First, using the 80/20 principle, think about which projects are critical, must-haves, and core to your mission (about 20% of the whole array), and set aside those that are discretionary or not vital. During this exercise, projects that should be eliminated altogether should be obvious. (Be ruthless.) Of the mission-critical projects, decide which should proceed and which should be deferred based on urgency and capacity. Considerations during your deliberations should include:

• The organization’s ability to undertake the project:
  • Do you have enough funding and staff?
  • Is there a learning curve?
  • What will on-boarding require?
• Data derived from the success or failure of other projects
• Timing and competition with other critical projects, especially for key SMEs and Management attention and cycles
• How projects may be interrelated and dependent on each other
• New technology and business process changes

Second, having decided which projects should proceed, it is time to collaborate with the entire range of managers, from line managers to senior managers, to prioritize them. Each will contribute something to the debate, and it is better to debate now than waste valuable resources (time, money, and people) later. Line managers will have first-hand knowledge of processes and capacity; middle management will have a better view of the interplay and inter-relationships between departments and activities, and top management will possess the long view that encompasses the overall organization direction and strategy. And obviously, inviting greater participation overall means greater cooperation and commitment.

Third, once your projects have been prioritized, it is time to figure out who will be doing what. Streamlining your projects down to the vital few has the added benefit of not stretching the capacity you have, but concentrating it where it is needed most. Here I would offer a special caution: it is very important that you are realistic about day-to-day operations and the support resources necessary to Keep The Lights On. Too often organizations under-estimate this aspect and/or think of KTLO resources as discretionary. They are not. Borrowing resources from KTLO operations results in “robbing Peter to pay Paul,” and effectively lowers service levels and stresses organizational capacity. Perhaps even more harmful, it underscores the notion that KTLO work is of less importance or less glamorous, damaging morale and trust.

Peter F. Drucker wrote, Management is doing things right; Leadership is doing the right things. Getting your portfolio into shape by winnowing out projects of questionable value and tabling those that can wait will go a long way to making the choice clear.

If you haven’t already guessed it, the animator was Walt Disney and the film was Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. It earned over $7 million in its first run, paving the way for Walt Disney Company to deliver other astonishing firsts.

In terms of project success measures, the project was abysmal. Disney blew the schedule, budget and scope, but for understandable reasons:

• No metrics: Since a feature-length cartoon had never been made before, there was no historical data to rely upon.
• Little understanding of risks: Without data, risks could only be guessed at based on the experience of past successes and failures making shorts, not full-length features.
• High margin of error in the estimate: With such a lack of empirical data, it was easy to miscalculate the time and budget required for the effort.

Nevertheless, in terms of sponsorship, the project was wildly successful. Here’s why:

• Clear vision: Disney knew what he wanted, unwaveringly stayed the course, and worked hard to achieve his vision.
• Understanding of the customer: He knew what his customers liked and set out to expand his brand to appeal to adults as well as children.
• Decision-making ability: Without a board of directors to rely on, it came down to Disney to make the hard decisions vis-à-vis the risks and reward of the project.

This imbalance of strong sponsorship on the one hand, and an insufficient project management process on the other, is fairly common for companies at the 1.2 to 1.7 maturity level. This is a people-centric model centered on passionate individuals, but it doesn’t scale when four or five projects are being pursued in tandem. Assuming everyone at a company doesn’t have the passion or vision to drive his project à la Mr. Disney, it becomes essential to install and implement process, which moves you closer  to crossing over the level 2 maturity hurdle.

Disney did just that. Over time, he learned from his project management mistakes, leveraged this learning to build a repeatable process, and further developed his visionary sponsorship to give his customers something new and extraordinary time and time again.  For Walt Disney, it wasn’t all just wishing on a star—he is one of the greatest American innovators because of his mastery of realization.

If you’ve worked on a project with a visionary sponsor but poor project management (or vice versa), tell us your tale.

The other day, I ran across a great piece by Gartner about improving project success. Its premise was that if you focus on three things—Partnership, Requirements and Resources—you can really increase the probability of a successful project outcome. Wow! . . .something different from The Big Three!! I was easily able to relate requirements and resources back to the big three, but what about partnership? The formal definition of “partnership” (courtesy of my dictionary) was of little use, but when I looked at its synonyms, I found words like alliance, collaboration, connection, relation, and union. And that’s when it hit me. Partnership doesn’t relate to the big three but rather comprises the foundation that enables us to deliver on them. Without true partnership, project realization or the ability to deliver the expected value from the project is unlikely.

This should have been obvious considering the successful projects I’ve participated in and led. It was partnership at all levels that helped drive realization. From various IT organizations to external partners to the client organizations themselves, the most successful (and fun) projects were always built around partnership. In fact, one might argue that partnership was more important than The Big Three because these successful projects weren’t always on-time, on budget or delivered as initially envisioned. Instead, the customers were heavily engaged along the way, were part of the decision making process, were active participants in validating and re-validating the scope, and were integral parts of testing and acceptance. And so, while I very much agree with the Gartner’s assertion, I would add that management of the big three is table stakes in today’s world—the true differentiator on projects is partnership.

Lennon and McCartney wrote the lyric “I’ll get by with a little help from my friends,” and I would propose that they got it right: with a little help from each other (in partnership throughout all aspects of a project) we can greatly improve the chance of success.

What do you think? Do you have any examples of how partnership drove success?

So, how do you take this paradigm and apply it to the biggest time guzzler in most people’s day—the inefficient meeting?

Here’s how. Every meeting should have an agenda and specific objectives. This information should be communicated to participants well in advance so they arrive prepared. Your meeting should also be run by a facilitator who brings well-formed questions to the table; these are considered time-management “gold.” Every item on your agenda should have specific, corresponding questions that are used to elicit information and move you on to the next item. For example, if your project has the agenda item Risk Planning, some questions might include:

• What are the top risks having the greatest impact to the business? What is the likelihood of occurrence?
• What are the mitigation strategies for each of these high risks? If mitigation is not viable, what is the contingency plan?
• Has every potential risk area been identified (technology, business, project, resource, customer, operational)?

An interesting thing occurs when the objectives and agenda are clear, the participants come prepared, and the facilitator keeps the discussion reined-in through the use of thoughtful questions: meeting objectives are met and meetings are adjourned on-time or early. Participants think, Wow! We finished everything on the agenda and I’ve even got some spare time to put back into my day…I love it. As the meeting owner or facilitator, you might even find participants actually look forward to your meetings as the most productive time of their workday. How cool is that?

– See more at: http://www.transaccelgroup.com/blog/2011/11/15/terminate-the-time-guzzler-inefficient-meetings-2/#sthash.A0bkSWDv.dpuf