Read the blog

Is an ambidextrous project pipeline enough?

The journey from new ideas to value generation can involve many steps, follow a variety of routes with a plethora of twists and turns as well as the occasional blind alley.  However, the vehicle for most of these journeys is the Project.  It is hence worth asking whether the project management discipline is up to the job of driving the delivery vehicle.

To set this question in context consider the long recognised business issue known as The Innovators Dilemma.  Introduced by Clayton Christensen in 1997, the dilemma states in its simplest form that the anatomy of an established organisation is completely at odds with the requirements for delivering value from new and disruptive ideas[1].  One of the widely accepted solutions to the dilemma is that of the ambidextrous organisation[2].which advocates the separation of new innovation businesses from the corporate anti-bodies of the established business unit operations. 

Much of this thinking has been applied to the development of corporate strategy and organisational design and the application of corporate processes, but has any attention been paid to one of the most potent producer of anti-bodies present from day one; project management methodologies?.  Not according to Andy Taylor[3] from People Deliver Projects. 

As Andy notes, the world of APMP, Prince2, PMI, et al. all claim to provide a mechanistic route to assured project delivery to time/cost/quality based on clear objectives, statements of requirements, specifications, command and control structures and risk reduction.  Yet these very traits are the antithesis of successful creativity and innovation which demand exploration of the unknown, undefined and damn right risky.  The PM methodologies are dominated by left brain thinking and as such, Andy rightly guards against accepting the normal defence from the PM community that the process is fine, "it's just the way you use it."  Since creativity is a right brain activity, left brain processes are always going to be at odds with the innovator and entrepreneur.

Andy's solution is an "innovative front end" to a normal project pipeline.  In this space, argues Andy, projects should be easier to start and be allowed to fail quickly.  Objectives are defined but task detail is minimised whilst teams are kept small and team roles become more dilute.

But is this approach really that different to many new product or innovation pipelines?  The "front end" is reminiscent of the "concept validation" stage of most gated new product development processes.  Value generation will still require the idea to navigate the transition from the "freedom to explore" to disciplined project execution.  In this respect Andy advocates tough exit criteria be applied to his "front end" innovation project, but is this really creative?

I don't think so.  The creativity desired is immediately constrained and manacled to the exit criteria.  The exit criteria are no more than input specifications for a normal process driven project.  The approach is typical of a causal reasoning management style[4] trying to create the illusion of creative freedom whilst retaining tight control.

In contrast, entrepreneurs with a propensity for effectual reasoning would not be looking to constrain the front end of any project pipeline with strict exit criteria.  Project failure in the way Andy uses the phrase would just not occur in the mind of the entrepreneur.  To the innovator the fact that an idea may not work is simply a cue to find another route towards the same goal or pick a new goal.  It isn't failure at either the project or personal level.  To their way of thinking imposition of tough exit criteria is the "tail wagging the dog". 

I fully endorse Andy's belief that left brained methodologies stifle creativity and close off innovative and elegant solutions.  However, I suggest that bolting an innovative front end on to an existing project pipeline does not go far enough and that creativity and innovation in project management needs to pervade a lot further into the business than he currently suggests.

True innovation and creativity needs project managers and project methodologies that can allow the project to ebb and flow far more than the current suite of left brain, control freak processes permit.  New business ideas needs a PM with the skill of the white water raft captain; marshalling a small team to work seamlessly in all parts of the boat and being ready to drag the boat out of the river, load a new crew and head off down another river at a moment's notice.  I am sure there are PMs capable of this, but do they have right boat?

[1] Christensen, CM, "The Innovator's Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail", Boston, Harvard Business School Press, 1997.

[2] O'Reilly, CA and Tushman, ML, "The Ambidextrous Organisation", Harvard Business Review, April 2004.

[3] Taylor, A. "Becoming Ambidextrous", Project Magazine, Issue 235, February 2011, p15.

[4] See, for example my blog on Causal vs Effectual reasoning at fromideatovalue.blogspot.com and links therein.