（本文經PMI授權轉載，侵權必究）
避免戰略意外：提防潛伏者！
本文推薦理由
我們常說好的計劃是成功的一半，可見計劃在大家心中的重要性，但本文從另一個視角告訴我們：有時候越詳細的計劃反而會把團隊束縛在錯誤的假設裡導緻項目偏離目标正軌，經驗豐富的項目經理經常取消了詳細的規劃，轉而采用僅包含最重要裡程碑的粗略路線圖。IT 以外行業靈活的興起表明，越來越多的組織意識到需要适應性方法，而不是嚴格的長期規劃。本文詳細告訴我們在沒有詳細計劃的前提下如何不斷更新對項目和世界的了解，視角很獨特！
戰略項目中最具挑戰性的驚喜是那些從一開始就隐藏在人們視線中的驚喜。
通常，我們談論戰略項目中的兩種類型的驚喜：那些像晴天霹靂一樣擊中你的驚喜，以及那些悄悄靠近你，一點一點地讓你偏離正軌的驚喜。這兩種類型都需要一種特定的管理方法——前者的有效應急計劃和危機響應，後者的改進監測和檢測。然而，當我們通過與項目和戰略從業者一起舉辦研讨會并分析學術文獻來開始調查項目中的意外時，我們發現了第三類意外：潛伏者！
我們觀察到，最令人煩惱的驚喜是那些從一開始就隐藏在人們視線中的驚喜。它們與導緻項目偏離軌道的緩慢惡化環境無關，也與突然襲擊項目的不可預見（或可能預見但被遺忘）事件無關。潛在的驚喜與我們對世界、項目或我們所做的一般或基本假設有關——這些假設後來證明是錯誤的。
這些基本假設導緻計劃從一開始就有缺陷。你認為這隻是一個簡單的IT項目，卻沒有看到它的真正含義：一個影響整個組織的雜亂無章的變革項目。你以為這隻是你的普通建設項目，但實際上，它異常複雜。或者：你認為你的南韓工程師和他們的丹麥同僚有相同的項目管理理念——然而，你的“标準”标簽和名字對這兩個群體有着完全不同的含義。
這些類型的意外、對世界是什麼樣子的有缺陷的假設非常普遍——但很難管理。這些潛在的驚喜的問題在于，它們是我們如何計劃、計劃什麼以及我們如何看待與計劃的偏差的基礎。作為基礎，你不能簡單地改變這些假設而不在項目或組織中産生級聯效應。
改變關于我們是誰和我們做什麼的真正基本假設是痛苦的，對我們大多數人來說并不自然。是以，當事情開始惡化時，組織經常會跳出熟悉但錯誤的誤區，問“我們如何才能回到正軌？”，而不是探索痛苦的問題：“我們應該走上正軌嗎？”。或者，我們開始責怪他人行為的愚蠢，而不是質疑他們是否比我們更清楚地看待這個世界。最終，當項目或組織内的基本假設發生變化時，這有時會非常接近轉變為新的信仰 - 并且頭腦會轉動。
總體而言，我們看到糾正這些假設是通過組織内部了解錯位的過山車而發生的，産生混亂的階段，其中失去了時間、資源和動力。是以，你可以做什麼？
讓我們從一個壞消息開始：更多的計劃不會拯救你。當然，你會在前端通過更多的努力來識别和解決更多的問題；然而，過多的計劃會産生意想不到的副作用。你計劃得越多，你在計劃周圍的假設中就越根深蒂固，你就會對計劃産生更多的情感依戀，結果，它變得越難挑戰（錯誤的）假設并讓計劃消失。與其将計劃視為它的本質——關于未來的想法——我們開始将其視為世界應有的藍圖。是以，經驗豐富的項目經理經常報告說，他們取消了詳細的規劃，轉而采用僅包含最重要裡程碑的粗略路線圖。IT以外行業靈活的興起表明，越來越多的組織意識到需要适應性方法，而不是嚴格的長期規劃。
那麼，如果沒有更多計劃，該怎麼辦呢？與具有挑戰性的管理問題一樣，答案通常與文化和溝通有關——并且沒有簡單的技術解決方案。為了避免對有缺陷的基本假設感到驚訝，您必須增強組織的能力，以不斷更新您對世界的了解，無論是作為個人還是作為團隊或團體。為此，請問自己以下問題：
您是否了解整個組織的假設？
随着時間的推移和小道消息，一些人的假設變成了其他人的感覺事實。在我們的研讨會中，我們觀察到項目團隊通常與他們的經理對項目的關鍵性有着截然不同的看法。
你最頑固地捍衛的錯誤假設是什麼？
克服它們需要什麼？許多組織開發了自己的一組特定盲點，使它們特别容易受到攻擊。
意見領袖在您的組織内是如何分布的？
是否有少數人選擇了對項目、組織或世界的規範解釋，而這些解釋是沒有受到挑戰的——或者您的組織是否為互相競争的假設提供了空間？我們經常發現，組織中至少有一些人不同意占主導地位的叙述，但直到更糟的情況才被聽到。
你如何應對錯誤？
組織中的人——無論是為了他們的職業生涯還是為了他們的情緒健康——承認他們有錯誤的假設是否安全？還是承認自己錯了比錯更糟糕——隻要你能繼續責怪别人?
我們釋出了一份（免費）研讨會指南，其中收集了最适合我們和我們合作的組織來管理意外的做法。它旨在幫助您發現具體的行動要點，以改進您的規劃、監控和溝通實踐。
最後有一個好消息：根據我們的經驗，識别和管理意外的有效方法與意外本身一樣多種多樣。但是把這個話題提上議程可以讓你避免——并更好地管理——意外。
英文原文
The most challenging surprises in strategic projects are those that have been hiding in plain sight from the beginning.
Usually, we talk about two types of surprises in strategic projects: those that hit you like a flash out of a blue sky, and those that creep up on you, nudging you off track, bit by bit. Either type requires a specific approach to manage – efficient contingency plans and crisis response for the former, improved monitoring and detection for the latter. However, when we started to investigate surprises in projects by running workshops with project and strategy practitioners and analysing the academic literature, we discovered a third class of surprises: the lurkers!
We observed that the most bothersome surprises were those that had been hiding in plain sight from the beginning. They were not related to a slowly deteriorating environment that leads the project off course, nor where they unforeseen (or maybe foreseen but forgotten) events that suddenly strike the project. Lurking surprises relate to general or fundamental assumptions that we make about the world, the project, or us – assumptions that later turned out to be wrong.
These fundamental assumptions lead to plans that are flawed from the beginning. You thought it was just a straightforward IT project and failed to see what it really is: a messy change project that affects the whole organisation. You thought it was just your run-of-the-mill construction project, but actually, it is unusually complex. Or: you thought that your Korean engineers had the same ideas of project management as their Danish colleagues – yet, your ‘standard’ labels and names bear entirely different meanings for those two groups.
These types of surprises, flawed assumptions about what the world is like, are incredibly common – but very hard to manage. The problem with these lurking surprises is that they lie at the foundation of how we plan, for what we plan, and how we perceive deviations from the plan. Being that fundamental, you cannot simply change these assumptions without creating a cascade of effects in the project or organisation.
Changing a truly fundamental assumption about who we are and what we do is painful and does not come natural to most of us. Thus, when things start to deteriorate, organisations often bark up the familiar, yet wrong tree, asking “How can we get back on track?”, rather than exploring the painful question: “Should we even be on that track?”. Or, we start blaming the stupidity of the actions of others, rather than questioning whether they might see the world more clearly than we do. When, eventually, fundamental assumptions change within a project or organisation, this sometimes comes critically close to converting to a new faith – and heads will roll.
Overall, we saw that rectifying these assumptions happens through a rollercoaster of misaligned understandings within organisations, producing phases of confusion in which time, resources, and momentum are lost. So what can you do?
Let us start with a piece of bad news: more planning will not save you.Certainly, you will identify and address a few more issues by more diligence in the front end; however, too much planning creates unintended side effects. The more you plan, the more entrenched you get in the assumptions around the plan, the more emotionally attached to the plan you will be, and in consequence, the harder it will become challenge (wrong) assumptions and let the plan go. Instead of treating the plan as what it is – an idea about the future – we start treating it as a blueprint for what the world is supposed to be. Experienced project managers therefore often report that they abolish detailed planning in favour of rougher road maps featuring only the most important milestones. The rise of agile in industries beyond IT indicates that more and more organisations realise the need for adaptive methods, rather than rigorous long-term planning.
So what to do instead, if not plan more? The answer, as so often for challenging managerial issues, relates to culture and communication – and does not have a simple technical solution. To avoid being surprised by flawed fundamental assumptions, you have to enhance your organisation’s capabilities to continuously update your understanding of the world, both as individuals and as teams or groups. To do so, ask yourself the following:
Are you even aware of the assumptions held across the organisation?
l Over time and whispered through the grapevine, assumptions of some become the perceived facts of others. In our workshops, we observed that the project teams often had diametrically different perceptions than their managers regarding what makes the project critical.
What were the faulty assumptions that you defend most tenaciously?
l What was necessary to overcome them? Many organisations develop their own set of specific blind spots that make them particularly vulnerable.
How is opinion leadership distributed within your organisation?
l Do a few select individuals create a canonical interpretation of the project, the organisation, or the world, which goes unchallenged – or does your organisation provide room for competing assumptions? Often we discovered that at least some people in the organisation did not agree with the dominant narrative yet were not heard until worse comes to worst.
How do you cope with being wrong?
l Is it safe for people in your organisation – both for their career and their emotional wellbeing – to admit that they have had wrong assumptions? Or is admitting that you are wrong worse than being wrong – as long as you can keep blaming others?
We have published a (free) workshop guide that collects the practices that worked the best for us and the organisations we worked with to manage surprises. It is designed to help you discover specific action points for improving your planning, monitoring, and communication practices.
A bit of good news at the end: In our experience, effective ways to identify and manage surprises are as varied as surprises themselves. But putting the topic on the agenda gets you halfway to avoiding – and better managing – surprises.
這麼好看的文章
還不趕緊點贊分享還有留個麼麼哒~