In addition to “lessons learnt” sessions at the project conclusion, another good project management strategy is the ‘pre-mortem’ session. The ‘pre-mortem’ is undertaken before the project starts. The project team thinks about all the things that could go wrong, in an attempt to manage them before they eventuate.

Using the lessons learnt from the previous project is an efficient and sensible way to kick off a pre-mortem, by reviewing the lessons learnt from last project’s problems. Even if the scope of work isn’t exactly the same, the lessons can usually be extrapolated into new contexts in a pre-mortem facilitated workshop.

I’ve been a keen supporter of the idea of “lessons learnt” sessions. Getting the team together to review the project afterwards sounds good in theory.

Being currently involved in a well-planned project that was thought through in detail, but has still gone (slightly) bad, makes me appreciate how hard a “lessons learnt” session would be, for those who experienced the lessons.

I’m experiencing the pain and frustration of having done plenty of planning, and still, things haven’t gone to plan. Putting these ‘lessons’ up in front of a crowd of peers, for all to evaluate, would be a daunting thing.

This evening, the Queensland Maroons team lost (again) to the NSW Blues team, in the annual State of Origin best-of-three game of rugby league. It was hard to watch.

Games have rules, a start and finish, and clear winners and losers. Everyone playing the game agrees on when it starts and stops, and how a winner is decided.

Business isn’t like that, not entirely. There is no agreed start and stop to business activities, not really. And while there are rules in place, how they are applied is sometimes left up to interpretation.

Games are for entertainment, that’s the difference.

Anyone who gives advice about making decisions has to also recognise the inbuilt responsibility associated with any decision. Giving advice about decisions is also giving advice about taking responsibility.

The hard reality is that decision makers are taking responsibility for the outcomes of that decision. It can’t be any other way. People in roles that require making tough decisions carry a lot of responsibility. And that can and should be worn with dignity and pride: You make the tough decision, and then you wear the consequences. Shirking that responsibility might be part of the problems of the world (and politics).

It’s easy to talk about how to make a decision, or to give advice about it. There are textbooks about the science or psychology of decision-making. There are website articles outlining strategies and step-by-step frameworks.

But when managing a project, no theory prepares you for the volume of decisions that need to be made. Some have minor consequences, while others have major, make-or-break consequences. Sometimes the consequences of the decision are equally bad. Or equally good.

The thing about decisions is, the anxiety in the lead-up is usually worse than the aftereffects. Once the decision is made, the clouds clear.

Today I was on a house-build site, where some young labourers were moving a pile of dirt, as well as a dozen crates of decorative fence stone.

It took much longer than it should have.

It would’ve been valuable to spend a bit more time planning where the dirt and stone needed to be moved, and the route it would take.

So, while their enthusiasm is appreciated and admired, the lack of planning and foresight caused multiple handlings of the material. They also almost ran over the portable toilet.

That’s why it’s good to balance youthful enthusiasm and wise experience.

I’m sure there’s a joke in there somewhere, if this is about how to be a chair.

A chair can be comfortable and soft, or squeaky and inappropriate. It could be loud, or, it might be understated. The metaphors abound.

The word “chair” is morphing into meaning a role or job title, as much as it is something to sit on. I like it –it’s easier than saying chairperson.

In a meeting, the chair is a facilitator. And the facilitator role is there to smooth the process of achieving the meeting’s objectives.

Good meeting chairs are neutral, timely and effective.

There are only two reasons to have a meeting: either it is for brainstorming, or it is for decision-making. This comes from a book by Al Pittampalli’s, which I learned about from Matt Church.

The first type is for divergent thinking, where there is space and time for new ideas. Think muffins and beanbags, flipcharts, and lots of time. The second type is for convergent thinking, where decisions need to be made, and attendees come having read the minutes, and knowing the agenda. It should be quick and clear.

People often show up to a decision-making meeting expecting to brainstorm.

As a project reaches the commissioning stage, the role of the pre-commissioning engineer and/or the punch-list manager is to get the kit working, with a strong focus on safe operation. They may need the close-out paperwork for the role, but not after the kit is operational. The process engineer just wants to design the next fancy new process solution, not put all the paperwork in place for the old one.

A ‘project finisher’ role is different: it is all about the paperwork. It’s the librarian, with quality control knowledge, some contracts expertise, and strong story-writing skills for the lessons learnt.

There should be a role called “project finisher”. This would be the person or team that comes in like a cleaning crew, once the project is in its last stages. By then, the project manager is either exhausted, or thinking about the next job (or more likely, both). The project team is also exhausted, and thinking about the next job.

It’s a different skill to gather up the project data, sort through the material data records, capture lessons learnt and write up the project case study.

Everyone knows it’s important to do all those tasks. It rarely gets done well.

Yesterday I had coffee in the morning with a bright enthusiastic 23-year-old engineer just starting out in her career. It was so refreshing and inspiring to hear the challenges and successes she has already experienced, even this early in her career.

Later, I talked to a wise 63-year-old colleague with wide experience and no shortage of opinions. He noted the changes happening in his industry, as well as the massive changes happening overall in society. It was not a negative comment, just observational.

I’m glad I spoke to both on the same day. We’re in good hands for the future.

I was discussing with a colleague the similarities between facilitating a risk workshop and a value engineering workshop. Both processes bring a group of subject matter experts together for a formalised discussion, with a goal to achieve specific outcomes. The risk workshop might focus on resolving failure modes, while the value engineering workshop looks for efficiencies of design.

In both cases, understanding the group dynamics is key. There will be a dominant personality, a quiet but knowledgeable one, someone with skin in the game, and another who doesn’t want to be there. Every group is different, but there are similarities.

Work should never be rushed. That’s easy to write; changing something so ingrained is not quite so easy to achieve.

Leaving enough time for tasks seems to be a lost art. Or rather, we try to fit too much into our days.

I remember as a junior, putting together my first hours estimate for my time on an engineering project. The person I was working for said, ‘whatever you think it will take, double it.’

It’s hard to accept, but often true. We find ourselves in a rush, simply because we have not left enough time to do the task.

It’s probable that not many people think about the difference between science and engineering. That’s ok; perhaps it doesn’t really matter.

Both career choices do problem-solving. Scientists solve problems by coming up with a hypothesis, and then set out to prove or disprove it.

Engineers solve problems with no single right answer: the shape of a bridge, the design of a rocket. The math and physics of it have ‘right’ answers, but the challenge of engineering is deciding amongst the options, often when all the information isn’t available. And there are budgets of time, cost, and risk to balance, too.

Defining competency inevitably recognises two aspects: knowledge and behaviour. In our engineers, we want a high level of both.

We want highly knowledgeable professionals who can give us the right answer to any problem within their expertise. Just as important as the right answer, is the accompanying behaviour to a set of professional principles and ethics.

It’s quite possible for individuals to rate highly on one aspect but not the other.

So while we don’t want an ethical person who makes constant mistakes, we also don’t want a person who’s always right but uses it in nefarious or unsafe ways.

A cairn is a human-made rockpile providing direction or warnings. The Canadian Inuit Inukshuk is one of the more famous cairn shapes, and I burst with pride whenever I see one. There’s one on the ‘land-bridge’ over the inner-city bypass in Brisbane, and I like that it’s there.

A symbol that provides direction or warnings is useful, especially in the days of GPS and social media.

Oh, and the reason for today’s topic: I’m on a bit of a break in tropical Cairns, Queensland this weekend. This Cairns was named after a person though; no rock piles to be found.

I wonder how youth today learn about the concept of falling dominoes. Even when I was a kid in the 1970s, dominoes were already an “old toy” my grandmother had for me to play with. They were boring.

But somehow, I learned the concept of the pieces being linked together, and saw how one falling affects the rest. It’s a still-used analogy – the ‘domino effect’.

Standards and procedures are, or should be, linked like dominoes. A good standard, or document system, is coherent and linked. There is a key “principles” document at the front, and the rest fit in underneath.

Webinars are a good way to transfer information. Similarly, podcasts have grown over the years as a way to connect. They both provide a good opportunity for just about anyone to present information, or, to present entertainment.

I listen to a lot of podcasts. Listening can be done anywhere, and maybe requires less active participation or concentration. Webinars require a bit more commitment to sit somewhat still; because I think the benefit of webinars is the visual.

Maybe webinars are better for technical information, and podcasts might be better for entertainment or light education. But I’m not sure about that.

Reading is a good way to enhance knowledge. We spend a lot of time reading – whether on websites, social media, books, emails, papers, newspapers, the list goes on.

But talking is perhaps a better way to communicate information. Talking allows more interaction, even if it’s just to see the body language or hear the voice differentiation from the talker.

Seeing or hearing that extra information over and above the written word can only help with the communication process. There’s a better chance that the message from the talker will be received and decoded more correctly. I can’t guarantee that though.

Sometimes, approaching something from a ‘random’ point of view is exactly what the situation needs. A random thought, or a random viewpoint, might just break through an uncertainty or blockage.

“Randomness” is a lack of predictability or pattern. It’s most deeply explored in mathematics and statistics. And random number generators, of course.

Wikipedia explains randomness in physical sciences, biology, mathematics, statistics, finance, and politics (specifically, voting).

I just like when I get the chance to have random thoughts. It’s always entertaining when some ‘random’ (person) shows up in your situation. And, choosing a random hundred words might be interesting too.