definição do âmbito do sistema]
...
4. Is there buy-in from key stakeholders? (The How).
The most successful projects occur when all, or at least most, of the key stakeholders (the people impacted by the project, with different degrees of influence) are in favor it. Even better is when they are driving it.
.
In project management there is a maxim: “There is always one stakeholder who will be happy if your project fails.” There are regulators, politicians, shareholders, or simply employees who can be obstacles to the success of the endeavor. [Moi ici: O que é que cada parte interessada pode ganhar com o projecto... Aquele: "What's in it for me?"]
...
5. Does the moon shot [project] have a precise finish line? (The When).
Projects that start with an ambitious and undisputed deadline have a higher chance of success. Starting without a finish line can make a project drag on for months and even years. [Moi ici: Por favor ler esta pergunta outra vez. Recordo o "fogo no rabo" ou antes, a sua falta]
...
6. Is the moon shot [project] a true priority? (The Where).
The “Where” domain covers the external elements that can have a positive or negative impact on the project. These areas are often outside the control of the project leader — such as the priority of the project in relation to all the other projects being carried out, or the overall project implementation competencies in the organization — yet there are ways that the leader can influence the project favorably. The executive sponsor plays an important role in influencing the organization too.
...
Take time to discuss, clarify, and solidify your answers to these questions. Despite the natural excitement and urgency to start working on them, projects that spend more time in the definition phase tend to have a smoother implementation."

Trechos retirados de "6 Questions to Ask Before Launching a Moon Shot Project".

Continua com a aplicação a um sistema de gestão da qualidade já implementado.

"Without focus"

"Without focus a company cannot achieve an execution culture....unfocused companies pursue too many objectives and have too many initiatives. ...the greater the number of strategic objectives and priorities, the more unfocused are the are the employees. Alternatively, the more focused is top management, the clearer employees and departments are about what they need to do on a daily basis. When priorities cascade down the organization, the result is often a distorted focus - a frequently a significant distortion. ...Another significant consequence is that lack of focus leads to lack of discipline in executing organizational objectives. Focus imposes discipline because staff at any level know what to do at any point....One of the most dramatic consequences of being an unfocused company is the impact on staff. Lack of clear direction and priorities causes staff to be unhappy in what they do because they do not understand how their work contributes to the company's goals. ...Managements needs to decide every year  how to distribute the company's limited resources, specifically its staff and financial assets. Decisions regarding how much and where to allocate resources are not easy. Management at an unfocused company often fails to regards these decisions as part of their key responsibilities because they lack clarity about the run-the-business/change-the-business dimensions. Consequently, the distribution of work within the business becomes totally unbalanced and grow out of control."

Trechos retirados de "The Focused Organization: How Concentrating on a Few Key Initiatives Can Dramatically Improve Strategy Execution".

"Poorly executed strategy"

"the fundamental difference between success and failure depends on which projects top management decides to invest in and how those projects are executed.
.
In other words, finding ways to achieve the strategic goals is what today is known as 'strategic planning,' while 'strategy execution' is the method used to achieve those goals. The three most important elements of successful strategy execution are:

• Identifying the company's core competencies that will differentiate it from the competition.

• Selecting and prioritizing the initiatives that will exploit those core competencies and create sustainable growth via the company's strategic plan.

• Organizing company resources so as to optimally execute the chosen strategy. 

...
Once a company's structure and resources are aligned to its chosen strategy, the key question is whether the organization is focused enough to deliver the intended result. If the answer is no chances are that the strategy will not be successfully executed. This will be discussed later, but successful strategy execution is not so much about how well the strategy is defined; instead, success depends on project selection, effective organizational alignment, relentless execution and focus.
...
Being unfocused means that strategy objectives have not been clearly articulated or communicated to the entire organization. Often, there are too many objectives or even worse, the objectives are not prioritized. Top management wants to do too many things and does not involve employees in the strategy formulation. Thus, employees neither understand nor buy into the long-term mission.
...
If the strategy is poorly executed, the financial objectives will be difficult to achieve. Unfocused companies typically generate significant costs over the years. They often run too many projects, not recognizing that projects are expensive and consume both financial and staff resources. In addition, they frequently lack a clear, transparent and objective project selection process (or investment committee). Investment decisions are made on partial information and the tendency is to start all projects whose business case 'looks good on paper."

Trechos retirados de "The Focused Organization: How Concentrating on a Few Key Initiatives Can Dramatically Improve Strategy Execution".

"Deciding where to focus companies' scarce resources"

"most companies have very similar strategies and business objectives (e.g.,  growth, expansion, product innovation, market leadership) but just a few succeed in achieving them. What do these successful companies do differently?
...
Up to the late 1970s, an organization's main focus was on core activities reflected in the traditional value chain described by Michael Porter
...
Deciding where to focus companies' scarce resources is one of top management's most important challenges.
...
Improving operations is easier than improving projects. Often, operational processes can be mapped, analysed and finally improved by automating or simply removing the inefficient parts. This is not possible with projects: mapping them is very complex, and they are very difficult to improve m most of the time they are one-off.
...
although very few companies succeed in implementing their strategies, there are a few whose strategy execution is successful.
...
To my surprise, some of these successful organizations were not just reaching but were also exceeding their strategic objectives. While their formula included great leadership and maturity, what made all the difference in their ability to exceed their expectations was the fact that they were highly FOCUSED.
.
What I realized is that in todays world most companies and many employees are highly unfocused. As a result, top management has difficulty setting a dear strategy and communicating a ranked list of priorities; and most staff members end up deciding on their own where to concentrate their efforts; most likely on easy and irrelevant task, This lack of focus results in much wasted money and resources, the inability to execute the strategy, project failures, and unhappy and uncommitted employees. Successful individuals are highly focused, and the same applies lo organizations. In fact, every business is focused when it is just starting up but only those companies that manage to stay focused will likely succeed and remain in business."

Trechos retirados de "The Focused Organization - How Concentrating on a Few Key Initiatives Can Dramatically Improve Strategy Execution" de Antonio Nieto-Rodriguez

Animador

"A study by PwC that reviewed 10,640 projects from 200 companies in 30 countries and across various industries found that only 2.5% of the companies successfully completed 100% of their projects.
McKinsey & Company studied over 5,000 projects and found that 56% delivered less value than expected, 45% were over budget and 17% unfolded so badly that they threatened the company's very survival.
According to Gartner, 85% of big data projects fail to move past preliminary stages." .
A study published by the Association of Spanish Geographers estimates that between 1995 and 2016 Spanish government agencies spent more than €8I billion on "infrastructure that was unnecessary, abandoned, underutilized or poorly programmed". And this figure could surpass €97 billion in the near future, factoring in the amounts that have already been pledged. The report says: "All of it was done without a proper cost/benefit analysis, and often on the basis of estimates of future users or earnings supported by a scenario of economic euphoria that was as evident as it was fleeting." 

Não, não é primeiro de Abril.

Trecho retirado de "The Project Revolution" de Antonio Nieto-Rodriguez

"selling projects rather than products" (parte III)

Parte I e parte II.

Como são as coisas... não há coincidências, todos os acasos são significativos.

Ontem à tarde, estive numa reunião de exploração estratégica numa empresa num sector tradicional da economia.

Empresa desenvolveu um produto a pedido dum cliente-fabricante. Entretanto, esse cliente chegou junto da marca e resolveu declinar o convite para produzir.

Marca, com produto na gama média-alta, resolveu avançar com a produção em Itália. Empresa resolveu fazer algo que nunca tinha feito antes, entrou em contacto com a marca, apresentou-se e ofereceu-se para continuar a fornecer a produção.

A internet ajudou-os a resolver o problema da distância (engraçado que antes da reunião ouvi este texto, "The Problem For Small-Town Banks: Technology Has Redefined Community" e, durante a reunião recordei "O fim da barreira geográfica")

Ou seja, a empresa está a considerar entrar no mundo da venda de projectos, em vez da venda de produtos, ou de soluções.

Também ando a pensar na relação da venda de projectos com o último nível desta cadeia:

"selling projects rather than products" (parte II)

Na Parte I Antonio Nieto-Rodriguez deu o exemplo da Philips sobre como deixar de vender produtos e passar a vender projectos. Fez-me lembrar o fabuloso livro de Ramirez & Manervik e os seus ecossistemas da procura:

E a propósito de ecossistemas da procura, a minha primeira experiência, em 2004, de transformar a venda de produtos em projectos para "Subir na escala de valor". O mesmo "truque" usado pela Jofebar:

• Um sistema de gestão que começa no negócio (Novembro de 2015)
• A mensagem de quem sabe quem são os seus alvos (Setembro de 2016)
• Não esquecer (Dezembro de 2016)

Interessante que o sector da pedra tenha apostado na mesma estratégia (Portugal exportou mais 10,5% de pedra natural em 2018):

"Há uma inversão da exportação do material em bruto para uma tendência para o material transformado”
...
“Há quatro anos tínhamos a China como principal mercado”, pelo que “o setor exportava sobretudo bloco”. Agora, é França o principal mercado, com um crescimento superior a 5%, sendo que este país “consome sobretudo produto acabado”.
...
As associadas da Assimagra estão, neste contexto, “a fornecer sobretudo obra à medida”, aumentando o valor acrescentado face à venda mais indiferenciada de blocos de pedra. “Hoje o setor consegue estar nos principais projetos mundiais, disputá-los e vencê-los”, adiantou Miguel Goulão."

E volto a  "Selling Products Is Good. Selling Projects Can Be Even Better": 

"Clearly, the shift to becoming a project-driven organization and selling projects rather than products or services presents sizeable challenges to corporations and their business models. Working in projects throughout my career, I have identified these as the important ones:
.
Revenue streams. Revenues will be generated progressively over long periods of time, instead of right after the sale of a product. This will affect the way revenues are recognized, as well as accounting policies and the overall company valuation.
.
Pricing model. New pricing models will need to be developed. It is easier to price a product, for which most of the fixed and variable costs are known, than a project, which is influenced by many external factors.
.
Quality control. Delivering quality products will not be enough to meet customer expectations. Implementation and post-implementation services will also have to be of the highest possible quality to ensure that clients continue to buy projects.
.
Branding and marketing. Traditional marketing has focused on short-term immediate benefits. Marketing teams will need to promote the long-term benefits of the projects sold by the organization.[Moi ici: Estou constantemente a dizer isto às empresas, fujam do preço da troca, calculem o custo do ciclo de vida do produto/serviço. Ajudem "get the customer to appreciate a bigger picture"]
.
Sales force. The buyer of the project will no longer be the procurement department of an organization. Sales will be pitched to leaders of the business, so the sales force and sales skills will have to be upgraded with strategy and project management competencies.
.
Stop for a moment and consider what your organization is selling. Is it a project? Increasingly, the answer is clear and affirmative. If not, beware, your products might soon become part of a project sold by someone else."