Diversity and Inclusion – Return on Investment, part 3: Employee Productivity Enhancement

/in , /by

Unseen millions are lost by companies every year; the result of employees withholding the full commitment of their physical, intellectual, and emotional contributions. Surveys conducted by the Gallup Organization identified an 18 percent difference in productivity between the best and worst performing companies.1 Yet, as we shall explain, even the best performing companies have room for improvement.[wcm_restrict plans=”75949, 25542, 25653″]

Cost of the Unproductive

Gallup Organization studies reveal a startling lack of employee engagement. These studies show that within the average organization 33 percent of employees are ‘engaged,’ 49 percent are ‘not engaged,’ and 18 percent are ‘actively disengaged.’2 Furthermore, employee productivity varied with the degree of employee engagement. Engaged employees apply the full measure of their abilities to the achievement of company goals, disengaged employees do just enough to satisfactorily get by, and actively disengaged employees may actually work against the achievement of corporate goals.

Applying some mathematical assumptions to the various employee engagement levels suggests that engaged employees are 100 percent productive (as productive as humanly possible), disengaged employees are 70 percent productive, and actively disengaged employees are 50 percent productive. Using these assumptions and Gallup’s finding that there exists an 18 percent productivity difference between top and bottom performing organizations suggests that top performers achieve an 88.7 percent overall productivity level, average performers 76.3 percent, and bottom performers 70.7 percent. Figure 1, Employee Engagement Levels Among Various Organizations, illustrates the Gallup Organization’s findings updated with StrategyDriven’s assumptions and analysis.


Figure 1 – Employee Engagement Levels Among Various Organizations

An Abusive Work Environment

The difference in physical labor productivity between top and bottom performing companies with 250 employees making an average of $43,000 per year is estimated to be $1.94M annually.

The workplace environment does not need to be abusive to be demotivating. Considering The 12 Elements of Great Managing that Gallup found to be engaging3, the following could be said to disenfranchise employees and lower their productivity:

  1. Expectations are unclear
  2. Needed tools and materials are unavailable
  3. Employee strengths go unused
  4. Recognition is infrequently provided
  5. Employees feel isolated and uncared for at work
  6. Employee development activities are unsupported
  7. Employee input is seldom sought or acted on
  8. The organization’s mission and goals are uninspiring
  9. Colleagues lack commitment to performing quality work
  10. Employees lack personal relationships at work
  11. Performance reviews occur very infrequently if at all
  12. Learning and growth opportunities are few or non-existent

Other workplace demotivators are far worse; some being abusive. Surveys conducted by the [email protected] Group, the Employee Law Alliance, and WBI/Zogby reveal that:

  • 61 percent of employees witnessed diversity related acts of incivility, disrespect, and/or discrimination at work4
  • 44 percent of employees indicate they have worked for an abusive supervisor5
  • 37 percent of employees reported being bullied at work6

These surveys further identified resulting employee behaviors that reduce productivity including:

  • 28 percent lost work time avoiding the instigator(s)
  • 53 percent lost work time worrying about the incident or future interactions with the instigator(s)
  • 22 percent reduced their work effort
  • 10 percent decreased the amount of time spent at work7

In addition to the significant direct labor cost of a demotivating work environment, employees also reported withholding discretionary effort and creating insights. These too degrade the organization’s bottom line results, if in a less measurable way.

Calculating Diversity and Inclusion’s Return On Investment – Employee Productivity Enhancement

Workplace incivility and managerial factors clearly contribute to employee disengagement and subsequently reduce productivity. This presents leaders with the opportunity to improve the bottom line by investing in efforts that improve the workplace environment. Estimating the return on investment for such initiatives involves performing the following steps:

  1. Determine the current employee productivity rate of the organization – This rate can be calculated using surveys and resent culture assessments to determine the employee engagement level percentages combined with StrategyDriven’s productivity rate correlation assumptions. Calculate the organization’s overall employee productivity rate as the sum of 1.0 x Percent of Engaged Employees + 0.7 x Percent of Disengaged Employees + 0.5 x Percent of Activity Disengaged Employees.
  2. Identify the initiatives to be implemented in order to improve workplace civility and workplace engagement – Expert advice from individuals/organizations specializing in the field of diversity and inclusion and employee engagement should be consulted to identify those initiatives best suited to address the organization’s unique needs and circumstances.
  3. Estimate the cost of implementing these initiatives on an annual basis – Use standard project management cost estimation methods to determine the expected monetary cost of all resource expenditures expected to be made during implementation of these initiatives on an annual basis. Alternatively, expert advice from individuals/organizations specializing in the field of diversity and inclusion and employee engagement could be consulted to determine this variable.
  4. Estimate the overall increase in employee productivity resulting from the implementation of these initiatives – This will vary based on the nature of the initiatives undertaken. Expert advice from individuals/organizations specializing in the field of diversity and inclusion and employee engagement should be consulted to determine this variable.
  5. Estimate the monetary return to the organization resulting from the increased employee productivity rate – Use the StrategyDriven Value of Employee Productivity Nomograph to calculate the value of the direct labor increase resulting from the heightened employee productivity rate. Enter the nomograph using the difference between the organization’s final overall productivity determined in Step 4 and initial productivity state percentage determined in Step 1.
  6. Determine the component of Diversity and Inclusion’s return on investment value to the organization resulting from increased employee productivity – Subtract the cost of the workplace civility and engagement initiatives determined in Step 3 from the annual return of improving employee productivity through workplace civility and engagement initiatives determined in Step 5 and then dividing the result by the cost of implementing the workplace civility and engagement initiatives determined in Step 3. Multiply this value by 100 to convert to a return on investment percent.

Example Return On Investment Calculation for Employee Productivity Enhancement

Background

Organization Size: 400 employees
Average Employee Salary: $43,000 / year

Calculation (Illustrative)

  1. Overall Average Employee Productivity: 76.3 percent (the average organization)
  2. Workplace Civility and Engagement Initiatives to be Implemented: workforce training, executive/management coaching, performance appraisal system upgrade, new diversity and inclusion organizational performance measures implemented, Diversity and Inclusion Council established
  3. Annual Cost of Implementing Workplace Civility and Engagement Initiatives: $300,000 / year
  4. Estimated Annual Increase in Employee Productivity Resulting from Workplace Civility and Engagement Initiatives: 4 percent (still far less than the productivity of a top performing organization)
  5. Annual Monetary Value of Improving Employee Productivity: $700,000 / year
  6. Annual Return On Investment of the Workplace Civility Initiatives: A 133 percent return on investment!

Final Thoughts…
Workplace civility improvement initiatives have a far more expansive impact than just improving civility and engagement. In past and future articles, we discuss how to calculate these additional benefits to determine the total financial benefit of these initiatives.

Lastly, we presented a strong financial case for implementing programs aimed at improving the workplace environment. However, we at StrategyDriven believe such programs are not only the financially prudent thing to do, they are the morally and ethically right thing to do. All employees should be treated with the utmost respect, not because it is financially beneficial to do so but because as fellow human beings they deserve to be treated as such. It is our sincere hope that all leaders will work to end workplace abuse, bullying, and discrimination and that they and their employees will respect and value their colleagues.

Sources

  1. “Employee Engagement: What’s Your Engagement Ratio?,” Gallup Consulting, Gallup, 2010, page 3 (http://www.gallup.com/consulting/52/Employee-Engagement.aspx?gclid=CKuO-_CDrqYCFYpN2god8CdvnQ)
     
    Note: The document link is located at the bottom of this webpage.
     
  2. ibid, page 1
  3. ibid, page 2
  4. “Linking Employee Commitment & Workplace Incivility to Corporate Earnings,” Craig B. Clayton, Sr., The [email protected] Group, July 2004 (http://www.hrm-ri.org/whitepapers/dEPS_White_Paper_Ver.12.2005.v17.pdf)
  5. “The High Cost of the Bad Boss,” American Management Association, October 2, 2007 (http://www.amanet.org/training/articles/The-High-Cost-of-the-Bad-Boss.aspx)
  6. ibid
  7. “Assessing and Attacking Workplace Incivility, “ C.M. Pearson, L.M. Andersson, and C.L. Porath, Organizational Dynamics, Volume 26(2), Fall 2000

[/wcm_restrict][wcm_nonmember plans=”75949, 25542, 25653″]

Hi there! Gain access to this article with a StrategyDriven Insights Library – Total Access subscription or buy access to the article itself.

Subscribe to the StrategyDriven Insights Library

Sign-up now for your StrategyDriven Insights Library – Total Access subscription for as low as $15 / month (paid annually).

Subscribe Now!

Not sure? Click here to learn more.

 Buy the Article

Don’t need a subscription? Buy access to Diversity and Inclusion – Return on Investment, part 3: Employee Productivity Enhancement and gain access to it and the accompanying tool for just $2!

Access the Article and Tool Now!

[/wcm_nonmember]

Diversity and Inclusion – Return on Investment, part 1: Employee Turnover Reduction

/in , /by

The cost of employee turnover is staggering and yet goes largely unrecognized. There is no financial statement line item, no general ledger entry, and no budget explicitly set aside for this expense that can cost an evenly modestly sized company well over a million dollars each year. And a significant portion of voluntary attrition is directly related to the abusive work environment many employees indicate exists within the marketplace today. Thus, improvements in workplace civility can directly improve the organization’s bottom line.[wcm_restrict plans=”75937, 25542, 25653″]

A company of 250 employees making an average of $43,000 per year experiencing a 20 percent attrition rate spends an estimated $2.15M on employee replacements annually.

Cost of Attrition

The American Management Association estimates the cost of employee turnover as ranging from between 25 percent (for entry level employees) and 250 percent (for executive level employees) of the employees annual salary.1 These costs are derived from a multitude of sources including:

  • Exit costs including time to conduct the exit interview, stop payroll, change benefits, turn-in equipment, etcetera
  • Turnover costs associated with managerial exit interviews, work-in-progress turnover to other employees, rescheduling of ongoing work, etcetera
  • Lost productivity of employees filling in for the vacant position
  • Overtime and/or temporary employee costs to fill in for the vacant position
  • Cost to hire a replacement employee including advertising, resume screening time/cost, manager and staff interview time, interview travel costs, and new hire relocation costs and signing bonuses
  • New hire training costs including general on-boarding and employee training and position specific training
  • Lost/low productivity until the new employee is fully productive in his/her new role

And then there are the qualitative costs including:

  • Loss of customers and contacts
  • Lost business knowledge and technical expertise

Based on a U.S. average annual salary of $43,0002 and average annual voluntary turnover rate of 23.6 percent3, it is easy to see how an organization can have considerable employee turnover expenses.

An Abusive Work Environment

While many like to think of the modern workplace as being diverse and inclusive, a place where individuals respect and value each other, surveys by the [email protected] Group, the Employment Law Alliance (ELA) and WBI/Zogby indicate quite the contrary. A survey conducted by the [email protected] Group found that 61 percent of employees witnessed diversity-related acts of incivility, disrespect, and/or discrimination at work.4 According to ELA, 44 percent of Americans indicated they have worked for an employer or supervisor who they consider abusive. A WBI/Zogby survey revealed that 37 percent of workers reported being bullied at work.5

These instances of workplace incivility profoundly impact a company’s financial performance as revealed in the research report, Assessing & Attacking Workplace Incivility6. From among the 775 individuals surveyed, instances of workplace incivility resulted in:

  • 28 percent lost work time avoiding the instigator
  • 53 percent lost work time worrying about the incident or future interactions
  • 37 percent believed that their commitment to the organization declined
  • 22 percent decreased their effort at work
  • 10 percent decreased the amount of time that they spent at work
  • 46 percent contemplated changing jobs to avoid the instigator
  • 12 percent actually changed jobs to avoid the instigator 7

In addition to those who do leave, [email protected] Group research finds that 73 percent of employees experiencing disrespectful and demeaning behavior would leave the company if a better job were available – making these employees six times more likely to quit than those not experiencing workplace incivility.8

Calculating Diversity and Inclusion’s Return On Investment – Employee Turnover Reduction

Workplace incivility clearly contributes to employee attrition which in turn directly impacts the organization’s bottom line. This occurrence presents leaders with an opportunity to realize financial benefits from investments aimed at improving the workplace environment. Estimating the return on investment for such initiatives involves the following steps:

  1. Determine the annual organizational attrition rate caused by workplace incivility – This rate can be calculated using exit surveys and resent culture surveys balanced against benchmark studies. Note that direct measurement using exit surveys alone may result in a lower than actual rate if such feedback is not collected anonymously.
  2. Identify the initiatives to be implemented in order to improve workplace civility – Expert advice from individuals/organizations specializing in the field of diversity and inclusion should be consulted to identify those initiatives best suited to address the organization’s unique needs and circumstances.
  3. Estimate the cost of implementing these initiatives on an annual basis – Use standard project management cost estimation methods to determine the expected monetary cost of all resource expenditures expected to be made during implementation of these initiatives on an annual basis. Alternatively, expert advice from individuals/organizations specializing in the field of diversity and inclusion could be consulted to determine this variable.
  4. Estimate the reduction in annual organizational attrition caused by workplace incivility – This will vary based on the nature of the initiatives undertaken. Expert advice from individuals/organizations specializing in the field of diversity and inclusion should be consulted to determine this variable.
  5. Estimate the cost to the organization of a 1 percent turnover rate – Use the StrategyDriven Cost of Employee Attrition Nomograph to calculate the cost to the organization of a 10 percent annual attrition rate. Divide this value by ten.
  6. Determine the annual value of improving workplace civility through attrition reduction – Multiply the percent reduction in annual organization attrition to be realized determined in Step 4 by the 1 percent turnover cost per year value determined in Step 5.
  7. Determine the component of Diversity and Inclusion’s return on investment value to the organization resulting from reduced attrition – Subtract the cost of the workplace civility initiatives determined in Step 3 from the annual value of improving workplace civility through attrition reduction determined in Step 6 and divide the result by the cost of implementing the workplace civility initiatives determined in Step 3. Multiply this value by 100 to convert to a return on investment percent.

Example Return On Investment Calculation for Employee Turnover Reduction

Background

Organization Size: 400 employees
Average Employee Salary: $43,000 / year

Calculation (Illustrative)

  1. Annual Organization Attrition Due to Workplace Incivility: 12 percent
  2. Workplace Civility Initiatives to be Implemented: workforce training, executive/management coaching, performance appraisal system upgrade, new diversity and inclusion organizational performance measures implemented, Diversity and Inclusion Council established
  3. Annual Cost of Implementing Workplace Civility Initiatives: $300,000 / year
  4. Estimated Annual Reduction in Attrition Due to Workplace Incivility: 4 percent
  5. Cost to the Organization of 1 Percent Annual Attrition: $172,000 / year
  6. Annual Value of Workplace Civility Initiatives from Employee Turnover Reduction: $688,000
  7. Annual Return On Investment of the Workplace Civility Initiatives: A 129 percent return on investment!

Final Thoughts…

Workplace civility improvement initiatives have a far more expansive impact than just reducing incivility related attrition. In future articles, we’ll discuss how to calculate these benefits to determine the total financial benefit of these initiatives.

Lastly, we presented a strong financial case for implementing programs aimed at improving the workplace environment. However, we at StrategyDriven believe such programs are not only the financially prudent thing to do, they are the morally and ethically right thing to do. All employees should be treated with the utmost respect, not because it is financially beneficial to do so but because as fellow human beings they deserve to be treated as such. It is our sincere hope that all leaders will work to end workplace abuse, bullying, and discrimination and that they and their employees will respect and value their colleagues.

Sources

  1. “The High Cost of Employee Turnover,” Scott Allen, American Express, April 7, 2010

    Note: Quantitative employee turnover cost estimate provided by the American Management Association.

  2. “May 2009 National Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates – United States,” U.S. Department of Labor – Bureau of Labor Statistics, May 14, 2010 (http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm#00-0000)
  3. “U.S. Annual Employment Turnover Rates by Industry and by Geographic Region Through August 2006,” Nobscot Corporation, 2010 (http://www.nobscot.com/survey/us_voluntary_turnover_0806.cfm)

    Note: Data supplied by the U.S. Department of Labor

  4. “Linking Employee Commitment & Workplace Incivility to Corporate Earnings,” Craig B. Clayton, Sr., The [email protected] Group, July 2004 (http://www.hrm-ri.org/whitepapers/dEPS_White_Paper_Ver.12.2005.v17.pdf)
  5. “The High Cost of the Bad Boss,” American Management Association, October 2, 2007 (http://www.amanet.org/training/articles/The-High-Cost-of-the-Bad-Boss.aspx)
  6. “Assessing and Attacking Workplace Incivility, “ C.M. Pearson, L.M. Andersson, and C.L. Porath, Organizational Dynamics, Volume 26(2), Fall 2000
  7. “The Brutus SyndromeTM,” Craig B. Clayton, Sr., The [email protected] Group, January 2005
  8. “Linking Employee Commitment & Workplace Incivility to Corporate Earnings,” Craig B. Clayton, Sr., The [email protected] Group, July 2004

[/wcm_restrict][wcm_nonmember plans=”75937, 25542, 25653″]

Hi there! Gain access to this article with a StrategyDriven Insights Library – Total Access subscription or buy access to the article itself.

Subscribe to the StrategyDriven Insights Library

Sign-up now for your StrategyDriven Insights Library – Total Access subscription for as low as $15 / month (paid annually).

Subscribe Now!

Not sure? Click here to learn more.

 Buy the Article

Don’t need a subscription? Buy access to Diversity and Inclusion – Return on Investment, part 1: Employee Turnover Reduction and gain access to it and the accompanying tool for just $2!

Access the Article and Tool Now!

[/wcm_nonmember]

Evaluation and Control Program Warning Flag 1 – The Illusion of Accuracy

/in , , /by

Evaluation and Control Program Warning Flag 1 - The Illusion of Accuracy | StrategyDriven Evaluation and Control Article | Warning Flag“Measure with a micrometer, mark with a crayon, and cut with a chainsaw”
Author Unknown

Evaluation and control programs provide executives and managers with the critical information they need to make effective business decisions. However, an equally critical component of the decision-making process is the understanding that no data-set is a perfect reflection of reality. Therefore, it is important for business leaders to recognize the potential inaccuracies associated with their data in order to fully assess the risks these flaws pose to the achievement of desired outcomes.[wcm_restrict plans=”25541, 25542, 25653″]

The purpose of every evaluation and control program is to accurately represent the business conditions being monitored. Because of assumptions, averages, and/or approximations applied by evaluation processes and measurement systems, reality can never be perfectly represented. Leaders having an errant understanding of data accuracy will either over or underestimate the risk associated with decision options. Therefore, it is important for decision-makers to understand the accuracy of the data presented to them. Only with this information can the risks associated with each decision option be properly assessed and the decision-maker afforded the opportunity to select the best solution alternative.

The illusion of accuracy created by an evaluation method or measurement mechanism is a result of either the measurement process itself or the way in which the process is executed. While not all inclusive, the four lists below, Process-Based Warning Flags, Process Execution Warning Flags – Behaviors, Potential, Observable Results, and Potential Causes, are designed to help organization leaders recognize whether their evaluation processes and measurement systems unduly create the appearance of accuracy where less, little, or none exists. Only after a problem is recognized and its causes identified can the needed action be taken to move the organization toward improved performance.

Process-Based Warning Flags

  • analytical processes don’t reinforce the application of mathematical principles for the use of decimals
  • documents are not screened for either the use of absolute terms and/or non-observable adjectives
  • procedures direct measurement beyond the limitations of prescribed measurement equipment, either out of range or less than one-half measurement increment
  • lack of independent information verification through the use of alternate measurement devices

Process Execution Warning Flags – Behaviors

  • conclusions stated as facts
  • assignment of emotional labels
  • lack of leadership challenge to the use of absolution terms or excessive numeric accuracy

Potential, Observable Results

  • distorted perception of actual circumstances
  • division between team members; often leading to deadlocks and infighting
  • faulted decisions, either overly conservative or aggressive
  • excessive use of decimal places
  • use of absolutes, such as all, none, always, and never

Potential Causes

  • undue desire for the feeling of security provided by having ‘hard’ data
  • misunderstanding or lack of knowledge and/or experience in the application of sound mathematic principles
  • lack of relevant situational experience resulting in excessive data focus
  • inability to relate past experience with current circumstances

[/wcm_restrict][wcm_nonmember plans=”25541, 25542, 25653″]

Hi there! Gain access to this article with a FREE StrategyDriven Insights Library – Sample Subscription. It’s FREE Forever with No Credit Card Required.

Sign-up now for your FREE StrategyDriven Insights Library – Sample Subscription

In addition to receiving access to Evaluation and Control Program Warning Flag 1 – The Illusion of Accuracy, you’ll help advance your career and business programs through anytime, anywhere access to:

  • A sampling of dozens of Premium how-to documents across 7 business functions and 28 associated programs
  • 2,500+ Expert Contributor management and leadership articles
  • Expert advice provided via StrategyDriven’s Advisors Corner

Best of all, it’s FREE Forever with No Credit Card Required.

Access the Article Now!

[/wcm_nonmember]Additional Information

The following StrategyDriven recommended best practices are designed to reduce the likelihood leaders will receive data presented with an exaggerated accuracy.

Business Politics Practices – Managing Up Scapegoat Technique

/in , /by

Every good leader understands that the notion of managing up is a farce. Subordinates simply don’t possess the positional authority to “manage” – set priorities, established schedules and due dates, and direct actions – superiors. Any competent subordinate understands they are unable to manage upward and simply refuse to even try. Both the superior and subordinate understand the lexicon of managing up simply represents effective upward communication and nothing more.[wcm_restrict plans=”66863, 25542, 25653″]

What is Managing Up

Managing up is a misnaming of upward communication. Such communication by subordinates seeks to inform and influence more senior decision-makers. These communications include, but are not limited to, the following:

  • Communicating identified risks paired with recommended mitigators
  • Sharing problems and barriers along with a proposed solution
  • Recommending substantiated prioritization of organizational and assigned activities
  • Constructively voicing a well-founded difference of opinion
  • Providing reminders supported, when needed, by preparatory data, information, and materials
  • Drawing attention to both positive and negative trends, opportunities and threats
  • Reinforcing effective decisions and actions as well as privately conveying insights to those less successful

Upward communication is most effective when done in a constructive manner via one or more of the communication channels preferred by the senior person. Additionally, those communications counter to the senior person’s position should be conveyed privately, in a calm, constructive manner. Those items within the subordinate’s purview should be solved or a solution attempted prior to engagement with the more senior individual.

The Fallacy of Managing Up

Managers possess organizationally defined authority over those assigned to them. This authority empowers the manager to establish priorities for and give direction to those in their charge, direction the manager can reasonably expect to be followed. Subordinates have no such authority and therefore no expectation that their priorities and directions will be followed those who are senior to them. Thus, the fallacy in the notion that a subordinate could manage up.

Mediocre leaders and managers perpetuate the incorrect notion that junior staff can manage up through ignorance and as a defense mechanism to justify their poor performance. This perpetuation provides an opening for business politicians to weaponize the concept of managing up.

Managing Up as a Political Weapon

Business politicians recognize the invaluable tool the notion of managing up and its misunderstood premise can be when seeking to impugn the reputation of a junior staff. Because so many individuals inappropriately interpret the term managing up literally, junior staff assigned a task requiring senior personnel action can now be held accountable for those senior individuals’ inaction and poor work quality.

The accusation of a failure to manage up is most effective in an organization replete with mediocre leaders and managers. In organizations possessing many competent leaders, these capable individuals will see through the illogical attempt to divert blame to a subordinate and prevent such an errant use of the term managing up; holding the poor leader accountable for his or her shortcomings.

Unfortunately for the subordinate, there is no good defense against the politician putting forth the notion of a failure to manage up. While a logical argument can be made, a preponderance of poor leaders and managers means that the argument will be rejected outright and the subordinate will simply lose this political fight. In StrategyDriven’s experience, if an organization routinely uses the assertion of a failure to manage up to place blame on subordinates then the offended subordinates should leave the organization because such poor leadership has doomed it and anyone staying within it to failure.[/wcm_restrict][wcm_nonmember plans=”66863, 25542, 25653″]

Hi there! Gain access to this article with a StrategyDriven Insights Library – Total Access subscription or buy access to the article itself.

Subscribe to the StrategyDriven Insights Library

Sign-up now for your StrategyDriven Insights Library – Total Access subscription for as low as $15 / month (paid annually).

Subscribe Now!

Not sure? Click here to learn more.

 Buy the Article

Don’t need a subscription? Buy access to Business Politics Practices – Managing Up Scapegoat Technique for just $2!

Access the Article Now!

[/wcm_nonmember]

Disclaimer

The preceding experience and observation-based findings do not represent legal or professional advice for your specific situation. You should seek counsel from qualified individuals relative to your individual situation and unique circumstances.

Neither StrategyDriven; its principals, partners, and employees; nor any person acting on the behalf of them (a) makes any warranty or representation, expressed or implied, with respect to the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of the information contained in this article, or (b) assumes any liabilities with respect to the use of, or for damages resulting from the use of any information disclosed in this article.

Project Management Warning Flag 1 – Unfunded Activities

/in , /by

Project Management Warning Flag 1 - Unfunded Activities | unfunded activities | StrategyDriven Project Management ArticleManaging a project to an on-time, on-budget completion has become increasingly difficult in the ‘do more with less’ reality of today’s business world. But what many project managers fail to realize is that their project is doomed from the start. Activities associated with a project’s roll-out and needed organizational change management often go unscoped and unfunded because they don’t directly contribute to the creation of the produce or service being developed. The cost of these activities is very real in terms of personnel and financial resources and the project’s ultimate success relies on their performance.[wcm_restrict plans=”25541, 25542, 25653″]

If typically unfunded activities are critical to a project’s success, why then do they go unaccounted for? While not all inclusive, the four lists below, Process-Based Warning Flags, Process Execution Warning Flags – Behaviors, Potential, Observable Results, and Potential Causes, are designed to help organization leaders to recognize whether their project’s are burdened by unfunded activities. Only after a problem is recognized and its causes identified can the needed action be taken to move the organization toward improved performance.

Process-Based Warning Flags

  • Project scoping processes don’t drive consideration of roll-out and change management activities
  • Lack of project benchmarking requirements for never before performed projects (the organization has not performed a similar project or collection of similar activities)
  • Imbalance between top-down and bottom-up project planning favoring top-down planning

Process Execution Warning-Flags – Behaviors

  • Resistance to acknowledge unfunded activities
  • Clinging to established budgets and resource allocations as a reason for not including or pursuing unscoped and unfunded activities
  • Dismissing the ‘soft’ factors of organizational change management

Potential, Observable Results

  • Project cost overruns as these unscoped and unfunded activities are later performed
  • Time overruns as these unscoped and unfunded activities are later performed
  • Longer and more significant decline in productivity than would have otherwise been expected resulting in other impacts such as reduced production volumes, diminished service, extended product/service wait times, and decreased equipment reliability (in the case of reduced maintenance productivity)

Potential Causes

  • Inexperienced project manager and project approving executives and managers
  • Lack or inadequate project management training provided to executives, managers, and project managers
  • Overly aggressive desire to keep costs down results in the inadvertent omission of these activities or their deliberate exclusion. The desire to keep costs down can result from a need to keep costs down or to be able to obtain lower level approvals for the project’s initiation
  • Organizational culture that discounts the importance of change management activities

Final Thought…

The risk presented by unfunded activities is proportional to the size and complexity of the project. Larger projects tend to impact more people and a broader cross-section of the organization necessitating a greater number of change management activities such as communications and training. As complexity increases, so does the number of processes and systems affected; raising overall project uncertainty and the likelihood that non-developmental activities exist and have gone unaccounted.[/wcm_restrict][wcm_nonmember plans=”25541, 25542, 25653″]

Hi there! Gain access to this article with a FREE StrategyDriven Insights Library – Sample Subscription. It’s FREE Forever with No Credit Card Required.

Sign-up now for your FREE StrategyDriven Insights Library – Sample Subscription

In addition to receiving access to Project Management Warning Flag 1 – Unfunded Activities, you’ll help advance your career and business programs through anytime, anywhere access to:

  • A sampling of dozens of Premium how-to documents across 7 business functions and 28 associated programs
  • 2,500+ Expert Contributor management and leadership articles
  • Expert advice provided via StrategyDriven’s Advisors Corner

Best of all, it’s FREE Forever with No Credit Card Required.

Access the Article Now!

[/wcm_nonmember]