What is clear thinking? It could include a wide range of issues – cognitive ability, brain fog, attention problems, etc. But this post is more about thinking logically. Thinking logically means working through a process of logical steps to reach a conclusion. (Hopefully, this post will progress its message logically!)
This will focus on three areas where project work requires logical thinking:
- Planning
- Scheduling
- Cost Forecasting
What is Logical Thinking?
By logical thinking, I’m referring to thinking about cause and effect, sequence of events, and similar logical progression that affects projects. Logical thinking has a foundation in philosophy and mathematics. It involves the idea of proving an argument or theory. It involves developing inferences. So, it involves working your way through certain steps to go from an assumption or theory to reach a conclusion. We won’t review details of the theory of logic, but let’s review how it connects to what we’ll cover below.
Logical thinking first requires thinking. Whether we approach something from experience that allows very quick conclusions, we address a new version of something with which we’re familiar, or we address a new problem, we need to process the information. Projects involve numerous types of hurdles that require thinking. In formal logic, we would work through a defined progression of steps to reach a conclusion. Often we don’t follow those same detailed steps but we do follow a path that makes sense.
- We need to write a report that describes a problem with material delivery and what we’ve done about it as a Project Manager. Though we often read such reports that are not well crafted, to do a better job of describing this issue, we should allow the report to follow a flow that allows the reader to follow the story:
- What was the plan?
- What’s the current status that’s causing a negative impact?
- What is the known or expected impact (if we do nothing)?
- How did this new status occur?
- What have we done so far?
- What have been the results of what we’ve done?
- Is the problem solved or ongoing?
- If it is continuing, what do we plan to do in the future?
- What eventual outcome do we expect?
- How will we measure whether our future plan works?
I’ve read reports on similar issues that may have addressed some of these topics but not necessarily in a progression of information that makes the issue and plan clear. Some reports may read:
- We are meeting with the Client on Monday to review material delivery issues.
- We contacted other vendors and no one can supply this material faster.
- This delay could result in payment of liquidated damages.
- Late material is delaying the schedule.
- Our vendor has had issues getting the raw materials.
- We notified the Client of the problem and they have been “understanding”.
- We planned for material delivery 3 weeks ago.
- This delay will be a day for day slip of the schedule.
This covers some of what we should report, but when presented in this sequence, it requires reading the entire report to know what’s happened and what we’re doing. Even then, it may not be clear.
This happens too frequently. Sometimes the lack of flow comes from limited experience. Sometimes it arises from lack of knowledge. Whatever the source, let’s consider how to address this type of (expected) logical progression for planning, scheduling, and cost forecasting.
Planning
Project planning is one of the areas that requires reviewing the work in a logical way. Not only does this need logical thinking but the Project Plan that we produce must follow a flow. Most of us know that project work proceeds in a logical order. Projects have a beginning, a middle, and an end. In PMI terminology, a project has a fixed timeframe (it’s a temporary effort) and progresses through the processes of:
- Initiating,
- Planning,
- Executing,
- Monitoring and Controlling, and
- Closing.
Although every phase may involve some level of planning, the first two process groups, especially the Planning group, includes the most focused planning effort.
Effective planning requires a progression of thinking. A plan for an activity or an entire project includes:
- What will be done? What work is being planned and what are the steps/activities?
- How will it be done? What techniques or methods must be used? What materials, etc. will be needed? What are the technical requirements?
- Who will do it? Will it be one group or many groups? Will each group require a separate plan? How will those separate groups interface?
- Where will it be done? Is it a fixed location or multiple locations? How will multiple locations impact the work?
- When will it be done? When is the start? Are there milestones before the end? When is the activity or project to complete?
The “why” has normally been solved already. However, planning can sometimes reveal flaws in the “why”.
Answering those numbered questions, though some of them can be tackled out of sequence, requires thinking through how these fit together and working through the logic and expectations along the way. A thorough plan will show how each piece fits and will present a picture of how we will accomplish the work.
When a plan is in place and being followed, we may encounter obstacles or see a need for changes. These may require a minor adjustment or a complete revision based on new information. The revision may require that we follow all of the required steps that were taken to get to the initial plan.
Scheduling
We may consider schedules as versions of a plan that are more detailed and that are time-based presentations of the plan. A plan is required before we can prepare a schedule. That’s a logical step – first a plan, then a schedule.
Scheduling also needs some logical thinking. We often refer to “schedule logic“. Though this phrase sometimes refers to specific parts of schedule development, it can also refer to the overall reasonableness of schedule’s set of activities, logic of progression, duration, and other factors.
Let’s imagine a schedule that is not developed through some form of logical thinking. What results from this illogical thinking? This “schedule” might include issues like these:
- Activities are not properly linked. There is no clear predecessor/successor relationship. This can distort the reality of the schedule – especially if we are looking for the Critical Path.
- Activities are out of order. Activity A must occur before Activity B but the schedule does not show that. It shows that Activity A can occur two months after Activity B.
- Durations for activities are too long or too short. If too long, the duration may extend the overall schedule. If too short, the schedule may be unreasonably short.
A schedule that is more logically arranged will require having a plan for the work, thinking before starting the schedule, and analysis as the schedule is developed.
- Determine what activities are required for the project. Assess what work packages will be used in determining schedule activities.
- Review whether and how these activities should be grouped together.
- Determine estimated durations for each activity. Evaluate the lengths for reasonableness and how well the duration supports schedule management and tracking.
- Determine dependencies between activities. This may result in further breakdown of activities to more detailed steps.
- If included, determine resources for each activity
- Complete the schedule and review it for issues. Does it make sense overall? If it becomes an 18-month schedule, does that seem reasonable? Does the contract require a 16-month schedule?
- Review the activities, their durations and ties, and the resources to ensure nothing is missing.
These may overlap as the schedule develops. You may be establishing activity links when you discover some missing set of activities. That’s part of the process.
Cost Forecasting
Cost forecasting should be a simple exercise (relatively simple). Some errors in this category of project work are likely to result from either not forecasting often enough, errors in assumptions, or errors in calculation. What would a logical process look like for a basic project cost forecast?
- How much have you spent on each active work item in the WBS or Budget?
- How much work is remaining on each active item?
- What is the estimate for the cost of the remaining work?
- What is the sum of the cost to date for the activity and the estimated cost of the remaining work for that activity?
- Do that for each active work item.
- What is the estimated final cost of the total project?
That would be the logical basic steps without a lot of detailed explanation. Often it’s much more work than 6 simple bullet points but these are the basic steps. I would add another set of steps that can also be critical.
- Evaluate upcoming activities that haven’t started (or all activities if it makes sense to do so) to perform a high-level or detailed estimate of whether those items have adequate budget.
- If you have confidence that they will over/under run their budget, adjust the cost forecast for those items.
- Re-evaluate the cost of the total project.
When these three things are not done deliberately as part of the cost forecasting exercise, they often are triggered when the first 6 bulleted steps result in a forecast that total cost will exceed the budget. We then start looking for potential to avoid reporting a cost overrun. This is also when we may be tempted to be overly optimistic. Keep the logical thinking in mind! If current work has cost $579/unit thus far and you are 60% complete, it is probably not logical to estimate that the remaining 40% of the units can be completed at $460/unit.
Conclusion
These are simple examples and are very basic. Some who do project work are not logical thinkers. They plan by the seat of their pants, their schedules contain illogical links or unrealistic durations, and they use extreme optimism to calculate remaining costs. First we should follow the sequence of events that is logical. We must do step 1 before we can do steps 2 and 3. Then, when there’s a sign of “trouble”, avoid the temptation to throw out logic and decide that a miracle will occur.