Beware the difference between a task-force and a project. A project has a start-date, end-date, a budget and clear deliverables. However a task-force may go forever, use cash, and constantly find new things to do. This creates significant behavioural issues!
What is the difference?
Being a member of a project team puts people’s focus on the outcome or output of the project with a clear implication that success will come from completion on-time, on-budget, to-specification with lo-risk and hi-communication. The emphasis therefore is on getting to the end having met the criteria with the full knowledge that the team will dis-band thereafter. Relationships tend to be functional and based on the needs of the project.
Being a member of a task-force, is like being in a club where within boundaries you can decide the rules, outcome or output. A task-force to “improve x” can go forever because anything and everything can be improved. The relationship patterns are different and follow the recognised stages of forming, storming, norming and performing. Notably however relationship becomes a bigger factor in pursuit of longevity and in the interests of the members. This is potentially different from the potential tension or short-term friction which is tolerated in a project in pursuit of an end-point.
What is the problem?
We are all familiar with projects that seem to go forever: they are never quite finished; there is always more to do. These have become akin to a task force which rather than conclude and disband will perpetuate the membership as a pastime more focussed on belonging than delivering. People will boast about their membership rather than their delivery.
Projects are not without their challenges: pushing people hard for big goals in ambitious time-scales can be wearing, divisive and create friction and conflict which is only manageable because the challenge is exciting and rewarding and the pain is generally short, with a clear end in sight.
What is the best approach?
I am not sure that you can take the best of both worlds and apply since this compromise may fail the needs of both task-force and projects. Instead I would advocate being clear on which approach is best for the matter at hand. These are my thoughts.
1. If the intention is towards achieving a clearly defined goal, outcome or output then a project approach may be better.
2. If the intention is towards improvement or change then a task-force approach may be better since both improvement and change are constant and continuous processes.
3. To avoid a task-force becoming a “country club” there should be some parameters akin to project management. For example clear objectives for the period ahead, and changing membership as a catalyst for new ideas and a drive for completing tasks before the end of tenure.
4. To avoid a project becoming wearing, divisive and creating friction put in some key milestones and celebrate successes along the way. Use a “thank you” or a milestone party as a pressure release valve for social re-engagement.
Suggestions, feedback and alternative views are very welcome.
The Author
Tim Rogers is an experienced Project and Change Leader. He is founder of www.ciChange.org and curator for www.TEDxStHelier.Com . He is Programme Manager for the commercialization of Jersey Harbours and Jersey Airport, and previously Operations Change and Sales Support for RBSI/NatWest, and Project Manager for the Incorporation of Jersey Post. He is also Commonwealth Triathlete and World Championships Rower with a passion for teaching and learning and is a Tutor/Mentor on the Chartered Management Institute courses. He is a Chartered Member of the British Computer Society, has an MBA (Management Consultancy) and is both a PRINCE2 and Change Management Practitioner.
Tim HJ Rogers
PRINCE2 - MBA (Consultancy) - APMG Change Practitioner
www.timhjrogers.com | Twitter @timhjrogers | Skype @timhjrogers | Mobile: 07797762051
Curator TEDxStHelier www.TEDxStHelier.com
Founder ciChange www.ciChange.org
No comments:
Post a Comment