Beaming like a baby

Communication can kill your project.

I was at a client's project washup session (a 'post-implementation review' in the jargon) a while ago where we were to review a project to relocate a couple of call centres.

The project, to put it politely, had been going to hell in a handbasket. The client asked me to help when the project was already seriously derailed.

We got it back on course, and delivered much of what was wanted, not too late, and without doing too much damage to an already stretched budget.

Even so, very few were looking forward to the session. Three hours of reports of limited success, powerpoint presentations on 'things we should have done earlier/better/faster', flipcharts full of 'learnings for next time' - a steady stream of formal self-flagellation, almost like a Maoist re-education session. What could be more exciting :-( ?

The only person smiling was the representative from the communications ('comms') team. By luck or judgement, he went first. He presented a set of (beautifully prepared) slides showing us the comms plan, how they had delivered against it (largely on time and under budget, unlike almost every other part of the project) and then he revealed his coup de grace - the project comms team had been shortlisted for the final of a national competition run by a trade magazine. He sat down, beaming like a baby, newly fed.

His bubble was only slightly burst when John, the project manager, commented, “I wonder why the communications team keeps winning awards, while the projects they work on don’t?”

And I was struck by a blinding flash of the obvious.

Of course the communications team were winning the awards – because, for them, their job was delivery of defined communications, not the delivery of the project. When we reviewed the communications plan in the project each week, we were reviewing communications activity, not whether the communication was successful in helping the project meet its goals. Mugs and posters (not like these) and 'plenary sessions' were all very well, but very little of this directly affected what was delivered on the ground.

Suddenly other things fell into place. A key frustration during the project was that it had been very tough to brief delivery teams and stakeholders directly. The reason? We had to comply with our communications team policy that our messages 'were consistent’ and that ‘the seniors had been briefed’ before we could discuss the project with others. This in turn delayed project work as we waited for ‘communications’.

Worse, because the comms team moderated communications from the middle, and not on the ground, much of what they did communicate was too general to be relevant to those doing the work. As the project delivery teams did not understand what was needed - in terms that mattered to them - much of the work they did needed to be redone. No wonder (as we found when we completed the washup) the single biggest issue affecting the project was 'communication'.

All the communication activity in the comms plan and in our policies was actually damaging the project – because it was preventing effective communication.

The project team had abdicated responsibility for communication to the communications machine – just when we needed to be able to explain to our project people, in practical, day-to-day terms, what we needed them to do.

I have seen this behaviour before in a number of my clients and it explains a lot. The logic of giving communications to a specialist overwhelms the common sense notion of enabling folks on the ground to communicate quickly and easily with each other to get the work done.

'Communication' can fill your project’s pockets with lead weights and send it for a swim straight to the bottom.

Remember, communication is no substitute for conversation.

- Mike