Point 11 - Deming in Project Management

Attribute Results to Processes

This may be the most controversial point, but in my opinion it is aligned with the rest of Deming’s philosophy nicely, and I agree with this point totally. In the US especially, Management By Objectives (MBO) is very much the status quo. I’ll give a short explanation of my opinion from an operational standpoint first before relating this concept to project management.

In MBO, standards are set for a particular process with the intention of evaluating employee performance by them. Performance in relation to the standard weighs heavily (and is sometimes the only factor) in merit increases, bonuses, etc. A standard example would be handle times in a contact center environment. If the standard handle time is set to 3 minutes, and you are taking an average of 4 minutes, it is said the employee is performing poorly. This paradigm assumes that the measured metric (handle time) is the full responsibility of the employee. Pros and cons of this management philosophy:

Pros

• Easy to set expectations
• Easy to quantify
• Easy to base performance evaluations on

Cons

• Tends to move the focus to being ‘at’ standard
• No focus on process variability
• Tends to make the standard the ‘only’ performance measure
• Provides little incentive to improve processes when the standard is being met
• When defining standards, operational leaders tend to lean towards lower standards in fear of not meeting them
• Propogates the ‘carrot and stick’ approach where fear usually wins out as the strongest motivator
• Discourages educated risk-taking and experimentation with processes, because it might throw people ‘out of standard’ temporarily
• Discourages employees from helping each other by encouraging detrimental internal competition
• Forces employees to try and acheive contradictory goals (”I want to provide great customer service and spend the time the customer requires, but if I do that the way I know it really should be done, I’ll miss my standard and get written up.”)
• Employees and managers may be motivated to skew results so their numbers look better
• Moves focus from customer satisfaction to “covering my butt.”

You can probably tell that I don’t like Management by Objectives. To me it seems like the easy way out, and very much the wrong approach. Deming would say that 90% of defects in any situation can be related to poor systems or the lack of systems in place. Most people want to do a good job and will follow a process when it is well designed and they have the ability to provide input for it’s development and improvement.

Let us discuss this point in terms of estimating project tasks for duration and cost. In the MBO paradigm, what usually happens is that a project team member is given a piece to plan and estimate. Many times there is no process for them to follow in making their estimates. The project manager assumes they are the SME and know how to estimate. The PM may not really have a good idea of how much time they will be able to devote to their project work, alongside all their other projects or daily duties. In many cases an experienced team member is going to throw on a lot of slack time because they are in fear of missing their estimated deadlines. In any case, an MBO mindset is going to lead everyone to blame individuals for mistakes. It doesn’t necessitate a focus on improvement.

What would a Deming approach change? First, there would be a process in place to help guide estimates, evaluate performance to planned estimates, and go back to figure out why estimates were wrong. Another option might be to change the resource load so that a team member can devote all or most of their time to a project for a limited period of time, thereby reducing the cycle time on their deliverables (for your and other projects) and allowing them to more easily estimate in terms of effort required. Part of the process may be to train and guide them in doing a lower level of WBS to break things down into 4-16 hour chunks. It is going to be important in a Deming approach to evaluate tasks that took longer or shorter than anticipated. Not to place blame on the individual who did the estimate, but to find ways to enhance the process of estimating to make it more accurate in the future.

(Back to Deming's 14 Points)

Point 3 - Deming in Project Management

Inspection is a tool for improvement, not a whip


Deming's third point urges practitioners to design quality into processes, using inspection as an information-gathering tool to do so. In project management, the processes and systems make up a methodology. Does your organization have a consistent methodology, or does everyone run projects their own way? Inspecting project performance through the lens of continuous improvement facilitates applying lessons learned to a consistent and ever-improving methodology. This can not be done effectively unless there is a consistent system of managing projects in the first place.

Because projects are inherently unique, the specifics of how they are managed may require modification on an individual basis. If a consistent methodology is used as the basis however, deviations can be reviewed and further enhance the methodology by documenting best practices for specific categories of projects. The “deviations” can be developed into subject-specific best practices within the common framework. Furthermore, various components of the methodology should be a guideline, whereas critical planning processes should be standardized as much as possible to facilitate the formation of sound theories and best practices. For example, the methods of estimation should be consistent, while some aspects of management style should be left up to individual project managers.

Too often, inspection on projects is used as (or believed to be) a method of blaming project managers when their projects are behind, or applauding them when the projects are ahead of schedule. They should be neither. A performance report indicating a significant discrepancy in the planned time, cost, or quality should be viewed as an opportunity to go back to the planning process and figure out why it was so inaccurate. If the project manager followed the planning processes outlined in the methodology, this is new information with which to enhance those planning processes. If the issue appears to be execution, find out if the project manager is abiding by the guidelines set forth in the methodology, or if they are ignoring them. Compliance can be a people problem, but Deming would argue that over 90% of the problems in any situation can be traced back to flaws in the system, not the people.

When appraising the performance of project managers who work within a consistent methodology, performance to plan should not be such a large factor. Instead, the (1) ongoing contributions to improving the methodology and (2) compliance and success of execution should be considered. Not using the methodology can lead to poor performance, but it is better to measure the cause, instead of the result. To me, this is a key distinction in the Management by Objectives philosophy of people management versus Deming’s view on how performance should be evaluated. Think on the incentives in the MBO versus Deming management philosophies.

In MBO, a project manager may be enticed to add so many schedules and cost padding that they are always the hero when they come in under budget and ahead of schedule. They can negotiate out many beneficial features and other quality elements of the final product, and then if they add a few back in because of all the extra time and money, they win again. This factors into why many projects only meet most of the customer needs, not all of them. In my opinion, this is what makes project sponsors slash schedules and budgets….they know what is going on. The project managers add even more fluff because they know it will be cut down, and the vicious cycle continues. Where is the incentive for continuous improvement? The focus is clearly misdirected.

If one were to apply Deming’s philosophy to project management, much of the struggle from above is avoided. The focus shifts to creating and continually improving a consistent system from which project managers plan and execute projects. The addition of arbitrary amounts of fluff time and cost by project managers is not possible if there is a specific, universal method for making estimates. Contingency reserve is still there, but in a consistent manner based on what makes sense for the organization.

Project managers are encouraged to embrace and improve the methodology. Rewards and recognition result from actions that truly enhance the entire organization’s ability to provide quality to the customer. Regular reviews of lessons learned and other input from project managers can be used to enhance the methodology, one small step at a time. Statistical measures across multiple projects such as standard deviation from plan and EVM metrics can provide useful insights into opportunities for improvement.


Performance excellence does not happen overnight, and it does not happen to an organization as the result of a few great individuals acting in silos. Performance excellence occurs over years of embracing a consistent set of systems and processes that everyone seeks to continually improve.
Project management is about dealing with uncertainty. The point is to eliminate as much of it as possible through careful planning, and deal with the inevitable unknown-unknowns appropriately. Deming’s third point when applied to project management eliminates much of the uncertainty in projects by using an invariant framework which can be continually improved.

(Back to Deming's 14 Points)