The past few weeks have been a world wind. Going from being really optimistic about a project and feeling good about the amount of planning and risk mitigation seemed to spell success early on. We even restructured the timing and resources to accommodate the needs of the project on the fly with stunning success. After looking at the risk plan and the projected final milestone, I saw something really bad in the way. The need for untested and invalidated software to make the entire project successful. I thought I had the resources to mitigate this risk. I though the project had the visibility to make proactive changes in code when required. I was wrong!! Not only did I fail to get validation on the fix in the lab, I relied on a senior architects word that he has resolved this for other customers in a way that is within our scope of work. The interesting part was the resource going silent during the project and making requests of his schedule early on placing the project at risk. Why didn’t I ask for Proof? Why did I not ask for references? I guess I trusted the source and that was the risk I should have identified. Even more, I relied on a host of individuals that happened to disappear once the project became critical and needed their update. It could suggest one or two things.
- The experts where feeding me incorrect information and really did not understand the project. I immediately dismissed that claim due to several meetings with detail explanation of the problem and needed outcomes.
- The played the white night. That is a term I used to identify people that want to come in and save the project. They also want to make sure they are the resource choosing for the project. At first I dismissed that thought, but had o consider it after some continued research into the problem. What do you do when failure is an option?
I considered folding and allowing he project to just fail. That sounds bad, but sometimes there are no logical work abounds that are immediately viable. In addition, we rely heavily on the product group to define a roadmap inclusive of these changes to benefit these types of changes. I was in a real pickle. The status report had a red maker on the key milestone. My risk plan was now front and center. It showed the theoretical failure as a real potential.
After some more searches, I found a ray of light. What if the risk of failure was in the plan and it caused us to redirect efforts toward an alternative. Luckily for me, this approach allowed me more time to research additional experts in this field. It also allowed me to meet with product engineers who actually had a release coming. I was fortunate to find an outcome supporting the actual risk that was defined in the plan. I was also willing to allow the project to fail which seems incorrect. Sometimes failure is needed to reach the ultimate solution. It worked this time, but it was part of assumed experimentation that allowed me to take this road. If this was a more aggressive project around a current product, I believe this would not have been appropriate. Have you let a project fail?