SEPs and Avoiding the Body Brothers
.jpg)
According to “The Hitchikers Guide to the Galaxy”[1] An S.E.P. can run almost indefinitely on a torch or a 9 volt battery, and is able to do so because it utilises a person's natural tendency to ignore things they don't easily accept, like, for example, aliens at a cricket match. Any object around which an S.E.P. is applied will cease to be noticed, because any problems one may have understanding it (and therefore accepting its existence) become Somebody Else's Problem. An object becomes not so much invisible as unnoticed.
A perfect example of this would be a ship covered in an SEP field at a cricket match. A starship taking the appearance of a large pink elephant is ideal because you can see it, yet it is so inconceivable, your mind can't accept it. Therefore it can't exist, thus ignoring it comes naturally.
An S.E.P. can work in much the same way in dangerous or uninhabitable environments. Any problem which may present itself to a person inside an S.E.P. (such as not being able to breathe, due to a lack of atmosphere) will become Somebody Else's Problem.
An S.E.P. can be seen if caught by surprise, or out of the corner of one's eye.
Many a true word spoken in
jest!
Whilst THGTTG is clearly a comic work of fiction, the human behaviour upon which the S.E.P is built is, sadly, not. AKA Diffusion of responsibility it’s a sociopsychological phenomenon whereby a person is less likely to take responsibility for action or inaction when other people are able to do so. Considered a form of attribution, the individual assumes that others either are responsible for taking action or have already done so. Unfortunately, the tendency to ignore a problem that is “Out of scope” to the point that the problem ceases to exist is a pervasive, covert and an extremely dangerous habit of which every programme manager needs to be constantly on their guard. It should be noted that programme managers are not immune from this behaviour and their tendency to ignore the obvious rubs off onto the whole programme team.
This is where the “body brothers” and their cousins “they” and “them” seem to creep into the project team. Meetings increasingly include phrases like:
“I
thought Every Body knew about it”
“Some Body must have reported it”
“No Body sorted it out”
“Any Body could have added it to the
risk log”
“They should have done something about
it”
“It
was up to Them”
These anonymous, yet seemingly inescapable members of nearly every project team provide such an excuse for inaction and plausible deniability that a team is quite happy to continue as if oblivious to significant issues. It can lead to such fundamental group-think that when the impact of the problem hits, people who actually knew about the problem and could have done something about it, are genuinely shocked at the resultant mess.
Worse still, is the blamestorming, self-protectionism and scapegoating that will inevitably follow in the aftermath of failure or discovery. It at this point the omnipresent body brothers will be nowhere to be found, and a responsible party who “should have known”, “could have known” or “must have known” will be identified. Inevitably, this is the most senior [expendable] person on the programme, normally the programme manager who mysteriously shifts from [R]esponsible to [A]ccountable on every line of the RACI and is summarily fired.
Dealing with SEPs
The most obvious way of eliminating SEPs is to remove the body brothers and their cousins from common project parlance by following these steps
Naming individuals not teams or functions when assigning tasks or deliverables: All too often tasks are assigned to a team e.g. The QA team will are responsible for testing. This automatically adds “Some Body in QA” to the team sheet. Instead, each individual test should be assigned to a particular person within the team giving no excuse for tests to be missed or allocated to “somebody” who will, at the end of the test cycle become “nobody”.
Assuming accountability. Whilst “the management” may be ultimately accountable for everything, and the RACI will list the SRO or Sponsor as the only [A]s for pretty well everything[2], because the SRO and Sponsor(s) tend to be quite distant from the programme, or at least the programme team, it tends to introduce the concept of “They” into common parlance. By assuming accountability for the entire programme, the programme manager will be less likely to fall victim of referring to “they” and “them” and, consequently both they and their team falling victim to SEPs.
Dividing and delegating accountability: Whilst it is true only one person should be held accountable for a task. A programme is divided into projects, a project divided into work-packs, work-packs divided into tasks, epics into stories, stories into features and so-on. This allows for accountability to be divided and delegated downwards to the smallest common denominator. Thus, allowing for ultimate accountability to remain at the top, but individuals being held accountable for their own work and more likely to highlight anything that would risk failure, even risks outside their span of control.
Turning “They” into “we” and “Them” into “us”. A simple change of parlance reducing the times “they” and “them” are referred to in normal conversation drives both a feeling of responsibility and accountability. Moreover, it engenders empowerment within the team. SEPs are far less prevalent where the team feels empowered than those who are not.
Building Cross Functional Teams, in spirit if not in practice: The very nature of a project (being a temporary endeavour) people are co-opted into the team. Some will be full time, some will be part time but ALL will have a future after the project and, unless contingent resource, will return from whence they came. There are two consequences of this common practice. Firstly, many of the team will be comfortable in knowing that, regardless of the outcome, they will have a job to return to after the project and more insidiously , they have a long-term “line-manager” to whom they will prioritise over that of the project hierarchy and even take direction from during. Whilst efficient from a resourcing point of view, having two bosses (one real, one temporary) seriously undermines the sense of collective ownership and increases the chances of silos and SEPs appearing. A cross-functional team culture where, for the time spent in the team, every member of the team (a) works for the team, not their other/proper team and (b) only takes direction from the cross functional team lead, not deferring to, or seeking permission from their “line manager” does increase the comradery within the team and reduce silos and SEPs forming.
Summary
SEPs are part of human psyche, they are a serious risk to the success of projects and programmes. The more ownership, responsibility and accountability that can be generated in the project team, the less silos and SEPs are to form and the more likely a positive outcome.
Comments
Post a Comment