Anyway, I was really into self-help books and they sometimes did have some good things to say, such as on-time management, to always carry around a book to read in places where you have to wait – such as doctors’ waiting rooms and, yes, airports. The thing about books (the kind your mom and dad read) is that you do not need to find a power socket when the flight is delayed even longer, and the battery is threatening to die on you. Furthermore, they are not encrypted so that your favourite Reader cannot open them every time you replace your computer.

 Nor do they need for you to find a Wi-Fi hotspot where you have to go through the machinations of getting your credit card payment through, and succeed just as they announce that delay is actually an early departure (you wish!) and if you do not board now, you are going to have 235 angry faces staring at you as you shamefacedly make your way down the aisle to the third-to-last row between the fat… and the weightlifter (and you may not have attended the gym much, but you have lifted many heavy tankards in
your life).

 But, what I like the most about books, is that your brain is able to remember that the answer is in the bottom left-hand corner near the beginning. And then there is that other low-tech invention – the pencil. Try scribbling in the average e-book. Perhaps I should get back to the point. It seems the booksellers in airports carry a selection that you will not find in your typical mall-bound bookstore.

 I recently discovered something that I believe should become required reading for all project managers: Nassim Nicholas Taleb’s The Black Swan (Penguin Books, 2007). (There is a good primer at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_swan_theory, but rather buy the book! Oh, and read it.)

 The reason is very simple: I have been banging on about how project management is a completely different management discipline (comparable to general management, which is the management of routine operations; and technical management, which is the management of technology). I find that Taleb, no doubt unintentionally, supports this view.

 Let me tell you how. Taleb’s book is about “the impact of the improbable – the random events that underlie our lives… they’re nearly impossible to predict; yet after they happen, we always try to rationalise them.” Does this not sound like the post-mortem of a failed or less-than-successful project?

 Taleb was a trader for 21 years, and now he is a professor at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. He still runs a trading company and was feted across all the major news channels as being the one who predicted the 2008 crash – not when (other than: inevitable, soon), but whether, why and how. He has many important things to say.

 To explain his thesis, Taleb describes two states: the one he calls Mediocristan, and the other Extremistan. To understand the difference between the two, consider the following examples: collect a random sample of body weight for a thousand average people in South Africa. Let us say that this averages out at 60 kilogrammes. Now, find the heaviest person you can, and add him/her to the sample.

 What difference would that make to the average? Probably 0.003%. This is the way it works in Mediocristan. The impact of outliers is marginal. (By the way, another of my must-read authors is Malcolm Gladwell – in this case, his book, Outliers.) Now, calculate the average income per year. According to Statistics South Africa, this was around R85 000 per annum in November 2005. Now, find the richest person you can (according to my investigation, he is earning around R120 million p.a.) What difference would it make to the average of the sample? It could be as high as 150% or more! The impact of outliers in Extremistan can be radical.

 Why? Because in Extremistan, social biases are the primary influence on what is happening and going to happen. Making accurate predictions in Extremistan is nigh impossible. The key identifier of Extremistan is the likelihood and impact of random events. Taleb uses another cute example to make his point further.

 Imagine that you are a turkey. Ten days after hatching, you are visited by an external auditor who wishes to establish your general state of health and well-being. Excellent, you tell him. Everything is going so well. You get food twice a day, you have a warm place to sleep, comfortable lodgings, enough water, space to scratch around in, friendly fellow-turkeys, and an owner who is as benevolent as they come. Life could not be better. (Now, how many projects sound like that at the outset?)

 This is repeated at regular intervals – 25 days, 50 days, 75 days – the response is always the same. Can life be more perfect!?Ninety days, 100 days… except there is no 100-day review. The project is over, and a family somewhere is anticipating a delicious and filling Christmas dinner. The point is this: there is nothing in the history of the turkey’s life that could predict what was going to happen on day 100.

 When someone does a study, he/she will find that the outcome was perfectly predictable – if that one crucial bit of information had been known and acted upon (as happens in Chicken Run). Problem is that it seldom is. That is why these scenarios occur. Sometimes they cannot be known. Sometimes they can be known, but we simply refuse to go there.

 So, what are we to do?

 If I may adapt Taleb’s advice to projects, then we should start by identifying whether the project is “in” Mediocristan or Extremistan – in other words, is it predominantly a deterministic or socially bound project? In other words, how easy is it to agree the project scope, the requirements? Is there general agreement?

 A committed sponsor who is available, ready and able to make decisions? Is the need well defined? Are there many examples of similar projects that can be used as analogies? Is there relatively little uncertainty? Do people want it? Is there enough time and money available? If so, then you are probably looking at a project in Mediocristan. You may proceed with fair confidence using your favourite methodology and look to the Project Management Book of Knowledge (PMBOK®) for guidance.

 If, however, the answer to those questions is not that clear, your project is probably going to be influenced more by social biases (read: people’s opinions) than by facts and rational decision-making. Beware, you are now in Extremistan. You will probably find that earned value analysis (EVA) is not going to help much (and I feel sorry for you if your sponsor insists that you must use EVA, or requires a great deal of formal stuff).

 Worst affected will be how you manage risks. Draw a line through “quantitative risk management”. In fact, perhaps you should draw a line through the word “management” in many of the chapters in the PMBOK® – you will have to live by your wits and deal with issues as they arise, the best you can. This is project management by the skin of the teeth.

 Sounds heretical, doesn’t it?

 Now, I am not saying that you should not plan. In fact, planning is even more important in Extremistan projects. Simply different. Try to understand which parts are likely to be more like they are in Mediocristan, plan them carefully, find yourself a good project administrator, and then let him manage them so that you can free up your time to focus on surviving the difficult part – the Extremistan parts.

 One of the best antidotes to being beaten by randomness is to be sceptical. Question everything – particularly all the important stuff. But realise that it is often the ignored insignificant detail that gets you in the end. Ensure that you have a large amount of spare cash and time lying around, that you can tap into when necessary (some call this “contingency”). If you are going to be paid according to what you are going to do rather than what you will deliver, you are in trouble. Deep trouble.

 Be vigilant to resist the urge to say yes to scope changes. If you are forced to, try to get as big concessions on cost and time as you are able (you can always give them back at the end). Ever heard the phrase, “under-promise and over-deliver”? You will struggle with the second part and so try to be rigorous about the first part.

 Devise scenarios about what could happen, and what you would do about it. Do not waste too much time trying to document this (unless you find that writing something helps you to think more clearly), but do talk about it. Often. And to many people, particularly your
key stakeholders. Seek advice. Never ignore even the most trivial suggestions. Remember, you are dealing in the realm of brainstorming and lateral thinking – the answers often lie in the most odd and unexpected places. Make friends. As many as you can. You may just need them.

 And pacify your enemies. If you cannot turn them into friends, then at least ensure they do not spend waking hours late at night thinking about how they can harm you. If your project is subject to social forces, then emphasise the social things. Dust off that old set of articles on EQ. (If you do not know what the letters mean and you are managing an Extremistan project, then you have a real problem.)

 Find a kind, patient psychologist. You may just need her. What if your project is clear and unequivocal Mediocristan? Do not believe it! By definition, almost all projects have elements of Extremistan. Even projects that seem 100% Mediocristan are subject to some randomness.

 The standard definition for a project is “a temporary endeavour undertaken to create a unique product, service or result” – the words temporary and unique give it away. So no project manager should ignore the possibility of random events. You do not think there are many Extremistan projects around?

 Life is not fair. Just like that flight delayed because of some dumb volcano thousands of miles away which causes you to miss the closing time on the tender that was going to turn the business around.

 You have been warned. 