Better Thinking About the Interdependency of Project, Risk, and Knowledge Management – Webinar by Don McAlister at PWR on 11 October 2012
Don McAlister Bio: Don is the owner of McAlister Consulting in Moorpark, California, providing aerospace technical and project management advisory services to private industry and US Government clients. He retired from Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne in 2011, after more than 39 years working on the Engineering Design and Development, and Management of many liquid rocket engine Projects. Throughout his career, Don has also had an abiding interest in critical thinking and knowledge management processes and how they are used in our businesses and personal lives. Announcement: The title of Don’s Webinar presentation is "Better Thinking About the Interdependency of Project, Risk, and Knowledge Management." This topic is inspired by Dons' Internet Blog, in which he shares his views on project management, risk management, knowledge management and other related topics. In his blogs, Don has offered the somewhat unconventional view that project and risk management are profoundly knowledge management activities, which are intimately interdependent. Further, it's Don's view that our businesses, especially high-‐tech businesses, are really knowledge transformation machines that sell products and services that are essentially artifacts of new knowledge sets. During the Webinar Don will share how he came to this viewpoint and why believes that better understanding of the relationship between these fields will help us be better Project Managers, Risk Managers, Knowledge Managers and Leaders.
Webinar Thought-‐Piece Background: What set the stage for the Ideas • Throughout my career, my interest and expertise has been on Project
Management…what works, what doesn’t work, and how it can be improved. I’ve also always had an interest in the way we think, how our thinking is shaped, and how new knowledge and perspectives can enhance our business and personal lives. I started working with Bill Bellows more than 20 years ago on ways to practically incorporate into our Project Management practices, the Deming and Russ Ackhoff principles and the ideas of Managing Variation; Design of Experiments; Lateral Thinking, and Systems Thinking . I’ve seen how the application of these principles and ideas improve our business effectiveness and efficiency. I’ve also seen how, by giving us a more holistic perspective of our work lives, that they can provide people with a more fulfilling and meaningful work environment.
• In 2008, I was serving as Director of the Program Management Office (PMO)
organization. The organization responsibilities included: the planning and operation of the Program Management Process; the implementation of a business-‐wide Knowledge Management Process; the management of a technical Library Services group; the development and implementation of the principles of In2:InThinking (then known as “Enterprise Thinking”); and a project to the explore and improve and the use of internal social media to enhance collaboration and communication at the business that we called Enterprise 2.0 (E 2.0). From this combination of apparently disparate organizational elements, ideas, social initiatives, and passionate people, a new integrated idea-‐set began to emerge. We called it PoWeR 2.0. The premise of PoWeR 2.0 was that Project Management, Knowledge Management, In2:InThinking, and E 2.0 did have to be treated as separate ideas or initiatives, but that they could and should be synergistically integrated in a way that would create a distinct competitive business advantage.
• In 2008 I was invited to make a presentation at the Pepperdine University
annual Knowledge Management Conference. My intent was to discuss and explore the synergy between Program Management and Knowledge Management, and in fact the title of the presentation was “Program Management and Process Management Process Synergy.” As I put together the charts however, I had a sudden epiphany. Project Management (PM) wasn’t just synergistic with (KM)…it was KM. The conventional view of how a business runs is wrong, or at least incomplete.
• During the last several years of my career I started exploring the use of the
blogging feature of an internal Knowledge Management and Collaboration tool called “AskMe” to share ideas, information and opinions related to Project
Management, Risk Management, Knowledge Management, Cognitive Processes. The research and writing of more than 800 blog posts on these topics further expanded and honed my thinking on the subjects and solidified my belief in these ideas were intimately interdependent. It also hooked me on the idea of sharing ideas through blogging, and I added, “Start an Internet Blog” to my post retirement To Do list.
• Following retirement, at the end of 2011, and with my Retirement To Do List in
hand, and all of these ideas swimming around in my head, I started my Internet blog at donmcalister.com. I also significantly expanded my membership in Project Management, Risk Management, Knowledge Management, Systems Thinking and other interest groups on LinkedIn as a way to explore what others were saying and sharing my ideas on these subjects.
• Most recently I’ve developed a passion to understand the neuroscience behind
the way we think, learn, and behave. This interest in this area was piqued by Elaine Anderson, PhD and her presentations at the In2:Inthinking Forums and her recently published book, “ A Beginners Guide to the Brain,” a book called, “The Body Has a Mind of Its Own”, by Sandra Blakeslee and Matt Blakslee, and by numerous posts and referenced articles in the “Neuroscience of Leadership” Group on LinkedIn.
All of these experiences have shaped my thinking on these subjects. I have a set of beliefs, which I’ll lay out in the next section, that have emerged from my experience, learning contexts, and internal cognitive processes. They are “my truths.” That doesn’t mean they are the truth, or that I expect you to agree with me. What they provide is an opportunity for discussion, the expression of alternative views, and the discovery of new knowledge and ideas. That’s what these Better Thinking About Webinars are all about.
Discussion Points: Ideas & Opinions on the Project Management, Risk Management and Knowledge Management
• Traditional Business models assume that they are material transformation machines.
o Input is Raw materials o Business processes modify materials to add value o Output is a product that meets customer specifications
• My view is that Businesses are knowledge transformation machines o Input is knowledge of customer wants, needs and pain o Business transforms existing knowledge into a new
knowledge set that meets customer needs o Output is a product that is an artifact of the new knowledge
set • A business is a network of people (the nodes of the network) who
collaborate to flow the knowledge from where it resides to where it’s needed for the transformation to occur. More that knowledge, the people in the network also flow trust, ideas, inspiration, and empathy which are the lubricant of the knowledge flow
• The health and growth of the business network is a function of the effectiveness and efficiency of the interactions between the people
o Leaders must build and promote interactions and be sensitive to and proactive in eliminating barriers
• Project Management is a Knowledge Management Process o Not a popular idea with traditional Project Managers o Project Sponsors and PM’s identify Customer Solution
Knowledge Needs o PM and Functional Managers identify relevant existing
business knowledge resources to be applied and new knowledge resource needs
o PM creates a Project Plan (Knowledge Application Plan?) to define and sequence the tasks that apply knowledge to deliver a new knowledge set that meets customer knowledge needs.
o PM creates a Risk Management Plan to handle knowledge gaps and uncertainties
o Business explicit and implicit (people) knowledge is applied through design and production
o Acceptance test verifies that new knowledge set meets Project Plan
o Project Deliverables are an artifact of the integrated knowledge transformation process
• Businesses and Project Managers that embrace their roles and responsibilities as knowledge managers will have better relationships with their customers; make better plans; handle risks more effectively; make better use of resources
• It’s all abut the people because the people are the sources of the knowledge and the conduit through which it flows from source to need
• Whether thy realize it or not, Project Managers are constantly working across a Knowledge Domain
o Conscious Competence Learning Model o Known-‐Knowns (KK’s) form the foundation of Project
Plans. Explicit and know Implicit knowledge o Known-‐Unknowns (K-‐U’s) form the realm of Risk
Management. Knowledge we know that we need but that is missing or uncertain
o Unknown-‐Knowns (U-‐K’s). We know the knowledge exists somewhere, but not yet accessible. Graybeards, Consultants, knowledge mining.
o Unknown-‐Unknowns (U-‐U’s). The greatly feared darkest corner of the domain. Use of Reserves, Margins, Buffers. Establish an organizational learning and discovery bias
!
• Knowledge & Risk Management Competencies Are Coupled o Being good at one of them isn’t good enough
• Risk and Knowledge are two sides of the same coin and must be treated in an integrated fashion
o Risk is the absence of, or uncertainty in, needed knowledge o “Risk is uncertainty that matters”, Dr. David Hillson o Opportunity is a favorable outcome of uncertainty
• Risk Management must challenge what we initially consider to be “Known”
• Anticipate and identify “Surprises” in all forms and be a “Spoiler” • Risk Management of peoples behavior is the biggest challenge
o Behavior is driven by the work environment o Project Managers must be concerned about and
continuously assess the work environment as it’s health is a forward-‐looking metric for risks due to variance from Plan
o Out of Place (OOP) and Out of Sequence (OOS), work is caused by peoples well-‐intentioned “work-‐arounds” and they introduce significant risk.
§ Disciplined Change Management and Non-‐Advocate Reviews