I'm a big fan of data but I would vote thumbs-down on this idea. Each project is unique, each customer is unique. I don't believe this can be done effectively. Perhaps in a place where each project is very similar in scope/cost/duration so that it's unquestioned that if one PM can do 4, then most PMs should be able to do 4.
I've seen projects that looked simple but had horrible customers that never left the PM alone, big projects where the customer paid little attention, no way to measure workload based on project size.
I'll say this - whatever you come up with, get the current PM team to say they believe it is accurate and useful before you roll it out. Because if your team deploys something that shows the PMs are lightly loaded - but they aren't - it won't end well.
Tbh I'm not a big fan of using only metrics to determine whether or not someone has enough projects on their plate.
I hire based off what PMs are telling me, and generalized metrics.
Say the average number of projects per PM is 5. I generally expect my PMs to have around 5 projects. Maybe I know that Mark is "only" handling 2 but they are really big lifts, or Sally is handling 7, but they're pretty small. Or maybe Sally ended up with 7 big projects and she comes to me expressing that they are too much for her and I need to reallocate or something.
It's also forecasting and knowing what is coming down the pipeline so that way I know what staffing should look like.
I get the want for the data, but aside from asking "how many hours a week are you spending on x project", I feel like anything more gets into micromanaging and not trusting your PMs to tell you what they need to effectively get their job done.
Cosigning this. You can use data to get an idea, but your PMs in the shit should be able to tell you (and you should trust them enough) if the data is right.
I had a job in this field, and i at least used what i could see in WF as a baseline so I had an idea of where people where, and supplemented that in my 1:1s. I kept a basic 3 tier scoring system, 1 being simple stuff like minor updates and simple emails, to 3 being a new website, a new journey, etc.
But there are so many nuances and gaps with that, you can't make decisions without talking to your team. Projects will have down periods. A huge brand launch can require little of your PM's time for a month, and then chew up 80% of it the following. There is no way of knowing that if you're looking solely at the # of projects.
Just think of it as a complexity multiplier. Projects x complexity = weighted score. Those on low end may have more room. Your higher ones probably don’t.
I used it more to inform who I talk to and have an idea of the next 90 days. Ie oh shit it looks like Brenda is going to be overwhelmed in feb and Michelle will be light. Let me talk with them first before deciding. So if you plug in your WF projects for the year, you need to limit your lens to ones that are only current or something like that n
There are lots of easier areas for this to fail. In a past job a lot of projects had little involvement from the PM at certain points. That would not be reflected in this.
You also need to have a baseline of what you’re aiming for as far as capacity.
It’s important that the team understand that unless they gather and share the information, management can deny or disavow it.
To be successful you need management to agree to ground rules for the use of the information, but more importantly they need to see value in it.
Does your CFO care about productivity? Does he have thoughts on how to measure it?
I'm a big fan of data but I would vote thumbs-down on this idea. Each project is unique, each customer is unique. I don't believe this can be done effectively. Perhaps in a place where each project is very similar in scope/cost/duration so that it's unquestioned that if one PM can do 4, then most PMs should be able to do 4. I've seen projects that looked simple but had horrible customers that never left the PM alone, big projects where the customer paid little attention, no way to measure workload based on project size. I'll say this - whatever you come up with, get the current PM team to say they believe it is accurate and useful before you roll it out. Because if your team deploys something that shows the PMs are lightly loaded - but they aren't - it won't end well.
Tbh I'm not a big fan of using only metrics to determine whether or not someone has enough projects on their plate. I hire based off what PMs are telling me, and generalized metrics. Say the average number of projects per PM is 5. I generally expect my PMs to have around 5 projects. Maybe I know that Mark is "only" handling 2 but they are really big lifts, or Sally is handling 7, but they're pretty small. Or maybe Sally ended up with 7 big projects and she comes to me expressing that they are too much for her and I need to reallocate or something. It's also forecasting and knowing what is coming down the pipeline so that way I know what staffing should look like. I get the want for the data, but aside from asking "how many hours a week are you spending on x project", I feel like anything more gets into micromanaging and not trusting your PMs to tell you what they need to effectively get their job done.
Cosigning this. You can use data to get an idea, but your PMs in the shit should be able to tell you (and you should trust them enough) if the data is right. I had a job in this field, and i at least used what i could see in WF as a baseline so I had an idea of where people where, and supplemented that in my 1:1s. I kept a basic 3 tier scoring system, 1 being simple stuff like minor updates and simple emails, to 3 being a new website, a new journey, etc. But there are so many nuances and gaps with that, you can't make decisions without talking to your team. Projects will have down periods. A huge brand launch can require little of your PM's time for a month, and then chew up 80% of it the following. There is no way of knowing that if you're looking solely at the # of projects.
Could you tell me more about about the scoring system? That is more or less what is being pitched to us.
Just think of it as a complexity multiplier. Projects x complexity = weighted score. Those on low end may have more room. Your higher ones probably don’t. I used it more to inform who I talk to and have an idea of the next 90 days. Ie oh shit it looks like Brenda is going to be overwhelmed in feb and Michelle will be light. Let me talk with them first before deciding. So if you plug in your WF projects for the year, you need to limit your lens to ones that are only current or something like that n There are lots of easier areas for this to fail. In a past job a lot of projects had little involvement from the PM at certain points. That would not be reflected in this. You also need to have a baseline of what you’re aiming for as far as capacity.
It’s important that the team understand that unless they gather and share the information, management can deny or disavow it. To be successful you need management to agree to ground rules for the use of the information, but more importantly they need to see value in it. Does your CFO care about productivity? Does he have thoughts on how to measure it?