The humanitarian side of project management

Abstract

Project Management Institute (PMI^®), the leading global advocate for the project management profession, responded to the Tsunami disaster with a monetary donation. However, more importantly, PMI, through the Global Operations Center (GOC) staff, along with PMI's International Development Specific Interest Group (IDSIG) collaborated to develop a project management methodology for post-disaster rebuild projects and an associated train-the-trainer course. An all-volunteer international virtual team developed the methodology and the training. The documentation will be licensed at no cost for use by qualifying relief agencies and any PMI organization or education provider that will provide training to the agencies or that will provide project management services using the methodology at no cost.

Introduction

December 26, 2004 was a day that many, especially in North America, were enjoying as part of the Christmas holiday, but many others, on the other side of the world, were not so fortunate. On that day, a major earthquake in the Indian Ocean caused Tsunamis that left many villages and communities devastated along with the loss of countless thousands of lives. Within hours, there was a response by many nations and within days, millions of dollars were donated to help those in immediate need.

PMI was also one of the many organizations that gave a monetary donation. However, many at PMI, beginning with the Board of Directors and the senior management felt that this was not enough. It was PMI's belief that there must be a manner in which the project management community could give back to the world community, so PMI contacted several relief agencies to discuss project management and how it could benefit them. It was determined that a post-disaster rebuild project management methodology could assist relief agencies, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and by providing a common terminology and a common project management methodology based on A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK^® Guide) (2004).

The ultimate “customers” of this methodology will be the host governments, relief agencies and those individuals affected by natural and man-made disasters. Those countries with little to no infrastructure and minimal technology will also benefit from the methodology since it was developed with the understanding that the project manager may have little to no training in project management and would not be able to access technology. This project management methodology is expected to assist the local project manager and the relief agencies to provide a rebuild effort that can be effectively coordinated and tracked, thereby reducing schedule delays and budget overruns. The donor community should also reap rewards by having better transparency as to how the funds are being spent. This methodology was not focused on countries devastated by civil war or other hostile activities. However, parts of the methodology may still be applicable in those situations, as well.

PMI understood that for the methodology to be effective for the post-disaster rebuild of those effected communities, the effort had to be fast-tracked. PMI quickly developed a high-level project statement and began the effort to find a full-time project manager to lead the endeavor. Developing standards was familiar to PMI; however, developing a project management methodology was new territory. Therefore, the project manager had to be familiar with developing project management methodologies, and have experience leading a virtual, multi-national volunteer organization.

The IDSIG has been a partner in the development of this methodology, with members serving as subject matter experts and volunteers. The IDSIG, with its depth of international experience, has provided invaluable knowledge in developing the project management methodology.

The Project

A project manager was secured in February 2005 with instructions to develop the post-disaster project management methodology and the associated train-the-trainer course no later than August 31, 2005. Within a couple of weeks of project launch, the project charter was written and approved by the PMI sponsors. Job descriptions were posted to PMI's volunteer works and solicitation for volunteers was included in most of PMI's various publications, newsletters, and emails.

The project was structured initially with five work streams and a small core of subject matter experts from industry, relief agencies, and those with on-the-ground disaster experience. The five work streams were as follows:

• Methodology
• Procedures
• Communications
• Training
• Configuration and Deliverable

The Methodology Development Work Stream

The methodology development work stream was responsible for developing the framework for the methodology, developing the workflow and its dependencies, and the inputs and outputs of each of the processes. This team worked closely with the procedures work stream, as well as the configuration and deliverable work streams. In addition, this group provided input on a timely basis to the training development work stream, as the training evolved in parallel and worked with the configuration and deliverable work stream to ensure that all changes were communicated properly.

The Procedures Work Stream

The procedures work stream was responsible for taking the methodology and its associated workflow and applying the practical and tactical tools needed by the project manager in the disaster scenario. This work stream collaborated very closely with the methodology development work stream and the configuration and deliverable work stream. Timely input also was provided to the training development work stream while the liaison work stream provided assistance with coordinating with various relief agencies. This work stream cooperated with the configuration and deliverable work stream to ensure that all changes were communicated properly.

The Communications Work Stream

The communications work stream was responsible for providing timely communication and conflict management among the work streams and includes the development and tracking of the team communication plan. This effort assisted the project team members to stay current on the various work streams, understand the importance of a work stream's dependency on another team, and provided a formal method to expedite conflicts. This work stream also reviewed all written documentation for translatability, international legal/contracting difficulties and ensuring that the documentation was sensitive to cultural issues. This work stream was responsible for documenting and tracking the status of issues and risks across the project team and for escalating critical issues or risks to the project manager's immediate attention.

The Training Development Work Stream

The training development work stream was responsible for all aspects of the training process. The team developed the training and delivered the pilot training to the relief agencies. The team developed the training in parallel with the activities of the methodology development work stream and the procedures work stream.

The Configuration and Deliverable Work Stream

The configuration and deliverable work stream was responsible for configuration and change management for the entire project effort. This work stream partnered with all teams to communicate changes.

Those volunteers with more time to devote to the project were asked to consider serving as team leads. For each work stream, there were at least two leads and the training work stream had three leads. This ensured that the volunteer leads had the ability to have someone attend the meetings with teams and the project team, as needed. The co-team lead approach also ensured as work schedules or personal events consumed more of the lead's time, there was someone else with the same knowledge to assist.

Project Reorganization

Over time, the project reorganized with the methodology and procedures work teams collapsed into one team, and the change and communications teams disbanded. The members of the change and communications teams were reallocated to the methodology/procedures or the training team. The project manager and the team leads managed the effort previously done by the change and communications teams. In addition, the volunteers were divided to develop a project management methodology and a team to address longer-term program management needs of the international relief community. As volunteers finished their efforts on the project management methodology, they were transferred to the program aspect of the project. For further information on the program management methodology, refer to the issues and risk sections.

The project team had various stakeholders. The major part of the project team was the volunteers. There was a select group of subject matter experts from industry, relief agencies, and those with on the ground disaster experience. The GOC had sponsors that monitored progress and ensured the project met PMI standards. Other stakeholders included various international relief agencies that provided advice and agreed to use the methodology.

The Volunteers

At the peak of the project, there were 73 volunteers representing 18 nations. The countries included Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, England, France, India, Indonesia, Jamaica, New Zealand, Nigeria, Panama, Spain, Sweden, Thailand, Trinidad, Turkey, and the United States. Volunteers included those with experience with the American Red Cross, the United States Army Corps of Engineers, and governments other than the United States.

Most volunteers had minimal experience in disaster situations, but had the expertise in developing methodologies, developing training, especially project management training. The volunteers relied heavily on those within the volunteer base that had the needed expertise and the subject matter experts.

The Subject Matter Experts

PMI brought together a group of dedicated volunteers who were all well versed in project management, but lacked experience in disaster relief. The Subject Matter Experts' (SMEs) role was to understand the day-to-day environment and issues facing the primary users, reach a common appreciation of the end-user's situation, and then communicate this back to the Methodology and Training teams.

The SMEs met for a two-day off-site meeting to review the methodological approach from the standpoint of the disaster relief community and, in particular, the disaster relief team members functioning in the role of the project manager; what would he or she need to get the job done?

The SMEs' focus was on the credibility and usability of the end product. In order for the methodology to work and be accepted by the end-users, the document had to be relevant to the specific situation, practical and understandable.

The terminology could not be so alien to the common parlance that it was rendered meaningless in the field. Nor would theory help. In disaster relief, there is tremendous pressure to make decisions quickly and to get it right.

The SMEs, like any good project management team, began with a Stakeholder Analysis. Who is the intended audience, what are their needs and wants, what are the primary concerns that should be taken into account in the methodology design and development?

The team identified five key stakeholders and their requirements:

• PMI

  The major goal for PMI is to give back to the world community by developing a post-disaster rebuild project methodology that would leverage the knowledge of the PMBOK^® Guide – Third Edition. The methodology would add value for the end users by making use of appropriate terminology, concepts, processes, and frameworks. The end-users would benefit from a consistency in approach that would be applicable to most situations

• Host Governments

  Host governments focus on maximizing the contributions from donor countries to help their constituents. By training local people to international, but appropriate, standards would limit highly visible failures, preserve their authority, and ensure that donations would be used effectively.

• Donors (HQ level)

  The goals for the Donors at the HQ level are two fold. Their primary concern is ensuring that there is structured accounting of activity and dollars spent with visible results. Better financial controls, management reporting and quality assurance would reduce their risk and chance of failure. The secondary concern is to develop professionalism at the field level.

• Donors (Field level)

  Donors at the field level want less bureaucracy and a methodology that is practical, relevant, simple, and flexible and would require no customization; in a disaster relief situation there isn't the luxury of time. The need to provide better, timely reporting to HQ is also a priority.

• Implementers (NGOs, relief agencies, UN, etc.)

  The implementers are on the front lines. They would welcome a global brand and international standard that is marketable and replicable and can be quickly taught to field workers. The framework must be available on day one, scalable, easy to use, fits the situation and context, and is consistent with their existing terminology.

At the end of the two-day session, followed by document reviews and conference calls, the SMEs had completed their task of providing a road map for the Methodology and Training teams to follow.

The three core principles were to:

1. Leverage the knowledge of the PMBOK^® Guide – Third Edition
2. Produce value for the end-users
3. Keep it simple

The Sponsors

The project manager reported status to the PMI sponsors on a weekly basis. The sponsors ensured that the marketing and advertising was completed, monitored the progress of the project, ensured compliance with the PMBOK^® Guide – Third Edition, provided the template and guidance for the training team, and ultimately, was the liaison to the International Relief Agencies. Since the relief agencies were the stakeholders, it was important to ensure that the methodology met the needs of the agencies and their customers, the disaster victims.

The sponsors ensured during the entire project that the volunteers had access to the sponsors on a monthly basis. Conference calls were held at least monthly to “meet with the PMI Sponsors”. The sponsors provided insight into the “workings” of PMI and the importance of the project to the Institute.

The sponsors also ensured that the subject matter experts and the team leads had the opportunity for face-to-face meetings which helped to ensure that the methodology was meeting the needs of the relief agencies and of PMI were included within the methodology.

The Deliverables

The two main deliverables were a project management methodology and a train-the-trainer course.

Project management methodology

The focus of the project management methodology was threefold:

• To base it on the PMBOK^® Guide – Third Edition
• Make the project management methodology simple and easy to use
• No technology, totally paper based

The methodology was written at an elementary grade level to ensure ease of understanding. Also, simple straightforward templates were included to assist the project manager where applicable. The project manager was encouraged to use his/her agency's template or to use the minimal information needed for the project.

The methodology was modularized. This allows the agencies to use process groups and processes that would enhance an existing methodology or to use the entire methodology. In addition, a checklist was included to guide the project manager through the various processes and to ensure the major milestones are addressed.

Many of the processes were done at a very high level. For example, schedule development was done at the milestone level and budgets were associated with milestones. Other processes were very specific. There are many inherent dangers for the project manager in a post-disaster rebuild event. Some dangers may be medical (outbreaks of disease due to poor sanitary conditions), while others may be due to safety and strife. Therefore, the methodology required that a safety plan be a part of the risk plan. The safety plan included quick extraction, demobilization and transition. Stakeholder management was also an important factor within the methodology as many relief agencies have private donors that require accurate accounting of donated funds. The importance of this was emphasized within the methodology.

Train-the-Trainer Course

As with the methodology, the training was written at an easily understood level and was scenario-based. The training actually takes the generic methodology and demonstrates how to apply it to specific situations. The training is to be no more than one-day and is designed to help the relief agency teach the project manager in the field.

PMI will provide training to three relief agencies in the December 2005 timeframe. PMI personnel are working with several international relief agencies that would like to have their personnel involved in the training. The training and the methodology will be provided at through a no-cost license to relief agencies, NGOs, and governments. In addition, PMI will provide them through a no-cost license to companies, PMI chapters, and other entities willing to train the relief agencies pro bono.

Virtual and International

The project team was virtual and had the added complexity of being international. The project manager had to ensure that team members were versed with the technology, which included email, a collaboration website, and conference bridges. Due to the different technologies present in the various countries, this presented challenges, which required flexibility and work-arounds. The project manager also had to keep the team motivated and focused even during times of minimal progress, to create the required intensity to finish the project management methodology in a compressed timeframe.

The Timeline

In order to meet the launch of the project management methodology for the PMI Global Congress 2005 - North America, the completion date was established as August 31, 2005. This date was established since the PMI would need to ensure the methodology was formatted correctly, met the publication requirements, and enough time to properly publish the document and produce the training materials.

The Issues

As mentioned previously, developing a project management methodology was a new endeavor for PMI. Early in the process, the team developed a methodology that provided a program level methodology. The team was asked to stop this part of the project and refocus on developing the project management methodology. The project manager, the team leads, and the subject matter experts, as well as the PMI sponsors agreed that the program level methodology would be developed at a later date to follow the publication of the program management standard.

Other minor issues inherent with a virtual, international team were also a part of the project. Those included technical difficulties with conference bridges. Individuals in other countries were dropped from the calls or were unsuccessful in being connected to the call. The project manager worked with PMI staff and the conference bridge company to develop alternate solutions and understand the root cause of several of the issues.

English was not the native tongue of many of the team members. Therefore, guidelines were established and posted on a virtual collaborative site reminding English speakers not to use colloquialisms or idioms, to explain ideas, and to use shorter sentences. There was a team established to also help with language issues as related to the documentation.

The Risks

Like any project, the Post-Disaster Rebuild Methodology project was undertaken to achieve a specific objective. The opportunity to create a methodology that would aid in disaster relief and be applicable to implementing agencies was not to be missed; but the risks still had to be identified, qualified, quantified, and mitigation strategies determined. Failure would result in a waste of time and effort that produced an unusable product.

The risk analysis identified the major risk areas as: Scope, Quality, Time, Human Resources, and Communications.

• Scope

  Even after the charter was written, it took a while to develop a clear, concise scope. The task was then to ensure that the scope did not creep or change in anyway since many of the team members had very clear ideas of what should and should not be included.

  Mitigation: The mitigation strategy was the hiring of a very competent professional project manager who could communicate effectively between the team and the Sponsors and manage the scope to the stated specifications.

• Quality

  Quality was the primary risk identified. The methodology and the train-the-trainer material could all conform to project management best practices and still fail if they did not meet the needs of the implementing agencies, or if the terminology was too difficult to be easily translated or the procedures were too cumbersome to implement in a fast-moving dynamic environment.

  Mitigation: The primary role of the subject matter experts was quality assurance. The product must be credible, usable and meet stakeholders' needs. In addition to the core group of SMEs, PMI reached out to the international relief community for input, document review, and suggestions on training material.

• Time

  From the outset, the timeline was very tight. The disaster struck on December 26, 2004. By February, the project manager was hired and the due date established for the completion of the methodology and the train-the-trainer material was August 31, 2005. There was a great sense of urgency to get the project done quickly so the methodology would be available to field staff engaged in the disaster relief.

  Mitigation: Again, the mitigation strategy was having a good project manager hired during initiation who could help draft the charter, write the job description and had the autonomy and authority to act.

• Human Resources

  The project team was primarily composed of volunteers. At the peak of the project, there were 73 volunteers representing 18 nations working remotely. Managing a project team is always a challenge; managing an all-volunteer team is inherently more challenging because the powers of the project manager are less formal. However, volunteer teams provide a level of interest, compassion, and dedication often lacking in the public or private sectors.

  Mitigation: In order to make the most effective use of the volunteer force, clear role delineation through the work streams and specific tasks where their expertise was best employed was key to maintaining the focus of such a diverse group within a tight time constraint.

• Communications

  Because of the remote global nature of the project team, good communication planning was paramount. A project can founder as a result of poor communications. The major risk was that without effective communications, an enthusiastic, dedicated volunteer force would not be used to their maximum capabilities. When people volunteer, the desire to help and be part of something greater than them is very strong, but that energy can quickly dissipate if not harnessed immediately and used correctly.

  Mitigation: To help manage this risk, the project was initially structured into five work streams with each stream being responsible for a particular aspect of the project. Team co-leads were assigned to each work stream. The volunteers needed access to a computer with internet capability. The foundation of the communication was a collaboration tool, which had a discussion/chat area, news events, a calendar of meeting, and most importantly an area of shared files. Additionally, all team meetings were held at two different times, which helped to alleviate the time zone difference, so no one area had to participate on a conference call during late night or early morning hours.

The Launch

The official introduction of the project management methodology and its associated train-the-trainer training course is scheduled during the North American Congress in Toronto, Ontario. This paper is to assist with the launch. The official train-the-trainer course will be December 5, 2005. The relief agencies to be trained have yet to be identified. It is expected that the training will be held in Washington, DC.

Summary

The Post-Disaster Rebuild Methodology and Training Project was a response to the 2004 Tsunami disaster by the Project Management Institute. PMI contributed a monetary donation; however, they wanted to give back to the global community. Several international relief agencies guided the PMI GOC staff as to what would be the most beneficial response to disasters. Since initial disaster response and recovery are normally well-established processes for most agencies and government, it was decided to focus on the rebuild effort. The relief agencies many times look to local personnel to lead the rebuild efforts. The simple project management methodology is expected to assist the local project manager and the relief agencies to provide a rebuild effort that can be effectively coordinated and tracked, thereby reducing schedule delays and budget overruns. The donor community should also reap rewards by having better transparency into how the funds are being spent.