Confidence in the process of planning that generated the plan. It is often said that the planning is more important than the plan, or at least that the plan is only as good as the planning (or thinking) that created it. Our data points to the following factors that influence confidence in the planning process:

• Clarity re the audience and purpose of the plan (e.g. a sales document, or a roadmap for execution)
• The amount of time given to it (e.g. was it rushed)
• The quality of thinking, as well as the underlying research and analysis
• The level of external validation
• The questions that the plan sets out to answer
• The fundamental assumptions underlying the plan
• The strategic choices and scenarios explored and how decisions (incl. trade offs) are made
• The diversity of opinion / range of perspectives / expertise

Co-creation / Consultation re the plan

The degree of consultation involved or level of co-creation is a key factor in confidence regarding any big project plan. Involving people in creating the plan is key to buy-in, also to ensuring that the plan is grounded in reality and truly reflects the needs of the various stakeholders.

Quality of the plan

While the great plans in respect of big projects may have many things in common, every project plan is different.  A project plan is written with a particular audience and set of objectives in mind. Not surprisingly, the quality of any plan can subjective.

The quality of the plan depends on how well it achieves what it set out to do. For example, a plan serves many functions, including:

• A planning document – an input to the organization’s process for decision making around strategy, budgeting and resource allocation.
• A bureaucratic procedure – that is a set of steps that must be followed in order for an idea or project to get approval.
• A sales document – aimed at selling the vision, generating buy-in, securing resources, etc.
• An alignment tool – the process of agreeing on a plan commits people to a set of priorities, actions and goals.
• A roadmap for execution – setting out what needs to be done, etc.).

Pause for a moment to reflect: How confident are you in your project plan as a planning document, a sales document, etc? Which of these roles is most important in assessing your project plan at this time?

While the audience and objective of the plan is key, there are a range of factors that leaders consider as essential to the quality or robustness of a big project plan:

• The level of detail / completeness
• The granularity of the plan (e.g. there may be an overall plan and then plans in respect of key project areas/deliverables)
• The quality of its content and presentation
• How well it sells people on the vision / goals set
• The clarity of assumptions
• The degree of imagination/innovation
• Analysis of choices, decisions and tradeoffs
• How credible and robust the numbers are numbers
• The availability of supporting information
• Execution – Is it a blueprint for action?
• Does the plan make clear trade-offs and choices

How the plan will be reviewed and updated

It has long been said that ‘no plan survives contact with the enemy’. Thus, a process by which the plan will be reviewed and updated is essential. This should be part of the plan, itself.  In this way the plan ensures that it can remain up to date and relevant.

How the plan will be translated into execution

A plan that remains ‘on the shelf’ has little value, it must be translated into execution, setting out a framework for what is going to happen and when.

Without effective execution, the best plan in the world will struggle to succeed. Our data highlights the following factors shaping confidence in project execution, especially at a time of accelerating change and uncertainty:

Balancing rigor and agility in execution. That is to execute in an efficient and disciplined manner against the plan, while intelligently adapting in response to changing circumstances and new information. Central to this is the ability to effectively review progress and make adjustments are required.

Ensuring visibility and control. There is no point having lots of activity if it is happening beneath the radar, or in an uncoordinated and unstructured manner. To be confident in execution, leaders need a sense of control, the challenge is to do this without increasing the administrative or bureaucratic burden on those who must do the work.

Levels of activity and effectiveness. Those working on big projects tend to be very busy, with long to-do lists, overflowing inboxes and diaries that are crammed with meetings. Yet, despite the busyness, executives often complain about the challenge of getting stuff done. Hence, the importance of distinguishing between levels of activity and levels of effectiveness. This is interesting challenge given that many of the models and metrics for productivity and efficiency focus on the former, not the latter. They are more suited to factory labor rather than knowledge work.

Delivering on the ambition of big projects typically requires new levels of speed, agility, collaboration and innovation. This in turn challenges traditional ways of working, planning, budgeting, and so on. This is particularly true within large organizations, getting stuff done can present challenge, including time spend in meetings, administrative processes, and so on. The effectiveness of key processes and systems is also a key factor.

The rate (or visibility) of progress and momentum is a key factor shaping confidence in execution. So too is the level of urgency or intensity driving the work. The accumulation of quick wins is key, especially for newer big projects. So too is flow efficiency and minimizing the amount of work in progress.

Eliminating waste is key. A key goal is to reduce the time spent on low value adding work, as well as the time lost on poor internal collaboration (internal meetings, etc.). This enables focusing with new intensity on key priorities and points of leverage.

Our data highlights the following factors as important in shaping levels of confidence in a project team:

• Confidence, motivation and pride builds as a team makes progress, passes milestones and accumulates wins.  A team that is ‘down on its luck’ can enter a dangerous spiral of disappointment and demotivation¹.  In this respect, the narrative of a team (i.e. what it says to and about itself) is as important as its reality.  It is important that the team can point to progress and the accumulation of wins.
• The team is upbeat and believes in its own potency/power.  It has positive internal narrative – it believes that the team is winning, or at least believes that it can and should win.
• Central to the level of confidence in a team is the level of trust – that people trust each other – they trust their intent, their character and their ability to.
• People are proud to belong to the team, proud of their work and their achievements. They have a positive or healthy self-identity.
• The team feels empowered to make it happen, it has sufficient autonomy and control over their work. The ultimate test of confidence is the level of power and autonomy it is given.
• The team is set up for success – it has all the right people, in the right roles, doing the right work, working together in the right way, etc.
• It is not just a team of individual high performers, but a high performing team. There is real synergy generated in how people work together.
• It is a furtive environment that enables people to elevate their performance, realize their potential and bring out the best in each other.
• There is a balance of psychological safety and respectful challenge. Alternative views are welcome, and people can disagree and still get alone.
• There is sufficient diversity in terms of backgrounds, age, gender, styles of thinking, etc.
• The team fosters learning and growth.  It is committed to getting better and better, learning from setbacks and obstacles along the way. It has a growth mindset, being open to new ideas and alternative perspectives.
• A project team does not need to be invincible.  Perhaps there will be moments when it overburdened by work, struggling to see results and questioning its purpose. It is ok for a team to have such wobbly moments, if handles correctly they can actually make it stronger.
• Another key factor related to confidence in a team is its ability to learn from setbacks and mistakes. When everything is going well it is easy to be confident in a project team, however it is when a team faces obstacles and setbacks that its true potential is revealed. It is also the time when the confidence (and support) of others matters most. Thus, a team’s resilience is a key factor that determines the level of confidence.

Our research points to the following factors:

Organizational Commitment. Key is the organization’s ability to roll in fully behind the project. It must be among the top 3 to 5 priorities for the organization’s senior leadership.

Allocation of resources. How the organization allocates its resources is the ultimate test of commitment. But, supporting one big project inevitably means taking resources from elsewhere.

Executive sponsorship & support.  Senior executive sponsorship is key to big project success. But, those leading big projects often struggle to get senior leadership time and attention.

Cross-functional Collaboration. Big projects cannot be delivered in silos. However, cross-functional collaboration presents challenges for organizations traditionally structured along functional lines.

Staying the course. The organization maybe committed today, but will it stay the course?

Bureaucracy. The need for greater speed, agility and innovation often comes up against internal bureaucracy, hierarchy, silos and traditional ways of working, planning, budgeting, etc.

Noise & interference. Typically, there is a lot going on within a large organization (e.g. restructuring, change initiatives, etc.), with the potential for considerable noise and interference.

Politics & Personalities. Personalities and politics play an inordinate role in decision-making and strategy with some organizations.

Proliferation or Projects. Most organizations have more projects and initiatives than available resources. Moreover, stand alone or siloed project decisions results in a dissipation of resources, as well as a failure to leverage synergies, linkages or dependencies between projects.

The Organization’s Big Project Competence: Organizations have different levels of maturity and sophistication when it comes to running big projects.

Organizational Culture. Ensuring that a big project fits with the organization’s culture is important, so too is a strategy to facilitate cultural change.