Making Business Decisions: The Voices We Value

by Carl Pritchard, Senior Consultant, Cutter Consortium

Making business decisions is never easy. It becomes progressively more complicated as those around us offer their "two cents' worth" on how we should act or what practices we should adopt. And the sheer number of those around us sometimes means that we receive input from a host of different parties, all with different perspectives. These varied perspectives lead to different approaches and ways of thinking about project management and its implementation. The challenge for organizations is to determine which approaches they should apply and which voices they should listen to in making the critical decisions about implementing and adapting project management practices within their organizations. A recent Cutter Benchmark Review (CBR) survey highlights the value of trusting those we have chosen to trust historically and the limited amount of sway that most outside forces should have (and do have) on our business decisions.

In many ways, the question we should be asking is not necessarily whom do you trust, but what do you trust. As is evidenced in our day-to-day lives, the greatest value that one can bring to the table is history. Organizationally, the tools that we tend to choose are those that we have adopted and had in play for an extended period. Longevity is a significant determinant as to how or why tools are selected. The survey shows that 69% of respondents feel that applicability over the long haul is a critical determining factor in establishing whether or not the organization selects a tool. Familiarity does not, in this case, seem to breed contempt. Instead, it seems to breed ongoing application. Familiarity is manifested primarily in previous use, but it is also manifested in the recommendations of consultants. Organizations hire consulting staff for the express purpose of doing work and making recommendations. And for 23% of the respondents, consulting recommendations are the driving factor in selecting tools and/or processes.

Still, internal team members hold far more significant sway over those decisions with "widespread adoption by team members" cited as the most important criterion in adopting a new tool (by 68% of the participants in the survey). The least important consideration is a recommendation by a software vendor, with half of the respondents listing the vendor's input as the bottommost criterion. Academics and instructors come in almost as low, with just over one-third of respondents listing the academics' input as the least significant influencing factor.

Organizations should take note. Their best resources for identifying good practice are their team members. Their best chances for success come when they trust those who live with the outcomes of the tools. If there is a shared understanding that team member input is highly valued, it may be possible to leverage that input more effectively by letting the team members know that we appreciate them and by putting them on par with those who have advanced education and degrees.

Does this matter? Yes! I had a recent experience in a class where I made the faux pas of jokingly singing the accolades of those with advanced degrees. The response could not have been more immediate and arctic. It was clear that those in the room without the higher credentials felt unduly singled out and harassed, while those in the upper academic echelons didn't even spot the affront. In the end, one participant took me aside to ask if I had something against those without advanced degrees. I wished I could have gone back and undone the original moment of praise for the resident PhDs. Why? Because even though the CBR survey shows a very clear distinction that organizations highly prize the input of all team members, the perception is that there are some individuals whose input is clearly more highly prized than others. Team members need to know that their input is not just valued but is more valued by the decision makers than the recommendations of software vendors, consultants, and academics and instructors, and even more so than the project office.

The survey shows it is precisely this team member who wins the prize for having the opinion that is most valued in deciding to adopt a process or tool. More than half of our survey respondents (51%) find that no single influential factor is more important than team members in determining whether or not a process or tool is worthy of adoption. In a distant second place, the project office and consultants to the organization are considered as the determining causes for new tool adoption. Both came in at about 23%. Only 2% of respondents turn to the academic community with its data-rich environment as the most valuable resource.

The internal team members may take the day in determining tools because they're the ones who ultimately have to use them. Despite the implications of Dilbert cartoons and the cynicism of much of modern business, the reality is that organizations are reasonably quick to recognize that the team members responsible for doing work at the lower echelons of the organization are the engine that ultimately drives the organization's success. Because of that, when team members have the capacity and the tenacity to make a tool work effectively, organizations take notice. Perhaps tragically, in many instances, the performers at the lower echelons have also been known to make lesser or weaker tools work well, creating an environment where poor tools are augmented by good workers, creating the illusion of effective tools.

Consultants and the project office get some modicum of credit here because of their respective familiarity with the organization and its behaviors. While they are not the ones who have to actually live with the consequences of their decisions (to the degree of those at the worker level), they do have to take a higher level of responsibility than those in the academic realm. Notably, the academics come in a cold, dead last. This stems in large part from the distance that they have from the true consequences of their actions, having no responsibilities for implementation and for the day-to-day frustrations of adapting to or adopting new tools in the work environment. While some academics also take on the role of consultant, they still rely on their academic grounding as the rationale for their decisions rather than the practicality (or impracticality) of the options they select.

This same question takes on an environmental bent when respondents are asked about where their evidence comes from for making these decisions. The primary answer is "field testing and experience," with "team member support" not far behind. "Support in the business literature" and "academic validation/proof" paled to insignificance in the assessment. This ties to the nature of the sources of the data, but it also ties to the nature of the work. Effective management is not a theoretical exercise. It is encountered in the trenches and relies on actual performance and results to establish efficacy.

I welcome your comments on this Advisor and encourage you to send your insights to cpritchard@cutter.com.

-- Carl Pritchard, Senior Consultant, Cutter Consortium