Expert project managers know that they accept responsibility for the project when they accept the role of project manager. They also know that the shortage of authority can critically impede their ability to deliver the goals and objectives set for the project. Responsibility is straight proportional to consequences. Responsibility for project results does not mean that they get put on the counter until the next job if the one they’re leading fails, it has a monetary consequence. They will will suffer with the project through elimination or reduction of bonus, a re-assignment to a less responsible role (with an attendant reduction in salary), or dismissal in the case of consultants. The connection between responsibility and consequences is entrenched in business. Larger more expensive tasks will tend to participate more senior project professionals and the consequence of failure will be proportionate. The connection between job results and consequences will also be heightened. IT Manager Dubai
What is short of my experience (20 plus years as a programme and job manager) is a letters between authority and responsibility. Project managers can do much of the task planning without having gain access to authority. Project executives will need some help from subject matter experts for some of the planning work, even if it’s just to confirm effort or cost quotes. Larger, more complex assignments generally have more need of topic experts to the point that some of the work is planned by these experts. The authority needed to acquire and manage the resources needed for this work will usually come with the territory. It can when the project extends to the build or execution phase that the task manager needs authority. That they can plan the effort, set up the work, and keep an eye on performance but without specialist they have a very limited ability in order that the work is done on time device necessary quality.
The largest, most expensive, most complex projects are added by project managers who hold senior positions in their organizations and bring that level of expert to their projects. The Manhattan project, which sent the Atomic bomb during Ww ii, is a good example of this type of project and project manager. Leslie Lines, who managed the job, was a 3 superstar (lieutenant) General. Almost all assignments which don’t fall under the Manhattan project category in conditions of size are where the connection between authority and responsibility comes apart.
Most projects nowadays are executed in a “matrix” environment where the organization uses project operators to perform projects and efficient managers to manage people. The matrix environment is a good fit for many organizations because they have a mixture of operational and task work. The problem with the matrix environment is that seldom do they come with a formula for the division of authority between the efficient and project manager which means that the task manager has none of the authority and the functional manager has it all from the resource’s perspective. Organizations with increased adult matrix environments may have taken some steps to resolve the issues that this division causes, but rarely do the meanings of the 2 tasks add a precise description of authority. This is probably also due to the fact that the AN HOUR group plays a major role in defining authority through their policies plus they usually tend to be behind the curve in accommodating their policies to the management of projects.
Problems begin with the acquisition of the project team. Project executives are susceptible to the same greed and the rest of the individuals race and would like to have a free reign to acquire the best resources the firm is offering. Functional managers, on the other hand, have their operational tasks to consider. They will be compensated for the resources they relinquish to the project but aren’t usually incented to make certain their utmost and brightest are made accessible to the project manager. Which because their performance is measured based on the success of their in business responsibilities. If they earn their best resources available to the project, they may fail to deliver on their operational goals and objectives which may have a negative influence on their compensation. The best way I’ve seen to handling operational and project needs is to have useful managers whose sole responsibility is the “care and feeding” of resources. Seeing that they have no other functional responsibilities, they can be free to examine the competing needs of projects and functions and make assignment decisions based on their understanding of what’s best for the corporation.
Problems encountered with team acquisition will pass on throughout the rest of the project. Presuming work and duration estimates were deduced on some level of performance that is greater than a few of the acquired team can handle getting together with, project performance are damaged. Pointing out to the project sponsor that performance issues are being brought on by under-performing team people may or may well not bring relief. The sponsor is likely to view your complaint with scepticism if you didn’t raise the issue before. An incapability to do the work is not the sole cause of poor performance. Probably the most frequent cause of limited performance is the blood loss of resource time from the project by in business demands. The demands may be quite legitimate and the operational work needed of the resource may be the best possible use of that source for the good of the organization. That will not help the project supervisor when he or this wounderful woman has to make clear poor task performance to the stakeholders. This situation is bad enough when the task manager has notice of the demand but is a lot worse when they observe the change after the fact. The level of authority the project manager has recently been given, or at least the functional manager’s notion of these authority, will often determine whether or not they find out about the operational work before or after the reality.