Enterprise Navigator

While taping a PM Podcast interview with Cornelius Fichtner earlier, we brushed against the topic of risk and how to measure it. The subject had also come up a few weeks ago in a different conversation; in both cases, it seemed to stir some interest in how to quantify risk in financial terms.

Monetizing risk is nothing new conceptually, but I want to share some thoughts about it. Now, I know that certain standards talk about the existence of 'positive risk' but I am more inclined to treat such occurrences as rare and pleasant surprises (pessimists might consider positive risk as a product of overly conservative revenue forecasting).

Maybe I am just stubborn, but I find it much more useful to consider risk in strictly negative terms, as a form of cost. This enables risk management to be a function of cost management and it allows you to readily factor it in as part of the overall value equation.

The basic concept can be illustrated using a one dollar lottery ticket for the weekly mega-million drawing. Without the risk factor, the idea of spending a buck to gain a return of millions of dollars looks pretty sweet. But, when you factor in the probability of not winning at 99.9999 percent and impact of the risk as losing your total investment, then the net risk adjusted potential payback of 1 ten thousandth of a cent makes it a much less attractive opportunity. The bottom line is that it's probably not going to clear the steering committee's hurdle rate.

I submit that any risk, potential or actual, represents a cost of some kind. It might be reflected as extending the time to market, reduced potential revenue, the cost of increased resources, more capital, the cost of redesign, or the expense of mitigating actions. The way I figure it, if you can't put a monetized estimate on an identified risk, then you are not through researching yet. If it has no cost, then it isn't a risk; it's just an odd curiosity or mild distraction of some sort.

So, with that in mind, the next question becomes how to fairly value it. For example, let's say you have identified a risk that is estimated to have an impact of $100,000 in rework costs if it occurs. The probability of the risk occurring is anticipated to be 50%. Therefore, the cost of simply accepting that risk is $100,000 x 0.5 or $50,000. Now, what if you knew you could spend $10,000 to reduce the probability of occurrence by half? Now the cost of the risk is valued at ($100,000 x 0.25) + $10,000 in mitigation costs, or $35,000 total.

So, the cost of this particular risk is now defined in monetary terms, and can be treated as you would any other cost when assessing the potential value of an investment.

Things get much more philosophical when you start to consider whether you should further devalue an investment opportunity initially. Should you attempt to account for the potential costs of 'known unknown' risks that will undoubtedly emerge as the initiative progresses? That is a conversation best had after hours, over a tasty beverage.

If you consider taking this approach, don't forget to also adjust how you are doing valuation calculations if you are currently risk adjusting via discounted cash flow. If you risk adjust using a defined cost approach, then don't double-dip by generically risk adjusting again when you set discount rates, etc.

This approach actually makes both risk management and valuation a little simpler. Risk is no longer hidden in DCF calculations, and risk is defined in a way that makes it easier for everyone to comprehend. Finally, because risk is quantified in the same manner as the key parameters it is most likely to be associated with (labor costs, material costs, revenue, etc.), it now becomes a directly comparable and independent measure, rather than some amorphous 'relative risk factor' like 0.65. See section 4 of Taming Change with Portfolio Management for additional thoughts on investment valuation and managing investment risk.

Regarding PMI's monthly journal PM Network, this may stun some of you, but I generally do not devour it cover-to-cover. After a decade or so, I find that most special interest magazines start to repeat themselves. I usually scan the table of contents and quickly flip through it to size up the marketing budgets and skills of the advertisers.

However, a teaser on the January 2010 cover caught my attention and I immediately went on safari for the matching article on page 27 -- a one-page commentary by Jesse Fewell; "The Great Debate," subtitled, "It may seem like blasphemy, but methodology doesn't matter." By all means, read the article, but I want to continue the larger conversation.

Jesse and I firmly agree that methodology does not matter. But, why not? The article doesn't elaborate on that point. To answer, we have to first look to what a methodology is. Michael Hanford (whom I consider among the more brilliant of the Gartner analyst ranks), offers the following in a review of the new Prince2 update (also a great read -- ID Number: G00172256, dated 13 January 2010):

"Methodologies are a body of practices that prescribe an ordering of work within a discipline, while "best practices" describe successful or well-used work approaches. One view is that methodologies are adopted by organizations, while best practices are adopted by individuals."

In my experience, when organizations wholly subscribe to and adopt methodologies, they tend to breed zealots. Zealots get myopic and then other options and approaches start to get branded as 'wrong' rather than 'different.' Zealots are dangerous; that's how wars start.

This is where the world of fashion comes in to play. (What has Bravo and a house full of women done to me?) Like a good suit, methodologies seldom fit as they come off the rack -- they have to be tailored. Methodologies represent a general set of practices that must be applied to the context of a specific circumstance. They are also subject to interdependencies with other disciplines that are outside of their own scope (in other words, incomplete). As a result, all of them have to be adapted before they can be adopted.

Methodologies are like fashion lines. Even the most snobbish avoid limiting their wardrobe to the work of a single designer. Preferences are fine, but some situations call for Versace and some days you just need Ralph Lauren. Why on earth would you limit yourself exclusively to considering any one methodology? Mix and match -- it is OK to carry a Coach bag while wearing a DKNY blouse (however, no matter what you see on the red carpet, Armani with Converse is NOT OK).

Finally, like designers, any single methodology is probably lacking some essentials that make up a complete wardrobe; case in point, adopting ITIL exclusively without a good project management foundation is the equivalent of going out in your LBD without… well, um, let's just say certain prerequisites, and leave it at that.

Given the Texas weather, I am a big fan of the layered look; perhaps a basic process foundation, with a casual PMI jacket, and some Val IT accessories. Maybe I'll toss on a bit of agile if I'm feeling especially pretty.

OK, you get the idea -- methodologies matter about like fashion magazines matter. They are useful to browse while getting a pedicure or to glean ideas from, but let's face it folks, most organizations just don't have the body to pull off a closet full of Lean. Build a wardrobe of functional and comfortable options, and pull together an outfit that is age and occasion appropriate.

Greetings from sunny Austin, as we endure our umpteenth consecutive day of record-breaking triple digit heat; today's forecast is only 105 F. I figure we have about 77 more such days to look forward to before we get a meaningful change unless a hurricane pops up in the Gulf. Just so we're clear, I'm not whining, merely sharing. At least you don't have to shovel heat out of the driveway.

I received a comment from Hanu Karavadi on the Stoutlining post from earlier this month, asking if I would explain the difference between various levels of written guidance typically found in organizations. Well Hanu, here we go.

Whenever this subject comes up (yes, it is a regular topic of discussion), I have a little drawing I use to illustrate the concept of the 'hierarchy of guidance.' (If it seems eerily familiar it may be because it was posted in one of my entries way back in November, 2007 titled, A Schedule and Process Walk into this Bar… In that post, we took a look at the differences between -- you guessed it -- process steps and schedule tasks.)

This time, let's focus more on written guidance. Although this relatively simple graphic does not fully cover all the possibilities or terms that may be applied, it helps get the basic point across that there should be some clear relationship between various forms of guidance. Much like playing Jenga, removing levels from the middle of this hierarchy can send the whole carefully stacked structure tumbling down in a topsy-turvy cacophony of disarray.

Specific to Hanu's question, policies are typically related to providing high-level governance that is broadly applied as formal and specific expectations. Policies, (along with methodologies and standards) presume that some number of options might be considered generally available; of these alternatives, there are one or more prescribed options that are considered acceptable or otherwise constitute a defined approach. From a glass-half-empty perspective, they can also identify what is excluded or NOT acceptable. Gotta love those dress codes, right? "No shoes, no shirt, no salary."

Perhaps we can use IT as a more useful example. A policy states that all IT expenditures will be charged back to the consumer organizations. This policy may drive the adoption of ITIL or CobIT as the selected approach (as a methodology or standard) to manage IT services and thus fulfill the policy.

At the next level, processes are employed to further establish the specifics of what is to be done, and by whom. To continue the example, ITIL offers a general approach and terminology for how to define and catalog IT services; processes are developed by implementing organizations to specifically lay out the underlying steps taken in this environment, along with roles and responsibilities. Note that now we are discussing organizational specifics. To put it loosely in CDPE terms, a process is a set of interrelated activities that are event-triggered where a set of specific inputs result in a specific set of outputs (results).

But all of this guidance discussed thus far has only prescribed what to do, not necessarily how. How-to guidance is established through procedures, which are step-by-step instructions for how to perform one or more tasks. For example, a procedure might define how to perform the month-end close process for determining IT service costs and charges.

Supporting these processes and procedures are best practices and guidelines. A best practice offers amplifying how-to information that reflects a proven approach; for example, a best practice that explains a the best approach for zero-balancing the IT budget each quarter. Unlike procedures or processes, which constitute what we referred to as "Shalls" in the nuclear industry, best practices and guidelines provide "Shoulds" -- they are suggested but optional approaches that infer some situational flexibility on the part of the user. Best practices tend to be more educational in nature, while guidelines are more often structured like 'soft procedures.'

There are additional levels of guidance that can be established, such as work practices and instructions, but this is where the water gets murky, since these detailed documents are often defined differently within each implementing organization. There is also the concept of 'toolbox skills' which defines a set of minimum competencies necessary in order to be able to perform a given task, often by role or performance grade, but that is for another time.

OK, there you have it -- the hierarchy of guidance, understanding that all of these things we discussed should be driven by the missions and objectives of the organization in question.

I bet you suspect, "OK, it's almost the end of March, so judging from the title this must be somehow related to all of the recently-abandoned New Year Resolutions involving gyms, low-carb foods or running." Not so my friends; this is actually about the importance of finding some balance across different management focus areas -- even when it forces you to address topics well outside your zone of comfort and expertise.

Besides, I don't run. If you see me running, it's because I'm out of ammo. You better run too.

One of the things we commonly find is a situation where organizations have fallen into a lop-sided approach to management improvement initiatives. Let's say for example that several years ago a generally process-immature organization began a program to advance its ad hoc project management capabilities. They kick it off by bringing in an experienced, PM-savvy manager, identifying what is in the project portfolio, and establishing some basic processes to help move projects through the lifecycle. Later, they start to build out some document and WBS templates, get some basic tools in place and begin a training program on PM fundamentals.

So far, so good. A year or so later, with some early improvements recognized, another round of PM refinement is launched, adding more rigor and sophistication around scope and requirements management, use of decision points and milestones, and better performance reporting. Flash forward a few more years and improvement cycles, and the organization now boasts a high percentage of certified project managers. Overall, the project management methodology itself gets a strong B grade.

But, the law of diminishing returns kicked in some time ago and making further progress in raising the project success rate seems to be stuck in a rut. What went wrong?

Project management became the big comfy couch. Bolstered by early successes and becoming increasingly comfortable with the initiative, the organization decided that continuing to improve project maturity was far more inviting than turning equal attention to other management areas in need of development. To continue the work-out analogy, it's like getting past the initial pain and establishing your technique for doing wrist curls. But, if that is all you do, then you may end up looking like Popeye the Sailor Man -- able to firmly grasp project planning and execution, but little ability to do the heavy lifting needed for true innovation.

Consider this: if you make tactical improvements to your project management capabilities but ignore strategic planning or project selection, then aren't you potentially executing the wrong projects more efficiently? If so, then the net business value of those PM improvements actually goes down! You are, in effect, wasting money faster. Furthermore, improvements in project management are inherently constrained without commensurate improvements in managing resources.

On the back side of project management, improving how project deliverables are managed operationally is equally important. Building an effective go-forward strategy relies on understanding the effectiveness of the services and products you are delivering today relative to the needs of your markets and customers.

The underlying message is that all of these elements are inter-related, so putting a myopic focus on continued improvement in one single area gains little in additional benefit until related areas are also improved to a level of functional parity. Real operational efficiencies are gained when small step improvements are made across all of the core business process areas in several iterations.

Now, get off that couch and go exercise some of those other management areas in need of some muscle; consider it process maturity circuit training.

Before we get rolling, I want you to shift your focus about 2 inches to the right -- see the Email Updates box? We know how hard it is sometimes to remember to take a moment out of your busy schedule to do discretionary things like read your favorite blogs. If you invest about 20 seconds right now to sign up, we will send you an email and link whenever new posts to the Enterprise Navigator go up. We are just trying to do our part to make life a little bit easier for you.

---

The analytical dust has settled, and I am putting the finishing touches on the conclusions and recommendations for the 2008 PMO 2.0 Survey Report this week. Meanwhile, we are finalizing the schedule for disseminating the information out to all that are interested.

Dare I say, some of the key findings are just going to rock your world.

For everyone that participated in the survey, you can expect to get your copy first, delivered to the email account you provided. This should happen a day or two prior to a web cast we will hold to go over the results. Expect all this to go down around the first week of December.

Why so long? Well, just because I am finished with drafting the report doesn't mean it is ready to go out the door. I need to do an internal briefing on the results, it has to be professionally edited and formatted, blah, blah, blah. Plus, we really think it will be more meaningful to offer the findings up via a web cast; setting it up, getting it publicized and allowing you time to register quickly eats up the calendar.

Allow me to whet your whistle just a bit in the mean time. Among some of the more significant findings is the relationship between operational challenges and their impact compared to other factors. For those who took the survey, you may recall there were 33 common challenges listed, divided into four categories; organizational, process, technological and situational. We asked respondents to identify the impact of each of those challenges, with options ranging from Critical Problem to Significant Challenge, Minor Issue, Not a Problem or Not Applicable. I converted responses into scores, and twisted that numerical data every which way I could, comparing it with several other responses to understand relationships. Let me show you something:

Each vertical column represents 1 of the 33 challenges, while each pair of horizontal rows represent the average impact, and the prevalence of issues marked as 'critical' or 'significant.' Obviously there are scores corresponding to the dashboard colors; those as well as the challenge and attribute titles are omitted for the purpose of tickling your curiosity.

Even with all the details absent, what is glaringly apparent is that a "certain particular attribute" has a HUGE effect -- across the board -- on whether organizations are being controlled by the host of more insidious challenges, or whether they are able to successfully mitigate their effects.

(To further titillate your intellectual desires, I will tell you that there are actually not one but two related characteristics that yield very similar results when correlated to operational challenges, resulting in a steamy performance management ménage a trois.)

I have to admit to you, when I first uncovered this finding, I was initially swept with a profound sense of sadness. The responses that constitute the first few rows represent real organizations with real people, and there is obviously a high potential for real frustration under such circumstances. Look at how many of these challenges consistently come in as red or yellow, and let me tell you, that is not a good thing. It means that most of the time the issue is CRITICAL or SIGNIFICANT for most of those that fall into that group. Over half of the challenges listed collectively conspire to torment well over a hundred different organizations every day, impacting their performance and generating misery.

The white boxes are neutral, meaning the average impact falls somewhere between 'significant' and 'minor', or that the rate of significant occurrence is less common. Green is good of course; the average impact is 'minor' or less, and the frequency of these issues being identified as significant is under 40%. So, what is so different between the organizations that have to endure the active lava flows littering the operational landscape in the top half of the rows, versus those living in the cool green valley of the lower half? Well, that's the good news -- getting control of challenges is readily achievable by any organization that wants to. Just realizing that the whole situation is correctable pulled me out of my funk and I quickly recouped my customary jovial composure. The answers to this little riddle are in the report, along with a host of other actionable insights.

Of course, you know that this blog is ground zero for staying informed about things like the date and registration details for the web cast, or how to download a copy of the report, or any scheduled public presentations on the survey -- did I mention that you could sign up to get an email alert when important information like that is posted? Thought so.

A preferred purveyor of things that I appreciate has a great marketing slogan:

"In a World of Compromise, Some Don't."

Catchy. Cool. It still looks bold in the understated white lettering on the black coffee mug, and it's well-suited to leveraging their deserved reputation for high end, high quality products.

But in actual practice, adopting such a position across the board is darned difficult if not impossible to do. For most things, for most of us, we are forced to compromise at every twist and turn, creating an endless clash between the elusive ideal and cold sober reality. My wife swears I babble in my sleep about demand versus capacity and cost versus benefit; a veritable fit of tossing and turning, grinding of teeth as I wrestle with vexing business trade-off dilemmas of a nocturnal variety. Either that or it was something I ate.

So, on my way back to Austin as I write this at 27,000 ft. somewhere over Louisiana, I am reminded that the insulating solitude afforded by noise cancelling headphones comes at the cost of interesting and pleasant conversations that I used to have with fellow travelers. If it tastes good then it surely isn't good for you. If it's easy, it's probably wrong. If it's cheap then it's likely not worth the money. If one party wins, we fail to achieve a bipartisan solution.

So, when it comes to ethics, where does one draw that line in the sand between making sensible trade-offs and refusing to compromise? When balancing our portfolio of personal principles at work, what is negotiable on an individual level, and does that always match the same threshold as your employer or co-workers? What happens if there is a gap between those two? It is a Faustian quandary that dogs us our entire careers. Lean too far to one direction, the devil steals your soul; go to extremes the other way and you become paralyzed by self-righteousness.

I supported a sales meeting this week with a "high-visibility, high-value" prospect. I don't go out on these with great frequency, but am happy to lend a hand when asked. It was a one-day review of capabilities based on their pre-defined script. It's impossible to thoroughly investigate the entire scope of interest in that amount of time; inevitably, questions must be asked and answered in lieu of demonstrating every possible nook and cranny.

At that precise moment, when due diligence meets a presumption of honesty, the potential for ethical mischief emerges. In the heat of competitive battle with a possible large sale on the line, a simple question like, "Does your product do…?" puts personal as well as corporate values to the test. Such a situation tempts malicious compliance by providing terse one word answers that leave unstated assumptions hanging precariously, leaving it up to the prospect to probe deeper. When the ethical thing to do is to ask clarifying questions or voluntarily qualify your answer, furtive glances filled with trepidation fly from the rest of the team -- no one likes venturing into a rat hole littered with potential issues that could furrow the brows of the selection team.

The concern does not arise from whether WE should do the right thing; if that was a real issue I would have left Planview a long time ago. We control our own moral compass as evidenced by a pet term that is common in our corporate lexicon: "wide open kimono". Goodness knows we aren't perfect and have our own small share of past judgment errors in the closet. But, we have matured from these experiences enough to realize that full disclosure, even if painful, is the best policy in the long run and have groomed our business operations accordingly.

No, the problem stems from growing doubt about whether the next vendor will do the same under similar circumstances. That is something outside of our control. How does one fairly compete while maintaining the ethical sextant pointed true north in an environment where fierce competitive pressures may cause others to say and do anything to win business?

Trust.

Just as we have to trust ourselves and each other, we have to trust you as potential customers to ask the hard questions of everyone you evaluate. We very much believe we have the smartest customers out there; smart enough to sense when they are being worked over. Smart enough to figure out if it's too cheap then it's likely not worth the money. So far it's working.

Bottom line, I sleep well at night -- unless that 11:00 pm indiscretion with a leftover cannoli comes back to haunt me in the wee hours…

Next week is our annual Horizons North American User Group meeting here in Austin -- Needless to say, we will all be very busy hosting our customers, so please forgive me if I do not get an entry posted until late next week -- maybe I can try and relate the event to those who were unable to join us this year.

I rue the day that someone (more likely a committee, no doubt) decided our airspace should be called Project Portfolio Management. I want to make a case for calling it WRPM -- Work and Resource Portfolio Management. I think by now that most everyone has figured out that all of the work in the world is not comprised wholly and exclusively of projects. There are, in fact, other different kinds of work. Often times the costs of this other work far overshadows the money and effort required for the project portfolio.

Furthermore, you don't get very far doing work management without understanding and managing the motive force needed to get it done. Otherwise, you are basically daydreaming; "Gee, what I could do if only I won the Power Mega Million Lottery" sounds suspiciously like, "Gosh, I could meet that aggressive schedule if only I had some staff to actually do the work."

(As an aside, I would also suggest that WRPM also a much more fun acronym, as it conjures up the mental picture of "Wind up the RPMs"; an irresponsible act that brings great joy into my daily life.)

I am starting out with this basic premise as an important level set for talking about the true value of having an integrated view of all the work and resources in your organization. Specifically, what that is worth to you in hard dollars (or Euros, Drachma, or whatever).

Often times, we find ourselves helping prospective customers calculate the return on investment for acquiring a PPM product (that they will use for WRPM). The basis for this number often centers around hardware, software and process improvements directly associated with installing or using the application, such as consolidating the existing hodge-podge of disparate tools, reducing the amount of effort to produce reports, or time it takes execute certain processes. While there are several such direct elements that can be included when calculating the value of implementing a PPM solution, improving the ability of the organization to work more productively has such significant bottom-line contribution that it overshadows all other considerations combined.

This is important not only for purposes of estimating true return on investment, but also for the implications it has on the overall approach and potential success of the initiative. Fundamentally, a PPM implementation should be approached as a business improvement initiative that applies technology as part of the solution, rather than characterized as a "technology project". Placing productivity improvement in the forefront cultivates a more balanced and successful approach that addresses people, processes and technology in equal measure.

For organizations that currently do not have a comprehensive approach and toolset for enabling visibility into overall workload and workforce information, the potential for increasing organizational efficiency is worth millions of dollars a year. Here is why.

Resource effort is the critical raw material of knowledge worker environments. Because technology service providers are almost always in a position of having relatively fixed resource capacity to meet an excess of demand, the ability of an organization to increase the throughput of deliverables results in direct savings in the form of reduced need for external or supplementary staff, avoiding or deferring future staff increases, reducing the per capita cost per deliverable, and/or realizing the benefit of more deliverables sooner.

It is not unreasonable to expect increases of 15-35% in the ability of the organization to accomplish work, depending on the as-found state of the environment, tools and processes. Realizing this level of improvement usually requires that executives and managers also employ process and cultural changes, but the resulting payback is a compelling source of motivation. To put this in monetary terms, assume a nominal productivity increase of 20% and an average fully burdened FTE annual cost of $100,000. This means that the typical annual recurring savings per 100 staff is $2,000,000.00.

With the average customer looking for a solution to manage organizations ranging from a few hundred to several thousand workers, the annual cost/benefit ratio of this calculation ends any lingering doubts over whether the initial investment is worthwhile. If you are the pessimistic type and dubious that you can get much beyond a mediocre implementation, halve the efficiency increase to only 10% (that's only 4 hours per week per staff redirected to high value work); it is still a no-brainer.

But trust me, for most organizations, 20% is like falling off a log; I did it easily 13 years ago, when I was comparatively clueless about that I was doing.

The Innovation Multiplier

However, this calculation by itself does not fully reflect potential bottom line benefit. Innovation defines the ability of an organization to move forward by accomplishing work of high value to improve its overall business posture. Even small gains in the amount of effort spent on operational work can be reinvested into initiatives that transform and expand the business to further multiply savings.

Using a nominal IT spend ratio of 25% to innovation and 75% on current state operations as an example, a mere 5% reduction in operational costs re-applied to innovation nets a 20% increase in the ability of the organization to innovate. Time and effort spent on maintaining the status quo is inherently limited in its net value to the business. Redirecting capacity to engage in more business innovation has almost unlimited ability to contribute to the success of the enterprise.

The Source of Productivity Improvements

Where do these significant increases in productivity come from? There are several specific improvements enabled by integrated work and resource portfolio management, in combination with improved governance and a strong integrated business management process framework, which allows the implementing organization to become more focused, proactive and efficient. These include:

1. Improving alignment between strategic intent and the work being performed, which increases organizational focus to "do the most important work first"
2. Making consistent, informed and transparent decisions for resource utilization and financial spending improves business governance
3. Centralizing inbound requests to analyze total demand creates opportunities to consolidate compatible work, eliminate redundant or low-value requests and better manage the backlog
4. Establishing common priorities fosters a unified sense of purpose and improves collaboration between various matrix environment skill centers
5. Visibility into individual capacity versus assignments allows resources to be better directed using achievable weekly goals. This allows managers to hold staff accountable to target objectives and better control how time is utilized.
6. Use of a common real time data source and business application to manage work and resources ensures that everyone is working with a complete perspective of all the information needed to make decisions, as well as the necessary functions to revise and immediately communicate changes in plans
7. Reduction in the amount of work done in a reactive manner, along with the resulting number of efficiency-robbing stops and starts caused by excessive multi-tasking. Proactive work planning allows staff to focus on fewer assignments for longer time periods, enabling them to get into "the zone" of productive work more often.
8. Better visibility and understanding of how the organization really operates, allowing specific bottlenecks, roadblocks or inefficiencies to be identified and corrected
9. Improved ability to identify and adjust to business dynamics that impact work plans, allowing the organization to be more responsive to change influences

All of these improvements result in a more focused organization that is better able to manage and employ its resources. By being able to accurately measure how effort is currently being applied, immediate improvements can be instituted in staff utilization. Often times, significant increases in utilization can be achieved through a number of minor tactical changes rather than major sweeping modifications. For example, analyzing the amount of time spent in unproductive meetings or on unnecessary travel, finding repetitive functions that consume too much effort and need process improvements, locating pockets of under-utilized staff that can be redirected to more productive activities, or identifying tasks that represent a duplication of effort, are all examples of low hanging fruit that provide quick wins in how effort is used.

In addition to the direct benefits inherent in these improvements, they work in concert to improve the overall effectiveness of the workplace in other significant ways. For example, a common secondary benefit is lower staff turnover, especially in critical skill sets. By working more productively rather than longer hours, and by making better use of individual talents and skills directed to high value activities, workers feel more engaged and successful, and the organization gains self-confidence that stems from operating in a methodical manner at visibly higher levels of performance.

This is the ROI of PPM. You take the initiative, and we'll provide the expertise and tools.