Business Practices for Engineers

Turn Project Management into Relationship Management — and Leave Your Competition in the Dust

I just can’t stand them anymore. Those consultants and smart advisors who go from company to company telling everyone—whether they want to hear it or not—how brilliantly Chinese firms are making Western companies look old and foolish. But you know what? These consultants are right about one thing: Competition has gotten tougher, there’s no denying that. If we want to survive in this new world and thrive long-term, a whole lot needs to change in our companies. But the solution doesn't lie in copying Chinese companies—it lies in being better. I won’t address all the aspects that play a role on the path to long-term competitiveness in this article. I’ll only select one aspect, but one I consider absolutely crucial. And honestly, it’s long overdue that we tackle this. We need to transform the potential of our employees and leaders into outstanding products with high efficiency and without wasting time. Today, let’s talk about how we can make this happen! Efficiency as a Critical Competitive Factor In my last article [https://uwemierisch.substack.com/p/interpersonal-relationships], I wrote about why individuals can achieve little alone but accomplish much through collaboration, and why building personal relationships and networks is essential to this. I described how people with many strong relationships are more successful than lone wolves. But what if we didn’t leave it up to individuals to build and maintain their relationships? What would happen if we implemented a way of working in the company that methodically and systematically promotes the formation of strong relationships between people? Exactly — we would activate the potential of our entire workforce as an integrated collective, and the company’s performance and thus competitiveness would increase! Costs decrease, products improve, customers become more satisfied. One effective way to do this is to make the Drum Beat [https://open.substack.com/pub/uwemierisch/p/from-chaos-to-flow-the-drum-beat?utm_campaign=post-expanded-share&utm_medium=web], which I introduced as a project management method in previous newsletter articles, the general working rhythm throughout the entire company. Experience shows that cost reduction programs only produce short-term results. The Drum Beat, however, when practiced continuously as a work mode, ensures lasting efficiency that increases steadily with growing experience and ever-strengthening relationships. What I'm explaining using the Drum Beat as an example naturally works with all similar methods, such as product increments in agile project management. I think you'll recognize the parallels and be able to transfer this to your process if you're using something similar instead of the Drum Beat. If you have questions, don’t hesitate to contact me. So let’s look at the details of what matters. Shared Goals Are the Key to Company Success, but Also to Individual Success. If the potential of every employee and every leader is to be efficiently deployed to increase efficiency for the entire company, then it’s an important prerequisite that the goals and results of all process participants are aligned. From the company’s perspective, it’s simply not enough for employees to individually achieve their personal goals. It’s necessary for these individual goals to work together toward a common company goal. This doesn’t happen by chance but must be ensured through a well-structured process. The Drum Beat planning process offers an excellent opportunity for this. In the project, the project manager develops short-term Drum Beat Deliverables with their project management team. These are goals aligned with achieving project objectives and give the entire project team orientation and priorities. They are also a recognized measure of each project team member’s success, giving everyone clarity about what’s worth putting effort into. The Drum Beat Deliverables serve to clearly align and prioritize important value-adding activities, as well as to share acceptable risks. This ensures that valuable resources and funds are truly invested in the right priorities. Clarity regarding the results to be achieved helps both individual employees and the entire company. In many companies, projects are the essential part of business operations that determine success. Nevertheless, there are many reasons to use the Drum Beat method outside of projects as well, in the ongoing daily business of all indirect administrative areas. In addition to project goals, this also addresses company goals that aren’t directly influenced by projects. I’m excluding manufacturing areas here because they usually have other objectively measurable goals that enable elegant efficiency measurement. We can talk about that if there’s interest. Clear Agreements Strengthen Relationships Once the deliverables and thus the priorities are clear to everyone, it’s about all employees making their individual agreements to be ready to work and deliver. This is nothing less than well-organized relationship building. People talk to each other about who needs what from whom and document it properly so it won’t be forgotten. In this phase of Drum Beat planning, the foundation for trust and good relationships is laid here. Exactly as I described it in detail in my last article. Communication is intensive, support needs and necessary contributions become concrete and completely transparent to those affected. Remember? In my last article, I challenged you to make a personal plan for how you can intensify your relationship maintenance. The Drum Beat Planning ensures that an organizational framework is provided in which everyone simultaneously works on their support needs and commitments to others, making exactly this plan. This increases the intensity and quality of this aspect of relationship maintenance, creating a strong relationship network throughout the entire organization while also helping each individual. Through the shared rhythm and beat, an intensity is possible that couldn’t be achieved through singular individual actions. Now We Really Do It Once the planning event has taken place, it’s time to deliver on the promises. Here again, everyone is working together with the same priorities. The Drum Beat ensures that the probability of actually achieving the goals is very high. I think an achievement rate of over 80% should definitely be reached. If it’s lower, the goal ambition must be reduced so that the organization’s performance level and ambition level align. The increasing efficiency over time will ensure that ambition can also rise. So don’t plan for 100%, but aim for a range between 80 and 90%, so there’s a corridor for efficiency growth. It’s clear that this promotes the trust aspect. Achieving jointly agreed deliverables provides confidence that it will work again next time. This increases people's trust in each other. As a result, people become more ambitious and learn how much more can be accomplished. Celebrate Achieved Results and Be Grateful At the end of every Drum Beat, we review what was achieved together. This makes it clear to everyone what worked and what perhaps didn’t. This shared pause and appreciation of what was achieved is a crucial point that helps solidify relationships between people. It’s not necessarily common to take this time and talk together about what was achieved. The Drum Beat offers a unique opportunity to show gratitude for a colleague’s support. Don’t take this lightly. Here in Germany, especially in Swabia, they say: not scolded is praised enough. It’s meant to suggest that celebrating gratitude is seen as a waste of time. But the exact opposite is true! Strong relationships and trust—indispensable for efficient collaboration—only form when people receive feedback that their efforts are seen and there's willingness to show appreciation in the future. Here again, the Drum Beat offers the opportunity to handle this important aspect of relationship maintenance simultaneously and in a well-organized manner. How Can We Be Even More Successful I think you’ll agree with me that it’s not satisfying to remain at a once-achieved performance level. There are many scientific studies proving that ambition isn’t coincidental but belongs to human nature for many reasons. But we also know that the field in which each individual person displays their ambition doesn’t always lie in business. However, when a group of people work together trustfully and then consult together about how to improve as a team, ambition becomes contagious. Here too, the Drum Beat offers an organizational framework with its retrospective that makes a level achievable that’s greater than the sum of individual persons. Personal Success and Company Success Go Hand in Hand I wanted to make clear in this article that personal success and company success are symbiotic. If the majority of employees in a company are successful, then the company is usually successful too. But the reverse is also true: if the majority of employees aren’t successful in their work, then the company has a results problem and is very likely not competitive in the long term. I always start from the employee perspective, because the notion that employees automatically become successful just by working for a successful company is an unrealistic fantasy with no basis in reality. That’s why I believe the right and important path is to start with organizing employee collaboration to lift the company’s overall performance to a level that wouldn’t be achievable through individual successful employees or leaders alone. Now it’s true that there are other important factors to address as well — more on that in future articles. But let’s start with employees and their collaboration. I hope I’ve convinced you that significant improvement potential can be realized this way. However, it still needs to be operationally implemented in daily business processes, and I haven’t described all the details here in the article. So if you’ve decided to implement this proposal, contact me and I’ll discuss the operational design in your specific environment together with you. You're free to choose the method that works best for you. I will provide more detailed articles on project management topics, transformation, and change in the future. Please subscribe to ensure you do not miss any updates. If you found this helpful, don’t forget to share it with others who might enjoy it too! I’d be very grateful if you shared my newsletter with your friends and colleagues. Get full access to Uwe Mierisch at uwemierisch.substack.com/subscribe [https://uwemierisch.substack.com/subscribe?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_4]

Interpersonal Relationships - The Magic Formula That Makes 1+1 More Than 2

It’s always about personal advantage! What’s your reaction to this statement? “Of course it’s about me! That’s always been my motto.” Or “Absolutely not, that’s antisocial! The common good must stand above the individual’s self-interest.” Let’s unpack this together. I hope we can agree on a common perspective. But if you have a different opinion, don’t hesitate to share it with me. You can use the comments or send me a personal message. I’m very curious! It’s About Creating Value When I talk about the business environment, we often immediately think of numbers like revenue, profit margins, or ROI. But actually, the purpose of every business activity is to create value for which someone voluntarily gives up something that belongs to them. Yes, this business value can often indeed be measured in money. However, it becomes more difficult when it’s not about companies, but about people. In human interaction and collaboration, compensation often doesn’t occur through direct exchange, but happens with a big unknown time delay. I help someone else today and get something back sometime, possibly. Another special feature is that this compensation often doesn’t consist of money, but of other, non-material values such as social status, services and competencies that I don’t have myself, or simply by having something taken off my plate that I don’t like doing. And this is where community comes into play, because the community can also give something to the individual that represents value to them. It’s not just about the relationship from person to person, but also about the relationship from the individual to the community. Take a moment and think about what other forms this compensation could take, so that it’s “worth it” for you to do something for someone else now. Precisely because this connection between creating value for others and receiving value for oneself can be so diverse and non-concrete, people must enter into relationships with each other. Relationships are necessary for the system of human society to function. If you have a good relationship with another person, you will receive something from them without having to give something back immediately. You will also give something without immediately expecting something in return. But the reverse is also true. If you believe that the other person won’t do anything for you, then you won’t do anything for them either. That’s called a bad relationship, and it develops in the same way as a good relationship, namely by gaining experience with the other person. So let’s next look at how a good relationship comes about. Trust Trust is the conviction that you will receive from someone what you expect from them. Every person has expectations of the other person with whom they interact. When these expectations are met to a high degree, trust grows. I collect positive experiences with the person and therefore assume for the future that my expectations will continue to be met. If this is mutual, then a good relationship develops between us. If my expectations are regularly not met, then exactly this experience forms. The advance trust that may have been present initially dwindles. No relationship develops, instead we distance ourselves. While trust is lost very quickly, building trust is much more effort-intensive. It’s not enough to want to meet the other’s expectations, it must actually happen. That’s why let’s now look at what’s necessary for this. Communication Very intensive and honest communication is the first and one of the most important building blocks for building trust, for two reasons: * If you don’t talk to the other person, you won’t learn their expectations and therefore you most likely won’t meet them. Believe me, random hits or intuition aren’t enough! You must communicate very intensively and broadly so that you even learn what moves the other person, what help they currently need, what problems burden them, and what support they’re willing to accept. * If you communicate frequently and extensively, your counterpart gets the feeling that you’re interested in them and their problem and want to help them. Even if the expected help perhaps doesn’t come or doesn’t work as expected, the experience remains that you wanted to help them, and that’s already half the battle. Yes, there’s a right measure for communication. Too little communication is harmful, too much communication is annoying. But communicate more rather than less! Proximity Proximity to each other is closely related to communication. It’s much more credible when you look directly into each other’s eyes during communication, directly perceive body language and emotions. Believe me, it’s no coincidence that executive assistants climb the career ladder much more successfully than other employees. You can assume that they’re capable and probably smart too, otherwise they wouldn’t have been selected for the job. But there are many more competent and smart employees in the company. The difference certainly also lies in the fact that they have proximity to the boss, which enables them to build great trust. Believe me, no one promotes someone they’re not sure is worth the trust! Now not everyone will always have the opportunity to establish this proximity. That shouldn’t stop you from communicating and building trust. Where it’s not so easy, you just have to make more effort. And don’t limit this just to bosses for the sake of your career, because if you don’t have the trust of your colleagues and they don’t help you, then the boss won’t either. Authenticity Authenticity is the next important building block for gaining trust. Be as you are! You instinctively sense whether someone is playing a role, and when you have this feeling, it’s not trust-building. You then involuntarily ask yourself: “Why are they doing that? Do they have something to hide?” This suspicion is fatal and destroys trust. Authenticity is the basis for predictability, and this in turn pays very strongly into trust. Be as you are, then the other person knows what to expect from you. They can then adjust their expectations to reality and also understand why something might run differently than they expected. This also includes openly admitting mistakes and dealing honestly with yourself and the situation. Empathy While authenticity was about you, empathy is about the other person. You must take the time and make the effort to put yourself in the other person’s shoes. It’s not enough to ask the other person about their expectations and then meet them. You must find out what really moves the other person, what they expect from you in their inner self, and what is how important to them. It helps to have known each other for a long time. Over time, it becomes easier to grasp the other’s thoughts, recognize their feelings, and identify their expectations. Reliability Meeting expectations also means being reliable. Actually, this is the simplest discipline in building trust, but it’s still so difficult: Keep what you promise! Do what you say! With expectations that you create yourself, there’s no “I couldn’t have known that!” Yes, it’s as trivial as it sounds: Those who are unreliable lose trust. You can’t build a good relationship with unreliable people. Here too, of course, there’s no 100%. Something can slip through. When that happens, authenticity and honesty can often still save the situation. However, if it becomes the rule to not keep your promises, then trust is gone, and so is the relationship. Reciprocity After talking so much about trust as the basis of a relationship, I want to come back to reciprocity. Reciprocity is the principle of exchanging values. I give you something, I get something from you. This principle forms the foundation for a good relationship and for success in a business context. Trust is the belief or certainty that this principle works between us. But it’s not enough that we both have trust, we must also actively apply it. An important basic rule is that reciprocity consists of advances. Everyone must do the right thing for the other person at the time when they need it. But at that time, they don’t know whether they will really get the return service sometime and whether the measure will be balanced. A situation can certainly arise where one person always gives more than the other in the long run. Perhaps because the other can’t give more, or because I myself don’t need more. In the end, it’s not the balance sheet that’s decisive, but that the principle works at the right time for everyone. So don’t hesitate, when the other person needs support, give it to them. Now comes the big but: There are situations where the other person isn’t willing to do their part of reciprocity. If you recognize this, you must act, otherwise you’re the fool and will be exploited. Address it, and if it doesn’t change, then draw the consequences. There are relationships that can’t be patched up and must then be consistently ended. Willingness to Compromise An important aspect of reciprocity is the willingness to compromise. There will always be situations where your own interests are in opposition to the interests of the other person. Here it’s necessary to find a compromise that both can accept. This requires willingness to compromise on both sides. If one party continuously insists on their advantages, then it’s difficult to build and maintain a good relationship. So be willing to back down sometimes, trust that the other person has the same attitude. Network Maintenance In a business environment, an extensive network of relationships is necessary to be successful yourself and to be part of a successful environment. That’s why you must develop and maintain a multitude of relationships. This costs effort and time, but it’s still advisable and even necessary. Another element of a good relationship is that you also share your network, which you’ve built with great effort, with others. Reciprocity isn’t just about doing what’s necessary yourself, but also about using your own relationships and the associated trust to help the other person. Professionalism With that, I come to the last point for today, professionalism. To be useful to others, you must also be really good at something yourself. This requires professionalism. Professionalism means qualifying yourself in a field, developing skills and abilities, and being able to produce high-quality results. The profession is where you can create relevant value for others. You need something that’s your brand. Something that everyone knows you’re particularly good at and that it’s worth building a relationship with you for. Partnerships Are Based on Functioning Relationships In the last article [https://uwemierisch.substack.com/p/partnership], I addressed partnerships and claimed that it makes more sense to build equal partnerships for mutual benefit, rather than practicing collaboration according to the power principle based on unequally distributed power positions. I claimed that partnerships only work when the people involved build good relationships with each other. In this article, I’ve now addressed exactly these relationships. Please write to me about what experiences you’ve had in this topic area and which aspects I may not have covered sufficiently. We can also chat about it. I will provide more detailed articles on project management topics, transformation, and change in the future. Please subscribe to ensure you do not miss any updates. If you found this helpful, don’t forget to share it with others who might enjoy it too! I’d be very grateful if you shared my newsletter with your friends and colleagues. Get full access to Uwe Mierisch at uwemierisch.substack.com/subscribe [https://uwemierisch.substack.com/subscribe?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_4]

True Partnership Knows No Single Winner

I think very few people believed we could actually pull it off! It’s been 25 years now. We were a small team with a big mission: “Build a company, develop a portfolio of heavy commercial vehicle axles, and supply the American subsidiary’s serial production with high quality and deliver reliability in 3 years.” When we tackled this impossible mission, one thing was clear: We could only do it together with strong, competent partners. Alone? No chance! The path we chose was unusual back then and still isn’t standard practice today. But before I reveal the secret, I want to describe the standard approach I typically observe—one that has nothing to do with true partnership. That way, you can judge whether this is also common in your environment. Everyone Thinks: The Most for Me! In a way, it’s even logical and understandable. When it comes to business, everyone wants to maximize their profit by using all the levers they have. If you do this consistently, you can observe the following approach: * I need something for my project that my organization doesn’t have. So I have to buy it. This could be parts or services. What it is doesn’t really matter—in any case, I have a problem on the table. * To solve this problem, I search for potential suppliers who have what I need. With some luck, I find multiple offers. * In this situation, I can now use the competition between potential suppliers to negotiate the best price for myself. The more time I have, the more I can put pressure on suppliers. I hold the stronger position and can use my decision-making power to my advantage. * I delay signing the supply contract as long as possible, specify the product very precisely, and negotiate hard on every small, individual cost item in detail. * During this phase, suppliers undercut each other, each trying to offer the best price to win the contract. * Meanwhile, development is already running at full speed. The developers have to work with all suppliers simultaneously, which means extra work and unclear relationships. * Suppliers do only as much as necessary to barely stay in the race. They don’t want to invest too much because they know only one will get the contract. * Once the supply contract is signed, the supplier holds the stronger position. Every change that becomes necessary during product development, they charge dearly for. Now is the time for them to recover what they sacrificed during the bidding phase. * When we’re in serial production and the time comes for the supply contract to expire and be renegotiated, the arm-wrestling starts again. * I threaten the supplier that I won’t extend the contract unless they lower the price. * They calculate how much a supplier change would cost me. In my business, these are substantial sums. That’s why the supplier will explain at length that the previous price is no longer profitable for them and they therefore demand a price increase. * Each side tries to extract the maximum for themselves. I’m in the weaker position because my costs will rise either way. Either I accept the cost increase or I invest substantial sums to switch suppliers. * My leverage returns when the next project begins. However, the current supplier benefits from the experience and assets gained during the previous project, giving them a significant competitive advantage over competitors. They will fight aggressively to retain the business, undercutting any rival without hesitation. The supplier knows they can increase prices again once I’m back in a weak negotiating position—which happens with predictable regularity as soon as the product is completed. * If the supplier manages this skillfully over a long time, they have the opportunity to eliminate all competitors and build a monopoly. Then I’m really in trouble! And of course, my customer does exactly the same thing with me as a supplier! Do you recognize this pattern in your environment? Were you already aware of it, or does it surprise you to see how this actually plays out? You’ll probably also conclude that this approach isn’t efficient and certainly doesn’t lead to an optimal outcome for anyone. There’s either a winner and a loser, or even two losers—which is always the case when neither side makes money in the end. The Way Out: Strategic Partnership I think it’s clear that we wouldn’t have accomplished our task back then if we had proceeded as just described. Instead: We entered into strategic partnerships with our suppliers. Now I’ll explain how that works and what prerequisites are necessary. It Starts with a Shared Vision Unlike the approach just described, my intention here is not to delay the decision as long as possible, but to make it as early as possible. The supplier decision and contract isn’t based on a detailed negotiated price, but on an agreed compromise based on mutual trust. I lay on the table what product goals I need to achieve and what costs I can afford to reach my required profitability. The supplier lays on the table what their product can do and what price they need for their profitability. Of course, this doesn’t fit together yet. Each side must move away from their optimum somewhat. I have to make compromises on product requirements and also be willing to compromise on my price expectations. The supplier may have to invest more effort in their development and also price in cost efficiencies they can’t yet prove. We agree on a mutually supported compromise that includes risks for both sides. Trust Is the Foundation, and That Always Exists Between People The essential difference from the approach described at the beginning is that the basis for the contract isn’t supposedly objective facts, but agreed-upon goals for which both sides must contribute throughout the project to achieve. That’s exactly the crucial point. Both sides must become convinced that each will do everything to realize the agreed overall optimum. There can be no “not my problem” attitude here. All problems are shared problems. This trust only develops when the compromise is intensively discussed. And specifically, the people who also have decision-making responsibility during the project’s implementation phase must talk with each other. This is exactly where the challenge lies, especially for large companies with this approach. The more people who have a say, the more difficult it is to build trust and ultimately to prove worthy of that trust. Back then, we were a very small team with full decision-making authority, and we worked with similar partners. Yet even in that situation, I can say from my own experience that it’s not easy to choose the most trusted partner over the one with the lowest initial price offer. Partnerships and Trust Grow Over Time Once you’ve successfully brought a project to completion on this basis, both sides have experienced that they can rely on each other. That the trust is justified. This strengthens the trust basis for the next project. You don’t just quickly switch suppliers then, but build further projects on this increasingly strong trust foundation. This creates long-term partnerships that provide security on one hand and enable efficient work on content on the other, because the power games don’t happen. Even though it might look like a monopoly at first glance, it is something completely different. Other suppliers still exist, even though the partners choose to stick together for mutual benefit. However, there is no guarantee that a partnership will last forever—that has happened to me as well. When it does break apart, you have to find a new partner. Profitability and Partnership Aren’t Contradictory — Quite the Opposite We’re currently experiencing where power-based business models can lead. Disrupted supply chains, exorbitant costs, and companies struggling to survive. This exact consequence occurs when one side manages to gain absolute dominance without adequate mutual dependencies. If you strive for that yourself, you must also expect that the other side might possibly succeed in building up this position. In a true partnership, this can’t happen. All sides have a common interest and common success. But it’s also important to understand that you can’t force a partnership. If a partner isn’t trustworthy, it doesn’t change anything if they offer the supposedly best price. To put it another way: Cheapness is dangerous! What’s Your Opinion? I could write many more details about partnerships in a business environment. But before I do that, I’d like to hear from you what you think about the topic. What’s your opinion? Are you interested in more details? Have you gathered your own experiences with partnerships? Please write in the comments or let’s chat about it. I will provide more detailed articles on project management topics, transformation, and change in the future. Please subscribe to ensure you do not miss any updates. If you found this helpful, don’t forget to share it with others who might enjoy it too! I’d be very grateful if you shared my newsletter with your friends and colleagues. Get full access to Uwe Mierisch at uwemierisch.substack.com/subscribe [https://uwemierisch.substack.com/subscribe?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_4]

Why Equal Power Creates Better Project Decisions

A Counterintuitive Approach to Better Project Outcomes In my last article, I made a provocative claim. Project team members shouldn’t report directly to the project manager. Instead, they should have a different supervisor. I know this goes against common practice. That’s exactly why I want to explain my reasoning today. The Core Problem: Power Imbalance in Conflict of Interest Situations Let me get straight to the point: Projects have multidimensional goals. Trade-offs are inevitable. The problem arises when a single person must negotiate these trade-offs alone with themselves. The result? Stress for that person and suboptimal compromises for the project. A truly optimal, sustainable compromise requires three elements: * Clear advocates: Each goal dimension needs someone who openly champions that position * Equal footing: All parties must negotiate as equals * Neutral facilitator: A Project Management Master who moderates without their own agenda, working toward consensus This is precisely why I’ve defined project management roles along these goal dimensions: * Project Manager: Responsible for project objectives. * Project Architect: Responsible for the product. * Functional Representatives/Project Team: Responsible for technical execution and content realization. The Power Imbalance Problem When the project manager is also the supervisor of other project management team members, the power dynamic becomes distorted. The project manager possesses additional leverage through their ability to conduct performance reviews and impose disciplinary measures. The consequence is predictable: Team members will carefully consider how hard they push their interests against those of their boss. It’s not easy to contradict your supervisor and consistently advocate for your position against theirs—even when that’s exactly what the project requires. Three Common Objections (and My Responses) “But good managers can make good decisions on their own!” Of course competent leaders can develop compromises independently. The real question is: Are these the optimal compromises? That depends heavily on chance—the manager’s character, their mood that day, the team’s courage to speak up. Why leave project success to chance when we can build it into the structure? “Isn’t this just about performance management?” No. Naturally, managers must monitor performance and address issues. That’s not in dispute. The core of my argument is different: It’s about conflicting interests, not performance deficits. The danger lies precisely in the dual role of project manager + supervisor, where these two issues become too easily entangled. These dimensions must be clearly separated. “In line management, the boss is responsible for everything too!” Ideally, a line manager has a single, clear interest: the functionality of their department. In the dual role, however, multiple contradictory interests systematically overlap. Similar situations exist outside of projects, and they cause significant problems in practice. Often, they’re branded as “micromanagement.” A Concrete Example Here’s a classic conflict scenario that illustrates the issue. The Situation Project Goals: * Reduce energy consumption by 5% * Keep product costs constant (versus predecessor) * Be customer ready in 3 years The Reality: The project team developed optimization measures. Combined, they would just barely achieve the 5% target. But there’s a catch: * Implementing all measures increases product costs * Some measures violate platform guidelines, others conflict with brand standards Responsibilities in a Project Organization To better understand the positions of the individual project team members, here is a brief overview of the responsibilities. Project Manager The project manager is responsible for ensuring that the project goals are achieved. Typical project goals for which the project manager is responsible include: * Delivery deadline * Project and product costs * Performance indicators defined in the project charter (quality, performance characteristics, functionalities, etc.) They owe the project team balanced, realistic goals that they must align and agree upon with the stakeholders. Project Architect The project architect is responsible for a customer-appropriate, platform-compliant product that aligns with brand characteristics. They represent the interests of the platform architecture within the project and ensure compliance with cross-project product properties and characteristics. At the same time, they owe the project manager technical architectures and concepts with which the project goals can be achieved. Department Representatives / Project Team Members The project team members are responsible for efficient and competent delivery of project work. The project team members decide on the working approach and the technical execution. In doing so, they must consider both the project manager’s specifications regarding project goals and the project architect’s specifications regarding product architecture and properties. At the same time, they owe the project manager efficient, goal-oriented procedures that minimize resource and time consumption, along with balanced risk awareness. The Three Competing Interests Those different responsibilities lead to the following perspectives. Project Manager’s Perspective: * Implement all measures * Avoid cost increases through more efficient design * Negotiate remaining cost gap with suppliers * Complete everything on schedule Project Architect’s Perspective: * Implement platform- and brand-compliant measures (even if costs increase) * Drop non-compliant measures (even if the energy goal is missed) Project Team/Functional Representative’s Perspective: * Get more time to search for better solutions * Adjust goals with stakeholders Finding the Compromise In practice, there’s rarely a perfect solution. Not all predetermined goals can be achieved simultaneously. A compromise must be found across all goal deviations: * Time compromise: How much additional time is acceptable? Can other activities be shortened to compensate, or is there flexibility in the delivery date? * Content compromise: Which measures get implemented, which don’t? This determines the gap in energy consumption, costs, and platform compliance. * Process compromise: When are project goals adjusted—immediately or after validation? This addresses how stable or volatile the compromise is. I don’t want to specify a particular compromise here; in each specific situation, a different solution will be the best one. Nevertheless, I think the example illustrates the problem. Deciding or Negotiating Compromise Compromises can be reached in two fundamentally different ways: Negotiating or deciding. In both cases, arguments need to be brought to the table, but not necessarily all of them. Finding Compromise Through Decision Every deviation from a well-considered guideline can have consequences. If there are no consequences, then it’s easy to accept the deviation. However, the consequences are usually neither recognizable at first glance nor assessable in their impact. For this reason, each stakeholder must examine the effects on their area of interest and explain them to the team. In the case of a decision by the project manager, the project managers don’t have to explain their arguments. They make the decision themselves anyway. Of course, it’s a great advantage for the acceptance of the decision if they communicate their arguments in the justification. However, I have very often had to experience that in the hectic rush of daily business, this is exactly what doesn’t happen. The consequence is then a poor collaborative climate and an “I don’t care anymore” attitude. Deciding on a compromise is undoubtedly the fastest solution strategy. However, it’s also the solution strategy with the greatest volatility. The probability of finding the best compromise through decision-making borders on the probability of winning the lottery. As long as it’s a reasonable compromise, it’s not a disaster not to decide on the very best solution. Things move forward in any case, and that’s important. However, possible misjudgments in the decision-making process and a lack of commitment to the compromise within the project team regularly lead to this compromise being frequently questioned afterward. Finding Compromise Through Negotiation In negotiation, all arguments come to the table. Each advocate explains what consequences arise for their area from each potential goal deviation. Here the project manager is part of the team. Then consensus is sought. Consensus means finding a solution everyone can live with, even if not everyone is happy. But there’s both understanding and acceptance. Prerequisites for stable consensus: * All participants are equal * A facilitator without their own agenda guides the discussion This is exactly where traditional hierarchy fails: * If the project manager is the team’s supervisor, they’re no longer equal—they have power. * If they also supervise the Project Management Master, the facilitator is no longer neutral—they’re suspected of representing the boss’s interests. When the project manager is on equal footing, the resulting consensus has significant advantages: It’s based on the entire team’s competence and a shared risk assessment, giving it high quality and acceptance. The Bottom Line I’m not claiming projects can’t function without separating disciplinary and professional authority. Many projects run reasonably well in traditional structures. But I do claim this: The separation offers substantial advantages that significantly improve both project outcomes and project climate. Good compromises aren’t found by luck or because someone decides to be nice. Good compromises emerge through structures that enable genuine representation of interests, equal footing, and neutral facilitation. Now’s the right time to jump into the comments – I’d love to hear about similar experiences, parallels you’ve seen, or your take on this. We can also chat on this topic. I will provide more detailed articles on project management topics, transformation, and change in the future. Please subscribe to ensure you do not miss any updates. If you found this helpful, don’t forget to share it with others who might enjoy it too! I’d be very grateful if you shared my newsletter with your friends and colleagues. Get full access to Uwe Mierisch at uwemierisch.substack.com/subscribe [https://uwemierisch.substack.com/subscribe?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_4]

Small Rudder, Large Ship

Sometimes it proves useful to explicitly clarify matters that intuitively seem self-evident. Upon closer examination of common project management terms, I find that not everything is as clear as assumed. This is precisely what causes misunderstandings in collaboration. People wonder why things don’t run as smoothly as they would like. For this reason, I want to discuss the following terms in this article: * Management * Manager * Project Management * Project Management Team * Project Team * Project Management Office * Project Management Support * Program Management Office You see, that’s quite a long list. So let me get started right away. This Substack is reader-supported. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Management When it comes to the term “management,” we need to distinguish: Do we mean the activity itself or the people who perform it? I’ll first focus on the activity and then address the role. Managing Is More Than Giving Instructions! The biggest misunderstanding arises from the fact that “managing” is often understood only as interaction between manager and employee. But it’s much more than that! Unfortunately, it’s also frequently the case that managers inadequately perform these other aspects as well. Which further reinforces this false perception. So what does managing actually include? There’s an abundance of literature that defines the topic very differently. Therefore, I’m presenting a model here that I consider most effective based on my professional experience. Managing includes: Setting Goals, Planning, Commissioning Work and Deploying Resources, Preventing or Solving Problems and Evaluating Results. If you have a different opinion on this, please write to me in the comments—I’m very interested: Now let’s look at the activities which belong to managing: Setting Goals Managing begins with setting goals. Clarity about goals is the prerequisite for any efficient work. However, defining goals is not a matter of inspiration—it’s hard, time-consuming work in itself. Typically, you start with one or more predetermined goals. To avoid going too deep here, I’m deliberately leaving out goal derivation from visions and strategies. Goals to be achieved must be cascaded into sub-goals: * For topics * For organizational units or individuals * For time periods Planning Once goals are found, planning begins on how the goals can be achieved. * What activities are required? * How much time do the activities need? * Who will be needed for execution? * What conditions and prerequisites must exist? * What dependencies must be considered? * How can partial results and goal achievement be measured? * Who must make which decision when? Commissioning Work and Deploying Resources The next step is the one that management is often mistakenly reduced to. Employees are commissioned to perform their activities according to the plan and develop content. Resources such as budgets, work time, or work tools are provided. Decisions relating to content work are made or triggered. Preventing or Solving Problems Plans rarely work out as intended. Therefore: Managing includes anticipating deviations early and taking countermeasures. Evaluating Results Once results are on the table, it must be evaluated whether the set goals have actually been achieved. The evaluation forms the basis for further action. Manager Employees who perform these activities are called managers. I consider it very important that managers personally execute all these aspects of management and don’t completely delegate individual ones. This doesn’t mean that a manager can’t obtain support or input. Quite the contrary: Management is also teamwork. I’ll come back to this later when discussing the management team. Conversely, however, a manager should really only manage and not perform content work themselves. Especially in development environments, it’s not uncommon for managers to also possess domain knowledge. Mixing both fields of activity typically leads to poor management performance. Although executives are often called managers, personnel responsibility is by no means a prerequisite for the manager role. Conversely, executives can and should also manage. In fact, management activities are an essential component of every leadership role—personnel management is then added on top. Unfortunately, I frequently observe that executive-managers only personally perform the steps “commissioning work” and “evaluating results” and either omit or delegate the other steps. That’s not good! It’s the cause of many problems we see in companies. All steps require the same attention, have the same priority, and must be performed by the manager themselves. If they don’t do this, they cannot deliver high-performance management. Believe me, I’ve made this mistake myself and suffered the consequences bitterly. I frequently observe that executives neglect goal definition and planning because they believe they don’t have time for it—or because they think everything is already clear and known anyway. A Side Note: Assistants are an important resource because they support executives in management and thus contribute to better management performance. Bosses who want to eliminate assistant positions for cost reasons have not understood how top-level management works. Project Management The starting point of every project is goals specified by the project’s stakeholders. To realize these project goals, two areas of activity are required: * Managing * Implementing Managing Just as described above, management activities must be performed in the project. The project goals must be broken down into sub-goals along the three project dimensions: cost, time, and performance. Based on this, the project plan is created, the project team is commissioned, and investment funds are released. To control project risks, professional risk management is conducted: risks are regularly analyzed, preventive measures defined and planned. Work results are discussed promptly within the team and with stakeholders. Confirmed results are a prerequisite for reliable and continuous maturity progression. Implementing Simultaneously with the project, work on the project content begins, which proceeds exactly as worked out by project management. A continuous alignment must take place between content activities and project management activities. Project management takes place before the content processing of project scopes. But then accompanies the implementation activities. Goals, plans, and results must be constantly adapted to realities. Project Management Team The project management team consists of: * The Project Manager [https://uwemierisch.substack.com/p/project-manager] * The Project Management Master [https://uwemierisch.substack.com/p/project-management-master] * The Project Architect [https://uwemierisch.substack.com/p/chief-engineer-product-architect] * The Department Representatives [https://uwemierisch.substack.com/p/success-factor-or-just-mail-carriers] Each of them has their own area of responsibility in which they perform management activities. You can read the details in the respective articles. Depending on the size of the organization, it may make sense for the department representative—who is essentially a kind of project manager for the department—to also have a department project management master at their side. These project roles exclusively perform project management tasks, should be freed up for these tasks, and work in only one project. As already indicated in the heading, too many cooks spoil the broth. It’s important to have only the minimally necessary number of employees, each with a clear focus. Only this way is it possible to ensure excellent situational awareness at all times. This is the basic prerequisite for good project management. Too many people means too many interfaces, unclear task distribution and responsibility. Project Team The project team includes all employees who work on the project scope. It doesn’t matter whether they are exclusively assigned to the project, work in parallel on multiple projects, or are only temporarily involved. The number of project team members is determined solely by necessity, as determined by the project management team during planning. The rule here is: whoever is needed is part of the team—the number of employees is determined only by necessity and therefore has no lower or upper limit. Unlike the project management team, the project team doesn’t work exclusively on content work. Members of the project team also take on project management tasks within their area of responsibility as part of self-responsibility and self-management. This includes the detailed definition of goals as well as detailed planning of workflows and coordination of collaboration. As experts, they provide important input for risk management and develop the results that are confirmed in project reviews. Project Management Office For the Project Management Office, we need to distinguish how this term is used. I know two different interpretations. A Project Management Office is sometimes the area in the office where the project management team has their workspaces. I just listed who belongs to the project management team. If project management supporters are also present, they also sit in the Project Management Office. Spatial concentration in the Project Management Office is highly recommended. It enables the visualization of important project information on the walls—from project plans to risk portfolios to task boards. At the same time, it facilitates spontaneous exchange and coordination, so that all project managers always share the same situational assessment. The Project Management Office can also be the meeting room where project meetings take place. The other version of a Project Management Office is independent of the actual project. In the Project Management Office, project management experts are brought together who are responsible for project management methods and project portfolios. Here, company-internal project management standards are developed, defined, and brought to decision. Training, qualifications, and experience exchange for project managers are organized. Planning and coaching experts can be pooled here, which projects can access as needed. In addition, the PMO typically selects the project management tools, decides on their use, and adapts them to the organization’s needs. The Project Management Office typically reports to the board of management about the state of project management in the organization. It maintains an overview of the entire project portfolio and evaluates whether sufficient project management resources are available to professionally handle the projects. In case of bottlenecks, it coordinates the deployment of external resources. Project Management Support Project management supporters are employees who support project management members in conducting project management. This typically includes the following activities: * Planning meetings * Writing minutes * Tracking task completion * Updating schedules * Preparing project status reports * Helping project members work with the project management tool These are administrative activities. As the name suggests, the project management supporter is intended as assistance and capacity relief for project managers and project members. However, one must note that delegating these administrative activities creates an additional interface between supporter and responsible person, which inevitably leads to efficiency losses. Therefore, I favor optimizing tools, processes and user interfaces so that those responsible can smoothly handle these tasks themselves without being significantly burdened. So if many project management supporters are needed, it’s a sign of poor tools or poor collaboration culture. I also frequently observe that project management supporters are deployed where processes are not regulated or corresponding subject matter experts are missing. Such situations can occur in different contexts, mostly tracking activities. If you deploy PMSs for such activities, something is wrong with your organization. Anyone who has their projects under control without PMSs is very likely working in a very good environment. The need to deploy PMSs should therefore always be an occasion to carefully analyze what they’re needed for and how the situation can be improved so it works without them. Program Management Office Let’s conclude with the Program Management Office. Here too, there are two different scenarios. The Program Management Office can take on the role of the Project Management Office. In organizations that strongly bundle projects into programs, cross-project and cross-program methodological competence as well as project management governance can also be bundled in a Program Management Office. Another possibility is to spatially concentrate all program managers and platform architects in one office, thereby improving exchange and cross-program collaboration. The situation is therefore relatively similar to the Project Management Office. Head of PMO I’d like to conclude by pointing out one special feature. Project Management or Program Management Offices with cross-project or cross-program responsibility are independent organizational units with an organizational chart and a head of PMO. The PMO leader is accordingly anchored in the company hierarchy. Project management team members, on the other hand, don’t report to the project leader but either to the PMO leader or—in the case of department representatives—to their respective department heads. Project leaders are often called project managers, both of which suggest that they have disciplinary personnel responsibility. I know it’s absolutely common to organizationally place project management team members under the project leader. However, this has significant disadvantages, which I’ll discuss in detail soon. So please subscribe to my newsletter so you don’t miss these articles. Few Steering the Ship, Many Working on Deck I’ve only covered the selected terms in their essential features here. Nevertheless, it should have become clear why it makes sense to have a focused and lean project management team in a project and to clearly distinguish it from the significantly larger number of project team members doing content work. Therefore, pay close attention in my articles whether I’m talking about the project management team or the project team—these are two fundamentally different things. If you liked the article or have questions or comments, please write them to me in the comments. I appreciate every comment. Also please write me which terms I should go into more detail about in separate articles. Comments are the currency with which free subscribers can reward me for my efforts. We can of course use the chat function to exchange ideas directly. If you liked the article, please share it with others. This Substack is reader-supported. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Get full access to Uwe Mierisch at uwemierisch.substack.com/subscribe [https://uwemierisch.substack.com/subscribe?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_4]