Questions that raise doubts about a decision made during the course of a project can arise at any time. Being able to provide a concise recap regarding the inputs used in making decisions can mean the difference between a stalled career and a successful career in Project Management.
Table of Contents
Summary
Introduction
The Law of Change
A “Good” Decision Defined
A “Bad” Decision Defined
Why does it matter?
Conclusion
Objectives and Key Themes
The primary objective of this work is to provide project managers with a framework for justifying past decisions in an ever-changing business environment, emphasizing the necessity of thorough documentation to maintain professional credibility and accountability.
- The impact of changing business circumstances on past decisions.
- The critical importance of documenting inputs and decision-making processes.
- Defining what constitutes "good" and "bad" decisions in a project context.
- The role of perception and justification when facing management inquiries.
- Strategies for maintaining career momentum through organized documentation.
Excerpt from the Book
A “Bad” Decision Defined:
A Bad decision can be defined as one where the outcome is viewed unfavorably. This could be a decision that lead to what is seen as wasted effort, extended timelines or missed opportunities. This could even be a decision that was in line with all known policies or procedures yet since the result produced an unintended or unfavorable outcome, it is considered a “missed opportunity to show some initiative”, or some such performance coaching language.
In short, a Bad decision can result from choosing poorly and reaping the properly unfavorable result, or choosing wisely yet reaping an unfavorable result. How can proper actions result in a negative result? You are the quarterback on your football team. The coach calls a Pass Play from the sideline. You throw a beautifully executed pass and hit the receiver right on target, but the receiver drops the ball and it is recovered by the other team. You are the leader of the team, and it was you that threw the ball, the decision was correct given all the inputs but the outcome was not favorable.
Summary of Chapters
Summary: Explains how documentation serves as a protective measure for project managers when facing inquiries regarding past decisions.
Introduction: Uses the metaphor of planetary science to illustrate how new information can shift the validity of past decisions over time.
The Law of Change: Discusses how environmental shifts in business necessitate the ability to justify past choices to senior management.
A “Good” Decision Defined: Outlines that a "good" decision is often one supported by stakeholders or one that results in favorable outcomes, even if it involved an initial error.
A “Bad” Decision Defined: Clarifies that bad decisions are defined by unfavorable outcomes, regardless of whether the initial execution was sound or the process followed established procedures.
Why does it matter?: Addresses the reality of organizational accountability and how maintaining organized records protects a professional's reputation.
Conclusion: Advocates for collaborative decision-making and the use of personal journaling to track the "who, what, and when" of decision inputs.
Keywords
Project Management, Decision Making, Documentation, Accountability, Business Change, Justification, Risk Management, Professionalism, Stakeholder Communication, Root Cause Analysis, Performance, Leadership, Information Management, Career Momentum, Decision Inputs.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core focus of this work?
This work explores the challenge project managers face when their past decisions are questioned due to changing circumstances and provides strategies to handle such inquiries effectively.
What are the central thematic areas?
The key themes include the inevitability of change, the definition of decision quality, the mechanics of organizational blame, and the critical role of documentation.
What is the primary objective of the author?
The goal is to help project managers protect their career trajectory by ensuring they can articulate the thought processes and inputs behind their historical decisions.
Which methodology does the author suggest?
The author advocates for maintaining a searchable journaling process to track the "who, what, and when" regarding decision inputs, enabling quick recall and justification.
What does the main body of the text cover?
It covers the definitions of "good" and "bad" decisions, the impact of shifting business environments, and the practical necessity of being able to "justify the journey" of a decision.
Which keywords characterize the content?
The content is best summarized by terms like Project Management, Documentation, Decision Justification, and Professional Accountability.
Why does the author use the "quarterback" analogy?
The analogy illustrates that even with perfect execution and sound decision-making, external factors can lead to unfavorable outcomes, which managers must be prepared to defend.
How can a "mistake" be viewed as a good decision?
The author notes that if a mistake leads to a favorable outcome—such as uncovering a need for better security through a failed lock—it may be perceived positively by management.
What is the role of "consensus and approval" in this context?
Gaining consensus acts as a form of insurance, providing more viewpoints and shared responsibility, which can prevent a single individual from being solely accountable for a future unfavorable outcome.
- Citation du texte
- Robert Barger (Auteur), 2015, The Law of Change, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/310097
