The bungled launch of the U.S. federal Affordable Care Act registration portal site
spawned a slew of commentary about how appropriate project management (PM) oversight could have prevented what most everyone,
regardless of political affiliation, agrees was a pretty massive screwup. I
chimed in, suggesting that realistic launch schedules and a firm dedication to testing would have helped.

(The main federal portal site seems to have ironed out many
of its kinks, but some reports, like this one from Forbes, suggest the system might still have issues with
passing on key documentation to insurance companies that may take as long as
six months to resolve.)

The case for a single point of responsibility

 

Other commentators latched onto a November 2013 report by
The Washington Post that there was no single administrator “in charge” within the Department of Health
and Human Services’ Centers for Medicare and Medicaid, the project’s main
sponsor (if you can actually identify a “main sponsor” within the
morass of a bureaucracy as large as the federal government).

This breakdown, these commentators argue, makes the case for
a single point of project responsibility. A piece at CIO Insight written by
Eric Thomas describes the dysfunction as an “authority-dense environment” and suggests that a formal Program Management Office (PMO)
or other single point of contact would have likely helped avoid the overlapping
red tape that, at least to some degree, plagued the project.

The most interesting point in the CIO Insight piece is that
the author, a project and portfolio management consultant, says this single point
of PM authority should be independent of the development team. That’s a fairly
common practice, even in mid-sized businesses, although PMs and QA engineers
tend to gravitate to the “technical” side of the overall project —
and there’s nothing wrong with that.

Some very large organizations have enterprise PMOs that report
directly to the COO or even the CEO, but that elevation of PM — although a favorite
topic among PM writers — is still fairly rare. Almost all PMs still report up
through the IT department, and so can be subject to political pressures to mask
project issues, just as easily as if they were reporting to the lead developer.
In smaller organizations, lines get blurred quickly, particularly when
everybody wears about a dozen hats, and the CTO is doing peer code reviews,
because there’s nobody else to do them.

And so, most PMs (nor anybody else, except the CEO) aren’t
really “in charge” of an organization-wide project — such projects are
too large and involve too many aspects of the business to be simplified so
easily. PMs evaluate, document, and track the project lifecycle (all of which
is essential to project success), but that doesn’t put them “in charge”
of it.

As the CIO Insight piece notes, PMs need a clear escalation path
to project stakeholders when something is obviously not working. However, program
managers should not be forced into a whistle-blower role — that’s a last-ditch
mindset that will ultimately compromise relationships on the project team.

Keep stakeholders informed about progress and
constraints

The best-case practice is to ensure stakeholders stay
informed of the project’s progress by being engaged in regular status meetings,
and/or real-time project calendaring software that line-of-business stakeholders
will intuitively get — something along the lines of Tom’s Planner or Basecamp. This sort of constant contact and clear
visibility into how things are going will, hopefully, prevent key issues from
roiling up to an escalation point, or put the ball in the court of your
stakeholders to act on clear problems on the horizon.

In a column I wrote a couple months ago, I suggested that a key attribute of non-IT project team stakeholders is the willingness to push back on C-level management about realistic project constraints. I should amend
that requirement to include a willingness to go run and tell the boss when
something is obviously off the rails. This source of “escalation” is
far more effective than red flags from PM.

This is not to say that PMs should not be empowered to speak
up when they see there are serious issues with a project — they should. The
harsh reality is that an organizational culture that leads to these kinds of
“moments of truth” has problems that solid PM methodologies can only
go so far in combatting.

Bottom line

A lot of PM failures are not sins of omission via poor PM
practice; they are sins of commission via turf wars and just plain old
corporate B.S. My gut tells me that is the real story behind the HealthCare.gov
launch debacle.