Sometimes in a project you have one of those action items or open points that just ‘refuses to die’. The point drags on and on, preferably the ownership changes hands multiple times, the deadline is extended as often, and frustration of all concerned rises to the boiling point. When those ‘dinosaurs’ show up, be wary.

What is a ‘dinosaur’? An action item that has been re-visited more than approx 4-8 times (depending upon the type of project and the frequency of updates) without being resolved. There can be different underlying causes, such as (but not limited to):

*the item has not been properly defined (definition error).  Sometimes large to-do’s are given short deadlines because when defining the topic one  just does not realize the complete portent of it. As slowly the complete elephant becomes visible, the deadline is extended according to the new view of the animal.

*the item changes in the course of time (consistency error).  This change can be both that the original definition has not been properly checked  with the ‘user’, and that one initially defines the first step while later the second step is  taken. For example: “John needs to check with Mary if she can prepare the report.” By itself this seems fairly clear, however, the underlying request is that Mary prepare the report, so the obvious next step is to ensure that the report is actually done next month.

Whether this second step  is a separate action item or included in the former are both viable methods, however in the former (‘separatist’) system the second action item should be defined at the same time as the first, in the latter (‘inclusive’) system, the action item   should be phrased differently. In a program it is important that there is clarity and             consistency on this topic so that upper management is not confused when sampling             action item lists.

*the item has been delegated to the wrong person (delegation error). When John just is in ‘no position’ to speak to Mary physically, in knowledge or ‘hierarchically’ he might not be able to get access to Mary to pose the question, get a commitment or follow-up. Leaving aside whether following up on a topic is within the capability of John.

This capability is not necessarily a reflection on John himself as a person, but IT issues are best followed-up by somebody suitable versed in the subject to also understand           questions and feedback on the matter.

*the ‘supplier’ behaves unprofessionally or is ‘stretched’ (supplier error). This error often occurs when one of the project team members needs to follow-up with a non-project member. When Mary does not properly plan het actions and forgets every time, or is loaded with tasks to the degree that she can not fulfill all the requests, John will repeatedly need to go back to the action item list and ask for an extension of the deadline.

Undoubtedly this list can be extended – and I would be interested to hear additions.

A common response when faced with ‘dinosaurs’ is to overreact and create ‘ants’. The intelligent reader, but also the less intelligent one, will understand that these are the action items so small that administering them takes more effort then the action items themselves.

One observation I would like to make here is that one could easily argue that the example used above is an ‘ant’. We have a tendency to identify the next step as an action item, regardless of it’s size. If John just has to send an e-mail to Mary to produce the report, that is a small step. But if it is not registered, it might be forgotton. There the ‘art of project management’comes into play: we (almost) all would like to eat bite-sized pieces of food, but sometimes you just have to choose between eating either the dinosaur or the ant.

(originally published July 10, 2013)