Here I am, trying to describe an evident problem with a group of people I’m dealing with. I’m trying to simplify it, and it’s a very easy solution, one that, by the way, I’ve implemented using my own function. I have to say, the main issue isn’t that we make mistakes; the issue is that we repeat those mistakes again and again! We simply don’t learn from the results. Listen to the story below:
Every team I know sets priorities the same way. Put people in a room, let everyone talk, and see who wins. The winner is not the one who is right. The winner is the one who talks more, or the one who never gives up. Some people talk too much! Others have such a strong personality that nobody wants to push back, approve, or say no. So the list you end up with is not a list of priorities. It is a list of personalities. Unfortunately ‘here’, a meeting is a microphone, whoever holds it longest wins 🙂
The method is the problem
I don’t think the people are the problem. Just sitting and talking about a project is simply a bad way to rank the works, to figure out what would be the next step. It is not fair, and you can’t repeat it. I want a system that is smart enough to handle this, so no personality can decide for us.
Weigh the task, then weigh the voter
Each task gets a weight based on how many people are involved in it. More people touched means more weight.
Then the votes. Not every vote is equal, and I know that is not popular to say. A manager gets about 70% more weight than a regular employee, so 1.7 against 1.0. The reason is simple. A manager has other applications running in the background, other projects and other fires. Their attention is split, so their time is more expensive.
I am still thinking about who votes. Everybody can rank, or only a small committee of managers. I lean toward the committee, because not everyone needs to rank every task. Then we take the weighted average. Low-ranked tasks get dismissed automatically, and high-ranked ones come to the top. No arguments needed.
Tasks don’t live alone
Ranking by votes is not enough. Tasks and projects are so connected, and the spreadsheet needs a column for that. Some tasks can’t start until another one is done. Some tasks are a small part of a bigger project. Both cases change the score. A task that unblocks three others should rank higher than a similar task that stands alone. A task inside a big project carries some of that project’s importance.
Then the calendar
When the ranking is done, the tasks go onto the calendar, Security Calendar first and then the IT Calendar. Each task gets a real time estimate, and each person gets a cushion. Nobody works at 100% all day, so I don’t want a plan that pretends they do.
Now the calendar shows the real picture: how long the work will take, who is overloaded, and what does not fit. A rough estimate is fine, we can improve it later.
I will be honest. I don’t know what this will show until I have the list, the ranking, and everything in place. Maybe it will show that we promised too much. That is also an answer, and a better one than finding out in December.
And you probably say, “Hey, man, are you reinventing Microsoft Project?” Not at all. Of course, the idea wasn’t to reproduce MS Project with an Excel spreadsheet. The idea was to create a tool that’s big enough to make the machine work. And more importantly, to demonstrate the idea, the mindset, and the real-life impact of proper project management instead of the current hand-waving and “Are we on the same page?” and “Oh, yeah, sounds good to me!” the kind of decision-making.
At least one thing the team learned was that sometimes you need to say “yes” less, count more, and don’t repeat the same promise, do Not make the same mistake!