How many possible worlds can you see?

I’ve been thinking about the entire subsection of GTD which relates to better definition of outcomes and ultimately better results. The storytelling and delegation post can be considered as a couple of ideas aiming to solve a subset of that entire issue, which can pretty much be summarized as follows: “How do I make sure that I define my projects, even single action projects, in such a way that I myself or those I delegate to are most likely to succeed?”

The easy solution

There is an easy solution to this ... make your outcome definition as weak as possible so you can check off the project action as done or achieved without lying to yourself. Of course, this is how you shoot yourself in the foot over the long term. If you continually undermine your own outcomes, your achievements will not amount to much. Then you can blame the methodology for not supporting you, and it won’t be on you. I’m starting from the assumption that you, dear reader, are not that kind of person. Although sometimes we all are.

The difficult solution

Defining your outcomes, what you want to achieve, is very much about having a clear view on what the outcomes can be, and what you believe the outcome should ultimately be. Fully understanding what the outcomes can be requires you to be able to see multiple future worlds. And therein lies the rub.

The quality of outcomes

When conducting brainstorming exercises, the number of ideas the group is asked to generate is often a multiple of the actual number of ideas used. There’s a reason for this: if you ask a group of people for their best five ideas, they are likely to give you their first five ideas or at most the best of their first ten ideas. This is why we often ask people to generate 50 our more ideas.

Our self-imposed educational limitations

The reason is simple: we tend to settle for less, as a group and as individuals. The same goes for outcomes. When we define them, we tend to look for one relevant outcome, and not the breath nor width of options available to us.

By the way, I strongly believe that our current educational system is limiting our children in their ability to see enough worlds out there. The insistence on keeping them occupied as well as the truly ancient way of educating people to conform to standards of performance which are only useful in a production, not a knowledge worker context, is robbing our children of their inate natural flexibility of seeing multiple possible outcomes. But that’s another post.

The interesting thing is that some people that choose to ‘adapt’ the educational structures for their own purposes, such as Steve Jobs and Marc Zuckerberg, have succeeded in keeping that capacity for broad visioning alive. It’s a trait sorely lacking in a lot of so-called business and other leaders today.

What we lose if we don’t define better outcomes

If our outcomes are limited by our daring to be creative, our lives are limited by the quality of those outcomes. So, we really owe it to ourselves to provide our projects with high quality outcomes which take in account that the environment and the context in which we try to achieve these outcomes may change.

How to

Alright, but what can we do to enhance our outcomes? I’ve made a shortlist of a couple of key ideas which will get you started:

1. Look further than first outcomes: when defining a project, look at other possible outcomes of your actions and how they will count to furthering the achievement of your project.
2. Quantify some kind of metrics around your larger project outcomes: what do you consider good enough? You should not necessarily go for 100% perfection, but you need to know when you can count on your results enough to further the achievement of your broader goals.
3. Self-evaluate regularly: regular self-evaluation will help you in checking where you are in terms of the achievement of your goals. I like journaling for this purpose, but there are many other approaches that are as good or better. See what works for you, but stick with it.
4. Close out your projects when your outcomes are within the brackets you defined: sometimes we tend to continue on in a project even when we have achieved what we needed to achieve. This is often the case if we fear shipping our results. Committing to closing a project when we have achieved what needed to be done, when it is good enough, is another element which really helps me.

If you try to do at least these things in a consistent manner for your larger projects, I’m certain you will see a marked improvement in your results. Good luck.

Project versus outcome management

There is a hidden assumption among project owners, the ones that engage project managers to manage their projects, that any project they engage with will automatically succeed. The default position for project outcomes is, in their minds, success. Why else would they engage their time or means in that project?

The problem is that they fail to distinguish between project management and outcome management. In short, you can pretty much manage projects, but it's very difficult to manage outcomes. However, the project owner assumes that when the competent project manager comes on board, very thing will be fine.

Here's my take on where they make their mistake and why it is damaging.

Project management

We have pretty much figured out how to properly manage a project or a program of multiple projects. There are agood project management methodologies available which, when properly applied, will lead to a well managed project.

This is not to say that any project if supported by a good project manager and a good project management methodology will be a breeze. It won't. But it will be manageable and under control or at least out of control in a controlled manner.

For example, If the project owners are not aware of the key issues in the project, their investment in project management and the related reporting will need to be increased or improved to enhance transparancy. But that is a controllable issue. Even if the project management issues may not have originated internally, the management of the project can be managed internally or at least within the confines of the space or organization the project is being managed in.

So, the project can be managed provided competent people are combined with a relevant approach. That however does not garantee the envisioned outcome. Here's why.

Outcome management

The outcome is of course the result the project owner is aiming for. This is why they started or engaged with the project in the first place. They aim for a specific situation which is different from the initial situation. Note that the outcomes are (most often) not the deliverables. These deliverables are being produced by the project. They are the output of the project, an output which will assist in achieving the outcomes you were aiming for. However, they combine with other, often external factors to lead to a certain situation which is different from the initial situation you started from. So let's examine what can result?

• The best case is the situation where the outcome is what you were aiming for or better;
• However, realistically you may miss that outcome even if your best effort and the deliverables were there in a timely fashion.

The results combine with unexpected and often not manageable events which in turn determine with the final outcome of the project will be.

Are outcomes manageable?

In my experience outcomes are at best partially manageable, and will require a significant investment of time and effort with no guaranteed results. As an example:

Imagine your project deals with cost reductions in government operations. The results of your analysis are impeccable. However, because of the economic crisis the last thing government wants to do is to fire people. On the contrary, government feels they have a social responsibility, and starts to increase hires. Now imagine another project that, in conjunction with yours, had been working on automation to fill in reductions of workforce. In this scenario, it's unlikely that project will be taken to fruition.

So what to do?

In the course of any project, it's essential to have good, regular and transparant communication not only about the project and its results, but also about the impacts risks in the adjacency of the project will have on the required outcomes. While it may not save the project, it will put every stakeholder on the right page as soon as possible.