Identifying good judgement should be invaluable.

Towards the end of last year I was attracted by an update on Linkedin that asked the reader how useful it would be if one could assess the judgement of project managers? This intrigued me as good project managers are always making decisions and the better the decisions they make the better the outcome, or so one would hope.

While one can review and assess elements of experience amd skills, I was not aware of anything that purported to assess judgement. This caught my attention and brought me into contact with "The Judgement Index".

The Judgement Index, or JI, is new to the UK and built upon the Hartman Value Profile which looks at assessing how a candidate views and values the world, themselves and their place in it and how this can affect their reactions and decisions. Although wrapped in a mathematical wrapper fundamentally this comes from the world of philisophy rather than psychometrics. Hartman worked on this since the 1940's and was nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize before he died in the 1970's. His work has been continued by one of his students.
The JI is being developed with the American team and promoted by a company based on the south coast; I soon had a meeting arranged.

The meeting was fascinating in showing how JI is being used to assess the likely success of officer cadets at Sandhurst, to profile alpha project managers, to identify construction site workers who present the greatest accident risk, to profile "best of breed" performers in order to isolate the critical factors and create development plans and hiring filters to build successful teams, to find leaders in a number of fields from sport to business, and much more.

One thing that sets it apart from many other tests is that it is situational and not fixed. Situational means that an assessment reflects the multitude of stimulii we all face, eg someone who has a sick partner will almost certainly view the world differently from someone who has just become a parent, some who is comfortable in the work role and with their employer will have a different take on life from someone facing the threat of redundancy. I have seen the JI identify these things and allow them to be understood and where appropriate addressed.

Very quickly they offered to let me take the test, a "Try for yourself" approach. The input seemed unduly simple, just putting two lists of 18 statements into an order that made sense to me. Compared with the pages and pages of endless and often seemingly repetitive questions required for Meyers Briggs (MBTI) or similar tests this was dead easy and quick to complete.

What stunned me was the breadth of  insight and accuracy that came out of it when presented to me. As an analytic and a rational I wanted to understand how it worked, how the input drove the output. While I was offered a number of papers and opportunities to discuss mathematics behind it all, I have now come to the conclusion that I do not need to know after all. I say this as I have now seen upwards of a dozen people take the test and get feedback and everyone has been surprised by the accuracy of their assessment and no one, in my hearing, has rejected any aspect. This is building my confidence that it works, no matter how it does it.

I am not qualified to nor intending to try and explain this further, but instead I commend it to the reader to consider if and how an insight into the judgement of yourself, your team and potential recruits could be used.

• How could it help addressing performance issues identifying problems and creating remedial plans?
• How useful to isolate and screen for the critical factors found in top performers in a role?
• How useful to have insight into judgement and values as an aid to intervieiwng and hiring key players?

If you are interested then please do have a look at the website or alternatively you can contact Rob Coulthard via rob@judgementindex.co.uk

I will say I have no vested or financial interest, just a feeling that there is something of value to be found in the JI and I am fascinated to see how it can be used successfully. I am also happy to discuss my thoughts and experience to date if that will be of any help.

Human Chess, Change Management & England Foootball

I have often referrred to what I do as playing human chess. Whether running line as a manager or running projects I have often found the human side of change far the most interesting, if the least predictable and changeable. I had, however, felt I was the only one to think of this chess analogy as no-one had picked it up.

The other day I was talking with a new contact about various things and used the phrase "human chess" and she immediately responded that a business mentor had once told her to think of business as a game of chess, of strategies and winning positions and that in doing so it had made so much clear (I think I picked up the essence of what she said).

This set me think on the analogy once again and parallels with my earlier post about good project management being an art rather than a mechanical thing. And then yesterday's England performance, if we can call it that, gave me more food for thought, so let me see if I can pull this all together.

To me the core of change and the project management I enjoy is people and the aspect I enjoy and believe I am good at is getting the right people in the right place to do the right things. Implicit in this is also equipping them mentally and physically to do the job that is required. This requires an understanding of your resources and their capabilities, either alone or in combination, looking ahead and dealing with complex interactions and uncertainty as well as dealing with the unexpected. One also tries to achieve the desired outcome in an efficient way. Of course, as in chess,  there are a number of common sets of openning moves, but before long the possible approaches and outcomes become too numerous to categorise.

Does this resonate with anyone? If so please feel free to comment.

There is another interesting parallel with change or project management and that is that until recently and despite considerable investment computers struggled to beat the best chess players. These were computers that processed millions, if not trillions, of calculations per second and that scenario planned 10's of moves ahead and calculated the finest of probabilities. They also had access to huge data banks of past games for comparison. Despite this the best humans, bested them until very recently.

How have humans achieved this? Well I am no expert and maybe I will research this further, but as I understand it many think it is that the human recollection and knowledge of hundreds if not thousands of games give it an edge. There  is also something about feel and understanding your opponent. In project world I would align this with experience (there is rarely a substitute) and understanding the environment you are working in (how often does the world feel like an opponent to your endeavours?) .

I think this is a good analogy to my views about the mechanical approach to project management. As in chess the mechanical can aid and indeed surpass those without skill, feel or experience, but will rarely best the better practitioners.

In terms of England's performance against Germany, well I guess we have to question if Capello managed to get the right people in the right place(s) at the right time to do the right job. As to equipping them well we know they have the physical skills, but mentally were they prepared. It didn't look as if they were.

If not then who was his opponent in that particular game of chess? The Germans? Or the football establishment? Or indeed his own players?

We can of course argue that we are not alone when we look at the achievements of France and Italy, but that is scant consolation. I did see a TV trailer the other day for a programme on teenage ballroom dancing and one parent said, "It is not all about winning, but coming second hurts." On a football pitch there are only two sides!

To recap I think that successful project and change management is about getting:-

• The right people to
• The right place at
• The right time to do
• The right job being
• Properly equipped to do so.

As the meerkat would say, "Simples!"

Art for art's sake.......

I have always been what you might call a ratiuonalist and at school my headmaster singled me out for special coaching in poetry and philosophy after describing me as an intellectual philistine.

So you might think it somewhat out of character to find me at the Summer Exhibition at the Royal Academy last night. Not so, as my willingness to explore and challenge myself grows with each passing day.

I did find it interesting the price tags attached to pieces that one would have thought a competent 8-year old could have produced. I am sure there was much more to many of this items than I saw or heard speak to me, but I was left with an uneasy feeling.


Some where undoubtedly clever, for example the gorilla made out of coat hangers or the handdrawn pictographic A-Z of London. Others just cried out, but it was interesting that these were mainly from what I would call recognised and established artists such as David Hockney.

There was also a post apocalytic Canary Wharf entitled "the victory of debt".

Most, however, just looked ordinary like the one that had the word "water" printed upside down - that was all!!

The show favourite appeared to be Tracy Emin with orange stickers multiplying on her works by the minute. I have no idea why other than the desire to say one has an "Emin". One in particular was a pencil drawing of a poorly drawn figure ("she can't even draw a proper person") and three outline penis' and scrotums jumping over a hurdle and some comment about it being interesting how high they can jump. Price tag - exhorbitant as I recall.

Well it was interesting and, as my wife said, the champagne and canapes were great. My cheque book failed to make an appearance being locked deep in an inside pocket.

The quote of the night was "How nice to see you. The last time we met was on a beach in Barbados."

Sort of sums it all up :)

I am feeling fortunate to know the people I know

Serendipity is a propensity for making fortuitous discoveries while looking for something unrelated. It is a term I am sure was used at school, but first registered with me around 20 years ago when Nick Negroponte, founder of MIT's Media Lab, spoke in London. He was then talk about how delivering news via the technology that was then available was a challenge when compared with printed newspapers. His main theme was that emphasis, poistioning, context and other layout elements conveyed huges amounts of information to a reader almost instaneously, but was missing from tabular, early WWW and hypertext standards.

What he also said was that many readers of printed copy found huge value in serendipity, coming across things they were not looking for, but valued once found. His contenton was that by definition seredipity is hard to code into a technology

In the context of this blog the key is seredipity still abounds in the world of human interaction and as I have become involved in more and more networks I realise how many interesting people you can meet if you just accept a selection of the invitations that drop into your inbox.

Over the last couple of years I have met more than 20 people whose company I have enjoyed and who I have kept in touch with. These are people I would not have met in my normal business and home life and ten years ago would not have had the chance meeting.

I have found even greater satisfaction putting some of those interesting people together and finding that they get on too. The conversations have been wide-ranging and often very unpredictable, but better for it.

I had thought about listing and linking a few here, but then if I forget someone I may cause offence. Instead I hope that those concerned know who they are and recognise themselves and I will look to broker more interesting contacts and conversations.

For now I will just reflect and recognise how lucky I am to have those people in my life and making it interesting.

For that I send a big "Thank you!"

The Art of Change - Time for a Change of Heart?

A few things have come together recently that I thought I would capture and comment on in case the resonate with the reader.

As a precursor I have been involved in change for over 25 years, most of it involved in what we would now be described a "structured change". I started in the days before PRINCE, let alone PRINCE2! It is not that we made it up as we went along, indeed a Canadian Bank I worked for had a huge manual on change and project management that was used heavily, but more that we built upon personal experience and that of others and were able to make the response totally appropriate to the need.

Over the years I have been involved in many initiatives and run a corporate programme office for almost four years, but in recent times have felt increasingly uncomfortable with the way my "profession" is going. Now I feel I can put my finger on that discomfort and that is that in our drive for success we are losing touch with the art of change, an element I am sure has been crtitical to many if not most major project successes. By "art" or maybe "craft" I mean those undefinable elements (insights, perpsective, experience) that a project manager has over an above anything described in a modern day structured methodology.

Certainly we need tools and skills, but ask anyone and you will find that a project plan alone, no matter how good, is rarely enough to bring success. That said success without a plan is rare to, but that plan does not need to be a 1,000 line MSProject plan, sometimes a 6 row Powerpoint slide will works.

I disagree with the APM's drive to gain a Royal Charter for project management. To my mind it will let "qualification" trump experience, open the way for increased litigation against project managers for failed projects and thus drive standards down with much more of a tick-box, cover your a*se approach to planning and managing projects. My fear is that this will drive standards down to the lowest common denominator (as long as it protects against litigation) and fail to inspire exceptional performance.

In the same vein a change forum recently posted a poll in which it asked respondants to vote about whether Change Management is a skill, a profession or both; no mention of there being a art or craft about it. I have posted on that site and interestingly had no response.

Most recently I had a mail offering for me to take the Keirsey Temperament Sorter Personality Assessment. I did this, having forgotten that I did it about a year ago. When I got the results back it turns out I am classified as an Artisan(!). Why is this interesting, well as a physicist by training and having taking the Meyers Briggs test a number of times I have always come out ENTJ or ENTP, which are Rationale types in Keirsey.

So do I need to reconcile this or not? And if so how?

Not ducking the issue, but I am not sure I do need to reconcile it. Instead maybe I can draw some observations. It may be that I am being perverse in that I was more rational and structured when that was less prevalent, but still needed. Now I am more "arty" in a world where rationals abound and you can't move a project forward without bumping into some document to be prepared, some report to submit, some governance meeting to attend or budget repport to review. This suggests to me that at least in my eyes we have passed the tipping point, the point o optimum balance.

It is also a timely reminder that what I can really bring to the table is that experience, that insight and, I hope, judgement about situations and people. The mechanistic/engineering elements of change can be done by those so much better trained and suited that I am - I will just make it all work.

I will leave with the signature line I have added to my emails as I think it sums it up:

"Mangement is about doing things right, leadership is about doing the right things!

Turning the tables on the Consultants

Over the years I have worked to select and engage consultants many times and often it has felt like I am herding cats. I believe we have always made it work, but often it has felt like it was much harder work than necessary with the boot on the wrong foot ie the consultants/suppliers setting the terms.

With this in mind, early last year I developed a different approach that left me, the client, in a much better place. I and colleagues have now used it three or four times and are looking to use it more and more. It has allowed us to move and identify a preferred supplier with pace and enough confidence to invest the time necessary for effective engagement.


There is something very satisfying (should I admit that?) to see consultants squirming. It is interesting how it affects their confidence and behaviours. I thought it might be useful to share it in case others find it useful.


In essence the process is as follows:-

# Gather a group of intelligent people and through your knowledge identify likely consultancies/suppliers. From this agree a short list of maybe four or five. Make sure this is a mixed list with those that you consider to be the best or most appropriate of their type.


# Identify your inhouse review group, again no more than five or six strong and representative of the key stakeholders.


# Make informal contact, by phone preferably, with your short list outlining the approach detailed below and checking their interest in participating. In the unlikely instance where one or more decline, look to add others from your original consideration.


# Check your in-house diaries and select a set of presentation slots (preferably one more than you have consultancies on your short list) such that most if not all of your review team can attend most if not all of the presentations. Preferably these slots should just be across a few days ie not spread out over time.


# Prepare a briefing note of your company, the challenge posed or the work you want done and a set of up to five specfic questions you want/need answered to determine what they offer and can you work with them. These may look to understand their experience, approach, access to resource, perception of trends, preception of risks,etc.


Also on that note lay out the following

> They can bring up to, but no more than three people
> They will have 45 minutes only to present, then you will ask questions for up to 30 minutes. If they can't impress you in 45 minutes, why would they be able to in 90?
> That they select there two preferred slots within the presentation times you have set up
> That they detail as an appendix what additional information they will require to work of a formal proposal if requested


# Send it out with a request for response accepting the invitation and indicating preferred slot with a set number of days, say three.



# With the responses schedule the consultants the best you can, but stand your ground - if they want to pitch they will fit with your set up and this way you do not have the nightmare of scheduling across multiple diaries or being uncertain what the presentations will cover.


# At the presentations stick to the plan and particularly the 45 minutes!


# After each presentation debrief the review team verbally


# After the last presentation gather the review team and select the best. If you want/need an approach to help this a forced pair comparison has proved useful (more on this by request).

Now you can focus your time on the one consultancy/supplier!!!!

See how the guillotine of 45 minutes scares many? See how some are so inflexible they still take 15 minutes of their 45 to tell you what they want to say about their company rather than what you want to know about.

Try and it and see......and enjoy. We believe it has speeded up the process and has led to better engagement with a preferred partner, but let me know if it works for you.