By setting the scope, chain of command and balanced reporting roll-up levels, your project management organization can achieve a high level of standards in managing complex programs. This is a framework that allows teams to use the management and tracking methods of their choice as well as the program management committee to communicate the state of the program affairs to executive leadership teams. This will keep control of the program all the way to a successful Go Live.
The Framework
There are times when organizations on-board a new Enterprise Resource Management (ERP) system and the deployment process is fairly complex. You need to deal with the complex business processes in various process teams, such as supply chain, HR and corporate finance. The nature of the complexity requires comprehensive requirements tracking and overall transparency. In addition to scope management challenges, there is also a degree of complexity managing teams in today's global economy. Some common challenges include various languages, diverse cultures and difficult methods of tracking the progress of activities. With that in mind, I have developed a program management framework that consists of five components:
- Complex scope
- Multiple workstreams
- Chain of command
- Multiple trackers
- Ultimate matrix
Complex Scope
Imagine you have a company that has multiple sites for all its business processes, from sourcing to distribution and sales. The depth of the business process goes from the macro-strategy level down to the individual transaction level. Complex scope refers to the whole system that covers this cycle from the gathering of raw materials to tracking the sales transactions. The issue at hand is what method is used to deal with such a complex scope. I like to describe this method as define, lock and control.
Define
The first step is to make sure the organization is ERP ready. This means that the organization already has a defined business process with a structural hierarchical order. Each stage in the business process has its own definition. The next step in managing complex scope is a mapping of business processes to ERP modules and features. This allows us to understand which business processes will be administered by the new ERP system. In simple terms, any complex object could be split into less complex objects. For example, a difficult task, when broken down into two smaller tasks, is easier to manage. This is aligned with decomposing business processes and building the work breakdown structure (WBS) for complex scope.
Lock
Every single scope item has to be documented and secured against potential deviations from the original definition. If changes are required, the change management process needs to be in full control of potential issues. Some examples of issues include scope creep, integrations and business sustainability.
Control
All scope items will have to be managed in the enterprise system. Like any enterprise system, the scope items have to have IDs, metadata and other enterprise-like attributes. The two tables below provide an example of how we link scope items and actual scheduled tasks (see Exhibits 1 and 2). This gives us the visibility we need to identify when scope items must be worked on. At this stage, we also align the schedule of individual items with the overall ERP deployment schedule.
Exhibit 1: Schedule of scope items within project phases.
Exhibit 2: Sample of synchronization of scope items with schedule items.
Multiple Workstreams
In the program management framework that I mentioned earlier there is a master program schedule that serves as the WBS template for other workstreams. Each workstream is represented as an individual schedule. Each individual schedule rolls up at the program level. For example, you may have a master schedule at the program level that is three levels deep with regard to WBS hierarchy. In this case, all of the workstreams have to have exactly the same WBS three levels deep. Beyond the third level, workstreams have the autonomy to establish their own WBS beginning at level four. From level one to three, we can roll up information at the program level and at the same time allow workstreams to manage their own schedules at level four and beyond.
Chain of Command
The chain of command is very important in many applications. Take the United States national command, for example. The chain of command is structured so that every aspect of the military has a clear understanding of its roles and responsibilities. It begins with the president as the commander in chief, and the secretary of defense, and ends with the troops on the ground. The project management office (PMO) for your large ERP deployment is no different. The PMO chain of command begins with the executive sponsor and his or her leadership team and ends with the individual workstream team members (see Exhibit 3).
Exhibit 3: Large ERP deployment chain of command.
Multiple Trackers
Imagine, if you will, 20 different Excel workbooks with 25 sheets within each of those workbooks. These Excel worksheets contain 5,000 to 10,000-plus scope items that need to be managed in a way that needs to roll up at the team, workstream and program levels. We call this spreadsheet hell! Unfortunately, you can't stop using those Excel worksheets. Teams on the ground have learned to manage their day-to-day work using those spreadsheets. At the same time, roll-ups are still impossible to do. The solution is to align the data structure of those Excel spreadsheets with the master schedule template for the program WBS. That enables teams to keep leveraging existing trackers (in many cases, these are Excel spreadsheets), while at the same time supplying rolled-up progress at the scope item level. Hence, having scope items synchronized with workstream schedules allows the PMO to roll up data across multiple levels, such as the team, workstream and program levels.
Ultimate Matrix
A project portfolio data stack that includes information about workstreams, schedules, milestones, resource assignments and so on presents an extremely complex data model to deal with. The approach to visually represent the state of the program is called the Ultimate Matrix.
Set Up Relationships
Any program management framework requires the ability to manage cross-functional dependencies. Those dependencies could be established among resources, schedules, issues, risks, external dependencies and constraints. The framework suggests that all of these dependencies must be interlinked and managed on a regular basis through the life cycle of the program.
Build the Ultimate Matrix
To achieve a simple way of representing the data, we need to come up with a means for visualizing the data. Now that we have all the ingredients in a managed state that is able to roll up at various levels, we can build a multidimensional visualization of the program. In order to assemble the data and merge different metrics or key performance indicators (KPIs), we represent them as individual tables and combine them into the Ultimate Matrix. In our case, one of the dimensions is the first three levels of the WBS program level. Another dimension is each individual workstream schedule. Mathematically, KPIs or any other data element could be represented in a single matrix, where the first 3 levels of your WBS are consistent. Then you may multiply matrixes (tables) and get a single view of the program (Exhibit 4).
Exhibit 4: Single Matrix
You can see a sample matrix equation in Exhibit 5. This proves that this framework is capable of handling an almost unlimited number of workstreams. The challenge is to balance complexity versus manageability.
Exhibit 5: Matrix multiplication examples.
The Ultimate Matrix is a version of a dashboard that rolls up information vertically and horizontally. In other words, it links WBS key deliverables with many workstreams and maintains the freedom for those teams to manage their work at their own comfort level.
Conclusion
When so much is at stake, are you willing to loosen up controls or yield visibility to what is going on with your project? When you have volatile scope definition multiplied by scale factor, multinational activities or team, or any other risk factor, we are dealing with horizons that are hard to comprehend with just a singular view. What is the best approach to manage something as seemingly unmanageable as this? The ideal course of action needs to utilize the resources we have on hand—specifically, people, processes and tools. PMOs have failed to successfully implement this known concept in many organizations, which has led to numerous avoidable missteps that have cost time and money. In this regard, reinforcing the grounds for tools, people and processes is paramount to PMO success.