VP Engineering and R&D at WinCup

Fernando Vidal

Project execution is the bread and butter of many of us in the manufacturing world, including project engineers, project managers, and maintenance managers, among others. Projects, of course, vary widely in scope and complexity, but there is always a common denominator: the success criteria that are intended to be met upon completion of the project. Most projects start with a clear objective—a scope of work that must be done to get to an end point and which must be executed within certain constraints—typically time, money, and human resources that must be juggled during the execution of the project.

Many projects succeed, and many others go wrong—from simple cost overruns and schedule delays all the way to causing major upsets to the manufacturing eco-system due to poor planning or execution.

So, in order to increase the likelihood of a project being successful (as measured by the objectives and metrics set forth in the project establishment document, be it a funding document, a project charter, or an equivalent), there are multiple systems and work processes that have been developed and implemented in many organizations and institutions over the years. There are multiple project management approaches and practices: there are engineering work processes; there are project launch and start-up processes; there are new product development and new product introduction processes; there are methodologies for process development and for new material development; and many more. But in a nutshell, we can find work processes and/or methodologies that have been developed and tailored to just about every situation we can encounter while executing projects in the manufacturing world.

Many of these systems and work processes have withstood the test of time, proving to be effective at increasing the prospect of meeting the success criteria while reducing the risks associated with project execution. So, the question we must ask is, if these systems are so reliable and effective, why don’t we all use them? And more importantly, why are there so many projects that go wrong when we have such a powerful arsenal of project planning and execution tools at our disposal?

While there are many reasons and answers to the above question, in my experience there are two overarching reasons why: lack of training and understanding of the tools and work processes; and the perception that the project will take longer if we “spend” the time necessary to use such tools, since they are perceived to be time-consuming and not necessarily adding value or being worth the effort vis-à-vis the benefit that we will derive from their use.

“I am a strong believer in the benefits of systemic project execution; using the right tools and work processes, in my experience, invariably results in better project execution; it significantly increases the odds of delivering on the project’s success criteria.”

The first cause can be addressed with a simple and well-understood approach, but it requires commitment to investing the requisite resources for this purpose: establishing coaching and mentorship with resources experienced in the use of the tools and providing the time necessary to build the skill in their use. If experienced resources are not available within the organization, we can always find consultants that can be retained for this purpose. Simply put, we just need to be willing to invest the time and money to make this happen.

The second one, though, is much more elusive to solve. It is indeed true that it takes time to follow systems and work processes. Going over a checklist will most certainly take longer than simply pushing the start button of the machine and hoping that it runs, or dropping a piece of equipment in place and hoping that it lines up nicely with the rest of the production line instead of carefully planning a layout. But what using a checklist does for us is make the outcome more repeatable and remove the dependency on the level of skill or experience of the individual(s) executing the task. A systemic approach makes the task more likely to be successful, regardless of who performs it.

That said, it is very important to always fully understand the intent and scope of the tools that we are using, as using a tool, system, or methodology blindly can easily lead to using the wrong tool for the job. And it is precisely in these instances that we do not get the expected value and benefits.

Tools, systems, and work processes have to be right-sized for the occasion. The selection of the right tool should be based on a number of factors, such as the level of knowledge and experience of the team executing the project, the future need for reapplication of the approach, the complexity of the task, and, most importantly, the criticality of the project to the business if it does not meet the expected success criteria.

I am a strong believer in the benefits of systemic project execution. In my experience, using the right tools and work processes invariably results in better project execution, which significantly increases the odds of delivering on the project’s success criteria. But we have to be very careful of the pitfalls presented by “over-using” tools that are not right-sized for the situation at hand. That could lead to frustration, wasted time and effort, and not delivering on the expected benefits, hence potentially leading to a failed project.