Honeymoon Hangover:
The Happy Beginnings of a Creeping Scope

Practical Considerations

In very large projects, formalized kickoff procedures usually require a thorough consideration of the issues described in the earlier sections.  Other projects though often suffer from a hurried or incomplete focus on these areas during start-up. Possible reasons for this lie in the mindset of the key individuals involved with the management of a project and in the practical difficulties involved in planning and holding rigorous kickoff meetings. These are discussed below.

Psychological Barriers

If the proactive project management steps outlined in this article make so much sense, why aren't they a universal, routine part of all projects’ start-ups? A part of the answer to that question lies in the many demands and distractions that can accompany the start of any new effort. There can be a real sense of urgency to get through the project’s start-up quickly so that the “real work” of the project can begin,especially if the project’s start has been delayed for any reason . In addition, some psychological dynamics can make both the contractor and the Federal client reluctant to push for great specificity in the areas discussed in the previous sections.

Contractor PMs might feel uncomfortable in pushing for specificity for fear of giving their new client the impression that they are “lawyering up.”  That is, they may worry that their client could get the impression that they're trying to lock in inordinate detail at the outset so that they can later negotiate for increased funding for anything that hints of going over the established scope. There is a temptation to go with the flow rather than create that impression, which could poison their relationship with their client for the rest of the project. It would be better, they may think, to first earn the client’s trust over the project’s first few weeks before trying to establish the specific bounds of the project’s scope, institute detailed product acceptance criteria, and get formal buy-in on the project’s assumptions and risks. Of course by then those efforts could be as much about remedying problems as avoiding them.

A client’s reluctance to establish specificity early in the project can stem from an unwillingness to “get painted into a corner” when there are still unknowns—or the possibility of unknowns—surrounding the project. Even with a thorough requirements development and a solid budget estimate, all are aware that the Federal environment is so complex that undiscovered facts and circumstances can lurk in the path of any project. Also, the ever-present possibility of changes to agency budgets, priorities, and organization makes the experienced Federal program officer cherish his or her ability to be flexible in steering a project through the impacts of such changes. Locking in every detail early in the project can be seen as a threat to that flexibility.

The key to resolving any mutual discomfort is dealing with the start-up issues discussed earlier is for both parties to see this process not as a barrier to adaptability but as the very toolset needed to adapt successfully to new information and circumstances. Project management is not about the lockstep execution of an unchangeable project management plan built at the project’s start. Rather, its processes enable the systematic planning for risks and changes and adapting to them as they are encountered. 

The kickoff areas of emphasis described in the previous sections are the foundation of those processes, the true North from which all considered courses of action can be mapped. Systematically detailing the project’s objectives, performance standards, unknowns, and risks allows solid plans to be developed, a consensus on critical project issues to be realized, and the development of any needed schedule slack or management reserve funds to be planned for.

In establishing a basis of mutual trust between the contractor and the client agency representatives, there can be no firmer basis for building that trust than jointly and openly working through the key project issues during start-up.

Scheduling Barriers

Kickoff meetings ideally provide enough time for a through discussion of all the issues covered in the previous sections. They also ideally involve well-prepared attendees whose attention is undistracted by competing claims on their time and energy. However, we all share the sad knowledge that Fate seldom has “ideal” on the menu. You may well find that the best you can do for your next project’s kickoff meeting is a one-hour conference call that gets delayed by a bad access code and features two attendees with marginal cell phone reception and another calling in from an airport bench located directly below a blaring announcement speaker.

What do we do in such limiting circumstances? We do what project managers have always done: meet the requirements through solid planning and quick thinking. Below are some possible work-arounds to consider.

The less time that is available for the kickoff meeting, the more important effort before and after the meeting becomes. If attendance or time is an issue, consider making the read-ahead package as much of a stand-alone product as possible, even if it means delaying the kickoff meeting for a few days. 

When developing the package, try to balance its level of detail with the time the attendees are likely to have to absorb it. If it takes many pages or slides to do justice to the project’s issues, use your covering e-mail when you send out the package to highlight the issues that most require people’s understanding, input, and buy-in. That way people will come prepared to discuss those aspects of the project, speeding up the discussion and ensuring that the critical issues are resolved even if the meeting runs out of time. Also, make sure that you highlight any issues in the read-ahead package that might prove controversial. Doing so will increase your chances of talking such issues through at the project’s start rather than having them linger as sources of contention throughout the project.

If scheduling a time at which everyone can participate turns out to be difficult, consider breaking the meeting into multiple sessions. One possibility is to meet initially with the government client/sponsor representatives in one meeting followed by a separate stakeholder meeting. Alternatively, the team can be composed into workgroups each with a specific focus on a different project phase, aspect, or issue area. When doing that, though, make sure that members of all workgroups get project-wide read-ahead packages even though they will only focus on a part of it. Doing so will help prevent the development of multiple, fragmented “stovepipe” views of the project and facilitate communication across the teams.

Use the period immediately following the kickoff meeting to resolve issues that couldn't be addressed or fully resolved during the meeting. In addition to standard follow-up to facilitate outstanding meeting action items, there are opportunities for using technology to essentially extend the kickoff meeting. Online conferencing, voting, and forums can allow virtual follow-up sessions to the kickoff meeting. Web 2.0 approaches can be helpful as well. For example, a wiki can be set up to allow meeting participants to collaborate on the kickoff meeting minutes or feeder documents for the project management plan, essentially continuing the kickoff meeting’s communication and coordination.

Finally, if all else fails, the project management plan will need to become the venue and medium for accomplishing what could not be done during the kickoff meeting. Integrate the discussion of the project’s success criteria, product standards, assumptions, and risks into the plan, or as attachments to it, so that these areas can be reviewed discussed and approved in the course of the project management plan's review and approval.