项目进度并不意味着成功（译）

kinghq

每一次的成功或多或少给我们带来了需要逾越的新障碍。之前讨论过进度并非是笔直向前的道路，而是在失败丛林中时进时退的行动组合。现在来说一说当我第一次面对“失败几乎是绝对的”这一法则时的情况。事实上，很多失败展现的是格言“进一步，退两步”的反面。

一家资金储备丰厚并拥有潜在市场而且有相当规模的.com公司雇佣我们公司做运营评估。我在这个项目中扮演顾问的角色；项目经理和一个高级运营分析师承担绝大部分工作。该分析师带来一个由一组因无法获得其他有利任务而无偿分配到该客户的初级分析师组成的影子团队。

两个月后，项目团队就呈交了他们的初步成果。尽管商业模式岌岌可危，基础设施险象环生，并且网络服务在其交付的一年多时间内也故障连连，项目团队还是认为已获进展。面对这种情况，项目团队仍然认为如果能够补充资金，并建立更好地基础设施，善加管理即可获得成功。幸运的是，新的开发模型将对网络服务的所有问题进行了排序。

进度的诱惑
按现在的看法，这种情况都会被斥责为“互联网泡沫”，并将歇斯底里和企业责任联系在一起。这让人想起过去因人们过度的投机行为而引发的荷兰郁金香市场灾难。

当时，项目团队那种自杀性的乐观主义一直困扰着我。乐观主义总是好的。系统在凌晨两点DOWN掉的时候，对扭转事态的能力的自信时常就是面对混乱的唯一屏障。但是否也是在有意丢弃客户正面对灾难的证据呢？这种自欺欺人的感觉对我的冲击远远超过了通常的商业泡沫。这几乎是不道德的甚至是法律失范。同时，我也指望一切正常。事实上，我们为客户做了很多。

项目团队离开后，我关上会议室的门。一个人坐在那里，边上都是文件，白板上的图表和墙上的即事贴。我想要弄明白的不仅仅是发生了什么，还有为什么：为什么从感情上一直很难接受客户和相关项目将崩溃？

乐观和焦点
我觉得答案就在既可带来成功也可带来灾难的过程中：就象在泥潭中奋战的前任项目经理一样，我目前的团队仍然没有从关注成功的角度出发来思考目前的泥潭。这总让我们觉得好象在灾难边缘做了很多事情。

正如在以前的“失败”中所做的，我决定分析一下目前的“成功”，以便明白我们到底做了什么。为此，我画了一个项目成功对客户已知问题的对照表。对比之后，发现：

针对建立更好的基础设施，并进行更好地管理：在绝对正确的情况下，网络故障的减少是否会改变客户还没有一个产品的事实？解决数据库备份问题是否会解决让客户的客户受益于该数据库？
补充更多的资金：我们的进度很少能让别人往里投入更多的资金。并且客户的商业计划中并没有打算盈利。
另外，新开发模型中对网络服务的问题进行排序：这是客户的第三个开发模型，并也是第四次指望能产生些东西。可能，也只是可能是个更深入的问题。但是这种改变使每个人，包括我在内，感觉我们多少能够获得某些东西。

这三项不论怎么考虑，事实上只是进度问题。这种进度忽略了一般的失败风险。项目团队并没有错觉。他们只是让事实有了一些变化。但是在扭转事态上，他们不能改变得更多，或者更快。他们所取得的一步前进，实际上是客户在商业上的两步后退。

同样的模式，不同的结果
最近，我跟我的一个客户共进午餐。他是一个IT经理，正领导并转变失败中的团队。最新的任务是面对一个可能无法满足客户需要或商业目的的团队。

在此之前的几个月里，我们一直在讨论目前的这个团队。有时，他很兴奋，认为他已经最终搞定他们了。有时，他感觉团队需要一些修补。毕竟，目前的雇佣环境可以在短期内彻底更换一个团队。

跟他聊，我又感觉到了若干年前在那个会议室里所经历的艰辛。偶尔，项目团队会有成功的把握。他们工作得很辛苦。这些进度中极少的精英可能会提高成功的可能性。如果我们在此基础上有所建树，整个团队可能会进入一个崭新的领导环境中。

遗憾的是，我客户所展现的进度对核心问题从未过问。团队不信任他。他们从没想过要跟客户一起工作。他们不愿意处理所建立的复杂系统以避免请团队外的人来处理。除非我的朋友能够多少改变一下每个团队成员的个性，否则很难有相应的进度来解决问题。

尽管我想说这些例子都是带着有色眼镜看问题，但是所有参与者都很积极向前努力。他们汇报进度。但项目工作中很少有进度是去解决项目的核心问题的。由于一直盯着项目工作，他们也差不多跌进了诱惑的陷阱：相信退两步而进一步就是成功。

RES：
做了什么、将做什么：
我的问题是这样的：
1、        你做了什么；
2、        有用么；
3、        如果没用，你将做什么。
当人们赞美景色时，要让他们确信正去一个瀑布，这是很真切的问题。
我曾经是一个时长为一年的项目的项目经理，在前面的十个月中零零碎碎地有很多美好的东西。每个人，包括客户，通过自欺欺人的手段和有选择的汇报，都认为事情不错——是的，我们有完整的信息模型（是有，但有缺憾），并且好象整个看起来是个美丽的前景。
我也下力气逐渐对客户进行面对现实的教育，商讨项目扩展（获得了额外的一个月）并产生一些结果。用了额外的时间和资源，我们完成了项目；尽管客户开心，但是公司却付出了成本。我不记得那单我们是否赚钱，但是我们做了更多的工作。但要换成原来的项目经理是绝不会那么干的，这个我敢保证。

RES：RES：
事实上，我跟那个项目经理长谈过。我们做了很多的商务咨询工作，但客户不想为此而承担相应的义务。我们尽量跟他们在一起工作，尽量降低失败可能。
这么一些，让我对想说的话有了一个更清晰的思路。希望说这些能够有一些用处。

[B]说明一下：尽管看的时候能够明白作者的意思，但真正要翻译出来却有得折腾；所以这篇文章整理得时间也长，质量也差了；不过还是想先贴出来，毕竟里面的意思还是有那么点的。[/B]

Gigaman

也把英文原版贴出来好吗？

kinghq

Every success brings us new obstacles that we might or might not overcome. I previously discussed the idea that progress is not an uninterrupted upward path, but rather a forward and backward motion fraught with failure. Now I'll discuss how I first came face-to-face with the corresponding principle: Failure is rarely absolute. Indeed, most failures display the opposite of the adage one step forward, two steps back.



The client, a reasonably-sized dot-com with good funding and a possible market, hired my company to do operational assessments. I played an advisory role on the project; the project manager and one of the senior operations analysts performed most of the work. The analyst brought along a team of "shadows," a group of juniors who couldn't find other gainful assignments and, so, were assigned to the client at no cost.

Two months in, the project team presented their initial findings. Although the business model teetered on the brink of disaster, the infrastructure resembled roadkill, and the Web service slipped its delivery date by over a year, the team felt that progress had been made. Against this overwhelming tide of destruction, the team clung to the successes: Better monitoring pointed to the possibility of building a better infrastructure, and the funding was renewed for another year. With luck, the new development model would sort through the problems in the Web service.

The seduction of progress
In sober hindsight, the industry is inclined to blame this kind of thinking on "the Internet bubble." We talk wisely about hysteria and corporate responsibility. The more historically-inclined of us mention the Dutch tulip market as an example of how humans have engaged in the same kinds of speculative behavior in the past. (In the 1620s and 1630s, in Holland, tulip bulbs—yes, the flower kind—were sold for more than the annual income of a wealthy merchant. There was a massive futures market and people speculated about the value of the bulbs—until the day the futures market collapsed and people lost everything...except their rather nice flower collections.)

At the time, though, the project team's suicidal optimism bothered me. Optimism is all well and good. Confidence in our own ability to turn things around often forms the only bulwark against madness when it's 2:00 A.M. and the systems are down. But willfully discarding the evidence that the client was headed for complete disaster? That kind of self-delusion struck me as more than just usual business in the bubble. It bordered on unethical and, potentially, legally negligent. At the same time, I felt the desire to see everything as going well. We had indeed made a great deal of progress for our client.

After the team left, I closed the conference room door. Sitting there, surrounded by documents, white-board diagrams, and post-it notes on the walls, I was determined to understand not only what was happening, but why. Why was I emotionally unable to accept that this client and the projects attached to it would collapse?

Optimism and focus
I felt the key lay in the same process by which we create disasters out of successes: Just as my previous project manager dragged himself through the mud because of our project, my current team avoided thinking about the mud by focusing on the successes. This allowed us to feel like we accomplished something on the brink of disaster.

Just as I had done with the previous "failures," I decided to analyze the current "successes" to see what we really accomplished. To do that, I drew up a list with the project's successes on one side and the client's known problems on the other. Then I compared the two, leading to the following results.

Better monitoring pointed to the possibility of building a better infrastructure. While true in an absolute sense, would reducing the broadcast traffic on the network really change the fact that the client did not have a product? Did getting their database backup problems ironed out populate their database with paying customers?
The funding was renewed for another year. Our little bits of progress convinced someone to throw more money down the hole. Yet the client's business plan did not project becoming profitable. Ever.
A new development model would sort through the problems in the Web service. This was their third development model and their fourth time trying to generate something. Maybe, just maybe, there was a deeper issue. But the change made everyone, including me, feel that we could somehow pull it off.

Taken in and of themselves, each of the three items above was, in fact, progress. This progress occurred despite the general failure. The project team was not delusional. They were making a difference. They just could not make enough of a difference, or make it fast enough, to turn things around. For every step forward they took, the client took two steps back as a business.

Same pattern, different day
Recently, I had lunch with a client of mine. He works as an IT manager, specializing in leadership and turning around failing teams. His current assignment put him face-to-face with yet another team that could not meet its client needs or business goals.

Over the last few months, we had talked about the current team. Sometimes he seemed elated, convinced he had finally reached them. On other occasions, he felt that the team needed a complete revamp. After all, the current hiring environment certainly makes it possible to completely replace a team in short order.

In talking with him, I felt the same tug I experienced years before in that conference room. Every once in a while, the team "got it." They worked hard. These little gems of progress pointed to the possibility of success. If we could somehow build on them, perhaps the team could make the leap into the new leadership environment.

Unfortunately, the progress they demonstrated had nothing to do with the core issues. His team did not trust him. They did not want to work with their clients. They refused to address the complex system they built to avoid having to deal with anyone outside their team. Unless my friend could somehow change the individual team members' personalities, no amount of occasional progress could solve the problem.

Although I was tempted to dismiss these cases as "wearing rose-colored glasses," the actors in both moved forward in good faith. They saw and reported progress. That this progress failed to address their core issues had little to do with the project work. By staying focused on that work, they fell into the most seductive of traps: believing that two steps back and one step forward equals success.