Appendix 1

Issue matrix

Listed below are some of the probable issues, possible causes and potential solutions you could try when the ‘going gets tough’. All projects will encounter issues, problems and/or opportunities that have a variety of causes—some within the project itself and others outside the project organisation’s sphere of influence and control. Irrespective of their source, each must be fully understood and dealt with promptly if the project is being actively managed for success.

The matrix endeavours to align each issue across the ten knowledge areas of PMBOK. I readily acknowledge, though, that these issues are not unitary, nor can they be easily compartmentalised in reality. Nor is any solution the sole remedy for any one cause.

Review the list below and, as with other lists in this book, add your own entries as they unfold and build your personal body of knowledge (PBOK).

Table A1.1 Issue matrix

Probable issues	Possible causes	Potential solutions
Integration management
Poor coordination	■ Misunderstood roles and responsibilities ■ Authority not communicated ■ Little requirement for accountability	Develop role statements Communicate authority and accountabilities Regularly monitor and report performance
Few guidelines in place	■ Poor organisational policies ■ Lack of commitment ■ No historical data ■ Little accountability	Develop appropriate policies Ensure compliance testing Regularly monitor and report performance
Unknown stakeholders	■ Low project profile ■ Diverse interests and agendas ■ Broad geographical group ■ Little interest in the project	Escalate to higher authority Develop stakeholder mapping Canvas all known stakeholders Conduct workshops and forums
Poor administrative direction	■ Conflicting priorities ■ Lack of coordinated activity ■ No processes in place	Enlist functional manager support Provide scalable methodology Regularly review and audit processes
Weak attempt at planning	■ Lack of planning processes ■ Lack of supporting documents ■ No requirement to plan ■ Little value acknowledged ■ Lack of relevant standards	Create planning template Develop plan with stakeholders Measure performance against plan Identify key milestone deliverables Introduce performance reporting
Poor authorisation	■ No identification of key stakeholders ■ No formal approval process ■ Little requirement for accountability ■ Few consequences for performance issues	Ensure documentation is co-signed off Include (advisory) recommendations Introduce accountability Develop review and decision gates
Few change controls	■ No formal or known change process ■ Little understanding of change impacts ■ No accountability	Develop a change-control process with justification, impact analysis and approvals
Scope management
Poorly defined scope	■ Insufficient time to scope the project ■ Lack of stakeholder involvement ■ Emphasis on starting the project, not on planning the project	Meet with all stakeholders Formally document and distribute the scope Seek ratification and signoff
Inaccurate estimates	■ Insufficient time allocated ■ Inadequate estimating tools ■ Unrealistic expectations ■ Insufficient time ■ No baseline or historical data	Adequate estimating tools Greater involvement from technical personnel Clearly documented requirements More time to estimate
Scope creep	■ Scope poorly defined originally ■ Inadequate scope change documentation ■ Missing standards ■ No supporting technical documents ■ No subject-matter experts (SMEs)	Clearly define and document the scope at the concept stage Enforce the scope change protocols Inform relevant stakeholders of the required tradeoffs
Schedule complexity	■ Ill-defined task relationships ■ Poorly ‘decomposed’ schedule ■ Lack of progress milestones ■ Insufficient planning	Experiment with the schedule Identify appropriate achievement milestones Allow more time for planning
Omission of required work	■ Poorly defined scope ■ Insufficient planning ■ Lack of technical personnel ■ Poor tracking of scope changes	Document and communicate the scope Increase accountability for scope changes
Poor problem or opportunity definition	■ Insufficient time ■ Lack of ‘due process’ ■ Missing stakeholders ■ Differing agendas	Allow sufficient planning time Increase involvement and participation of stakeholders
Lack of alternative solutions	■ Insufficient time ■ Poor understanding of the problem ■ Hidden agendas	Brainstorm and rank options Present alternatives to stakeholders
Failing to document assumptions	■ None made ■ Importance not appreciated ■ Inadequate documentation	A requirement that all supporting documentation is submitted prior to approval
Failing to get required signoff	■ No accountability ■ Classifying the work as operational ■ Lack of identification of key stakeholders	No signoff—approval, budget and authority Increase accountability on decisions taken
Time management
Falling behind schedule	■ Changes to scope ■ Resource rescheduling and/or replacement ■ Low morale ■ Poor planning	Increase resource loading Access additional funding Vary the scope Increase performance incentives
Inaccurate estimates	■ Insufficient planning time ■ Lack of historical data ■ Missing standards ■ Lack of technical detail	More specialists involved Increased time to estimate Access to better estimating tools and data
Ahead of schedule	■ Inaccurate planning ■ Detail missed in reporting ■ Genuine time efficiency gains ■ Downgrade in work quality	Regularly review performance Reward genuine resource performance Investigate scope additions (and cost revisions)
Missed deadlines	■ Poor schedule management ■ Lack of timely reporting ■ Little accountability ■ Constant schedule revisions	More visible management Regular reporting Increased accountabilities Penalties for performance breaches
Inability to escalate changes	■ Lack of escalation process ■ No sponsor or senior stakeholder ■ Lack of technical understanding ■ Poor monitoring and control	Develop escalation process Assign change-control ‘owner’ Spend more time investigating initial scope
Work performed out of sequence	■ Poor task sequencing ■ Lack of monitoring and control ■ Poor team performance ■ Schedule not developed in a participative way	Reassess the schedule Re-confirm task start/finish dates Regularly monitor and review
Variances outside acceptable range	■ Inaccurate estimates ■ Unexpected changes to scope ■ Poor tracking and reporting ■ Authorised changes	Renegotiate all estimates Evaluate access to contingencies Downgrade the quality and quantity of work Accept substitute products and services
Difficulty in reporting performance	■ No performance criteria ■ No deadlines or milestones ■ Poor management ■ Diverse work group and skill set ■ Metric is too precise ■ Not everything can be measured	Agree performance metrics Identify appropriate reporting time periods Reinforce and reward performance to plan Reassess deadlines and milestones Develop a suite of metrics
High degree of rework	■ Poorly understood scope ■ Low skilled resources ■ Insufficient time to complete work ■ Operational work conflicts ■ Poor quality standards ■ Poor control over performance	Reassess quality requirements Ensure resources are appropriately trained Consider outsourcing the required expertise Introduce penalty clauses Provide technical support
Lack of schedule detail	■ Poorly defined scope ■ Incomplete work breakdown structure (WBS) ■ Lack of technical resources ■ Poor planning tools	Define the scope—completely and accurately Increase the level of task breakdown
Failing to experiment with the schedule	■ Time pressure ■ Focus on the outcome, not the schedule ■ Poor identification of the project constraints	Provide sufficient time for experimentation Increase stakeholder involvement in the scenarios
Cost management
Inaccurate estimating	■ Lack of historical data ■ No access to SMEs ■ Insufficient time	Increased time Access to experts, tools and processes More detailed specification
Cost blowouts	■ Poor estimating ■ Incomplete scope ■ Changes to the original scope ■ Poor contract management	Put contingency funding in place Identify the source Increase control and reporting frequency
Unexpected variations	■ Lack of accurate monitoring and reporting ■ Unauthorised work being completed ■ Changes to scope	Formal variation approval process Maximum limits and delegations Contract performance reviews
Poor financial delegation	■ Stalled approvals ■ Incomplete work ■ Unauthorised work being completed ■ Contractor performance breaches	Communicated delegations and authority Agreed escalation process Increased contract administration
Hidden costs	■ Wrong type of contract ■ Poorly understood contract terms and conditions ■ Poorly defined scope ■ Ill-defined quality requirements	Contract review Detailed specification review Assessment of work quality performed
No tracking of actuals	■ Little accountability ■ No formal reporting process ■ Data is not acted on ■ Real-time delay in reporting data	Develop reporting template Adoption of real-time reporting Comparison of planned and actual costs Use of time-phased budgeting Monitoring cash-flow expenditures
Quality management
Poor quality design	■ Lack of quality objectives, standards, definitions and criteria ■ No quality planning ■ Lack of stakeholder support ■ Ill-defined scope	Documented agreement on required standards Detailed specification Supporting technical documentation Third-party peer reviews and audits Incentives for design improvements
Lack of quality control	■ No commitment to quality ■ No agreed standard ■ No monitoring, measurement and reporting process ■ High inspection costs ■ Lack of relevant expertise	Agreed standards and definitions Scheduled inspections Varied measurement methods Access to third-party expertise
High inspection and testing costs	■ Reliance on manual processes and systems ■ Excessive failure/fault rates ■ Dependent on external agencies ■ Poorly defined quality standards ■ Difficulty in measuring quality	Automated systems Use of sampling techniques Detailed specifications Greater emphasis on quality planning Change suppliers, SMEs Balance costs against outcomes
Poor compliance	■ Lack of appropriate standards ■ No legal requirement ■ Poorly defined specification ■ Lack of contract management	Agreed standards and definitions Scheduled inspections Penalties for non-compliance Varied measurement methods Access to third party expertise
Reworking activities	■ Low-skilled resources ■ Changes to scope ■ Poor expectation of quality outcome ■ Inferior equipment and materials	Limit the scope changes Ensure suitable resources Allow sufficient time
Little continuous improvement	■ No formal process ■ Little incentive ■ Gains difficult to evaluate/quantify ■ Highly reactive workplace	Provide incentives Document and publish improvements Regularly monitor, review and amend performance Benchmark against third parties Develop best-practice mindset
Human resource management
Lack of stakeholder involvement	■ Poor communication ■ No sense of ownership in the outcomes	Meet regularly with stakeholders Identify their reporting requirements
Human resources unavailable	■ Poor scheduling ■ Conflicting projects ■ Inadequate skill sets	Identify alternative resources Experiment with schedule implications
Lack of suitable equipment and facilities	■ Insufficient funds to upgrade ■ Contractual requirements ■ Insufficient time to acquire equipment ■ Requirement not identified early in the project	Identify this need early in the project Obtain required funding allocation Document and communicate the risk
Lack of administrative support	■ The project is not the prime focus ■ Poorly communicated requirements ■ Lack of project manager’s authority	Administrative staff to attend project meetings Project manager’s authority clearly communicated to all
Low team morale	■ Excessive workloads ■ Ineffective project manager ■ Poor team dynamic	Workshop the issues Investigate workloads Review group dynamic
Lack of support from senior management	■ Little appreciation of project management ■ Treating projects like operational activities ■ Pressured by others to produce results fast	Appoint a project sponsor Communicate the required support Adopt a project management approach
Lack of commitment to the project	■ Lack of project management training ■ Unclear expectations ■ Inappropriate organisational structure	Early involvement of stakeholders Clearly defined, documented and circulated scope Appropriate organisational structure
Project manager lacks power and authority	■ Wrong manager nominated ■ No delegated power and authority from senior managers ■ Lack of assertive communication skills	Appropriate selection criteria for project manager Communicated delegations from senior management
Sudden changes to team members mid-project	■ Poor morale ■ Inappropriate organisational structure ■ Lack of respect for manager and other team members	Work with the team Manage (and diffuse) any organisational and/or project conflicts
No sense of achievement within the team	■ Late involvement in the project ■ Poorly led by the project manager ■ Poorly defined scope ■ Inadequate rewards systems ■ Lack of achievement milestones	Set regular milestones to acknowledge achievement Personalise rewards Involve the team as early as you can in the design of the project
Dysfunctional team	■ Wrong mix ■ Poorly managed ■ High workloads ■ Poor conditions ■ Role ambiguity ■ No motivation and/or rewards	Change the team, their roles and/or the manager Free up communication Give team greater input into their actions
Communications management
Escalating issues	■ Lack of protocol for managing these ■ Poor communication between stakeholders ■ Ineffective manager	Established protocols Regular meetings with consensus Manager with communication, negotiation and conflict resolution skills
Poorly run meetings	■ Ineffective chair ■ No time limit set ■ Failing to stick to the agenda ■ The meeting was not required	Take a plan to the meeting—and stick to it Reduce the agenda Appoint a rotating chair Give participants meeting roles (something to bring, report, discuss…)
Failure to ‘learn lessons’	■ No time as the next project begins ■ Stakeholders have already disbanded ■ The lessons will not change anything ■ No skills in auditing the project	Establish this as a ‘must complete’ phase Regularly meet with other project stakeholders to share ideas and feedback
Incomplete reports	■ Poorly defined requirement ■ Little accountability ■ Difficulty in obtaining information ■ Masking schedule problems	Provide templates Link decision-making to reported information Increase accountability measures
Increasing conflict	■ Ineffective manager ■ Lack of conflict resolution strategies ■ Poor communication channels ■ Excessive workloads ■ Uncontrolled scope changes ■ Poor team dynamic	Change your conflict resolution style Encourage open, honest and, where required, direct communication Experiment with the team mix
Failure to audit the project	■ Lack of appropriate tools ■ Seen as adding no value ■ Will change nothing	Make it a ‘must complete’ Increase opportunities to meet with other project personnel
Little project documentation	■ No organisational requirement ■ No accountability ■ Lack of training	Make approval, budget and authority dependent on documentation
Risk management
Lack of stakeholder involvement	■ Unknown stakeholder group ■ Inability to assign risk to stakeholders ■ Lack of understanding on risk impacts ■ Little accountability	Escalate to higher authority Allocate sources of risk to key stakeholders Put the project on hold until buy-in Communicate potential consequences
Failing to identify risk	■ No time allocated ■ No access to past risk registers or tools ■ Poorly trained personnel ■ Failure to understand the risk profile of the project stakeholders	Develop risk template Publish the prior risk register Archive all project risk registers Scan both internal and external environments Include risk discussion in all meetings Regularly monitor and review existing risks
Poor risk assessment	■ No formal process ■ Lack of expertise ■ Greenfield project with no historical data ■ Dynamic internal and external environments	Develop risk template Widely consult experts Develop a range of quantitative tools Include risk discussion in all meetings Regularly monitor and review existing risks
Inadequate treatment strategies	■ Lack of detailed analysis tools ■ Lack of categorising risk ■ Volatile environments ■ Lack of trained personnel ■ Reliance on existing and standard operating procedures	Establish escalation protocol Consider, accept, mitigate and avoid strategies Regularly monitor and review existing risks Assign to appropriate resource Reassess schedule impacts
Failure to update the risk register	■ Failure to source risk changes ■ Lack of skilled personnel ■ Lack of risk management tools	Allocate stakeholders’ risk-management strategies Communicate the fact that risk is fluid across the project
Procurement and contract management
Poor procurement practices	■ No procurement plan ■ Poorly understood scope ■ Internal expertise ■ Limited complexity and impact	Procurement planning processes Trained procurement specialists Justifiable ‘make or buy’ criteria
Difficulty in engaging suppliers	■ Lack of detailed market search ■ Shortage of market expertise ■ Evaluative criteria too severe ■ Buoyant market conditions ■ Inappropriate contract	Extended canvass of marketplace Delay project Fragment project into smaller deliverables Upskill in-house resources Review specification detail Modify contract conditions
Prolonged negotiations	■ Extremely competitive marketplace ■ Unfair contract terms and conditions ■ Poorly defined specification	Engage third-party experts Jointly develop contract terms and conditions Postpone the project
Poor contractor performance	■ Poorly defined specification ■ Little performance management and reporting ■ Low skill set ■ Lack of schedule coordination	Detailed specification Documented performance criteria Scheduled milestones and deadlines Replacement resources
Contract revisions	■ Scope changes ■ Latent conditions ■ Performance breaches ■ Termination agreements	Redefine scope Revise specification Review contract terms and conditions
Conflicts and disputes	■ Unfair terms and conditions ■ Scope revisions ■ Quality inspections and testing ■ Escalating variations and costs ■ Unnecessary approval protocols ■ Decision-making delays ■ Penalty clauses	Engage third-party experts Develop escalation protocol Withhold payments Review approval processes Revise specification
Stakeholder management
Limited access	■ No authority ■ Role and responsibility not communicated ■ Access blocked by senior management	Formal communication of positions Circulate stakeholder register Authorised distribution lists Escalate issue to sponsor Pre-book meeting time and circulate agenda and/or questions in advance Use social and multimedia
Difficulty in managing stakeholders	■ No clear relationships established ■ No authority ■ Conflicting priorities	Stakeholder forums and meetings Escalate to senior management Refer to escalation process Address priority issues with operational manager
Little authority	■ No project-relevant position description ■ Lack of executive management support	Develop project position descriptions Communication of appropriate project structure Schedule stakeholders' meet and greet forums Develop stakeholder communications plan
Wavering participation	■ Lack of involvement ■ Sit outside the project ■ Contributions ignored	Allocate meaningful work Flag expertise and experience Release after contribution has finished
Excessive power and influence	■ Senior management positions ■ Prior knowledge and experience ■ Technical expertise ■ Personality type	Include in all communications Take every opportunity to publicly recognise their contribution Use as coaches and/or mentors Enlist the support of the sponsor
Lack of performance	■ No direct role ■ Limited instructions ■ Competing demands ■ Poor supervision ■ Low skill set	Supervise closely Break-up the work into smaller components Escalate to senior management Replace with other stakeholders Provide detailed instructions Suggest self-monitoring
Lack of reporting	■ Time demands ■ Distain for reporting ■ Inability to measure	Set reporting dates Develop agreed performance criteria Provide reporting template Publish actions resulting from reports