Thinking back to when the corporate technology company I work for recently implemented a time-tracking software to record project and facilitator costs.
The problem was that planning, consulting and facilitator costs were not tracked and recorded consistently. Scope creep, poor project set up and lack of accountability aided in creating a blurred picture of the actual costs, where inefficiencies were and an understanding of resources available, making it nearly impossible to cost projects and determine profitability accurately. Watt (2014) discusses the three elements of project management as cost, schedule and scope, all of which were absent or lacking in my company’s current ability to financial report on contracts and deliverables before we transitioned to the time-tracking software “Clockify.”
Reflecting on the transition period of adopting a new technology, Clockify, throughout our company and across departments and comparing this to Watt’s explanation of a project as opposed to an operation was my first aha moment (2014). Overall if we had previously understood the benchmarks of a project, which includes planning, initiation, and measuring performance, we might have been better prepared to support the new technology by recognizing and treating the transition as a project and managing resources appropriately. I refer to ‘we” as the leadership team responsible for creating efficiencies while effectively managing different aspects of projects, from resource allocation to operating within budget and creating value for clients. The main goal communicated to the leadership team and, subsequently, the company was that the new technology would help create a healthier balance of work among team members, reduce redundancies across groups, and save time and effort when it came to billing/accounting.
Heifetz describes problems which are both clearly defined and solutions known as type 1 situations; this most accurately describes the work situation in which a technical time-tracking technology is sought and applied (Conway & Thorold, 2017). So the adoption and implementation should be simple and straightforward, but it wasn’t; let’s look at what went wrong. There was definitely a plan, a strategy, milestones defined and a consensus across key stakeholders to implement a time-tracking and time-saving solution. But were the right stakeholders involved?
Two significant barriers were time set up and becoming familiar with the new technology. The second issue was imposing a one-size-fits-all solution to all departments across the company without a strong understanding of the team’s individual needs. Risk management and engagement across key team members were missing creating a delay in implementation; personal training resulted in inconsistent use of the technology and large amounts of time by leadership to understand and piece together reports. A helpful antidote to the barriers identified above, as Watt (2014) proclaims, is “to identify all project stakeholders and establish a communication plan describing the information needed and the delivery method to be used to keep the stakeholders informed (p. 24). Because half of our teams at that time operated using agile methodologies and had technical backgrounds, using additional time-tracking software from what they were currently using became redundant and time-consuming. In addition, the type of work taking place across projects required an extensive menu of task descriptions that benefited more than one project or client; this meant that pulling reports and separating hourly rates among projects was difficult.
Creating a supportive environment would be my top priority to assist in the company and each team’s ability to integrate technologies while respecting the time commitments of all stakeholders, in addition to providing individualized and relevant training to all departments and team members to ensure both consistencies in its application as well as flexibility in meeting each team’s unique needs (University of Calgary, 2014).
Resources
Conway, R., Masters, J., & Thorold, J. (2017). From Design Thinking to Systems Change How to invest in innovation for social impact.
Watt, A., BC Open Textbook Project, & Open Textbook Library. (n.d.). Project management.
University of Calgary. (2014). Strategic Framework for Learning Technologies Report of the Learning Technologies Task Force.
Recent Comments