Our mission was like building an airplane as it speeds down the runway. In 2004, the responsibility of governing Iraq transferred from the Coalition Provisional Authority to the Iraqi Transitional Government. The resulting Multi-National Security Transition Command–Iraq was formed to train, mentor and equip the country with a self-reliant security force. Along with the typical time and budget constraints most projects face, building an army amidst a political transition entailed communication and management challenges like no other.
Project management proved a necessity in coordinating and synchronizing the development of security forces to allow for elections and independent operations. Prior to developing a project plan, each system was moving as fast as it could along functional lines. Actions were not integrated or synchronized, leaving the development of each Iraqi unit out of synch. Finished buildings without soldiers on site were quickly looted—right down to the metal rebar inside the cement. And the needs of higher-priority units, which were previously filled, became needs again when personnel losses diverted resources.
For all team members to clearly comprehend action timelines, resources and base locations, project management outputs had to be put into understandable operations orders, slides, spreadsheets—and then translated into Arabic.
But once a work breakdown structure and project plan were created, translated and communicated, the development processes became increasingly manageable. Our first task was to develop priorities, break the project into pieces and agree on methodologies for the development of each unit. To ensure the implementation of the new project plan, we had to gain and maintain buy-in from Iraqi's Security Forces Command as well as from each functional area: construction, personnel, life support, equipment, training and advisement. Project managers facilitated the development of each battalion by communicating, coordinating and synchronizing the integration of each resource.
Because combat soldiers are not usually equipped with project management knowledge, the normal tools, such as Gantt charts, were initially dismissed. For all team members to clearly comprehend action timelines, resources and base locations, project management outputs had to be put into understandable operations orders, slides, spreadsheets— and then translated into Arabic. We employed a useful slide called “Big Dude,” a four-foot-by-three-foot organizational chart that annotated each unit's construction, manning, training, equipping and operational readiness targets. Copies of the chart graced the walls of command and control cells and facilitated the understanding of timetables and project requirements.
With each of the 129 battalions containing approximately 800 commanders and soldiers, change management was an issue we confronted daily. Further compounding the challenge was the fact that insurgents didn't always cooperate with our plan. Commanders felt steady pressure to speed the development of each unit of the security forces so coalition forces could return home. However, we were cognizant of the risk of rushing into failure, and project management helped mitigate this risk by scheduling adequate time for each task and by creating realistic expectations on when a unit would become operationally ready.
No doubt the influence of the U.S., British and Australian forces’ use of project management will continue to make an impact on the development of security forces and infrastructure. PM