CONTENTS
Balancing rule-based and Mindfulness-based project resilience
Rocks on the road to resilience
Toolkit: scenario planning and premortem
As we have seen, projects are constantly challenged by the effects of uncertainty. Based on experience and having a memory of past events, projects build up defences that are continually maintained and updated in an attempt to keep aleatory uncertainty at bay. At the same time, though, project teams also develop mindful capabilities to adapt to the epistemic uncertainties they face. These aspects of rule- and Mindfulness-based resilience can appear contradictory and can sometimes work in opposing directions. In this final section, we will synthesise what has been written about project resilience and offer a way forward while also appreciating how difficult it is to be resilient in any true sense.
A road map
The previous chapters provided us with ‘lures’ that need to be recognised, as they constrain our ability to manage uncertainty effectively. These lead to a road map of Project Resilience, as shown in Figure 8.1.
Figure 8.1 A road map towards resilience
Our road map towards achieving these commonly accepted benefits of project management may be slightly odd, different from what one would expect. Your road map, of course, is likely to be very much different from our suggested one. How would it look?
Balancing rule-based and Mindfulness-based project resilience
The strategy many projects adopt to manage uncertainty is to ‘preload’ categories and distinctions that have been identified from past experiences. This is often espoused as a ‘self-evidently correct’ deterministic and probabilistic approach and, indeed, on the face of it makes a lot of sense. Many of us may not even consider another method as this approach is so ‘obvious’. The logic behind such an approach is clear – that resilience can be brought about by minimising the possibility of error as a consequence of fallible human cognition. This is achieved by developing repeatable, codified rules and procedures governing decision-making. The aim is to, as far as possible, ‘automate’ decisions from among a collection of past-informed choices.
Essentially, this orthodox approach to seek resilience is about making the ‘best choice from among available options’. We contend that the alternative is Mindfulness-based resilience, underpinned by the aim ‘to create options’ (Langer 1997, 114). As outlined in the first two chapters of this book, Mindfulness in this context involves people being sensitive to and aware of their environment and conscious of the here-and-now rather than looking to the past (Langer 1989, 1997; Langer and Beard 2014). It is:
What we are not saying is that there is no room at all for orthodox, compliance-focused uncertainty management. Instead, the aim is to develop project capabilities and behaviours that supplement traditional deterministic and probabilistic management approaches by encouraging situated human cognition, where more conventional approaches might not match the problem at hand. In other words, people working in projects are encouraged to complement standard responses with human expertise and judgement.
While we have advocated the role of mindful capabilities in facilitating positive project outcomes in uncertain environments, these need to be balanced with rule-based management. This could lead to potential tensions between the application of the two approaches. This raises an important question. If project practitioners are to act in a more mindful way when delivering their projects, how might this balance the need for both rule-based and Mindfulness-based management of uncertainty?
We identified five distinct ways of working which we were able to refine into models (or modes) of operation. We labelled these models respectively as Rule-based, Entrepreneurial, Infusion, Just-in-time, and Recovery .
Rule-based
The Rule-based approach is one of post-incident structural interdependence (across units) and temporal sequentiality (one after the other). It provides the advantage of efficient automation to an incident; pre-loaded responses are automatically activated once an incident is detected. The primary tension with this mode is one of switching from an automated response to one of Mindfulness if and when an automated response is not sufficient to tackle the incident as it develops. This often involves an escalation of the problem up the hierarchy of the project and the attendant issues that arise from such escalation, such as time lag and dodging of accountability. This is because we may lack the readiness, in terms of a repertoire of responses, to deal with problems that were not pre-planned, or to which existing frameworks do not provide an answer.
There may well be projects out there that are certain. In other words, one can predict and manage aleatoric uncertainty (risk), and foreknowledge is a sufficient basis for confidence in how the project will unfold. We can expect a minimal deviation from the plan; the goals are fixed and will not be challenged by internal or external influences. Stakeholders are predictable and amenable to the project objectives.
In this somewhat idealistic environment, the ‘traditionally viewed’ way of project management can − and should − be applied. The tools and techniques of the profession will serve well. The underlying premise is that pre-loaded plans and principles will sufficiently accommodate any form of adversity. Rule-based management as a pure form of planning and control is the dominant doctrine.
This approach to dealing with potential critical incidents offers a stable, transparent environment (because of pre-loading), in which external resources can be integrated relatively easily, as they only have to comply with a limited set of rules and procedures. The upside of a rule-based approach to managing projects by compliance is one of efficiency. Resources can be deployed as planned and can be (relatively) easily substituted. In some cases, this is a sensible approach, for example, where the work is comparatively routine and does not require much deep expertise; but in reality, this is uncommon.
Such preparedness is often, however, challenged by a lack of readiness to deal with problems that were not identified and pre-planned in advance of their occurrence. Particular challenges we observed were when issues arose where an employee (e.g. an engineer or project manager) could not solve the problem. This would result in the problem being escalated through the organisational hierarchy to managers with authority to decide how to tackle the problem. This could lead to delays and lengthy arguments about the root cause of incidents, especially in buyer-supplier relationships. This lack of a clear ‘ownership’ of the problem could result in both a lack of progress and a souring of relationships between parties involved, further exacerbating the situation. Most people can relate to such a situation, which can be attributed – to some extent – to the inadequacy of the applied doctrine of rule-based behaviour. We have observed, though, that this tends not to lead to a change in the way of working, so the scenario may be expected to repeat itself at a later point in time.
Entrepreneurial
In comparison to a Rule-based approach, the Entrepreneurial mode of resilience commences with a mindful setup of practices, which enables a constant creation of answers to problems in an environment where solutions were rarely evident in advance. Whereas an automated ‘checklist’-like approach is predominant under the Rule-based approach, this mode emphasises a continuous process of critically evaluating alternative responses. In this context, there is no (or very limited) preloading of rules and procedures. We are ‘free’ to develop our own ways of working in contextually separated operations and projects.
This mode is appropriate for projects that are on ‘high alert’. It generally involves providing an extensive – and sometimes idle – response repository for engaging with epistemic uncertainty. We have seen this used successfully in R&D projects and new product development groups where the environment is necessarily epistemically uncertain, the goals ambiguous and shifting and planning a project in detail at the outset is unlikely to reflect how the future will unfold. The problem with such an approach lies in establishing and maintaining a flexible culture of alertness, reporting and readiness to act on the unexpected. It is difficult to build a mindful project culture, yet relatively easy to undermine it by punishing unexpected failure, ‘shooting the messenger’ or sending the message that staff have transgressed protocols.
The potential difficulty with a fully mindful approach is that its value can erode over time if participants begin to believe that past actions will cover future problems. The purpose of Mindfulness, with all its ramifications, is to produce a state of constant challenge and questioning. This tends to be uncomfortable. It is important to be aware of the point at which we begin to believe that we have been successful in dealing with uncertainty − at this point, project managers need to reinforce the view that there will always be uncertainty out there that makes past action redundant.
Infusion
The mode of Infusion is an attempt to combine both the worlds of Mindfulness and rule-based behaviour in a contextual, and continuous pre- and post-incident manner. The advantage is greater exploitation of past-applied solutions and the creation of future-applicable responses, providing greater efficiency but also readiness and preparedness to respond to the unknown. This mode involves invoking mindful capabilities, though not extra capacity, when pertinent.
In this scenario, we are generally compliant with rules and procedures, and in this sense, ‘normal’ operations can tend to look like those found in the Entrepreneurial mode mentioned previously. However, project managers are also explicitly empowered, authorised, and skilled to deal with situations that go beyond normality. Once an unexpected event strikes, they are prepared to deal with this situation and can ‘switch’ to a more mindful approach.
Although preparedness for dealing with uncertainty can be activated at any time, there are issues with this approach. The first one is overload. We may have our hands full dealing with the day-to-day activities of the project; therefore we may not have the extra capacity to be mindful and thus to be able to act in this way when required. Also, our readiness to enact these capabilities may be challenged by a reluctance to ‘let go’ of normality. This is a shift in emphasis that can be difficult. Similarly, we may be preoccupied with the new abnormality and, as a consequence, may focus on the urgent situation and largely ignore the rest of the project that still needs attention.
Mindful capabilities are often available pre-crisis and yet are exercised only minimally since the rule-based approach is dominant. Flexible responses under conditions of certainty are neither particularly warranted nor valuable, and the ‘idleness’ of this capability can be an issue. The Mindfulness response repertoire may begin to atrophy if not used, limiting our ability to call upon it in times of need. There is also a similar challenge with timely activation, as the leader may be reluctant to allow his or her additional mindful capacities to flourish. As we discussed previously, we may have inherent optimism that the current rule-based path is suitable for dealing with an event and, given our emotional attachment to the work, defer the deployment of mindful responses until it is perhaps too late. There is nothing malicious behind this; it is a simple acknowledgement of human nature that we tend to think that we are in control and that invoking special measures is unnecessary.
Just-in-time Mindfulness
In contrast to the Infusion approach, where we are required to produce resilience through dividing our time between adhering to a rulebook and creating responses mindfully, the Just-in-time mode involves providing additional staffing to develop the mindful capacities necessary to address the uncertain aspect of an incident. The idea is to automatically activate these other capacities and capabilities once an incident has been detected. This approach provides a more apparent distinction between the responsibilities of different staff with some dealing with the remaining business-as-usual and others, focusing on the unfolding uncertainty.
With the Just-in-time mode, the constraints of a Rule-based approach can be alleviated by the provision of additional mindful capacities. Most often, this happens via the ad hoc formation of Tiger Teams consisting of cross-functional experts. Such a team can be formed quickly to enable extra resources to be added at a time of need. This ‘new’ team, unencumbered by having worked on the project to date, can aid in the resolution of the critical incident in a mindful manner. This ‘fresh set of eyes’ can be beneficial, and can free up the existing project team to run normal operations and ensure that the parallel ‘business as usual’ aspects go smoothly.
The essential characteristic here is that mindful capabilities are deployed temporarily – to deal with specific events that have arisen – yet these are not the same resources as before. Additional capacity is ‘parachuted-in’ for a limited time until a state of normality has been re-established. Meanwhile, the already-deployed resources remain preoccupied with the day-to-day project activities. This is not necessarily straightforward, though. It requires the availability of the additional capacity, and they are unlikely to be on standby waiting to be called upon. Hence, the organisation’s leaders must be ready to prioritise work rapidly and make decisions on resource deployment when necessary. This, itself, requires a flexible operating approach at the higher management levels.
Recovery
A final alternative for resilient performance, Recovery, stands out from the previously described approaches as this one is less deliberate but deployed as an extreme reaction to the situation. Under this mode, entire rule-based frameworks (such as risk registers) of past-informed responses are abandoned in the light of crisis-like incidents, to be replaced by mindful ad hoc practices for the crisis period. It is a mode that is often the result of failure to produce resilience through those modes that start off being predominantly rule-based (Rule-based, Infusion, Just-in-Time), often resulting in a crisis like-situation. Hence, it requires a radical temporal shift from rule-based to mindfulness-based management that may well be recognised as undesirable due to its disruptive transition from one mode to another.
Rocks on the road to resilience
In this book we have suggested how one could – emphasis on could – overcome our innate human characteristics and manage a project in a mindful manner, as a means to address epistemic uncertainty. It is important to highlight some problems we are likely to face in trying to be resilient enough to weather any storm that might come along.
To reiterate, this book is not about a set of planning processes for the purpose of more significant prediction and control of aleatoric uncertainty. There are numerous standards that cover such frameworks and they do have their benefits. This is about project resilience in a wider sense, to allow people engaged in projects to be mindful; to activate situated human cognition to contain uncertainty. Project resilience is about:
- making people uncomfortable about uncertainty in a mindful manner;
- providing the comfort of resilience beyond the risk horizon.
First, we are constantly challenged by expectations of certainty and thus control. We vote for people who sell us an illusory world of stability, predictability, certainty and well-being. In turn, we expect others to plan and control the future, and project owners and sponsors also expect that of us. To put your hand up and argue that the world out there is largely unknowable is a daunting task. Anyone who has tried to ‘sell’ a project knows that it is more advantageous to pitch it as (reasonably) certain. Presenting your plan as largely unpredictable, but nonetheless resilient, is a tougher prospect. Even if both the presenter and the audience realise, deep-down, that there are aspects that remain unknowable, it is more comforting to go with a confident, ‘traditional’ planned approach. Of course, as long as this remains the case, life as a project manager is likely to be challenging and projects will continue to fail to meet their time and cost parameters and meet stakeholder expectations.
The certainty project sponsors crave is consistent with what we are longing for as individuals. We seek the comfort of certainty and the sense that we are in control of our project and us in it. By default, we try to build a comfort zone around ourselves. This book suggests that we, maybe tentatively at first, should step across this boundary, moving beyond the comfort of the risk horizon, and start creating a sense of unease about the unknown; that in turn triggers greater vigilance, preparedness, and readiness towards epistemic uncertainty.
Scenario planning and premortem
A plethora of literature exists about planning tools and techniques in project management. Much of such frameworks provide an authoritative account of what one should do. There appears to be less discourse about the assumptions underpinning these techniques, and therefore about the underlying basis for the planning techniques in use. One promising tool – scenario planning – stands out as driving mindful thinking, yet its use has not been widespread, and it is not often advocated within the project practitioner literature.
While scenario planning has its origins in military strategy studies, it was transformed into a business tool by, among others, Wack (e.g. Wack 1985) and Schoemaker (e.g. Schoemaker 1995). In contrast to risk management that drives the anticipation of individual risks, scenario planning caters for multiple future realities and encourages thinking in extremes, both possible and plausible.
The aim of scenario planning is the definition of a group of possible and plausible (not necessarily probable) futures that should constructively challenge each other. In comparison with traditional risk management, this approach does not aim to focus attention on quantifying a single future; instead, it provides multiple, more abstract projections of alternative futures.
Scenario planning is a powerful tool if applied in a non-threatening environment. For scenario planning to take effect, the culture of a project needs to be ‘open-minded’ with:
- Receptiveness to multiple, sometimes divergent, perspectives.
- Openness to having one’s views questioned and challenged.
- The use of a leader or facilitator who can manage the process of scenario planning in a controlled but non-threatening manner.
- Willingness to provide resources to deal with essential issues that may occur.
- Acknowledgement that scenarios are uncertain in their predictive power and that the ‘truth’ will not be forthcoming through this technique.
There is much written about scenario planning, so we will provide just a brief overview here of the critical stages to work through.
Step 1: What problem are you trying to solve?
This first step involves trying to understand the nature of the problem and thinking about potential solutions. The starting point involves devising a problem statement – a concise description of the problem. One way of outlining this is to produce a stakeholder map. This helps to make sense of the complexity involved in your project. We would recommend Peter Checkland’s (1999) rich pictures that help to understand complex systems. Some of the questions to ask when developing these rich pictures and stakeholder maps are:
- Who experiences the problem?
- Who causes the problem?
- Who pays for the problems?
- Who supplies the solutions?
- Who pays for the solutions?
The answers to these questions may help you to refine your problems, as well as inform your stakeholder analysis.
Step 2: Identify two critical dimensions
First, come up with two dimensions that define your problem (in this case, uncertainty and uncontrollability). Next, plot your key drivers. Then, choose two drivers in the high uncertainty, high uncontrollability quadrant of the plot (in Figure 8.3, it is Driver B and C).
Step 3: Create scenarios
You have identified two highly uncontrollable, highly uncertain drivers. Next, you must envision the extreme conditions for each driver: extreme positive versus extreme negative, extremely optimistic versus extremely pessimistic. Now, draw another four-quadrant plot, with the extremes of critical uncertainties on the axes.
Step 4: Compose the stories
For each of your four scenarios, you must now write a short story. It has been found that organisational stories are very effective at capturing the imagination and giving issues far more immediacy (Denning 2004). Each story should ‘capture’ a vision of future states of a project. It can be quite beneficial to come up with a catchy name for each scenario; names stick in mind and capture the essence.
Step 5: Scenario application
Given your four short stories, it is time to return to the original question. When you first asked the question, you could not come up with a conclusive answer, because you did not know what the future looks like. But now you have four visions of the future!
Step 6: Focus your attention on your worst-case scenario (-/- scenario)
Introduce your team to the exercise by informing everyone that the project has failed spectacularly in line with your defined worst-case scenario. Clearly explain the consequences of your worst-case scenario in terms of stakeholder dissatisfaction and implications for project deliverables, for example.
Step 7: Evaluation of critical uncertainties (premortem)
Please evaluate in line with your defined critical uncertainties (see Figure 8.2) whether and how you can prevent your worst-case scenario from materialising. If, for example, you have classified most of your critical uncertainties as uncertain and uncontrollable, the likelihood of averting a worst-case scenario is very low.
Step 8: Review and prioritise actions
Prioritise and develop managerial interventions that are controllable and for which you can define a certain impact. In line with your critical uncertainties, determine a key intervention, and possibly visualise this intervention on the very same Figure 8.4 analysis.
Figure 8.3 Example of critical drivers
Figure 8.4 Example of scenario creation in reference to two critical uncertainties (B and C)
What is mindful about scenario planning and a premortem? Scenario planning exercises such as the one described before, for example, open decision-makers to numerous, plausible alternative ‘stories of the future’ that inherently challenge assumptions and mindsets. Corporations including Shell and governments including Singapore have used such practices – first and foremost for their heuristic value – with considerable success for decades. Much like being mindful, the practice of nonjudgmentally assessing different plausible futures is a practical way of shining light on old unexamined thought patterns and making room for new ideas.
Traditional project management techniques enable us to plan for a single future in a deterministic, probabilistic fashion. Hence, reinforcing this ‘anchor’, driven into the ‘ground’ – our expectations – and allowing it to drive our actions in a preloaded, autopilot manner. Scenario planning though enables us to ‘zoom out’ beyond that single prediction of a plan. Our mind is challenged by the definition of multiple and extreme scenarios.
A project premortem is a strategy for assessing the strength of a project before it ever happens. For project leaders and team members, the premortem works by assuming the worst – that the project has failed – and then looking for all the ways and reasons why. By doing this, the team can figure out where potential problems lie and what pitfalls may present themselves to avoid disaster and help the project succeed.
In essence, a premortem focusses our mind to how we can prevent a worst-case scenario from happening. As such, we may change our way of engaging with a project: Instead of ‘selling’ the illusion of certainty, we draw our and our stakeholder’s attention towards our capability to prevent a worst-case scenario from materialising, with the option of ending up with more beneficial alternative scenarios.
In essence, scenario planning makes us more uncomfortable, as a trigger of mindful thinking, generating a more discriminatory view beyond the risk horizon. Nevertheless, it also focuses our attention to those capabilities that are required to avert a crisis in the first place.
Let us now consider resilience along the lines of S.M.A.R.T. goal-setting:
- Specific. Resilience remains mainly unspecific, as it relates to human behaviour under a range of different conditions. It cannot be clearly defined or identified according to a given set of practices one has to carry out. In fact, since it is context-specific it thus requires – every time from scratch – a unique match between a problem and a solution. The details of each case will vary. The containment can be prepared and readied for, yet the responses need to be crafted according to unfolding events.
- Measurable. The costs of resilience may be immediately measurable whereas the benefits may be far less tangible. The expected effect of being mindfully resilient is based to some extent on faith rather than unarguable financial measurement. The value of resilience could be quantified by the absence of failure. Nevertheless, if such an assessment can only be carried out ex-post, then what benefit does it have?
- Attainable. Unfortunately, there is no agreed state of resilience that is ‘good enough’ for a project. A state of resilience is an ideal one that that the project team can aspire to, but it is a continual journey rather than a destination. One may consider developing levels of ‘resilience maturity’, yet it is difficult to take into account the ever-changing nature of risk, uncertainty and complexity.
- Relevant. This aspect is in the eye of the beholder and depends on the context. Resilience will probably focus on mindful practices, rather than having choices overly constrained by the rigid application of rules and procedures. Relevance needs to be considered with regard to the localised assessment of risk, uncertainty, and complexity.
- Time-based. Project Management is a permanent state of rule- and Mindfulness-based resilience. The only time-based dimension refers to when the project context changes and the team needs to adapt to a shifting environment.
Does this imply that mindful Project Management is an elusive concept, as it is not S.M.A.R.T.? Yes and No. The ‘patchwork’ of lures, best practices and suggestions may be turned into a step-by-step guide to follow and apply. S.M.A.R.T. but not ‘smart’, as the underlying context is central to the choices that need to be made. We would advise against turning the insights of this book into an ‘autopilot’. Acknowledge and embrace the lack of specificity, measurability, and attainability and use these voids to think about what you can do afresh on your latest project. Try and resist the temptation to think that only what is measurable is automatically good. Resilience is a state, seemingly elusive, often apparently just out of reach. We strive for it, challenge it constantly, yet never manage to reach that ideal state that makes a project truly failsafe. Do you feel uncomfortable enough with this truth?
Our case companies
In order to develop these small vignettes of mindful practices, TTP, Aviva, and Intel allowed us to have some insights into their management of projects. In this respect, we are very grateful to have spent time with some of their project managers. Richard Mason and Simon Kelly of Intel talked us through some of the projects they have been involved in. Lynn Newman from Aviva elaborated on best practices, and Tristan Barkley and Piers Harding from TTP provided us with plenty of information about their radical innovation projects.
We asked somewhat naive questions about how to manage uncertainty. The purpose was to unravel the obvious. The case companies said that they ‘just do’ this because they believe it is the right thing to do, although at times they are not aware ‘why’.
Despite the number of vignettes, neither we nor the respondents claim that these projects are perfectly managed, in a mindful manner; these projects are not ‘fail-safe’. Yet, we have chosen these organisations as we believe they each go beyond process, do not put being compliant to rules and procedures centre-stage, and exploit the power of the human mind to deal in particular with uncertainty.
Being resilient through reliance on rule-based and Mindfulness-based management is the pursuit of an ideal state, which we can never fully achieve. We can only strive for it; and so do these organisations.
Outlook
The concept of resilience through aspects of Mindfulness, in projects, is not new to either academics or practitioners. There is, though, a plethora of evidence about the usefulness of reducing human cognition as a source of error by replacing it with rules, applied consistently and transparently. The weight of such evidence seems overwhelming, measured by the number of planning processes and associated accreditation programmes being advocated as ‘self evidently correct’.
Nevertheless, there is growing concern about this single-minded approach to managing uncertainty in a past-informed, rule-based manner. This is underlined by significant disasters resulting in injury, loss of life and substantial financial costs. Some alternative approaches are being considered, focusing on the contribution of the mind. However, these progressive discussions on how situated human cognition can benefit the management of uncertainty do not appear to be part of the mainstream of project management, at least from a practitioner’s perspective. There is still a very much unchallenged pursuit of ever greater consistency of action. Although our book should be understood as a challenge to conventional wisdom in project management, we cannot claim that it provides the ‘Holy Grail’ for managing uncertainty. Evidence about Mindfulness and its impact is still limited, although growing, and so this book is more a proposition than a prescription. Its purpose is fulfilled even if you disagree with everything we said. A disagreement is a form of reflection, and this book should be a basis for reflection.
You might think after having read all about lures, biases, and practices that you already experience all these and that this reflects your reality. It might all be evident to you and only highlight aspects that you already know. If this is the case, is your project approach as good as it gets? The concept of the resilient project does not claim to offer a universal, complete, set of practices. You probably do much more than has been covered in this book. Bear that in mind, and ask yourself ‘why’ you do what you do. Does it help you to:
- Notice beyond the risk horizon?
- Interpret epistemic uncertainty with greater scrutiny?
- Prepare yourself better for the effects of epistemic uncertainty?
- Contain epistemic uncertainty in a more timely and appropriate manner, to prevent a crisis in the first place?
- Recover faster and more effectively from a crisis?
This book may have helped to start important conversations and may have raised pertinent questions. We hope that our suggestions have been valuable. Our wish is to turn the idea of resilience through Mindfulness from an abstract notion to a set of behaviours that make it real for you in your projects.
References
Checkland, P. 1999. Systems Thinking, Systems Practice. Chichester: Wiley.
Denning, S. 2004. “Telling Tales.” Harvard Business Review 82(5): 122–291.
Langer, E. J. 1989. Mindfulness. Cambridge: Perseus Publishing.
Langer, E. J. 1997. The Power of Mindful Learning. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Langer, E. J., and A. Beard. 2014. “Mindfulness in the Age of Complexity.” Harvard Business Review no. March issue: 68–73.
Schoemaker, P. 1995. “Scenario Planning: A Tool for Strategic Thinking.” Sloan Management Review 36(2): 25–40.
Wack, P. 1985. “Scenarios: Unchartered Waters Ahead.” Harvard Business Review 63(5): 73–89.
Weick, K., and K. Sutcliffe. 2007. Managing the Unexpected: Resilient Performance in an Age of Uncertainty. 2nd. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.