3 experts have described difficult decisions they had to take in one project.
Now think about what was important for them in taking the decision the took. Would they act differently in a different context? Why?
(If you are part of an ongoing PM bootcamp cohort on DEXA, also copy your comment to your group)
When issues become critical, make decision becomes very difficult and it takes a lot of experience to navigate through. What the various PM did was the best action plan possible. Different issue will also require different line of action. In design, we usually say no two design are the same.
The difficult Decisions they have to make are:
1. Incurring addition cost for the water project to be successful by engaging the client on the new solution since they could not get guaranteed supply from the stakeholder. They had to engage Scottish water who bridged that gap. Client was happy despite the additional cost as the project was successfully executed.
2. One of the Project Manager was having challenges with the project sponsors and other stakeholder at the beginning of the project cause be the way their last project failed and the Project Manager was able to calm things down by bring their focus and attention to the goals and objectives of the new project and not previous failure, and how they can work to make it successful this time around.
3. The PM had these challenges of stakeholders and team members coming from different countries but was able to manage and overcome their diversity and background and tap their various skills and potential to successfully concluded the project throght good communication and relationship building.
From what I have learnt so far, I believe that there is not a one size fits all method or strategy for managing a project. Management procedures and strategies vary for different project, but from all they have said, the most important thing is to always communicate constantly with the stakeholders and ensure effective collaboration. Also, a PM must also be empathetic and honest about constraints, pull-out decisions and other scope creeps that just might tell on the execution team.
I guess some risk are been taken depending on what the project manager senses either within the team or say base on issues with the client. But what if the risk will or may hinder the project completion too long before the due time?
Is the risk still necessary
One of the PM had a challenge involving inadequate water supply from the venue provider for an event. To address this, all relevant stakeholders were brought together to assess the situation and agree on an appropriate solution. The team decided to install a two-inch water connection and implement a contingency plan to ensure an uninterrupted water supply. Because the contingency plan involved additional costs, the client agreed to cover these expenses. This situation highlighted the importance of effective stakeholder communication, collaborative problem-solving, and proactive risk management.
Reflecting on this situation and the others mentioned in the video, I believe the most important aspects of decision-making are clear communication, stakeholder engagement, careful evaluation of available options, and learning from experience. In a different context, my approach might vary depending on the project’s strategic importance, available resources, and the impact on stakeholders. However, I would still prioritize transparency, collaboration, and decisions that best support the organization’s long-term objectives while minimizing risk.
One of the PMs had a difficult decision about terminating a project early and what was important for her was making sure the options of continuing versus cancelling were very clear and they had to work through the options to make the right decision. It clearly had to be a joint decision and not her sole decision. I don’t think she would act differently because project management is about carrying everyone along.
With the water supply PM, he had to look to get relevant parties to come up with a solution, once again allowing major stakeholders collaborate on the solving the problem.
One of the PMs spoke about stakeholders coming onboard a new project with anger and frustrations from a previous event and she had to take them back to the goal they all agreed on, encourage them to leave the past at the door. She was open and transparent, had no ego and had to compromise a little (no detriment to the project).
I think that they acting differently in another context depends on what’s at stake. If the goals of the project, or its resources are at stake, there will be need for different actions to ensure that the project is completed according to due process.
What is important in a project is satisfying your client decision that aligns with your rules and regulations. The decision to pullout of an ongoing project could be painful considering the energy, time and Skill put in by the project manager his team but clients satisfaction inline with project rules must be followed
One of the important thing a project manager looks out is clients satisfaction, but it does not rule out stakeholders gain and project managers pay or gain also, so I think they analysed this things which is the general end result and took their decisions in terms of terminating the project or not taking extra steps in the course of the project.
They couldn’t have acted differently, when a contract is awarded to you and along the line you are asked to wait or quit, the best thing is to comply no matter how painful it is and effort you have put in already because you are not going to pay yourself at the end of the day. Then in the area where you need to go extra mile or out of your way in other to deliver a project, you don’t need to act otherwise either because you have to put your client’s interest first, that’s where your moral principle as a project manager comes into play
I agree that client interest comes first, but ethics also requires balance. A PM must be responsible to the team and honest about constraints. Compliance is important, but it should follow due process and contracts. Going extra miles shows commitment, but it shouldn’t lead to exploitation. So the moral principle is: serve the client, but do it with fairness and integrity for all stakeholders.