Managing projects by comparing the planned task duration with execution is a widespread practice. In most cases, it is also one of the parameters in the appraisal of resources working on projects. Despite the widespread use, managers are also aware that the uncertain realities of project environments can lead to actual durations differing from estimates. The difference has the potential to lead to erroneous decisions and consequent disharmony in the workplace.According to Error Management Theory, when making decisions under conditions of uncertainty, two kinds of errors can occur – 'false positives', i.e., deciding that a risk or benefit exists when it does not, and ‘false negatives’, i.e., failing to notice a risk or benefit that exists. If managers use the planned durations to evaluate resource performance, there is a risk of managers being unfair due to a ‘false negative’ measurement bias: labelling an efficient person as inefficient. The fact that a person was late as per the planned duration does not necessarily mean that he/she was inefficient. Maybe he/she gave his/her super best despite the uncontrollable uncertainties, and his/her special efforts prevented potential additional delays. One cannot deny the presence of 'false negative' measurement bias, but there could be an argument about the extent of bias (or its statistical significance). Well, there is no study in the public domain evaluating the statistical significance, but we can refer to our collective experience. It is not uncommon for most resources with lower grades to blame systemic reasons for their low performance. We cannot just ignore them as 'excuses'. The unfairness of most appraisal systems in the project environment is perhaps one of the 'open' secrets of the project environment. We call it a secret because whenever you confront managers with the problem, many claim that, with adequate experience, they can arrive a 'right' or ‘correct’ reference point for the task duration. Statistically speaking, the words ‘right’ or 'correct’ estimate sound like an oxymoron. With a few clarity questions, one can understand that the word ‘accurate’ is usually used interchangeably with the word ‘realistic’. So, what is a realistic estimate? It is a duration considered achievable in a typical environment of uncertainties. This implies that the estimate is adequately protected (or buffered). If most task durations are buffered to protect against uncertainties, then a resource completing work on time does not necessarily mean that he/she is efficient. So, there could be a second error in decision-making: the ‘false positive’ measurement bias, or the inefficient person being declared as efficient.A resource completing a task within the planned duration could also mean that the resource was lucky in execution (no uncertainties hit the task), but the resource expanded the work to use all the hidden buffers in the task. Now, how big is this bias? Well, let us refer to our experience again. Most resources grudge their colleagues’ high efficiency ratings. The star grades are almost always debatable.Managers are intuitively aware of these biases. So, in many cases, they rely more on their experience with resources to 'curve fit' the mathematics behind the efficiency ratings.The challenge before us is to evaluate the efficiency of the resources, or, in other words, to check whether the task was completed by the resource in the fastest possible way. How do we know if the task was completed in the fastest possible way? One yardstick could be the shortest time ever achieved in the past for the same or similar task. Is this the correct measure? Let us look deeper.The 'shortest time' for any task can be achieved very rarely because a lot of uncertain things that influence the task time have to turn out favourably, all at the same time. This is very rare indeed. Thus, in almost all instances 'as fast as possible' would still be longer than the 'shortest time' ever achieved. Now, if the 'shortest time' ever achieved in the past is the measure of 'as fast as possible', how many times can we claim that the resources completed their tasks 'as fast as possible'? Almost never!Let us try a radically different approach.In execution, we just do away with any reference point to the planned task duration. Let the resources and the management close their eyes to the task level planned 'targets' along the road to project completion. But when we remove the milestone dates, they find themselves in an environment without targets. Then how does one control?A new working culture is needed to suit the new environment. Let us borrow the new work culture from a relay race, where, in execution, each runner runs as fast as possible. So, we want a relay race culture, wherein execution, resources move 'as fast as possible' or, in other words, the planned task durations are best assumed as zero in execution.But we still need a mechanism to know whether a task was done 'as fast as possible'.We know we cannot use any benchmark duration because the level of uncertainty affecting the task changes at each time level. So let us add a small caveat to our goal – do your tasks 'as fast as possible – under the given circumstances'. Now, the picture is entirely different. 'Given circumstances' will differ for each project (even if the task remains the same). Managers have a role to play to ensure an environment of enabling circumstances. One of the chronic reasons for delays at the task level is the environment of frequent priority changes, where resources are forced to multitask, while the elapsed time goes up for tasks. The other reason for chronic delays is the lack of preparedness before the task starts, which in turn leads to resources waiting for specs or decisions, or, even worse, to frequent rework. As a first step towards ensuring the right circumstances, managers should eliminate bad multitasking and ensure that resources have all necessary preparations in place before the start of a task.Even after ensuring the two steps, there may still be Murphy’s Law, which can delay tasks. If that is the case, then the factor that determines task time is the speed and quality with which obstacles are resolved that impede task completion. So, what is required is a daily review process that ensures speedy, effective decision-making to resolve obstacles. It should facilitate the quick surfacing of obstacles followed by the quick removal of the same.If the process ensures that obstacles are immediately highlighted to the appropriate level of management, who then take immediate steps to remove them, we can safely presume that the systemic reasons are in place to ensure that the task is done 'as fast as possible – under the given circumstances'.If the enabling processes are put in place, one should see a drastic reduction in the elapsed time of tasks, and only after that, if any, the problem of resource efficiency is surfaced. In other words, if there is an issue with individual resource efficiency, it can only be observed after enabling processes are in place. When we have all the enabling processes in place, what we now need from resources is a commitment to stay focused on the task until the agreed completion criteria are met. A manager who is actively involved in task execution (and hence understands all the circumstances associated with the task) knows exactly which resources displayed the desired behaviour. We can have an evaluation and feedback method focused on identifying and encouraging the right enabling behaviours and discouraging the wrong dysfunctional behaviours. Without an easy-to-calculable numeric, the suggested evaluation may not look ‘objective’, but it will not be disputed if the resources are given immediate, direct feedback on observed behaviour. The method suggested is exactly how a football coach evaluates players’ individual performance – only by observing them. The players do not have any individual output-based measures. The only output measure is for the team as a whole.With enabling processes, an effective feedback system, and a team goal, we should not only enhance resource productivity but also foster harmony in the workplace.

Key Takeaways

In the pursuit of efficiency, evaluating resources based on past benchmarks can be flawed. A revolutionary approach involves a relay-race culture, urging resources to move 'as fast as possible' in their tasks and adapt to given circumstances. A supportive work culture and effective daily reviews to swiftly address obstacles can foster a harmonious workplace and boost productivity.

Enabling resource productivity in project environments

Managing projects by comparing the planned task duration with execution is a widespread practice. In most cases, it is also one of the parameters in the appraisal of resources working on projects. Despite the widespread use, managers are also aware that the uncertain realities of project environments can lead to actual durations differing from estimates. The difference has the potential to lead to erroneous decisions and consequent disharmony in the workplace. According to Error Management Theory, when making decisions under conditions of uncertainty, two kinds of errors can occur – 'false positives', i.e., deciding that a risk or benefit exists when it does not, and ‘false negatives’, i.e., failing to notice a risk or benefit that exists. If managers use the planned durations to evaluate resource performance, there is a risk of managers being unfair due to a ‘false negative’ measurement bias: labelling an efficient person as inefficient. The fact that a person was late as per the planned duration does not necessarily mean that he/she was inefficient. Maybe he/she gave his/her super best despite the uncontrollable uncertainties, and his/her special efforts prevented potential additional delays. One cannot deny the presence of 'false negative' measurement bias, but there could be an argument about the extent of bias (or its statistical significance). Well, there is no study in the public domain evaluating the statistical significance, but we can refer to our collective experience.  It is not uncommon for most resources with lower grades to blame systemic reasons for their low performance. We cannot just ignore them as 'excuses'. The unfairness of most appraisal systems in the project environment is perhaps one of the 'open' secrets of the project environment. We call it a secret because whenever you confront managers with the problem, many claim that, with adequate experience, they can arrive a 'right' or ‘correct’ reference point for the task duration. Statistically speaking, the words ‘right’ or 'correct’ estimate sound like an oxymoron. With a few clarity questions, one can understand that the word ‘accurate’ is usually used interchangeably with the word ‘realistic’. So, what is a realistic estimate? It is a duration considered achievable in a typical environment of uncertainties. This implies that the estimate is adequately protected (or buffered). If most task durations are buffered to protect against uncertainties, then a resource completing work on time does not necessarily mean that he/she is efficient. So, there could be a second error in decision-making: the ‘false positive’ measurement bias, or the inefficient person being declared as efficient. A resource completing a task within the planned duration could also mean that the resource was lucky in execution (no uncertainties hit the task), but the resource expanded the work to use all the hidden buffers in the task. Now, how big is this bias? Well, let us refer to our experience again. Most resources grudge their colleagues’ high efficiency ratings. The star grades are almost always debatable. Managers are intuitively aware of these biases. So, in many cases, they rely more on their experience with resources to 'curve fit' the mathematics behind the efficiency ratings. The challenge before us is to evaluate the efficiency of the resources, or, in other words, to check whether the task was completed by the resource in the fastest possible way. How do we know if the task was completed in the fastest possible way? One yardstick could be the shortest time ever achieved in the past for the same or similar task. Is this the correct measure? Let us look deeper. The 'shortest time' for any task can be achieved very rarely because a lot of uncertain things that influence the task time have to turn out favourably, all at the same time. This is very rare indeed. Thus, in almost all instances 'as fast as possible' would still be longer than the 'shortest time' ever achieved. Now, if the 'shortest time' ever achieved in the past is the measure of 'as fast as possible', how many times can we claim that the resources completed their tasks 'as fast as possible'? Almost never! Let us try a radically different approach. In execution, we just do away with any reference point to the planned task duration. Let the resources and the management close their eyes to the task level planned 'targets' along the road to project completion. But when we remove the milestone dates, they find themselves in an environment without targets. Then how does one control? A new working culture is needed to suit the new environment. Let us borrow the new work culture from a relay race, where, in execution, each runner runs as fast as possible. So, we want a relay race culture, wherein execution, resources move 'as fast as possible' or, in other words, the planned task durations are best assumed as zero in execution. But we still need a mechanism to know whether a task was done 'as fast as possible'. We know we cannot use any benchmark duration because the level of uncertainty affecting the task changes at each time level. So let us add a small caveat to our goal – do your tasks 'as fast as possible – under the given circumstances'. Now, the picture is entirely different. 'Given circumstances' will differ for each project (even if the task remains the same). Managers have a role to play to ensure an environment of enabling circumstances. One of the chronic reasons for delays at the task level is the environment of frequent priority changes, where resources are forced to multitask, while the elapsed time goes up for tasks. The other reason for chronic delays is the lack of preparedness before the task starts, which in turn leads to resources waiting for specs or decisions, or, even worse, to frequent rework. As a first step towards ensuring the right circumstances, managers should eliminate bad multitasking and ensure that resources have all necessary preparations in place before the start of a task. Even after ensuring the two steps, there may still be Murphy’s Law, which can delay tasks. If that is the case, then the factor that determines task time is the speed and quality with which obstacles are resolved that impede task completion. So, what is required is a daily review process that ensures speedy, effective decision-making to resolve obstacles. It should facilitate the quick surfacing of obstacles followed by the quick removal of the same. If the process ensures that obstacles are immediately highlighted to the appropriate level of management, who then take immediate steps to remove them, we can safely presume that the systemic reasons are in place to ensure that the task is done 'as fast as possible – under the given circumstances'. If the enabling processes are put in place, one should see a drastic reduction in the elapsed time of tasks, and only after that, if any, the problem of resource efficiency is surfaced. In other words, if there is an issue with individual resource efficiency, it can only be observed after enabling processes are in place. When we have all the enabling processes in place, what we now need from resources is a commitment to stay focused on the task until the agreed completion criteria are met. A manager who is actively involved in task execution (and hence understands all the circumstances associated with the task) knows exactly which resources displayed the desired behaviour. We can have an evaluation and feedback method focused on identifying and encouraging the right enabling behaviours and discouraging the wrong dysfunctional behaviours. Without an easy-to-calculable numeric, the suggested evaluation may not look ‘objective’, but it will not be disputed if the resources are given immediate, direct feedback on observed behaviour. The method suggested is exactly how a football coach evaluates players’ individual performance – only by observing them. The players do not have any individual output-based measures. The only output measure is for the team as a whole. With enabling processes, an effective feedback system, and a team goal, we should not only enhance resource productivity but also foster harmony in the workplace.

Problem: Traditional project management evaluates efficiency based on planned task durations, leading to false negatives (efficient resources appear inefficient) and false positives (inefficient resources appear efficient). This leads to flawed performance evaluations and, consequently, workplace disharmony. Solution: Adopt a relay-race-like execution culture: remove multitasking, ensure task readiness, resolve obstacles through daily reviews, and shift evaluations to observable behaviours under actual conditions. Benefits: Boosts focus and productivity, reduces delays in work, enables fairer evaluations and builds a more harmonious and accountable team environment.

<h4>Enabling resource productivity in project environments</h4>

Download PDF

Traditional project appraisals suffer from severe measurement bias. Discover how resource efficiency can be accurately evaluated without relying on flawed deadlines.