Why Throwing Resources at a Project Won't Save It

Many project managers believe extra resources make all the difference between a project success and failure. But can extra resources genuinely rescue a poorly managed project?

Most project managers would kill for extra resources. Many projects start with an optimistic budget and little or no contingency, so when the plan starts to flounder (as they frequently do) a bit more time, a few more people and some more money would always be welcome. But would these extra resources really save a project that was doomed from the start, or that was being run inefficiently without the proper structure and controls?

A well planned project, even one with minimal initial resources and little contingency, can be delivered successfully by an experienced project manager working with a well-defined business case and a well-motivated team. With effective communication and controls in place, and a practical change and risk management strategy, the effect of a lack of resources can be minimised. That's not to say a project can be run on a shoestring, but there are always areas where efficiency savings can be made if (and it's a big if) the right foundations are in place to deliver a successful project.

All project managers can probably imagine the scenario: a tight deadline, imposed by a business need to get a product to market before a competitor, or to develop a new product by year end, or update a business process before a fixed date because of legislation changes. There are numerous cases where a specific business need has a fixed deadline, and the project is initiated knowing it, and knowing the chances of delivering on time are slim. But still the project is started (what that says about organisations' approach to projects is a subject for debate another time) and the project manager has to plan and control the project within this immovable constraint.

Adding manpower to a late software project makes it later. - Brooks's Law.

It's tempting to throw money at the problem, or people, or both if they are available, but it's very easy to lose control of the project as it grows larger, particularly when more people become involved. Additional people working on the project can actually result in reduced efficiency.

Depending on the size and complexity of the project, it may be better for the project manager to look for ways in which the team can work more efficiently. For example, are there unnecessary delays caused by gaps in the requirements, or having to wait for decisions from stakeholders who are often otherwise occupied. Is it difficult to obtain agreement for changes or for the solution to an impending risk because too many people need to authorise the changes?

These, and all the other potential problems that can arise in a project, can be resolved by having a solid, proven framework in place before the project has started, or, at the very least, one which is very quickly put in place after initiation. A framework that has properly documented and agreed change management and risk management processes, and one in which everyone involved is focussed on making the project a success. So the project is the first priority for everyone involved, including those with authority to make critical decisions.

Of course there may be cases when a few extra experienced people can make a difference with respect to meeting a tight deadline, but equally, don't expect a poorly managed project with an unmotivated team and uninterested stakeholders to be rescued by additional resources. Discipline and control within a project management environment, using one of the recognised approaches such as that of the APM, PMP or PRINCE2, is far more important than simply the resources.

Comments page 1 of 1

Click here to add a comment

Your Name:

Image Verification:

Comment:

 

Vesa H Autio

Posted 12 days ago

Excellent article, with valid points. Simply throwing resources to a delayed project would be like going to a [beep] and randomly picking some medicine without knowing the disease.
Asking for advice from other project managers or owners would not help as their projects most probably had another disease.

A problem project should be analyzed well before taking improvement actions. The three usual suspect I would interrigate are
- Compentence: is the organization, project group and the key stakeholders able to plan and execute this project.
- The combination of importance, motivation, accepting the objectives and readiness. This does not mean how important the project is defined to be but the comprehension of the stakeholder. If initiators see the project to be very important and stakeholders not there will be problems, like you wrote also.
- Scope, meaning that it is vague or changes gradually without proper scope management actions. This is also related to competence; understanding how easy it is to expand scope gradually. If the project always takes extra fries and a larger dring it wil become fat.

Here I assume that the suitable, established project management practices in use, and a professional project manager is using those. This is a basis for successful projects, but won't help if the three amigos presented above are out of control.

The great thing about identifying these usual suspects is that we can do something about those beforehand. Too often these are simply listed as risks, when we can deal with those before a project is started. For example, we can find out the comprehension of the stakeholders by asking them; a simple online survey would give some indication.

Thanks for the article

Bill Duncan

Posted 44 days ago

This article confuses two issues: a shortage of resources and a poorly run project.

If the project has been staffed based on optimistic estimates, then more resources CAN save the project if they are added early enough. Brooks's Law should be stated as "adding resources LATE to a late project makes it later."

If the project is poorly managed, then more resources won't help unless one of them is a skilled project manager.

<1>