Conference 7.286::digital

    re: .1
    
    Wow!  I didn't realize the PM that I work for might *not* have the
    authority to give raises or promotions!  It never occurred to me to
    even ask!!
    
    IMHO, it is critical for a Program Manager to have control over all
    business aspects of the program, including staffing, subcontractor
    management, andall other expense categories.  For a PM to accept
    responsibility for profits without being able to control the losses
    is inconceivable.  Like the captain of a ship at sea, the PM needs
    the authority to do his job without someone looking over his shoulder
    and second-guessing him.
    
    Our Program and Systems Integration business is already hampered enough
    by internal Digital policies, and we are starting late into a market
    where IBM and the major consulting firms have a long track record.
    We don't need yet more bureaucratic roadblocks of our own creation.
    
    Geoff Unland
    
    (Stupid question here:  If the PM can't do JP&R's, who can??)
    

    The major difference between a PROJECT MANAGER and a DEPARTMENT
    MANAGER is exactly the accountability for people.  The theory is
    that a PM can focus clearly on his project if he can rely on the
    DM to handle the people administration aspects that are not essential
    to the project.  The theory is most valid where projects and
    assignments to projects are short-lived, say a quarter or two. 
    When projects last several years (are they still projects?) and
    a person is assigned for the duration, the PM is likely to assume
    some of the informal functions of the DM, but the latter is still
    accountable for the human resource and must do the formal review.
    
    In the project/program environment, the PM should NEVER give the
    impression that he has the authority to make personnel changes -
    (s)he hasn't.  On the other hand, if the DM ignores the PM's
    recommendations, (s)he is losing some of the most reliable input
    available.
    
    One of the problems is the lack of continuity in management when
    someone is assigned to a project.  Both sides should spend enough
    time up front to get the expectations clear.  If the DM and PM haven't
    done that, shame on them.  For the employee involved, caveat emptor.
    
    Regards,
    
    Dick

    Re: .2
    
  >  When projects last several years (are they still projects?) and
  >  a person is assigned for the duration, the PM is likely to assume
  >  some of the informal functions of the DM, but the latter is still
  >  accountable for the human resource and must do the formal review.
    
    I have to disagree here.  At least in my case both are accountable 
    for the human resource...I do the formal Job Plan, I do the formal 
    Performance Review, and I do the Career Plan.  The DM is the only 
    one with promotion or salary review authority.  This is my concern...
    how do I position this with the people who work for me and expect 
    some kind of bennies for overachieving for me for a loooong period 
    of time?
    
  >  In the project/program environment, the PM should NEVER give the
  >  impression that he has the authority to make personnel changes -
  >  (s)he hasn't.
    
    That's right, because usually they have no authority to do much of
    anything with regard to the employee...it's up to the DM who supplies
    the personnel.
    
  >  One of the problems is the lack of continuity in management when
  >  someone is assigned to a project.  Both sides should spend enough
  >  time up front to get the expectations clear.
    
    That's a nice concept, but putting it into practice is a whole 'nuther
    story.  The very beginning of a project/program is such a critical
    phase that often times a PM has no idea even who will be on the
    project/program.  Even then, there is the question of how long a
    person will be there.  I have been on long term programs that had
    specialists pop in and out over a period of a days, weeks, months,
    years...and the program was so dynamic you had no idea how long a 
    specialist would be on it.  To have both the PM and DM sit down with 
    the specialist and job-plan up front like you suggest might go on to 
    even confuse the issue more if for business reasons that specialist 
    had to put onto another assignment a month later...I've seen this 
    happen.  It also becomes a leadership nightmare for the PM and DM.
    
    Just a few more thoughts...
    
    Doug

Hmmm.

The first question that comes to mind is "What area/discipline are you in?" The
first answer I arrive at is "Not_engineering", right? Is this Software Services?

The second question is "What is the formal reporting relationship involved
here?" I.E., for the people you are "managing" and reviewing, who shows up on
their EDCF as their supervisor/manager? If it's you, then it would seem that you
should be the one responsible for promotions/raises/etc. If it's not you,
then why are you involved in reviewing these people at that level (i.e. career
planning, etc.)?

My guess would be that if you are responsible for managing resources on a
project, you should be providing feedback to the individuals' direct supervisors
for inclusion in their reviews (i.e. "how they did"), but that that should
be the extent of your contributions. Is it common to accept responsibility
for more than this without having supervisory responsibility for people?

What am I missing here?

-Jack

    Typically (and simplistically):

    	SWS (or latest				Competency Centers (or latest
    	acronym, e.g., EIS x District)		acronym)
    	-----------------------------		------------------------------

    	...					...
    	 |					 |
    	District Manager			Program Management Manager
    	 |					 |
    	Unit Managers				Program Manager
    	 |					 |
    	Staff - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > Project
        [i.e., People]				[i.e., Entity]


    If you are not listed as a person's supervisor, then all the reviews,
    career planning etc. you are doing are doing someone else's work for them.
    If you are in SWS and acting *as* a "program manager" but are in fact
    administratively responsible for your people, then getting raises and
    promotions for your people is an issue between you and the DM you work
    for. That's how it works.

    One quick way to find out who your people really work for: who signs their
    expenses? If it's not you -- and you alone -- you are *not* their
    supervisor. (You should be able to directly sign at least $500 per
    voucher with no further approval/signature. Did you ever fill out one of
    those "signatory authority" file cards with your signature specimen?)

    A simpler test is: are you and your people in the same cost center?

    /Peters

    Re: .4
    
    Software Services.  I work for the DM.  When the project is completed,
    the people under me will be reassigned either to a UM, the DM, or to
    another Program Manager for another Program.
    
    The JP&R responsibilities have been delegated to me by the DM because 
    of the long term of this program (2 years).  To me, this seems perfectly 
    reasonable, since these people work directly for me, in my program. 
    Again, I'm just curious as to when JP&R responsibilities are delegated,
    if salary and promotion authority normally go with them.
    
    Re: .5
    
    I sign "intermediary" approval of expenses.  In otherwords they go to
    me first and I initial them after reviewing.  They are subsequently 
    approved by the DM.  I personally have no reporting requirements of any 
    kind in relation to anything outside of my program.
    
    I'm getting the impression that I have to live with the responsibility
    without the authority.  Such is life...
    
    Thanks,
    
    Doug

    re .6

    It sounds like you have most of the responsibilities of a manager,
    but not full reign.  In our district, we do salary planning as a group.
    There's a fixed pot, based on spend number (%) times total compensation
    of all the individuals in the organization/pot. The managers each decide
    what they want to do, then everyone gets in a room and bashes it out
    until the result fits the available dollars. Of course, as the year
    progresses, planned/actual raises may change, and so on. These actions
    are initiated by the manaager with their district manager.

    So, I guess my next question is, does your district have salary planning
    meetings, are you involved, do you have a sign-on for the personnel
    salary administration system?

    It seems like you are a program manager (officially) functioning as
    a unit manager. But what you want to be, to effect the salary/etc.
    actions you desire, is a unit manager (officially) functioning as a
    program manager. Your current problem is that there is no unit manager
    responsible for "duking" it out in the inner confines. Your people need
    an official champion, but you're not it.

    I'd work on getting "official champion" status or a designated "offical
    champion."


    /Peters

    Hi Doug,
    
    Didn't we touch on the generic issue at IMCS? In my understanding the
    Program Manager's role in Digital comes with all responsibilty and little 
    or no authority. Seems that this is what you are grappling with now.
    
    Apart from the JP&R issue how is the program going?
                                               
    David Evans

    I have found out that in order to have the kind of full control I'm
    talking about, there is a tremendous amount of work effort involved
    with salary and promotion planning.  My Program takes fully 130% of my
    time already, and the extra 20% or 30% added on by my Job and Career
    Planning, and Performance Reviewing of those under me is nothing
    compared to the extra 50% or so needed to do the Unit Manager part of
    the job.
    
    Now I know why I never wanted to be a Unit Manager!
    
    Re: .8
    
    Hi Dave.  Other then the tremendous amount of work involved I'd say
    the program is going quite well...just about half way finished and we
    have relatively good customer satisfaction.  I have about 20 people
    working for me now in various roles.  I love it when a plan comes
    together!
    
    Doug