A client came to us asking why he never got what he wanted from his project team.

Here’s The Replay of every project he requested.

1. Before a project began he would carefully explain the deliverable to the project manager. He would go into great details on all the intricacies that he’d worked out from months of thinking about the project.
2. The project manager would take notes and send him a specification detailing the whole project.
3. The client would think about the project some more then give the pm the green light to go ahead.
4. The project manager would set-up a schedule and deliver on time.
5. The client would take one look at the final product and inevitably be disappointed. Then frustrated. Then downright angry.
6. “That’s not what I wanted!” he would exclaim. Every time. Months of thinking about the new deliverable wasted. All his plans for using it, gone.

Needless to say, he was frustrated.

The Investigation

I went in and investigated. The process sounded alright. No glaring holes in a typical waterfall approach.

The client had a well-defined goal. The project manager was listening and delivered on time. So that’s not where the break down was.

I could recommend that the client check in every once in a while to see the actual deliverables themselves while they’re being produced. But I know he’s not that kind of manager. Besides, it wasn’t the details that were off in the final product. It was the whole thing.

I started asking the client different, seemingly obvious questions. Then, I found my answer.

“Did you read the specification the project manager sent?”

“No,” was the answer. And that was the answer.

He said it was a big, detailed document that looked thorough enough.

Gauging by the weight of the spec he was sure the project manager had the right idea.

“Besides,” he continued, “I explained it well enough for anyone to understand what I was talking about.”

In his mind, the idea was so clear and well formed that with a careful explanation it should’ve be obvious. The problem was that it was only clear in his head. He’d been the one living with it for months. He’d been the one who saw every detail. But someone it didn’t translate. A critical component of the communication in the requirements gathering phase was missing.

Communication is more than getting out everything you want to say about something (which is what he did). Communication is about making sure the other person understands.

The Core of the Problem

To come up with a solution we needed to get to the core of the problem. Knowing the people involved, the solution wasn’t simply to tell him to read the spec. It would never happen. He needed a solution where he could get what he wanted but without having him

a) do something he’ll never do or

b) change the way projects are done (e.g. adopting agile or requiring more interaction with the project team).

The core of the issue was that the specification was the wrong tool for the project manager and the client to use for their communications.

In general, a specification is the right tool for the project manager to use with his team. The project team needs a detailed blue-print. It also helps the project manager m think through the specific requirements of the project.

But it is the wrong tool to use with the client, particularly this one.

The Answer

I recommended that the project manager give the client a bullet point list of the general features. Keep it to one page whenever possible. This could even be a milestone view of the project schedule with all the sub-tasks rolled up.

If it’s too general, the client will ask questions. And it’s exactly the questions that you want to encourage. Sparking communication is one of the main goals of this approach.

A bullet-point spec is easily digested and easily scanned. It keeps the client engaged. It makes the project manager look like an efficient problem solver and good communicator. Whereas a big specification document can create the impression in the client’s mind that the project manager needs 30 pages to say what the client can envision clearly in a single image or a short conversation.

They tried it. It worked.

It didn’t happen overnight. But, it did work.

Moving to a bullet-point specification set-up a process of iterative conversations that resulted in the client and project manager connecting better and connecting more often.

This resulted in the client getting more of what he wanted, every time.

The requirements phase became a valuable, two-way conversation, rather than a hand-off of responsibility which left the client hoping he’d get what he wanted.

Milestones and sub-tasks are a powerful tool-set to improve communication on projects.  When used together in a project schedule you can consolidate the informational needs of the client, project manager and team without having to use multiple project management systems or spreadsheets.  It allows the schedule to be a single point of truth, as it were, and single reference point for project communications.

Here’s why it works.

People involved in a project have different informational goals.

• The client wants to know when things will be done and how they are progressing.
• The team wants to know the specific tasks they have to do.
• The project manager wants to coordinate the work, meet deadlines, manage resources, spot problems and improve processes.

Without a reference point, each person has trouble communicating. The client demands to know what’s going on. The team explains it in terms of the specific tasks. The project manager tries to translate between the two, or complicates matters but bringing out a Gantt chart, dependencies, a critical path or other project manager specific tools. The end result is frustration (or an exhausted project manager).

Here’s How to Do It.

You can avoid all this frustration and improve communications by creating a schedule using milestones and sub-tasks.  The milestones are the major deliverables or key points for the client. They are what the client wants out of the project and places they need to be directly involved. 

For the team, think of Milestones as parent-tasks and create sub-tasks underneath them. The sub-tasks are the specific, detailed, tasks that the team needs to do to get the project done.

When speaking to the client use the rolled-up version of the schedule showing the milestones only.

When speaking with the team use the drill-down version of the schedule showing all the sub-tasks.

This schedule then becomes the single point of truth, or reference, for all communication on the project. It has all the details needed for the team and a rolled-up view for clients.  The project manager can use it manage the project and facilitate communication without double-entry of data into other systems.

When something changes on the project you can use this schedule to show how the change impacts the milestones (for the client) or the sub-tasks (for the team). 

Taking it Further

Here are a few ways to use sub-tasks to create even more specific information that can improve communication on projects.

1. If your project management software has the capability, you can sort the sub-tasks by each team member or by due date to provide specific to-do lists for each person.
2. Using the same capabilities, you can create custom lists for your clients of all upcoming milestones in the next month across all projects.
3. Depending on the number of people involved, you can use multiple levels of sub-tasks (e.g. 6.1.2) to further categorize project information for different teams or departments that may be involved.
4. The multiple level of sub-tasks can then be rolled-up, as needed, for department meetings or meetings of team leaders.

A reader in South Africa asked if a person with strong analytical thinking skills can be a good project manager?  They’ve seen this person get very involved in the project activities themselves and, as a result, drop the ball on managing the project and keeping the ball rolling.

I answered that with the right coaching this person could be a great project manager. But, it depends on what the company is looking for in a project manager.

• If they are looking for someone to keep the flow of traffic moving, communicating between people, updating lists and assets, then it won’t be a great fit.
• If, however, they are looking for someone keep the flow of traffic moving and to document how things get done and improve the way they are done, then this person could fill the role and succeed in it.

The trick is to allow the project manager to formalize the process so that each action item is its own data point. That way the project manager can map out the process and find ways that it can be done better or faster.

It can also be very satisfying for an analytically-minded person to cross things off a list rather then shuttle back and forth, keeping balls in the air, without structure.