1. Agile Project Management
From delivering on Cost to delivering
Maximum Value and Benefits
Claude Émond, BEng, MEng, MBA, rmc, CD, PMP
Les Entreprises Quali•Scope Inc.
Conference to the AACEI Montreal Section
Claude Emond and
1 Tuesday February 19 2013, SNC-Lavalin
QualiScope 2013

2. Claude Émond, BEng, MEng, MBA, rmc, CD, PMP
• A Matane’s Shrimp…speaking like a Beauceron
• Chemical engineer, BEng RMC, MEng McGill
• MBA Queen’s/Ottawa...and PMP
• Full time on project-oriented ventures since
1980
• Co-founder of , trainer and project
management coach since 1995
• Creator of «2-String Project Management»
• Creator and developer of «Changeboxing»
• Co-writer of the 1st international standard for
portfolio management, «The Standard for
Portfolio Management», PMI, 2006
• Renowned international expert on organisational
agility and «Agile» project management
(Canada, USA, Europe, North Africa)
Claude Emond and
2 QualiScope 2013

3. AGENDA
5 years ago:
Benefits Realisation started its journey
towards becoming the main focus of
enterprise strategic management processes
(upper management), replacing «LEAN –
operational cost reduction» for the sake of it
Today:
«Agile» project management confirms its
superiority in providing the right mindset and
tools to enable and maximise the benefits and
value of project deliverables through day-to-day
project management activities (project teams),
replacing schedule and cost control for the sake
of it
Claude Emond and
3 QualiScope 2013

4. AGENDA
1. Results and conclusions of the
KPMG/TOP-BCG studies
2. Value, benefits and project success
3. The Agile management mindset
4. “Traditional” engineering-construction
project management vs «Agile» project
management (Why, Who, What, When,
Where)
5. From delivering on cost to delivering
maximum value and benefits
Claude Emond and
4 QualiScope 2013

5. Results and conclusions of the KPMG/TOP-BCG studies
1. Around 40% of projects fail to deliver any
net improvement
2. Of the remaining 60%:
• More than half (55%) fail to deliver the
available business value in full….often
missing the target by more than 50%
http://productivity.businessspectator.com.au/sites/productivity.businessspectator.com.au/files/
THE%20PRODUCTIVITY%20IMPLEMENTATION%20CHALLENGE_0.pdf
Claude Emond and
5 QualiScope 2013

6. Results and conclusions of the KPMG/TOP-BCG studies
Source: THE CHOICE, Jed Simms and Alex Chapman, 2011
Claude Emond and
6 QualiScope 2013

7. Results and conclusions of the KPMG/TOP-BCG studies
Source: THE CHOICE, Jed Simms and Alex Chapman, 2011
Claude Emond and
7 QualiScope 2013

8. Results and conclusions of the KPMG/TOP-BCG studies
Source: THE CHOICE, Jed Simms and Alex Chapman, 2011
Claude Emond and
8 QualiScope 2013

9. Results and conclusions of the KPMG/TOP-BCG studies
Source: THE CHOICE, Jed Simms and Alex Chapman, 2011
Claude Emond and
9 QualiScope 2013

10. Results and conclusions of the KPMG/TOP-BCG studies
«Agile»
PM
«Traditional»
PM
Source: THE CHOICE, Jed Simms and Alex Chapman, 2011
Claude Emond and
10 QualiScope 2013

11. Other studies
«Without a structured approach, such as
Benefit Realisation Management, most
organisations probably achieve between 10%
and 25% of potential benefits»
SOURCE: Gerald Bradley, «Benefits
Realisation Management», 2nd edition,
Gower, 2010
Claude Emond and
11 QualiScope 2013

12. AGENDA
1. Results and conclusions of the
KPMG/TOP-BCG studies
2. Value, benefits and project success
3. The Agile management mindset
4. “Traditional” engineering-construction
project management vs «Agile» project
management (Why, Who, What, When,
Where)
5. From delivering on cost to delivering
maximum value and benefits
Claude Emond and
12 QualiScope 2013

13. Value, benefits and project success
Project success, value and benefits as per PMI?
PMI’s definition of START FINISH
project SUCCESS ?
PMI’s definition of Desired State
project QUALITY ?
PROJECT
The destination
ZONE
Value
Current State
The journey
Claude Emond and
13 QualiScope 2013

14. Value, benefits and project success
«Value and benefits» for WHOM and WHEN?
• For WHOM:
• ALL stakeholders… this INCLUDES the project team
• WHEN:
• AFTER project completion… sometimes over many
years, for the users of the deliverables
• DURING project realisation both for the users of the
deliverables and those delivering them
Claude Emond and
14 QualiScope 2013

15. Value, benefits and project success
COMMITMEMT PRECEDES
PROJECT PERFORMANCE
SELF-INTEREST
PRECEDES COMMITMEMT
«PAYMENT» ENSURES
LASTING PERFORMANCE
AND PROJECT SUCCESS
TIME
Claude Emond and
15 QualiScope 2013

16. AGENDA
1. Results and conclusions of the
KPMG/TOP-BCG studies
2. Value, benefits and project success
3. The Agile management mindset
4. “Traditional” engineering-construction
project management vs «Agile» project
management (Why, Who, What, When,
Where)
5. From delivering on cost to delivering
maximum value and benefits
Claude Emond and
16 QualiScope 2013

17. The Agile management mindset
10 principles 4 main techniques
1. Dynamic/Rolling-wave
1. Responsibilisation planning (O1)
«Empowerment» (P1)
2. Frequent deliveries (O2)
2. Capacity (P2)
3. Frequent alignment
3. Desirability (P3) meetings (SCRUM) (O3)
4. Creativity (P4) 4. PPC (Percent promises
5. Simplicity (P5) completed - «REAL
value» tracking) (O4)
«Agile»
4 values
Management
1.Projects are realised by
and for HUMAN BEINGS
6. Managing individual
promises (P6)
«Agile»
(V1)
2.Promote collaboration
7. Integrated teams(P7) Mindset
over control (V2) 8. Togetherness (P8) (rev01, 2012)
3.Adapt, embrace and 9. No surprise (P9)
welcome change (V3)
10.Accelerate and maximise
4.Produce benefits and benefits production (P10)
value for ALL (V4)
Claude Emond and
17 QualiScope 2013

18. AGENDA
1. Results and conclusions of the
KPMG/TOP-BCG studies
2. Value, benefits and project success
3. The Agile management mindset
4. “Traditional” engineering-construction
project management vs «Agile» project
management (Why, Who, What, When,
Where)
5. From delivering on cost to delivering
maximum value and benefits
Claude Emond and
18 QualiScope 2013

19. «Traditional» engineering-construction project
management vs «Agile» project management
«TRADITIONAL» Project Management is:
In response to the global and turbulent business environment that characterises the 2010s, the only one that exists,
(very complex, highly competitive, uncertain, permanently changing, requiring great velocity as well as a high level of creativity to constantly innovate and adapt)
(WHERE)
things (deliverables and activities) for a «DIFFERENT WHO» that MUST
realise in a highly conflictual manner, more often trhough confrontation
a limited number of persons WHO respect given (initial) delays and costs that are not always realistic
than through collaboration,
(and/or not necessarily producing the RIGHT OUTPUT/OUTCOMES)
(output/input ratio subsequently sub-optimal)
(A RESTRICTED AND NON-ALIGNED WHO) (A WHAT DELIVERED including as part of the WHAT a «FROZEN» WHEN and
(A HOW, WHEN AND HOW MUCH that are conflictual and chaotic)
HOW MUCH, for a RESTRICTED FOR WHOM, often without knowing WHY)
The DELIVERED WHAT=
- A solution delivered as per specifications not necessarily aligned with the needs
(the WHY and FOR WHAT the deliverables are expected to be used)
(any distortion between the WHAT and the WHY will result in a LOST of
- Constant disagreements and contractual litigations between BENEFITS and inferior project value)
A RESTRICTED AND NON-ALIGNED WHO= - Deliverables realised «on time and on cost», the WHEN and the HOW MUCH
stakeholders
EXECUTING PARTY = Consulting firms, suppliers and being perceived as TRUE additional deliverables, instead of being treated as
- «silo» deliveries, deliverables' integration ultimately occurring only
contractors who «materialise» given specifications, CONSTRAINTS
on site with last-minute corrective actions impacting negatively
many not having congruent and converging individual .
both project schedules and project costs
and corporate objectives A WHY=
- The major stakeholders (The executing party-WHO differs from
based on rigid specifications rather than on needs (requirements) that can evolve
the receiving party-WHO) see one another more as an adversary through time
than a partner and use a «winner-loser» approach to conflict .
. resolution rather than a «win-win» mindset A RESTRICTED FOR WHOM =
The PAYING PARTY, NOT NECESSARILY THE END-USERS AND CERTAINLY NOT
THE EXECUTING PARTIES =
Excluding both excuting stakeholders and other stakeholders impacted by the
project and its deliverables, the former perceived as adversaries, the latter just
being ignored.
SUB-OPTIMAL EFFICIENCY (E1) AN EFFECTIVENESS WHICH IS IMPOSSIBLE TO MEASURE (E2) ????
RESULTS/OUTCOMES: ??
PRODUCTIVITY = E1 X E2?? = NON MEASURABLE PROJECT PERFORMANCE/SUCCESS
Claude Emond and
19 QualiScope 2013

20. «Traditional» engineering-construction project
management vs «Agile» project management
«AGILE» Project Management is:
In response to the global and turbulent business environment that characterises the 2010s, the only one that exists,
(very complex, highly competitive, uncertain, permanently changing, requiring great velocity as well as a high level of creativity to constantly innovate and adapt)
(WHERE)
ALL the project Stakeholders realise successfully, meeting everyone's day-to-day expectations,
THE right things, meaning
SHOWING PROACTIVITY, CREATIVITY, GREAT REACTIVITY,
DELIVERABLES OPTIMISING VALUE FOR ALL
A COLLECTIVELY COMMITTED WHO FLEXIBILITY AND ADAPTABILITY
(MAXIMUM BENEFITS «WHAT/WHY», FOR ALL)
(An ALIGNED WHO) (CONTINUOUS AGILITY OF THE HOW, WHEN, HOW MUCH)
realise successfully, using AGILE approaches and tools (HOW, WHEN, THE right things, meaning THE DELIVERABLES ALLOWING
ALIGNED WHO= An integrated project team (P7) =
HOW MUCH), in particular: MATERIALISATION OF THE PROJECT WHY (V4):
All Stakeholders, who, thanks to:
- openness and capacity to adapt to change (V3,P2) - NEGOTIATED DELIVERABLES (WHAT) (P3)
- shared values (V1,V2,V3,V4) + a structure, an organisation, tools, technologies that are - ACCELERATING (P10) MATERIALISATION AND
- a shared vision of the project objectives flexible and adaptable (P5, P6,O1,O2,O3,O4) and sufficient resources MAXIMISING PROJECT EXPECTED BENEFITS (O4)
(its WHY, its «raison d'être») (P2) (WHY)
- converging interests (V4) + responsible and autonomous human resources (P1, P2), - FOR ALL STAKEHOLDERS (V4)
- Shared success criteria (P10) reactive, flexible and adaptable
(FOR WHOM)
- required knowledge and sufficient resources (P2) + continuous change communication and management (P8,P9)
- collaborative behaviour (V2) + continuous learning and capitalisation of lessons learned (P10) .
are committed to succeed together (P3) - monitoring and innovation practices (P4) for optimal value (benefits) .
.
.
creation (V4, P10)
- practices valuing HR and encouraging collaboration
(V1,V2) .
.
OPTIMAL STAKEHOLERS' ALIGNMENT (A1) OPTIMAL AGILITY IN PROJECT EXECUTION (A2) ACCELERATED BENEFITS (AB) AND OPTIMAL VALUE (V)
RESULTS/OUTCOMES: PRODUCTIVITY = A1 + A2 = AB + V = OPTIMAL MEASURABLE PROJECT PERFORMANCE/SUCCESS
Claude Emond and
20 QualiScope 2013

21. AGENDA
1. Results and conclusions of the
KPMG/TOP-BCG studies
2. Value, benefits and project success
3. The Agile management mindset
4. “Traditional” engineering-construction
project management vs «Agile» project
management (Why, Who, What, When,
Where)
5. From delivering on cost to delivering
maximum value and benefits
Claude Emond and
21 QualiScope 2013

22. From delivering on cost to delivering maximum
value and benefits
How do we measure «REAL value and benefits» ?
This 20 M$ bridge is 70%
complete.
What is its «earned value» ?
What is its «REAL value» if
we never complete it ?
«REAL value and benefits» come from USING the project
deliverables at least as anticipated
Claude Emond and
22 QualiScope 2013

23. From delivering on cost to delivering maximum
value and benefits
How do we measure «REAL value and benefits» ?
Sydney Opera House (Utzon) Montreal Olympic Stadium (Talibert)
1957 cost estimate: 7 M (Au)$ 1970 cost estimate: 134 M$
Due date 1963 ??
15 X more 12 X more
1976 partially finished: 264 M$
1973 completed for 102 M$ Au (10 years late) 2006 final cost (including repairs, renovations,
Among the busiest performing arts centres in the world, construction, interest, and inflation): 1 610 M$
hosting over 1,500 performances each year attended by
some 1.2 million people. Avg revenue since 1977: 20 M$/yr
2012: «DIRECT» revenues of 177 M$ (Au) and net 2011: «DIRECT» revenues of 39 M$ (50% from
profits(surplus) 37M$ (Au) subsidies) and a deficit of 1,1 M$
Payback period = achieved a long time ago Payback period = «infinite» ??
Claude Emond and
23 QualiScope 2013

24. From delivering on cost to delivering maximum
value and benefits
Claude Emond and
24 QualiScope 2013

25. From delivering on cost to delivering maximum
value and benefits
Claude Emond and
25 QualiScope 2013

26. From delivering on cost to delivering maximum
value and benefits
“A Project is a temporary structure created to deliver a set of agreed desired
business (AND INDIVIDUAL)*outcomes, benefits and value ….. It’s your
choice whether you deliver ‘projects, programs and portfolios’ – the orthodox
view – or choose to deliver ‘strategy, business outcomes and value’ ”
Jed Simms
Agile project management
*my addition
BENEFITS
COSTS
Claude Emond and
26 QualiScope 2013

27. From delivering on cost to delivering maximum
value and benefits
Questions and discussion
Claude Emond and
27 QualiScope 2013