Quick Wins

One of the interesting dicotomies of work life is the strange juxtaposition of risk and reward.  Most of us want to move up, be promoted and take on even larger challenges.  Yet there is so much risk associated with large endevours.  Many large projects lose momentum, are hard to justify or just consistently manage to skate beyond the intended scope.  There's also the fact that a large project always seems to have room for one more "feature" or requirement - what I call the kitchen sink effect.

Rather than focus on one large project, which almost always has a chance to go off the tracks, why not build your reputation and your experience in smaller, faster, more agile projects or tasks.  A "quick win" - that is, a well defined, small project which can be more easily controlled and managed is almost always the best way to start.  A quick win proves that you and your team can define scope, hold resources to what was committed, and deliver a great result on time and on budget.  I know that most attention will be paid to the big projects, since the dollars spent and the potential outcomes are so much larger, but the credibility and success you can build on from quick wins will build your reputation.

Back in the day, when I worked for an ERP consulting firm, we constantly battled this problem.  Most firms wanted to implement the entire suite of 15 modules all at once.  My question to get them thinking was - OK, so you've built your existing computer systems infrastructure over 15 years.  What makes you think you can successfully replace it in 12 months with a different computer system that you and your team know basically nothing about?  Boy, that almost never went anywhere.  We'd usually try to convince the client to get a "quick win" - that is to implement just a few modules - say the financial modules - so the team could get some experience in a smaller project with less risk, and we could uncover all the cultural challenges and hidden agendas to have a better sense of the team we were working with.  The few firms that actually proceeded with the quick win approach usually took a bit longer to finish the total implementation, but their approach was almost uniformly more successful.  Their teams learned how to work together, how to communicate effectively, and gained confidence by working on a couple of short but successful projects.

There seem to be so many paradoxes in business management today.  For example, the more people who report to you, the more power (generally speaking) you have.  But research shows that most people can't effectively manage more than four or five direct reports.  So the more people you manage, the more likely it is that your management isn't all that great.  Or take a look at projects.  Generally speaking, the larger projects get more attention.  People want to be part of the large projects.  But the scope and timeframes of large projects is so difficult to manage, and eventually the team members feel like they are on a death march.  Smaller, more manageable projects build skills, build confidence and breed success.  But they never get the attention of the management team.

I say - buck the system when possible.  Go for the quick win whenever you can.  You'll build a reputation as a person who can successfully manage people and projects, and people will want to work for you.  Don't worry, you'll get a chance to manage a big project, with all the incumbent challenges and management issues.  But if you've established a reputation as a person who can get things done, and earned your management chops in the smaller projects, building a team and getting them to work for you in the larger project won't be a problem.

Comments

[Alexander]

Thanks