An unclear project goal is a guarantee of failure

In most project management standards, educational and methodological literature and other sources that aim to improve the project management system, the issue of goal setting is usually one of the first to be raised. Indeed, any project, and indeed any process, starts with the formulation of a goal - why are we starting this work? It would seem that it should be obvious that without correct goal setting, problems can be expected in the implementation of projects. But, unfortunately, this is not obvious to everyone, and we regularly see examples of unclear goals, which leads to serious consequences both for projects and for the employees implementing them.

At the end of last year, PM Excellence was invited to diagnose the project. Our main tasks were to conduct a detailed survey, identify the strengths and weaknesses of the project management system, issue operational and strategic recommendations to improve the efficiency of the system, as well as forecast the most likely completion date of the project.

It should be noted that the project examined by our team was medium in scale (it could not be classified as a megaproject). The requirements for initiating documents (including technical specifications) were not strictly regulated (neither by law nor by internal regulations of the customer).

Having started to get acquainted with the management documentation, we read the description of the content, the project execution plan (more precisely, a substantive analogue with the name accepted in this company), technical specifications from contracts with contractors. Already at this stage of diagnosis, it struck us that the goal of the project and its tasks were described, if not entirely vague, then they allowed for the possibility of interpretation. There were no criteria for achieving the goal in the documentation.

During a conversation with the project manager, we asked him how long he had been in his position - he answered that six months. Moreover, in two years since the start of the project, he is already its third director, and that after the dismissal of his predecessors, he was literally persuaded to take this position. He agreed, but already now he understands that he is becoming "a punching bag that is regularly "beaten" by the customer, the managers of general contractors, and shareholders." And it is very difficult for him to fend off these blows, since everyone's understanding of the result is different, and the documentation is drawn up in such a way that it allows for interpretation. The schedule network planning system he introduced, the automation of project monitoring and control, and other project management technologies he introduced do not help - all this does not work in conditions of vague goals.

When we asked why he agreed to lead a project with such unclear goals, he admitted that he was flattered by the excellent conditions offered (high salary, potential bonus, etc.), and in addition, the company's management was very insistent in the style of "now the main thing is to finally start working normally, we'll figure out the details later, well, we are professionals and we all understand what our goals are."

Unfortunately, this situation occurs quite often - the inability or unwillingness to correctly formulate a goal and the criteria for achieving it are covered up with phrases like "everyone understands everything anyway." Some particularly harsh managers formulate even harsher: "Isn't the purpose of the project clear to anyone here?!", and this is said in a clearly aggressive tone that does not imply an affirmative answer.

Sometimes the reason for this state of affairs is a lack of understanding of the importance of goal setting (which leads to the traditional subsequent justifications in the style of "everyone here is an expert and should understand the goals without chewing"). Sometimes the incorrectness of the formulation of goals hides incompetence - the inability of responsible persons to formulate the goal in an unambiguous way. But it happens that such a situation is created deliberately by customers and managers - in order to subsequently express their dissatisfaction with any development of the situation.

This approach entails significant risks and potential problems for everyone involved in project management. Here are some of them:

1. An increase in the budget due to the fact that in the first stages some of the work was underaccounted for and not assessed
2. Delays in deadlines due to the need to further design unaccounted volumes
3. Incorrect prioritization of work caused by different understanding of criticality among project participants (which leads to delays in the project as a whole)
4. Conflicts within the team, resulting from different understandings of priorities, references to various documents that supposedly state goals, etc.

As for personalities, one of the main "victims" in such a situation is often the project manager, and here's why:

1. Difficulty in integrating multiple participants who see the goal differently (swan, crayfish and pike)
2. There is a constant risk of customer dissatisfaction, which affects motivation (according to the principle "why try, they'll scold you anyway")
3. In general, the motivational conditions are vague, which affects the quality of the project manager's work (due to the lack of clear criteria for receiving a bonus).

If it is not possible to compare the results with the stated goals (when the goals are absent or unclear), then the abstract satisfaction of the customer remains as a criterion for the success of the project. But in a situation where there are constant disputes about priorities, the importance of certain tasks and results, and when these disputes turn into conflicts, it is extremely difficult (if not impossible) to achieve satisfaction.

There are cases (for example, in some IT projects) when the customer himself cannot formulate a goal due to a lack of understanding at an early stage of the future configuration of the result. But even in such a situation, it is necessary to fix the directions of work and plan regular clarifications of the goal (narrowing the initially wide range) in order to prevent uncontrolled progress of work in dead-end directions, and to jointly formulate increasingly clear project goals.

It is also important to mention the common substitution of project goals and company business goals. For example, a manager is appointed to a project for the construction of a hotel complex, the goal of which is explicitly or implicitly designated as "Attracting at least X guests in the first 2 tourist seasons" or "Returning at least X% of investments during the first year of operation." The identified goals are classic business goals (or project program goals), to ensure the achievement of which the manager must have slightly different competencies than to ensure the achievement of project goals. This issue is extensive and controversial and will be discussed in a separate article.

The issue of goal setting is one of the most key in any area of management - and, in particular, in project management. Without the most clear goal with unambiguous criteria for achieving it, it is impossible to set correct tasks, set priorities correctly, and effectively monitor implementation. It is not always necessary to set a goal according to the well-loved SMART principle (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, Time-bound) - for example, I have seen successful goal setting without the letter R (when the significance was not explicitly stated). But it is absolutely necessary that the goal be unambiguous (the formulation should not allow for interpretation) and the clarity of the criteria for achieving it, equally understood by both the customer and the project manager. Without this condition, a wide variety of project management technologies (schedule network model, automation of project management processes, project risk management tools, etc.) will be practically useless, because the effect of their use will be offset by the problems described above.