Maybe you should hire the "rules" people

---

A lot of great outcomes are directly from emergent innovation

• Emergent meaning the properties were not predictable from analyzing the constituents; they surprise us all when the integrated constituents all came together and something new appears!
• Innovation meaning that risks to norms were deliberately taken; a form of destruction-construction

But not everybody is comfortable for destruction-construction; and indeed, there are many industries where the rules and regulations prohibit departure from the norms.

And so if you are managing a rules-based rules-driven project, what's the profile of the staff you need?

The question begs the answer: people who have been successful obtaining quality outcomes while still following the rules ... staying between the hedges, as it were.

So, who are 'they' that can get it done within the rules?

Look here first for the "rules" people:

• Former military and police
• Former government agencies staff
• Former very large corporate leaders
• Former staff from major 'safety' projects (where the stakes were life-threatening)
• People who value discipline, even if not one of the 'formers'
• Athletes from team sports, particularly if not the star of the team
• Socially moderate, and so likely to fit well into a heterogeneous team

Now, of course, there are a lot of 'formers' from rules-based organizations that are 'former' because they can't follow the rules. It's likely they have been invited to leave and apply their spirits elsewhere. Your job is to filter these rules-misfits out of your hiring plan.

Rules don't necessarily quash innovation

Rules generally go to methods and limits. Rarely do you find a rule about an outcome.

So, within the allowable methods, and within the allowable limits of disturbance, sustainability, availability, and quality in the large sense, any innovative outcome is possible.

You just need to hire the 'rules people' to get there!

Like this blog? You'll like my books also! Buy them at any online book retailer!

• Emergent meaning the properties were not predictable from analyzing the constituents; they surprise us all when the integrated constituents all came together and something new appears!
• Innovation meaning that risks to norms were deliberately taken; a form of destruction-construction

But not everybody is comfortable for destruction-construction; and indeed, there are many industries where the rules and regulations prohibit departure from the norms.

And so if you are managing a rules-based rules-driven project, what's the profile of the staff you need?

The question begs the answer: people who have been successful obtaining quality outcomes while still following the rules ... staying between the hedges, as it were.

So, who are 'they' that can get it done within the rules?

Look here first for the "rules" people:

• Former military and police
• Former government agencies staff
• Former very large corporate leaders
• Former staff from major 'safety' projects (where the stakes were life-threatening)
• People who value discipline, even if not one of the 'formers'
• Athletes from team sports, particularly if not the star of the team
• Socially moderate, and so likely to fit well into a heterogeneous team

Now, of course, there are a lot of 'formers' from rules-based organizations that are 'former' because they can't follow the rules. It's likely they have been invited to leave and apply their spirits elsewhere. Your job is to filter these rules-misfits out of your hiring plan.

Rules don't necessarily quash innovation

Rules generally go to methods and limits. Rarely do you find a rule about an outcome.

So, within the allowable methods, and within the allowable limits of disturbance, sustainability, availability, and quality in the large sense, any innovative outcome is possible.

You just need to hire the 'rules people' to get there!

Interview Avatar, or real?

---

Doing a bit of project hiring by remote interview?

Some caution advised!

You may be talking with an avatar ....

Kyle Barr has a report on gismodo.com with this headline:

FBI Says People Are Using Deepfakes to Apply to Remote Jobs

So, what is Barr reporting that the FBI is saying?

According to the FBI’s announcement, more companies have been reporting people applying to jobs using video, images, or recordings that are manipulated to look and sound like somebody else.

These fakers are also using personal identifiable information from other people—stolen identities—to apply to jobs at IT, programming, database, and software firms.

The report noted that many of these open positions had access to sensitive customer or employee data, as well as financial and proprietary company info, implying the imposters could have a desire to steal sensitive information as well as a bent to cash a fraudulent paycheck.

These applicants were apparently using voice spoofing techniques during online interviews where lip movement did not match what’s being said during video calls, according to the announcement. Apparently, the jig was up in some of these cases when the interviewee coughed or sneezed, which wasn’t picked up by the video spoofing software.

And, somewhat related insofar as fake references and supporting documention, the report includes this timely warning: "The FBI was among several federal agencies to recently warn companies of individuals working for the North Korean government applying to remote positions in IT or other tech jobs"

Bottom line: with remote interviews, some caution advised!

---

Like this blog? You'll like my books also! Buy them at any online book retailer!

Be careful!

---

A wise man once said: Be careful who you let on your ship, because some people will sink the whole ship just because they can't be captain.

Anonymous

---

Like this blog? You'll like my books also! Buy them at any online book retailer!

Blurring the role: Product Managers and Engineers

---

From Daniel Miessler's newsletter (somewhat paraphrased)

The line between the product manager and the engineer is blurring as more PM (product manager) tasks subsume what used to be an engineer's task because of the availability of an AI engine which the PM can prompt.

Miessler opines:

"This shouldn’t be surprising since the primitives here are 1) knowing what you want to build, 2) knowing why you want to build that vs. something else, and 3) pursuing that. "

The source for this insight is here LINK

Related: 

Other reports and articles report the decline generally in the industry for "coders". This job is being taken over by AI Agents. At the Davos Economic forum in January 2025, the Salesforce.com CEO said he wasn't hiring any software engineers on a net basis. New jobs would large go to digital agents.

---

Like this blog? You'll like my books also! Buy them at any online book retailer!

Can you say: "I'm accountable"?

---

Are you accountable?

Most of us want to answer 'yes, of course!'; how could it be otherwise? 

Most of us would endorse these ideas:

I'm always accountable for what I do. 

I'm accountable for that which I am responsible.

(Subtext: this can only be true if my personal integrity does not allow me to push blame on to others for failures and missteps, or claim false credit for what others actually did)

Accountability attaches credit and blame.

In popular culture, it seems to be more about attaching blame: A common refrain: "Who's to be held accountable for this!?"

Actually, being accountable means accepting blame or consequences when valid, but also stepping up and accepting accolades when earned.

I like this from Henry Evans, the author of Winning with Accountability, who says accountability is “clear commitments that in the eyes of others have been kept.”

Evans has set the frame: the final judgment about accountability is with others. 

In this sense, the concept of personal accountability is somewhat of an "earned value" idea: 

• You have a 'planned' set of responsibilities to get things done.
• You 'earn' accolades or consequences as you account for your actions
• Others judge the earnings and apply the credit or debit

Thus, in all schemes of accountability, you have a part to play: It's on you to commit to your responsibilities. So, even though Evans' statement is not explicit about being responsible, the holistic idea of accountability stemming from commitment embraces responsibility.

But what I don't like about Evans' statement is that it could be interpreted as requiring 'achievement' (in the sense of a commitment kept) when, of course successful achievement is not a requirement for accountability. Only a commitment to execute responsibly is.

And so in the context I've laid out it's common to encounter these questions:

• What is accountability, or what is it to be accountable?
• Can there be accountability without responsibility?
• Can there be responsibility without accountability?
• Are you given accountability, or do you grab it and take it on?
• Is the apex of the pyramid always accountable for anything down in the pyramid? (See: Captain of the ship is accountable ..... )

I don't want to dig too much more deeply into the psychology of 'accountability', and realistically that would be a fools' errand because project and business culture drive a lot of the answers to the questions above.

So, without making a big thing out of the answers, I'll offer my thinking here:

• As Evans puts it, accountability is about taking personal responsibility for outcomes: "I got this!" "I'm the one you can count on to get it done" "I will be there to see it through". All statements of commitment.
  And with Tom Petty in mind: "I won't back down!".
  
  
• The accountability/responsibility questions are ageless; they've been around since forever! The usual answer is: 'If you want me to be accountable for outcomes, then give me the responsibility for plans and resources. If you crater my plan and matrix out my resources, then you're accountable and not me!
  
  
• If you're not the apex (most senior executive) of the pyramid, you might be 'assigned' accountability: 'This is your mission and no one else's;  go get it done, and tell me when you're finished'.
  
  Actually, if you're low to mid in the pyramid, there's probably a backup to you. If it's a big pyramid, you may be an interchangeable cog in the mechanism. Nonetheless, grab it and go!
  
  
• Most of time, 'seniors' are always happy to have accountability 'grabbers' in the mix. It makes it easier to allocate the mission requirements. And, you may quickly earn and retain the leadership label.
  
  But the 'grabbers' are sometimes seen as more interested in climbing the ladder than actually advancing the mission. So, some balance of eagerness and opportunity is required.
  
  
• Traditionally, the 'apex' is accountable for the performance of everything done in the name of the pyramid. This is accountability without personal responsibility for outcomes. The "commitment" embedded in the concept of accountability is interpreted as 'committed to ensuring a responsible person is found, assigned, and expectations for outcomes established".
  
  In the military particularly, and certainly on ships at sea, this idea is deep culture.
  
  But, that idea often gets lost. One chief executive famously said that success has many fathers, but a failure is an orphan.
  
  Worse is the chief executive who denies accountability for all but successes. That is morally corrupt and a morale killer.

---

Like this blog? You'll like my books also! Buy them at any online book retailer!

Will you be hiring a "AI Digital Agent"?

---

Digital agents are here big time. At the 2025 Davos Economic Forum, the big guys from the industry opined on digital agents. Paraphrasing a bit, here's some of what was said:

• SalesForce.com won't be hiring (net headcount) human coders in 2025. SalesForce is rapidly expanding digital agents in their workforce. They way they talk about them it's almost like they are a digital human. The usual and familiar factors are in play: accurate outcomes from assigned tasks; 24/7 work "shifts"; no fatigue; no family/work balance issues, and so forth.
  
  
• WorkDay.com comes at it a bit differently. They are one of the industry leaders providing humans for all manner of business tasks and projects. They say that they are working now with providing digital agents, though it's a very small part of their business. But, in 10 years time, they predict a much different business where providing digital agents, as though they were humans, fully "trained" and ready for "integration" into the client workforce and workflow will be a big part of their business.  

So how does this work, exactly? 

How is this for a narrative?

You, as project manager, write a "job description" for the digital agent, specifying perhaps an API for your work product. The agent presumably knows how to use your tools so that the agent work product is compatible with the human work product. 

The agent presumably has some kind of "settings" that are configurable such that it (*) can internalize milestones and scope, and understand points of integration with other objects. Presumably the agent can work in multiple environments, such as development, integration and test, beta, and final release.

And what if humans fall behind, or less likely: speed ahead? Can the digital agent adjust? And what if the human product has bugs (never happens!)? Can the agent work around them, or does the agent just go in and fix the bugs as a matter or routine scope?

And are there heterogeneous agent environments, where the agents come from different suppliers? Or is it required that all agents on on project be homogeneous: that is all, of one "brand" or "architecture"?

And finally, how does the agent acquire the culture of the human organization such that its product reflects accurately the business, particularly customer facing apps, like the fast-food drive-in order-taker agent?

Over time, all this will sort itself out, but for now, we are on the cusp of a radical change in the workforce typically thought of as the white collar force. 

The business case

And finally there's the business plan or business case: Hiring and training a new graduate is expensive; hiring someone with experience is even more expensive. 

• What does a comparable agent cost? 
• Over 5 years, what's the cost of the human vs the agent? 
• Over 5 years, what's the value of the outcome from each? 
• Is there an RoI argument that is pan-enterprise and larger than the project expense statement?
• I imagine there are lots of finance and business managers going over this as we write.

________________

(*) Is "it" the pronoun for agents? I can foresee "she" and "he", like ships are "she", etc.

---

Like this blog? You'll like my books also! Buy them at any online book retailer!

Layoff in the middle of a project?

---

Well, talk about cratering a schedule and resource plan!

Layoffs in the middle of a project will do it for you.

But wait!

There may be a silver lining here:

• Communication complexity in and among project participants decreases as the square of participants. That could be a winner
  
  
• You may be able to select the departees. That's tough in any circumstance, but it's also an opportunity to prune the lesser performers.
  
  
• Some say that if you want to speed up a project, especially software, reduce the number of people involved (the corollary is more often cited: adding people to a team may actually slow it down)
  
  
• There's an opportunity to rebaseline: All the variances-to-date are collected and stored with the expiring baseline. A new plan according to the new resource availability becomes a new baseline. Unfavorable circumstances can perhaps be sidestepped.

Of course, there are downsides:

• If your customer is external, they may not relent on any requirements. You're stuck trying to make five pounds fit in a three pound bag.
  
  
• There may be penalties written in your project contract if you miss a milestone, or overrun a budget. That just adds to the fiscal pain that probably was the triggering factor for layoffs.

Did you see this layoff thing coming?

• On the project balance sheet, you are the risk manager at the end of the day. So, suck it up!
  
  
• And there's the anti-fragile thing: build in redundancy, schedule and budget buffers, and outright alternatives from the git-go. And, if you didn't do those things in the first baseline, you've got a second bite at the apple with the recovery baseline.

---

Like this blog? You'll like my books also! Buy them at any online book retailer!

The ideal number of workers

---

Wow! Is this true?

The ideal number of human workers in any business is zero. The purpose of companies is to make as much money as possible with the lowest possible expenses. So AI and other types of automation are not disruptions to a human-based Capitalism—instead, they’re revealing that today’s Capitalism is not fundamentally human in the first place.  Daniel Miessler

"... in ANY business ... "? Emphasis added by me. 

I have no idea how you could do projects with such a situation. So, I'm hopeful Miessler's idea is not an end-game for the PMO.

---

Like this blog? You'll like my books also! Buy them at any online book retailer!

Collaboration ... virtually

---

" ....virtual collaboration is like evaporated milk with 60% of the water removed; safer; mostly up to the job, but a sterile version of face-to-face that leaves an unsatisfying aftertaste"

"Bartelby" columnist in the "Economist"

Our columnist goes on:

"There are downsides to being a clinically efficient worker. They include relinquishing the daily banter and complicity among colleagues..... Hyper efficiency and distance mean less opportunity for interpersonal tension but also less gratuitous job, which is hard to replicate on Zoom."

But then, on a business channel, I hear a start-up guy talking about developing a software application (alternative to Zoom, or Skype, or Webex) that has 'humanity built-in' 

"Humanity built in"! Perhaps, but let's wait and see ....

---

Like this blog? You'll like my books also! Buy them at any online book retailer!

By the rules, or not?

---

A lot of great outcomes are directly from emergent innovation

• Emergent meaning the properties were not predictable from analyzing the constituents; they surprise us all when the integrated constituents all came together and something new appears!
• Innovation meaning that risks to norms were deliberately taken; a form of destruction-construction

But not everybody is comfortable for destruction-construction; and indeed, there are many industries where the rules and regulations prohibit departure from the norms.

And so if you are managing a rules-based rules-driven project, what's the profile of the staff you need?

The question begs the answer: people who have been successful obtaining quality outcomes while still following the rules ... staying between the hedges, as it were.

So, who are 'they' that can get it done within the rules?

Look here first for the "rules" people:

• Former military and police
• Former government agencies staff
• Former very large corporate leaders
• Former staff from major 'safety' projects (where the stakes were life-threatening)
• People who value discipline, even if not one of the 'formers'
• Athletes from team sports, particularly if not the star of the team
• Socially moderate, and so likely to fit well into a heterogeneous team

Now, of course, there are a lot of 'formers' from rules-based organizations that are 'former' because they can't follow the rules. It's likely they have been invited to leave and apply their spirits elsewhere. Your job is to filter these rules-misfits out of your hiring plan.

Rules don't necessarily quash innovation

Rules generally go to methods and limits. Rarely do you find a rule about an outcome.

So, within the allowable methods, and within the allowable limits of disturbance, sustainability, availability, and quality in the large sense, any innovative outcome is possible.

You just need to hire the 'rules people' to get there!

---

Like this blog? You'll like my books also! Buy them at any online book retailer!

Neuro-tech comes to the PMO

Cognitive liberty
Cognitive privacy
Have these concepts come to a project near you?

Here’s the on-coming HR issue for the PMO, if it’s not already arrived:

Hidden, embedded, or even overt sensors of your cognitive state, what your doing, how often you do it, whether you’re focused or distracted or daydreaming are all within operating reach, or pretty close by. Are they legal without disclosure and consent? Are they transparent? And is there a path to challenge and dispute resolution?

Talk about 1984 big brother 40 years on!

Is all this really happening?
At least to some degree: Yes. 

And, the idea of "cognitive liberty" has spawned a whole genre of books and articles and podcasts.

Metrics everywhere

Working in the cloud with cloud-based applications? These applications, at least in theory, can track and interpret and report every keystroke (is your typing off today?); their timing (are you sleepy? Do you need to be awakened?); mind-block today?; and other metrics.

Working online from a work-based laptop? It can be interrogated routinely, even the camera may be watching. More likely not, however. But some advise turning off when you don't need it.

Other workplace devices: smart this and that you may be wearing or carrying? If there’s an internet connection there may be surveillance.

Would you agree to wear a sensor?

If you wear a digital smart watch, Fitbit, or the like, you've already made that decision.

Yikes! What did I sign?

Oops! Remember all that on-boarding paperwork? What did you sign that waived your privacy or agreed to surveillance?

And whose data is it?
It’s about you; is it yours? How is it stored and protected? Could it play into your next job interview if you change employers?

Do you drive as part of your project activity? Surveillance .... with permission ... has invaded the car insurance industry. Now to avoid premium surcharges, or more benignly qualify for discounts, you agree that your every driving detail can be tracked, evaluated, and reported. You are also told the data could be used in accident investigations.

Can the same idea be ported to the PMO? Will your cognitive record be cited in your next review, or influence your project assignment, or be considered in a project bonus?

Who has expertise?

And what’s the training around this for HR and supervisors? And what are the penalties for abuse?
And what about copyright of ideas? You'd better dust off the rule book. When is your stuff “work for hire” and when is it not?

The path

It's hard "to begin with the end in mind" as Covey might advise. Because.... because where could this possibly end? Is there a steady-state we are journeying to? Unlikely. More likely: there is no end-state; only constant innovation and change. 

---

Like this blog? You'll like my books also! Buy them at any online book retailer!