When a plan is built, everything is an estimate. The quality of the estimates varies, based on the clarity of the task, the experience of the team, and the accuracy of the person doing the estimates.

Based on these variables, schedules are somewhat arbitrary, no matter how strong the estimators conviction. This truth, coupled with interplays of power and bias, creates The Schedule Trap. 

The “jaw” in this trap is executive power. Most leaders do not appreciate how much power they have over the team. If they are liked, people want to please them. Feared, and the team stays out of their way. Disrespected, and the team might want to sabotage them.

If it’s a customer deliverable then the importance of the project may take executives to an operating mode where they raise the anxiety of the team such that their power blunts  the team’s ability to perform.

The trap-spring is the team’s bias about the project. Almost without exception, if the team likes the project their estimates will be lower than if they don’t. Their estimates may be lower if they trust the fairness of management and higher if they feel that management is vindictive. Not all of these operate at the conscious level; many are innate behaviors and they all contribute to the schedule trap.    

Setting the Trap

Add some stress to the mix. Having been challenged by projects before, the executives will have a penchant for firm action and may demand “strong personal commitment” from the team. They are uncomfortable that the project is built from estimates and sense that if they push on the schedule, it will move. It moves because it is based on estimates and also because of the power of the executive. Once they realize that they can move the schedule, the temptation is great. The trap is set.

One successful electronics product business I visited had a statistician that tracked schedule performance. He had 10 years of data showing that their projects averaged a 40% schedule overrun. “Why?” we asked. “Simple,” he said. “The executives always review the schedule with the team and act on their obligation-apparent to reduce the runtime of the project about 30%. The project teams were very good at estimating, and in spite of the executives’ meddling, they hit their original targets, yielding a 40% overrun to the executive-forced schedule but hitting their original estimate.”

The age-old premise from the executive playbook is that a project under schedule pressure will complete sooner than a project left to its own end date. No doubt that is true, but using that as your leadership strategy is “dancing with the bear.”

Springing the Trap

The trap is sprung by low commitment and chaos as the project is trying to finish. Let’s examine the practices at the electronics company. Did planners understand that their schedule was going to get cut 30%? You bet they did! Did they build that into their estimates? Not usually. They would not build it into their estimates since their job was to estimate accurately and all indications are that they did. Part of their job pride was accurate estimates. And when the executives criticized their project overrun, that pride survived the criticism and the respect for the executives diminished.

The bigger issue is team commitment. Too often I have heard teams say “it’s not my schedule, it’s not my problem” when crunch time arrives. At crunch time I want the commitment of the team, a commitment that is at its best when the team is working to its plan and feels ownership of the scope, schedule, and end date. A team that has set these themselves is more powerful, more committed, and more likely to succeeded than one forced to a commitment by their leaders. 

Over the long term, project stress has other side effects. Not the least of these is family stress. Although an artifact of the late ’70s, Tracy Kidder’s book Soul of a New Machine is still a vivid example of the stress of a major project. It speaks not only to the long hours, but the impact on friends, family, health, and life. And that team had the advantages of ownership and loyalty to the project. While the technology is dated, read about the people and the intertwining of projects and relationships.

Avoiding the Trap

The way to beat this trap is with partnerships, networks, and communications. Building a plan is not a solitary event; it is a step in the flow of business. If it is managed as an isolated event, the stakes and consequences of actions surrounding it are very different than if it is part of a continuum. Honest interactions between project players, departments, and executives will yield better decisions and commitments, eliminate “departmental silos,” and allow teams to build better projects.

The key is to recognize that business and project teams are Internetworked and work with that model to speed communications, minimize politics and power games, and break down silos. Working with the teams’ Internetworked nature will deliver better projects results.

(click for a screencast introduction to Internetworked teams)