The tools of project management are designed to capture and
provide metrics on the health of projects. As an example, let’s explore the
basic tool, the project schedule. We use it to report on whether we are ahead
or behind the original plan, whether the level of effort is greater or less
than planned, whether the number and types of tasks were appropriate, and a
myriad of other metrics. When we wrap our project schedule reporting in
intention, then what we convey and how we convey it may differ. The data is
still the same, the intention behind the use of the data matters. When we
randomly report on the information without setting a clear intention it can be
used in a way that demoralizes and disconnects the team. This can happen with
any of the project management tools used to govern a project.
The project manager can set the tone of the entire team
through their communication on the project. Setting, declaring, and gaining
alignment on the intentions of the metrics of a project may be more important
than establishing the metrics in the first place. Metrics are the tool a
project manager uses to gauge what is working and what is not working. When the
communication is focused on what is not working, the project can easily loose
energy and spiral toward the negative side of reporting on the metrics. Being
clear about what metrics mean through the intention of what they are conveying
creates opportunities to interpret the meaning as the metrics were intended.
Why the fuss? When there are a myriad of organizations
providing oversight on a project there is opportunity for misinterpretation of
the status being reported based purely on the metrics. It is easy to take the
data and interpret it in a way other than what it is intended to convey.
Distrust can begin to seep in which makes it increasingly difficult to stay on
task due to the volume of conversations around the information rather than
staying focused on the work that must be done. Finding myself in conversations
around the status report and what it is really saying wastes everyone’s time
and energy. Ensuring there is alignment on the intention of each piece of
information being reported upon allows for clear communication.
How does a project manager set, declare, and gain alignment
on the intention of the data being reported upon? If you’ve not spent time in
setting intentions and spending time being aware of your intentions, meditation
is something that may support you. I’ve discovered that taking the time to
consider the stakeholders and the current circumstances of the project supports
determining the intentions of the metrics used. I understand that similar
metrics are used in most projects and setting the intention for their use is
what can differentiate how those metrics are interpreted by those auditing,
benefiting from, or involved with the project. Ensuring everyone sees the
metrics in the same way will save quite a bit of re-explaining time.
Practicing setting intentions with the metrics will begin
the practice of intention in your project management. You will know how it is
working through the feedback you receive. Not the direct feedback, although
that is beneficial. It is through the indirect feedback that we gain most of
our insights into what is working and what is not working. If you are finding
yourself in the “defense of the metric” conversation, the intention of the
metric was not aligned to by the stakeholders. If instead everyone is using the
metrics in the same way and there is conversation around what is working and
what is not working the alignment has occurred and everyone can have a meaningful
discussion about what must be done to improve the project.
Practicing intention is something that will prove useful.
Next week we will continue to explore the use of intention as we step into
driving the project team and working with others. What are you practicing
today?
