This will most certainly be the first in a long line of posts documenting my observations of life inside many non-profit organizations I’ve connected with. And a discussion around some of the commonly held views of what they struggle with, and what the best approaches are to helping voluntary organizations be more effective are.
One of the commonly held assumptions that I struggle with most is the notion that non-profits are inherently inefficient or poorly managed. My personal experiences lead me to believe that this rarely the case – or certainly no more the case in non-profits than in any other form of organization. And, quite often, I’ve seen innovation coming from community-based organizations being adopted and applied elsewhere.
However, one specific example of where I’ve heard and felt the “inefficient non-profits” argument being applied is toward their ability to manage projects. More and more, community-based organizations in Canada are being asked to deliver projects. Most often, this is due to funding restrictions or funding programs that don’t cover the costs of operation directly. However, some folks argue that many or most non-profits are not properly equipped for the shift from an operations-based model to a project-based one.
One good friend – a dedicated and experienced Project Management Professional (a certification achieved through the Canadian Project Management Institute) – has dedicated his work to supporting non-profits in becoming better project managers and delivering more efficient results through traditional project management. His workshops are excellent and his teachings are concise, well delivered, and always well received.
But my question is: how many non-profits are currently in a position to put traditional, top-down, project management processes into practice?
All arguments about the need for specialized training, continuous improvement strategies, and peer support aside, here is why I feel that traditional project management is not a good fit with many non-profit organizations:
- It’s generally accepted that for projects to be successful, they should be delivered on time, within budget, and within the defined scope;
- In my experience, projects are usually comprised of a number of tasks;
- Traditional project management involves assigning tasks to people;
- This implies that people have to be able to complete the tasks they are assigned for projects to be successful;
- And this also implies that task completion is just as important to a project’s success as the management process;
- Therefore, a person’s ability to successfully complete the tasks they are assigned is just as important as an organization’s ability to manage projects.
And that is the crux of my argument. In most non-profit organizations – where staff are often overextended, part time, or ill-prepared for requirements of project-based work – how can the command-and-control (or monitoring and control as the PMI likes to call it) systems be the most effective? Not wanting to digress into a long exploration of why people that work at non-profits might not be in it for the money – or how corporate ship-jumpers that landed there may be tired of the corporate way of doing things (and the motivational assumptions therein) – I’ll just point out that I feel that many project management methodologies often fall down at the point where real people need to complete real work.
At the end of the day: if a person is not able to effectively complete the tasks they are assigned – because they’re too busy, too tired, too distracted, or don’t have the tools to make effective decisions about what tasks to complete when – then project success as we have defined it will remain illusive.
So, if all that is true, what does it mean for non-profit staff to be successful at completing tasks they are assigned?
- Well, as we all know, tasks require time to complete;
- They also require some level of skill and attention;
- So, assuming that the person that has been assigned a task (or several of them, from several different projects) has enough skill to complete the task… then time and attention are all that is required.
- However, as a rule, we can’t give people more time than they have;
- This leads me to believe that we need to help people focus their attention on the right tasks, at the right time, and in the right priority to be effective project-based workers;
- Therefore, in the non-profit context—where resources are short, budgets are limited, and staff are overcommitted—I feel that time management is critically important to project success.
And, ultimately (and this is where my PMP friend will debate me to the death) I feel the time management training is more important than project management training for most non-profits and their staff.
Let the extended debate begin.
Comments
6 Comments
Time Management
Interesting debate, I'm sure I'd have something to say about it, but I haven't got the time! ; - )
Congrats on the new site.
-adam
RE: Project management vs. time management
Hi, Phillip!
Nice post. I've responded to one aspect of it over on my own blog.
I think before we can really debate what may or may not be more important for not-for-profits than project management training, we should get one thing out on the table: when you say "traditional project management," you mean "bad project management," right?
Best,
Rob
It's about communication
Hi Phillip, Rob,
(Discussions through blogs are one of the worst inventions I know... but let's give it a try, until some day the aggregated/syndicated discussion tools will be there.)
Let's add my experiences with a completely different set of non-profits. I think we share the feeling that our favourite non-profits have almost all adopted an approach of "Just In Time" management (with many occassions where it becomes "Just Too Late").
-~=#=-=-=-=#=--=#=-=-=-=#=~-
One aspect is the ability to make reasonably accurate *estimates* for tasks. The tendency is to be overly optimistic, so regardless of either project or time management, you'll likely run into problems with either completing things on time, or over-extending yourself, as you mentioned.
Few organisations track time spent on tasks, usually people are in full-time (which then becomes "over their neck", you don't want to loose credit with your peers by taking time off while saving Planet Earth). Whether in projects or in ongoing operations, the wisdom and experience in how long or how much effort certain things take is mostly left as implicit knowledge in people's mind.
-~=#=-=-=-=#=--=#=-=-=-=#=~-
A second aspect is the ability to communicate about not meeting deadlines or expectations. This is not unique for non-profits, but I have the feeling it is more often perceived as a kind of "personal failure". On the other hand, the response is often along the lines "We're all doing our best, aren't we, so why be hard on anyone?".
Because activities are linked, one person not meeting a deadline usually leads to difficulties for another person to meet her/his deadline, and often, heroic firefighting attempts at meeting deadlines result in people replacing their planned work with more urgent work, leading to delays in their plans.
Since there is no shared overall view, or someone with the role to keep an eye on the overall flow of things ("we have no bosses"), it is hard to even discuss allocation of time and resources in a reasonable way.
-~=#=-=-=-=#=--=#=-=-=-=#=~-
To communicate about time and effort, and expose these linkages and effects, a common language, model, or understanding is needed amongst the participants, and this is where project management comes in pretty handy: it creates a common understanding of how to identify risks, and take precautions (make sure people keep a portion of their time available for the unexpected, and to jump in when their co-workers are in a pressure situation; understanding how much freedom you have for a specific task to be delayed, so that you know when you can be a bit late, or reprioritise).
That takes a lot of the pressure off of your personal time management, and creates a basis to communicate priorities to your peers, whether they "manage" their time or not: an agreed framework to indicate the urgency of something, to be able to check in with each other ("you should have started on this by now, did you or should we look at the schedule together again?"), and to have deadlines and pressure from those that are based on reasonable estimates rather than wishful thinking.
-~=#=-=-=-=#=--=#=-=-=-=#=~-
If it weren't for the last minute, nothing ever would get done. Should we focus on managing that minute?
Greetings! Rolf.
Where have all the hours gone?
Pondering both Rob and Rolf’s comments on my suggestion that time management is more important than project management for most non-profit organizations, I was left thinking about the larger issue that each of our perspectives points too… Once distilled down to its essence, my hypothesis is that many people don’t have an accurate picture of their available time.
Read the full post over here.Phillip.
RE: Rolf's comments
Where are Rolf's comments? I can't see them and am interested in checking them out :)
Thanks,
Rob
Doh!
I had forgotten to approve them -- thanks for that!