![\"\"](\"https:\/\/svapm.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2012\/04\/Part-II-Changing-Customer-Requirements.jpg\")
<\/a>Background for \u201cChanges in Customer Requirement<\/span><\/strong>:\u201d<\/p>\n In Part I we initiated discussions on how the KPI needs to link with the business goals and objectives. \u00a0In this part, we dwell on changing customer requirement (CCR) which is itself a customer expectations in this decade, as technology is rapidly creating value over a shorter period in time.\u00a0 Customers have different reasons for changes demanded either pre- during or post-production stages in a project.\u00a0 As a PMP leader, our ability to respond to such changes is subject to several factors as shown below:<\/p>\n Each of these points is a general observation applicable to several industries regardless of project nature. The enterprise and team\u2019s resilience to such “Living CCRs” will eventually determine the success of the former as well as the ability of the PMP leader to succeed with the project.\u00a0 Insensitivity to the team\u2019s inputs while dealing with inaccurate and\/or inconsistent KPI evaluation systems can cause members to opt out of the team and its enterprise.\u00a0 Other eyeing groups or organizations are more than ready to take them into their fold which can only make things worse for PMP leaders. Based on the skills and years of experience of the team member, the lower is the skill the higher is the probability of opting out of the enterprise. The higher the skills and experience will result in opting out of the team within the enterprise. On the other hand there are also CCR traps to avoid frustration and failure<\/a> while the CCRs become a nagging pain for the enterprise.<\/p>\n An overall factor driving how enterprises respond to CCR is the universal truth on the state of their enterprise’s economy. Where are they now?<\/p>\n So when PMP leaders are working in their cocooned environments, they need to be cognizant of what is going on with the customer account management leaders.\u00a0 Trying to operate and execute project success without lending a ear to such dynamics will only increase the risk of failure.\u00a0 End of the day, the senior bean counters are making critical decisions on how to respond to customer\u2019s CCRs at the macro project level.<\/p>\n Validation Process of Project Timelines<\/span><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n The 3 Ds<\/a><\/span><\/em><\/strong> in any project led by PMP leaders need to be in control to deliver customer delight, let alone satisfaction. The proactive validation of project requirements, let alone responding to CCRs, will directly impact\u00a0project timelines<\/a>.\u00a0 Project timelines are set by the customer and to some extent by the team and its leadership based on where their SCR is at that point in time.\u00a0 On many occasions, competitive bidding combined by enterprises’ SCR also gives rise to ghost (unrealistic) project timelines.<\/p>\n PMP leaders are effective in environments where SCRs are tending toward > 1.0 even if it is below 1.0 to begin with.\u00a0 This is how startup enterprises succeed and grow sustainably. If they try to implement logical timelines with a customer amid competitive project bidding, the principles of PMP and LSS will most likely cause failure and regret.\u00a0 Logic neither kicks in, nor does process excellence (LSS) help organizations succeed, when the internal processes or policies are broken or unstable.\u00a0 Just like doctors stabilize their patients prior to monitoring their body temperature and blood pressure, it is vital for PMP leaders to be aware of the stability of the enterprise culture at the executive levels. A blurred vision from the top management as in \u201ctalking the talk\u201d but not \u201cwalking the walk,\u201d only weakens the PMP leader’s ability to validate project timelines as well as respond to CCRs.<\/p>\n Coming out of a teleconference with several high profile members of a particular food industry, an American Icon on the east coast, I realized that the product design team wished to increase cost effectiveness for their customers. Their SCRs were so high (being in business for more than a century) that budget availability for their product design teams is virtually unlimited, even in 2012. This high SCR state of the enterprise paves the culture for the design team\u2019s capability to innovate at exponential levels.<\/p>\n When PMP leaders have to set and validate project timelines, they have to bear a sense of the enterprise culture, on how the executive leadership can impact through their decision making practices that can trickle down.\u00a0 If PMP and LSS leaders are efficient as certified by their institutions, why are they tending to depart with their teams\u2019 midway or even exit from their enterprises? Primary cause for low time to retain effective PMP and LSS professionals is, high variation in thought process leadership between the former and their immediate management. The root cause for such variation is unwillingness, more than lack of PMP and LSS thought leadership, either in the sales or senior executive culture of the enterprise toward either achieving a high SCR or even envisioning the same for their organization.<\/p>\n Although the authors have highlighted how the project timeline validation process can be in a broken state, the good news is there is plenty of hope.\u00a0 With the old 7-to-1 rule<\/a> (customer speaking of negative product or process experience<\/a> almost 7 times as opposed to sharing the positive ones, in these days with technologies helping a rapid dissemination of information such as via YouTube, face book, twitter or other, this ratio has only become nastier). All it takes is one customer sharing a true negative experience that goes viral on the internet is more than sufficient even for an American icon type business with high SCRs to take action (if not suffer from the consequences) to delight their customers. Look at what Apple is doing with its supply chain while it is in a much better shape SCR >> 1.0 to address it effectively and controlling the damage.<\/p>\n Deploying PMP and LSS methodologies in isolated pockets of the organization or enterprises that are not constraints to business growth is itself a recipe for failed project timelines or a weak resilience to CCRs.\u00a0 Applying the PMP and LSS process methodologies to validating project timelines can become a pipedream for PMP or LSS leaders, if the culture at the executive level is ignored.\u00a0 The right culture from top to bottom and vice versa will only increase the effectiveness of the KPI defined and maintained while all team members tend to increase chances of project success with customers, despite the irritant CCRs.<\/p>\n In Part III, our final publication, the authors will delve into solutions to this problem by turning them into opportunities and help with how executive sponsorship toward high SCRs in the near and long term future of the enterprise can be achieved by PMP and LSS professionals.<\/p>\n Conclusions<\/span><\/em><\/strong>:<\/p>\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n\n
\n \n
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/0.gravatar.com\/avatar\/e704dbaa2fb4cabcd83c90fabe4d7464?s=96&d=http%3A%2F%2F0.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D96&r=G\")
<\/div>\n![\"\"](\"http:\/\/1.gravatar.com\/avatar\/bed9ce835a0db1a35e846247e5efa15f?s=96&d=http%3A%2F%2F1.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D96&r=G\")
<\/div>\n