| < Day Day Up > |
|
The term "universal" is key, because it implies that people outside the project team, such as beneficiaries and customers, should have sign-off responsibilities. Requirements are descriptors of end state that will impact beneficiaries, even though projects typically treat beneficiaries the same way as a benevolent despot would rule the kingdom. This lack of empathy and respect can backfire. Beneficiaries, in my experience, are very good at disrupting if not sabotaging projects if they feel they were not given their due during the planning phase.
There are legitimate reasons behind this behavior. Each project takes on a gestalt or a life of its own to the point that the vision starts to make sense to you and your team. Outsiders, particularly beneficiaries, however, are likely to see things quite differently. What makes this difficult is that while they may raise objections, you cannot always tell right away whether they are valid or just the symptoms of change-resistance behavior.
I used the word empathy in the context of engaging beneficiaries and others who may be impacted by your project during this requirements phase. Having empathy in this case means that you understand that the target beneficiaries:
Have little precise knowledge of your initiative
Do not care to pay, or may not get budgetary relief, for project costs directly accruing to them
Are unfamiliar or uncomfortable with the new technology you are rolling out
Find your timetable disruptive to their business cycles
Reject your goals for other reasons that may not appear rational to you
In the real world, these conditions are commonplace and, if observed, can flag serious trouble headed in your direction. I have seen worthy initiatives diluted if not killed by beneficiaries who behave in this manner after being offended that they were kept out of the loop during the project's requirement-gathering phase. As a client of mine once said of his environment, the instant a major project was announced, targeted beneficiaries formed committees to create "workarounds" to the project's presumed deleterious impact on their business-as-usual practices.
| < Day Day Up > |
|