quantmleap

I’m not going to muck around with this one so I’ll say it up-front. My view (and I feel rather strongly about it) is that Social Networking is not positively contributing to proper Project communication. My conviction that this strong belief of mine is shared by most, if not all, fellow professionals has eroded somewhat in recent months after I’ve read a number of blog articles, each of which promoting some aspects of social media and social networking.

The straw that broke the camel’s back (metaphorically speaking) was a recent post by Derek Huether (from The Critical Path) where he elaborated on the following concept:

From our PMP Exam we know that the number of communication paths in a project is [N(N-1)]/2. Now, we all agree that communication is an important (if not crucial) aspect of project management. We also agree that knowledge accumulation is conducive to increased innovation and is paramount for correct decision making process. We can therefore conclude that by initiating and conducting large amounts of communication, provided that this is attentive communication (i.e. we actually listen and absorb the content of that communication) must result in positive results.

Right?

Wrong!!!

There is already a growing body of knowledge, supported by recent research papers, that not only ’social networking attitude’ is on the rise but its true impact is yet to be realized.

• A December 2009 study by Helen Hodgetts of the University of Cardiff in the UK warns that “Email notifications and instant messages all cause a break in focus of the task in hand, even if they are attended to only very briefly”. “Hodgetts and co-author Dylan Jones found that even a five second interruption caused people to take longer than normal to complete the next step in a simple seven-step computer task.”

• A 2009 study released by the Kaiser Family Foundation, and which was set to explore the use of media by young people (age 8 to 18 – born between 1991 – 2001) has found out (amongst other things) that Young people were found to devote an average of seven hours and 38 minutes to daily media use (an increase of 20% from an earlier study conducted in 2004 – in which it was found that the time spent on media use was 6 hours and 21 minutes). The study further found that the level of multi-tasking (i.e. a combined use of varying modes of media simultaneously [for example, watching the TV, while at the same time browsing the net and sending a text message]) has increased from 26% in 2004 to 29% in 2009.
• A 2008 Accenture study made the observation that people who were born between 1977 and 1997 (corresponding roughly with Generation Y) expect their employers to respect their IT preferences, including their computers and applications and that employees in the above age group would show a preference to use instant messaging, text messaging, and RSS feeds to communicate with their clients and customers. The study further found that over a quarter of the employees surveyed use technology that is unsupported and unsanctioned by their employer. Amongst Gen Y employees, almost half reported that they use social networks, blogs, or Twitter without having their IT departments’ approval.

There are a number of basic and self explanatory risks associated with the growing proliferation of social media and social networking. These are:

• The development of bad time management attitudes, associated specifically with over reliance on multi-tasking.
• An apparent lack of adherence to corporate policies regarding the use of corporate mandated application and communication protocols.
• Inefficient use of management time on non-productive communication approach.

I’d like to finish off with explaining why I believe the approach outlined above, regarding the utilisation of a large number of communication path to increase effective project communication is flawed.

The reasoning is simple. If there are 200 people in your communication network this will equate, using the formula above, to 19,900 communication paths. So, using the Twitter example of having 200 contacts, if they each send one message to all other contacts, you will enjoy the wisdom spread over just under 20,000 messages.

Let’s think about this prospect for a minute. If reading each of these messages took you only one second, how much time will you need to invest in order to review all these messages?

19,900 messages / 60 seconds / 60 minutes = 5.5 hours!!!

Got that? With just one second per message, you will need to invest 5.5 hours to review all messages in your communication path. That’s not quite realistic though, is it? So let’s assume you spend, on an average 10 seconds per message. Got the point? With 200 contacts and 19,900 messages, with 10 seconds required to properly review, absorb and internalize each message, the amount of time required will be staggering 55 hours!!!

Tom Davenport of the Harvard Business Review has a wonderful post about the suggestion (inferred from a couple of recent studies)  that the content of social media is trivial at best. In another excellent post he speculates about the contribution (or in fact, the lack) of  Social Media to the decline of our civilization. The reality is, and arguing against it based on solid facts would be difficult do, that it is hard (if not plain impossible) to gain much from the clutter of information (and mis-information) stored in the millions of Twitter messages floating in cyberspace. Anyone trying to convince you otherwise ought to provide hard, objective and measurable evidence to substantiate their claims.

Did I mention already that as far as I’m concerned Social Networking is not positively contributing to proper Project communication?

Have a great week.

Just when you thought it is safe to go back to work, a 2009 study released by the Kaiser Family Foundation, and which was set to explore the use of media by young people (age 8 to 18 – born between 1991 – 2001) has found out (amongst other things) that:

1. Young people were found to devote an average of seven hours and 38 minutes to daily media use (an increase of 20% from an earlier study conducted in 2004 – in which it was found that the time spent on media use was 6 hours and 21 minutes).
2. The level of multi-tasking (i.e a combined use of varying modes of media simultaneously [for example, watching the TV, while at the same time browsing the net and sending a text message]) has increased from 26% in 2004 to 29% in 2009.

I’ve mentioned in an earlier post a 2008 study by Accenture that made the observation that people who were born between 1977 and 1997 (i.e. people who would be today at the age of 13 to 23 – corresponding roughly with Generation Y) expect their schools and employers to respect their IT preferences, including their computers and applications and that students and employees in the above age group would show a preference to use instant messaging, text messaging, and RSS feeds to communicate with their peers, clients and customers. The study further found that over a quarter of the employees surveyed use technology that is unsupported and unsanctioned by their employer. Amongst Gen Y employees, almost half reported that they use social networks, blogs, vlogs, or Twitter without having their IT departments’ approval.

The Kaiser Family Foundation’s study provide further reasons for concerns in Corporate HR and recruitment departments. The trend reported on in the Accenture report seems to be intensified with a generation, that is yet to enter the workforce, who’s time management attitude are or particular concern.

On one hand there will be the issue of over dependency on media, including the constant need to use social media tools in order to keep in touch with and keep track of family and friends. There is also an increased probability that there will be an increase in the unauthorized use of social media.

On the other hand, the over reliance on multi-tasking, the productivity impact of which has now been well and truly understood as having negative influence on corporate and project performances.

The trends shown in recent studies are not a real concern and should not be used as reasons to be alarmed. What they do however, is raise the awareness that the appropriate training and policies will need to be put in place in order to ensure that once this generation joins the workplace, they are able to be integrated in the smoothest and painless way possible. Project Managers who are on the recruitment path will need to be aware of the generational attitudes of this generation (fondly called Generation M² – as in ‘Multi-Media) while they make their HR decisions.

On a lighter note, this is what Mike Melanson from ReadWriteWeb.com had to say about this issue:

“With teens spending more time with media in a week than the average person does at a full-time day job, we can only wonder what this next generation will look like as they enter the work force.

Oh wait, are they called “bloggers”?

Have a great week.

Demian Entrekin has posted an article titled “What is the IQ of your Project Team” where he proposes a set of variables that could be used to measure the team’s performance over time. The variables he suggests used are Skills, Ability to Learn, Experience, Speed, Communication, Unity, Curiosity and Openess.

Whereas I like his idea I would like to suggest we expand this concept and device the appropriate means to identify and manage the Project Team’s Emotional Intelligence (also referred to as ‘EQ’). In a nutshell, EQ refers to the capacity of individuals and teams to assess and then manage their emotions. In the context of a project team, the application of EQ will relate to the ability of the project team to identify, assess and then manage its interpersonal interactions. While there is no single definition for EQ, it is commonly accepted that it will include variables like Self Awareness, Social Awareness, Emotional Management, Change Management, and Self Motivation.

The rational behind the proposal to monitor a team’s EQ is based on the documented observation that teams with a higher EQ operate better than teams with an observed lower EQ. A research conducted by Australian researchers concluded that increase in the level of tested EQ resulted in improved decision making capabilities and ultimately an improved team effectiveness.

So, how would you increase your team’s EQ?

There are numerous techniques for improving team’s EQ and they include activities aimed at increasing Trust, Problem Solving, Listening, Appreciation, Solution Focused and others. See, for example, here and here. What ever method you choose to use don’t forget that the future of your project is largely in the hands of your team and as you fulfil your professional obligation to develop your team you really help them help you meet your project objectives.

I call this a win-win solution. Don’t you?

One of my biggest issues with the ‘Project Management 2.0′ concept is that it is conceptualized around other ‘2.0′ concepts like ‘Web 2.0′ and ‘Enterprise 2.0′; both of which are terms that emphasis and denote a technological dimension relating to human interactions. In that context, and following the same logic, PM 2.0 is meant to be denote the application of ‘2.0′ technologies to enhance project management capabilities.

A recent article in the Harvard Business Review analyzed the reasons behind the failure of western Intelligence Services to prevent the recent terror attack on an American Airline. The article states that the whole episode represents a “massive failure of collaboration among intelligence and governmental officials”. The facts known about this terror attack are sufficient to conclude that although there was sufficient information to enable an effective prevention of this incident, it lacked nevertheless the final  touch of connecting all the dots and consolidating the known data into effective management information.

The author of the HBR article concludes that despite the US (and other countries) investing in IT systems aimed at supporting the above detection and alert systems, it lacked nevertheless the investment in cultural change necessary to ensure that information is not only collected but is also shared. This, the author says, is a matter of cultural change, one that will encourage and foster not just collaboration but effective collaboration.

An interesting case study is cited by Professor Morten Hansen from the INSEAD institute, where SONY failed to launch an effective competition against the Apple iPod and, despite having a collective know-how and expertise in all aspects of designing and manufacturing an iTunes-iPod hybrid, “it turned out to be a failure because the individual departments did not work in unison”.

In an earlier post I have stated that ‘a fool with a tool is still a tool‘. The premise of that post was that a tool in the hands of an inexperienced user, will not generate the desired results. The observations cited above add another dimension to this claim. they highlight the point that even when used by experienced users, desired results are still dependent on other organizational factors, primarily based around cultural adaptation.

These are the posts (in no particular order) I found to be most intereting this week:

1. 9 Things we learned about us in 2009 - LiveScience.Com has published a list of 9 scientific discoveries made during 2009. One of the discoveries mentioned in the article is (surprise, surprise) the realization that multitasking, when executed by less disciplined individuals, can cause an extrapolated loss of time due to focus on irrelevant and unproductive information. Those who are mildly familiar with the Theory Of Constraints and the rationale behind this theory wouldn’t need this scientific evidence to substantiate their understanding, but it is, nevertheless, nice to see that science is finally catching up!
2. Dilbert strip – re. Action Points – just in case you haven’t caught up yet on the importance of documenting and following up on decisions made during your meetings, this Dilbert Comic Strip will help you look at this issue from the right perspective.
3. Deconstructing the PM 2.0 Description – Glen Alleman is relentless in his efforts to demystify, or more correctly clarify, myth from reality regarding on-going PM 2.0 claims. This article is a must for anyone wondering what the fass is all about. Glen’s bottom line is that if you are a seasoned PM who’s been doing things right, then there is nothing new for you in the PM 2.0 band wagon. And if you’re not doing it right now, PM 2.0 will not save you either.
4. Not sure how to title this one – but it’s a sharp Papercut, do I need to say any more?
5. Project Management Certifications Compared- A Preliminary Comparison – a beautifully researched article reviewing the various program/project management certifications and providing, for the first time as much as I can ascertain, a method for comparing them with each other.
6. The Decade in Management Ideas – A few HBR editors have elected in this post their most influential management ideas of the millennium (so far).  My pick off their list would be the proliferation of Open Source.

I’ve read many other good posts but these ones, I believe, worth mentioning specifically.

If we were not convinced already, a study conducted by researchers from the Stanford University (see here) concluded that people who engage in a number of simultaneous activities are not able to achieve the same level of effective attention or control as the ones who complete their tasks, one task at a time. The research showed that one of the reasons multitaskers achieve lower productivity is because they tend to waste productive energy on unproductive, unimportant or irrelevant information.

The Theory Of Constraints has long argued that multitasking leads to not only inefficient use of project resources, but also ends up in longer delivery times due to the overheads associated with dropping off and subsequently picking up project tasks. The Stanford research adds another dimension to this point, as it highlights the fact that people who are naturally inclined to multitask would also have a tendency to focus their attention of the less than important things thus further exacerbating the multitasking affect.

Although I fully agree with the consequences of the multitasking syndrome I can’t see how it would be possible to completely avoid multitasking in projects. Quite often, during project life, I need to call on the help of shared IT resources, like Database Administrators and others, to assist in various infrastructure activities. These resources, coming from a shared resources pool, are quite often required to support a number of projects at any one time, and as such are being asked to look after the urgent needs of multiple projects.

The bottom line is that, as much as possible, multitasking needs to be minimized as it’s negative impacts are proven beyond doubt. This also means (just in case you’re not sure) that time wasting activities, including social networking, constant e-mail checking and all other facebook twitting endevours are to be avoided as  they will surely impact your team’s performance.

In “Projects failure rate – the conventional wisdom is wrong!” I’ve made the argument that despite the popular belief fueled by research studies, the real projects’ failure rate is not as concerning as some might want you to believe.

I wouldn’t have returned to this topic if not due to an article published by Neil Ryder where, yet again, he refers to the ‘fact’ that “over 80% of all projects will fail to deliver the desired functional outcome”.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. Such claims cannot be  taken seriously as they, incorrectly, assume that for a project to be successful it must meet 100% of it’s intended cost, time, schedule, quality and all other objectives. This SIMPLY CANNOT BE ACHIEVED. And the reason this cannot be achieve d is because as human being we cannot achieve perfection. We can strive to perfection and we can aim at achieving high success rate across a number of the project dimensions but definitely not across all of them.

In my earlier post I made a reference to a fascinated article in “Scientific American” titled “War Is Peace: Can Science Fight Media Disinformation?” with the sub-title “In the 24/7 Internet world, people make lots of claims. Science provides a guide for testing them”. The author, Lawrence M. Krauss, states that “The increasingly blatant nature of the nonsense uttered with impunity in public discourse is chilling. Our democratic society is imperilled as much by this as any other single threat, regardless of whether the origins of the nonsense are religious fanaticism, simple ignorance or personal gain.”

I couldn’t agree more. The fast pace in which information is released and the large quantities of it do not allow us to apply due diligence and apply common sense and challenge the conventional wisdom thrown at us by experts – all claiming to provide us with their processed truth.

Over the past few months I’ve come across a number of interesting, yet conflicting, views regarding the benefits associated with allowing the use of Social Media tools in the workplace.

A media release published by the University of Melbourne in April 2009 claims that “‘workers who engage in Workplace Internet Leisure Browsing’ (WILB) are more productive than those who don’t”. The author of the study, Dr. Brent Coker, from the Department of Management and Marketing further says that “People who do surf the Internet for fun at work – within a reasonable limit of less than 20% of their total time in the office – are more productive by about 9% than those who don’t.”

This survey is in direct support of an earlier study conducted by Accenture that makes the observation that people who were born between 1977 and 1997 (corresponding roughly with Generation Y) expect their employers to respect their IT preferences, including their computers and applications and that employees in the above age group would show a preference to use instant messaging, text messaging, and RSS feeds to communicate with their clients and customers. The study further found that over a quarter of the employees surveyed use technology that is unsupported and unsanctioned by their employer. Amongst Gen Y employees, almost half reported that they use social networks, blogs, vlogs, or Twitter without having their IT departments’ approval.

A new study, published by Helen Hodgetts of the University of Cardiff in the UK found that “Email notifications and instant messages all cause a break in focus of the task in hand, even if they are attended to only very briefly”.

It seems like the jury is still out on this question. The topic of applying effective time management to managing e-mail has already been discussed extensively with most experts making the observation that effective use of e-mail requires the allocation of pre-defined time-slots throughout the day for checking and sorting out e-mail. Accordingly e-mail notification should be turned off as, as outlined above, they cause a break in focus and take attention from other productive and planned activities.

It is not difficult to see how social media tools will fall into the same category as e-mail notifications. The majority of these tools (take twitter for example) are based on random stream of uncontrolled and unscheduled data. Unlike e-mail notification that can be assumed (although not necessarily so) to be work related, social media traffic will be (mostly) not work related and has the potential to lead to substantial amount of lost time.

It is easy to see why Gen Y employees will be keen to maintain their internet access while they’re at work. This is the generation mostly associated with the ‘dot.com’ concept and are also (perhaps fondly) called ‘dot.com generation’.

I’ve yet to see a study which addresses the apparent conflict between the wishes and desires of this generation and the realization that some of their surfing habits are not necessarily conducive to an effective and productive working environment.

So, watch this space.

Freakonomics has published an article about the psychologist Barry Schwartz’s book The Paradox of Choice. The book makes the argument that (apart from economists) most people would find too much choice a bad thing and would rather having less choice than more.

I referred in an earlier post (“Rational decision making process? Not really!“) to a publication by CSIRO that disspels some ‘conventional wisdom’ perceptions. One of the findings of that study was that when faced with too much compexity people will tend to prefer making no decision at all.

I know that one cannot simply infer from the above arguments to situations encountered in a highly professional environment, as it could be argued that decision making processes at executive levels will most likely be carried out by individuals trained in the art of making decisions, in which case in could be expected that they will be less proned to fall into the traps outlined above. Having said that, as project managers we need to be aware of these basic human tendencies and realise that in most cases, too much information is bad information and that if we want to minimize the load on decision makers’ time we’e better present to them a small and concice set of choices from which they could possible choose.

Gill Corkindale has published an interesting article dealing with the concept of ‘In leaders’ and ‘out leaders’. The definition of ‘in’ and ‘out’ is based on the amount of time that a leader spends with his/her team (in which case that would be ‘in’ leadership) and how much is spent with the wider organization (‘out’ leadership).

This question is very relevant to project managers who are required to spend and allocate time across a number of stakeholders, and finding the right mix could make or break the projects’ success.

Gill’s conclusion, as you would expect, is that executives need to balance the time they spend in both the In and Out arenas.  She also adds the observation that in addition to spending ‘In’ and ‘Out’ time, managers should also allocate time, separate from the above, to reflect on the time they spend. This, I guess, in another way of saying the managers need to plan their time. Planning the time is an additional dimension I would associate with project communication – the success of which can have profound implications on the perception of whether the project has run successfully or not.