Transformation deliverables were on time but not much used thereafter, is as familiar as this transformation program seems to be in continuous experimentation node with shifting go-love dates! In most likelihood the transformation lead for the first case is successful Project Manager turned transformation manager, and in latter case its a passionate Product Manager wearing that crown.
Unfolding this quadrium would require bit digging into the mindset of Project Manager and Product Manager. Let us see what a good day looks like for the two species!
A good day in life of a Project Manager, would include weekly review of milestone schedule and risk list without red flags, contractors’ quality assessment coming green and material procurements staying within budget.
A good day in life of a product manager, would include chance meeting with potential customer, who proposed some enhancements that are doable, although with some additional effort and cost, but promises to raise the attractiveness of the proposed solution.
Let us look at other variances in perspective
Dimension Product Mindset Project Mindst
| Dimension | Product Mindset | Project Mindset |
1 | Definition of done | Good enough to learn from and usable by few | Fully specified, tested and signed off |
2 | Time orientation | Continuous — there is always a next version | Terminal — closure and handover as the final objective |
3 | Relationship with Failure | Failure is data — a valuable Experiment | Failure is cost — a loss that should have been prevented |
4 | Relationship with the consumer | Consumers are co-designers with continuous feedback loop throughout | Consumers are surveyed at the start and best left alone during delivery; closed system |
5 | Relationship with Competitors | Watched continuously; the fight isabout ideas and their appeal | Largely irrelevant except as rivals for scarce resources — land, talent, capital |
6 | Culture and governance language | Organic; iteration celebrated; ambiguity tolerated; leadership language is exploratory | Mechanistic; milestones celebrated; ambiguity managed; leadership language is directive |
The unifying thread across all six dimensions is the open and divergent view vs closed and convergent system view of the goal at hand. And both the mindsets have delivered excellent outcomes, when the task required playing on their strengths.
Transformation leadership requires meshing-up with both mindsets
Smart Management have conventionally leveraged the power of both the mindsets by segregating and sequencing their ownership through structural boundaries, in terms of ideation and incubation team and projects department, with accountabilities, being overseen at the highest level of Management.
This approach doesn’t work when aim is to undertake transformation journey with clearly scheduledvalue realizing milestones, that are must for continuing of the program.
Market opportunities come with small time window and require shorter turnaround cycles from conception of an idea to its full roll-out on predefined launch date leaving little time for traditional hand-offs.
The POD approach requires team to hold full accountability from problem identification to outcome delivery, requiring both the exploratory and execution capabilities in equal measure.
Not many organizations are fortunate in the beginning of the transformation program to have internal leader, who is able to balance both the mindsets and has sufficient sagacity and agency to be able to use relevant mindset as required during the transformation journey. Importing experienced transformation leader from outside has its own limitations and may not be viable option in all cases.
So for the Architect of the Transformation program what seems to be emerging viable option is Two in a box model. Let the deputy leader compliment the Program lead with strength in alternate mindset, to ensure that both the transformation journey is ensured and the destination stays relevant in the fast-changing world, characterized by continuously changing expectations, technological evolution and competitive activism.
Ironically assuming putting two in a box shall work automatically like two pilots flying an aircraft is often the mistake. Soon it looks like two accomplished chefs being asked to share a kitchen during rush hours. Unless kitchen is designed to accommodate both, friction is inevitable.
Three structural props to make two-in-a-box deliver
Here comes the importance of three structural props that would help kitchen deliver desirable dishes on time to its customers. .
Presence of these three props provides the conducive environment for the kitchen to stay functional and keep performing.
The Real Responsibility of the Transformation Sponsor
For architects of transformation programmes, designing these three structural props correctly initially is a must but greater rigour is in monitoring adherence to them through the journey. The greatest risk often emerges once the two leaders become comfortable working together. As trust grows, formal guardrails are frequently bypassed in favour of informal arrangements. That is precisely when risk begins to accumulate.
These structural props are most required in times of conflict, and when things are getting out of contrail and accountability discussions tend to become figure pointing bouts. Once diluted, their ability to resolve tension and maintain balance becomes severely weakened.
That is why the programme sponsor's most important responsibility is to preserve the integrity of these three structural props, while allowing two leaders with fundamentally different mindsets to continue delivering the right outcomes at the right pace.
In the end, successful transformation is not about choosing between the Product mindset and the Project mindset. It is about creating a system in which both can thrive together. The art lies not in selecting the better chef, but in designing the kitchen in a way that it keeps serving desirable dishes, profitably.
Posts
