Resource management to avoid project conflicts
While some organisations try to address this situation by implementing centralised and typically expensive resource management and control systems with varying degrees of success, there is an alternative approach that is pragmatic, practical, flexible and inexpensive.
The cornerstone of this alternative approach is to treat availability of resources as risk to be managed rather than a risk to be eliminated. Said another way, organisations should not expend inordinate amounts to implement systems and process to control the uncontrollable. It would be more effective, and realistic, for organisations to accept that resource conflicts will occur. Organisations could then spend time to:
- Reduce the likelihood of occurrence;
- Reduce the consequence of occurrence; and
- Have agreed procedures for dealing with instances where it does occur.
Reducing likelihood
The key strategy for reducing the likelihood of resource conflicts occurring is to require that all project plans include the specific listing of all resources (not just human) required to complete the project and when they will be required, have all owners of resources (human, system and infrastructure) endorse each project plan, and make all resource owners acknowledge that their failure to provide the specific resources for the specified time to undertake specified activities could result in the delay or possible failure of the project.
By requiring resource owners to personally commit to providing resources and to acknowledge the impact of their failure to do so will provide bring resource availability and usage into stark relief.
As a side effect it is likely that resource owners will establish their own localised resource management practices and be able to identify resource needs well in advance of when they are required, thereby reducing the gap between resource need and resource availability.
Reducing consequence
Again, requiring resource owners to acknowledge that their failure to release the specified resources, for specified times to undertake specified activities (or produce specified deliverables) will bring resource management into stark relief for those resource owners.
When resource owners personally commit to the provision of resources and acknowledge that the failure to do so will ‘come home to roost with them’ will mean that resource owners will do their upmost to reduce not only the likelihood but also the impact (or consequence) of resource contention on the projects they have given personal commitment to.
Agreed procedures
Just as an issue is an eventuated risk, resource contentions should be dealt with in the same manner as project issues. That is they should:
- Be communicated to the project’s steering committee as soon as they occur;
- Have a resolution option explored with the resource owner. Options include providing alternative resources, providing additional resources at a later date to bring the project back on track, or accepting the delay;
- Have their preferred resolution accepted by the steering committee and the project plan amended accordingly.
Again, the fact there is a set procedure for escalating resource conflicts to a steering or executive committee will ensure that resource owners will only make realistic commitments for the releasing of resources to projects.
All of the above can be achieved without an investment of a centralised resource management toll or an attempt to control the uncontrollable.
