Project management - nature or nurture?

We all read reports about so-called IT projects which have:

• gone off the rails
• failed to deliver the required benefits or results
• gone over budget or over time or both
• been cancelled because they were beyond hope.

But why is this? What's the problem ?

Firstly, I refer to them as 'so-called' IT projects because in most cases the projects we hear about are actually business projects which are utilising new systems or technologies to change the way an organisation operates.

There are many possible causes for such projects to go awry. These are well documented and include:

• business not knowing, or being able to articulate, its real needs
• business not understanding the need to put in resources to work alongside IT colleagues during the project
• changes in scope, etc.

And so it goes on.

But I want to explore the concept of project management. Most organisations will say they use tried and tested methodologies for managing projects. Indeed, there are those ways of working which are becoming de facto industry standards.

Those same organisations will tell you that all of their project managers are certified in the chosen methodology. But does that only mean that they have been 'sheep-dipped' on the training courses and emerged with their manual and their attendance certificate?

The problems then start and I want to mention just two:

First - when was the project manager trained? There's a world of difference between 'just-in-time' training so that the learning is fresh in the mind and can be applied to the project with gusto, and the 'I've-got-a-manual-in-the-back-of-the-cupboard' approach whereby the learning is at best rusty or, worse, thinking and best practice standards have developed to the point that renders the old training meaningless.

So, my advice is make sure your project managers are freshly trained in the latest thinking and techniques. It always helps if they have managed successful projects before, but a refresher is never wasted.

Second - what makes a project manager? I've seen countless people who claim to be project managers. They have been on the course, got the certificate, know the keywords, understand the process and can produce a project plan.

But - they can't manage a project; haven't got a clue! Why not?

Is project management nature or nurture? I don't have the answer. I'm sure others have their views. A topic for an MBA thesis perhaps?

Do call centres like customers?

Over the years there has been great debate about call centres.

Are they the best way of providing customer service? Should they be staffed by employees of the organisation they serve? Can they be offshored? If not, which region has the best accent to encourage a friendly service?

There is no single or simple right answer, otherwise everyone would adopt the same solution. But - I want to look at the way calls are handled in call centres.

Yes - the staff answering the phone are usually friendly, they give you their first name and appear competent and keen to help. But why, oh why, do they have to depend on, and follow rigidly, a set script?

Let me give you a recent example.  Just before Christmas, I wanted to check the opening times of my local bank branch. Its web site advised me that there were special opening hours between Christmas and New Year and that customers should phone the call centre number to check the actual times. So - phone in hand, I did just that.

First you have to run the gamut of the sales chat telling you of all the wonderful products that you are not interested in. Then you're reminded that calls may be recorded for training purposes (in other words, watch what you say!) Then comes the keypad selection :  no, I don't have a query on my account; no, I don't want to open an account/setup a direct debit/pay a bill / etc. etc.  So I hang on until the system recognises I want to be put through to an advisor. At last !

'John' answers the phone.  He asks me for my account number.  'No', I say, 'I just want to know when the branch will be open.' 'Yes' he says enthusiastically, 'I can help you with that'. 

He asks for my account number - again.  'Why?', I say, 'my account is not at the branch I want to know about.  Please can you just tell me the opening hours of branch xx.'

'Yes of course' says John ' can I have your name please'.  'No! I just want to know when the branch will be open. It doesn't matter who I am. It doesn't matter whether or not I am an existing customer. I don't want you to sell me any products or offer to manage my account. I only want to know when the branch will be open. If I walk in to the branch, off the street, and go to its information desk, they'll tell me without asking my personal details, so why do you need to know?'

Eventually, John agrees that he can provide me with the information I need without knowing who I am. Success - but at what cost? - to his time and to my time and temper.

I could have complied and given John the details he wanted. I'm sure then he would have been happy following his script, eventually answering my query and trying to keep me on the line offering all sorts of help which I didn't need. But if I take that line of least resistance, will things ever change?

Who decides what the customer wants?  Who considers the efficiency and effectiveness of the call centre?  It appears to me, as a humble customer, that call centres are set up to be able to employ staff who can operate largely untrained by following a script and never deviating.

Call centres are not designed for customer happiness - and until someone recognises that, there will continue to be people like me who use them only a last resort and under great sufferance.  But, perhaps that's what they want - after all, the fewer incoming calls they have, the cheaper the centre is to run and the greater the profits to the organisation!  Or am I just being cynical..

No need for a banking security league

There seems to be a lot in the press recently about security - and particular attention to the security measures the banking sector are taking to protect its customers accounts.  I think this is a clear case for continuous development.  Almost as soon as new security measures are put in place, there will be hackers and phishing attacks developed to break in.  Add to that the unwariness of some customers - how many times have we all been advised that our bank will never ask for our details by email , and how many people still fall into the honey trap ?  I regularly receive emails asking me to confirm my account details that purports to be from one of the major banks that I have never, knowingly, held an account with.

But do we really want to have a league table of the banks' security levels?  I can see the benefit of a "name and shame" campaign to stir up action where there is currently complacency.  But what might be the real outcome?  Many customers are intrinsically lazy, so I doubt it would cause a mass migration of accounts to the bank at the head of the league table. 

Equally, aren't we just inviting phishing incidents for those at the lower end of the league?  It seems to me rather than walking through the supermarket car park, the opportune thief is much more likely to aim for the car which doesn't have the flashing alarm light on the dashboard and does have the tell-tale sat-nav mark on the windscreen.  Why?  Because, without much thought, he can see the difference and decide which is the easier target. 

Do we really want to give phishing attacks a helping hand?.  Security is a serious point and we must all be vigilant and keep our security measures up to date; but before we start thinking about what to publish, let's think about what we're trying to achieve from it and work from there.