by clicking the arrows at the side of the page, or by using the toolbar.
by clicking anywhere on the page.
by dragging the page around when zoomed in.
by clicking anywhere on the page when zoomed in.
web sites or send emails by clicking on hyperlinks.
Email this page to a friend
Search this issue
Index - jump to page or section
Archive - view past issues
Project Manager : Project Manager Feb Mar 2013
www.aipm.com.au Project Manager 13 you need levers that can be pulled to adjust the outcome. ere are three parts to this. e system must be big enough to a ect, but not so big that the levers become overwhelming. e person or team must have the skills and capabilities to use the levers and understand them, and must also have the authority to pull the levers when required. is is a very subtle area and there are a lot of things that can get in the way. Corporate standards, cultural norms, risk-averse management (such as critically limiting delegations of authority, overlapping areas of responsibility, technical veri cations), industrial relations constraints, geography -- all cloud the authority to pull the levers. In the new matrix environments, this is further exacerbated by activities that do not fall into organisational lines. When you combine this with an accounting system structured on organisational lines, approvals start to get very messy. How to create the conditions for accountability To build accountability at each critical point, the system needs to be built from the ground up. Each highly desirable outcome in the operation should be mapped to a set of accountability conditions. When mapping these conditions, there will invariably be con ict, so take the option that gives the most desired outcome and compromise on the others where needed. is mapping can then be translated into organisational structures, delegations of authority, skillset assessment and training, even seating positions to support the natural alignment trying to be achieved. Once you have built the system from this perspective, you'll nd that your people's level of self-modulation is enough to keep the system rolling along its natural path and deliver high-quality outcomes. ese naturally aligned systems produce better results and are less reliant on individual performance -- that may give some relief to recr uitment pressure. e process described, if implemented at the grand scale, is not an easy one to follow and requires considerable e ort to achieve. is process is highly scalable, however, and can be implemented by team or speci c positional levels, and may be done as an evolution. ese approaches may delay the value and there is a level of critical mass while accountability conditions are created across multiple dimensions of any business, but they also avoid potential destabilisation of large- scale change. e key idea is that, whether incrementally or on a grand scale, the process is valuable. Accountability is a fundamental part of high performance in any field or pursuit. It is the element that means a last-minute delivery on Christmas eve is throw n into the back of a car and dropped off on the way home. It means that the final minor error in an engineering problem is eventually rectified. It means that a doctor visits a patient at home to make sure they are treated. It means that a soldier fearing for his life ignores his natural self-survivial response and saves his colleague. From in nitesimally small e orts to those celebrated widely, accountability has a massive impact on perfor mance and it is de nitely worth the e ort. More than that, it is a function of leadership to create the conditions for accountability to meet desired outcomes for the business, and to enhance the working life of those in their charge. ( TO BUILD ACCOUNTABILITY AT EACH CRITICAL POINT, THE SYSTEM NEEDS TO BE BUILT FROM THE GROUND UP
Project Manager Dec Jan 2013
Project Manager Apr May 2013