Project management is always a matter of scale.  It is not a one size fits all proposition and there are times when we as project managers should remember to just do the simple things.  Sometimes the K.I.S.S. (keep it simple stupid) principle is really the best.  Imagine you have just been asked to organize the team rollout victory party for next week.  That’s the project.  You have 2 administrative assistants to help you.  That’s your team.  Are you going to develop a WBS dictionary, document a communication plan, and perform a quantitative assessment of risks?  I doubt it.  By the same token will you abandon any semblance of planning and completely wing it?  I hope not!  Not if you are a project management professional.  Any endeavor that is temporary and produces a unique product, service or result deserves a plan – one of appropriate size and scale.

Scope:  So, in our example you sit down with your 2 administrative assistants in your office and pull up a spreadsheet.  The 3 of you brainstorm what tasks need to be done in the next week to pull off the team party.  You discuss where the party will be held, what food will be brought in, how invitations will be handled, entertainment, etc.  You capture all these tasks in a column of the spreadsheet.  You have just defined the scope of your project as a list of tasks.

Resources: Next, you decide who is going to do each task on your list.  There are only the 3 of you on your team so one of the 3 of you has to be assigned to each task.  In a 2^nd column of the spreadsheet you assign a name to each task.  You have just performed resource allocation.

Schedule: Next, the team needs to determine when each task needs to be done.  This is an example of a time-boxed, fixed date project.  The party will be communicated for a specific date, so all preparation activities must take place prior to that date.  Working backwards from the party date, in a third column, the team fills in target date/times of when tasks must be completed by.  You have just performed activity dependency and scheduling for your project.

Budget: You think about how much each task will likely cost and note that in a 4^th column.  The sum of these cost estimates forms your budget.

Risk:  You ask your team “Is there anything that worries you?”   One of the admin assistants replies: “What if we can’t reserve a restaurant large enough on such short notice?”  So, you decide to add a task to the list to reserve a large conference room at your company and investigate catering at the company as a backup precaution.  You have just performed some risk management planning. Maybe it is not extensive or as rigorous as it could be, but it is better than doing nothing, and probably appropriate for this size effort.

Communication and project execution:  You decide to have a daily 15 minute meeting over the next week as you each carry out your assigned tasks.  I like the agile iterative process format for daily meetings as far as providing a simple way to get project updates.  In each meeting, every team member answers 3 questions:

1. What have you done since the last time we met?
2. What do you plan to do between now and the next time we meet?
3. What impediments are preventing you from making progress?

In answering those 3 questions, you are providing progress measurements that can be compared to the plan.  You are providing forecasts that indicate if adjustments are warranted.  You are highlighting issues and risks that may lead to offline discussions to develop ad hoc workaround plans.

With a simple spreadsheet and some basic, obvious conversation you can manage a small non-complex project.  The tools used are not important, as long as the necessary steps of the project management process are covered.

Defining Thresholds: First off, defining thorough risk response strategies takes time and effort and you want to apply this effort where it makes the most sense.  Assuming that during the qualitative and quantitative assessment steps, some risks will be deemed low priority or less costly, you will probably not want to devise a strategy for each identified risk in your register.  Therefore, before ever beginning risk identification it’s a good idea to make decisions about which risks will be the ones that will get response plans.  This is usually one of the decisions that are documented in the risk management plan.  This might be a threshold for risk scores (probability X impact) above which the risk will move on to response planning phase.  Or, it might just be that the top X % of risks in priority order will be addressed.

Risk Response Types: Risks are uncertain events and can be either negative or positive – i.e. threats or opportunities. Both risk types have a response option of simply accepting the risk and doing nothing proactive to control outcomes.  Beyond that, the response strategy depends on which type of risk you are dealing with.

Threat Responses: 

Avoidance: This is attempting to prevent the threat by developing a strategy to eliminate the cause of the threat.  This assumes you have done a good job during risk identification of analyzing risk event, cause, and effect.

Contingency Plan: If you can’t avoid the threat, the next best response is to develop strategies to brace yourself if it does.  This involves planning for ways to reduce the likelihood of the threat event itself, or reduce the impact.

Fallback Plan: If you implement your contingency plan and it is insufficient, the fallback plan is a secondary response that takes over where the contingency plan failed. 

Transfer:   The transfer option is where we are able to hand over responsibility for dealing with the threat to another party – either through buying insurance, or contracting with a third party.

Triggers/Owners: For all the plans above, triggers and owners should be identified.  Triggers are the activities that signal it is time to activate the plan.  The owner is the person responsible for watching for the trigger and implementing the plan.

Opportunity Responses:

Exploit: This is trying to force the opportunity to come to fruition by increasing the probability of the cause of the opportunity.  This would be the inverse of avoidance for threats, and again would require that you have a good understanding of opportunity event vs. cause.

Enhance: Separate from trying to increase the odds of the cause of the opportunity, this strategy involves trying to increase the likelihood of the opportunity event itself (different from the cause), or increasing the impact of the opportunity once it occurs.  In other words – leveraging a good thing for all it’s worth.

Sharing: The inverse of transfer for a threat, this strategy involves working with another party to help make the opportunity happen – such as perhaps hiring a contractor to perform work.

Watchlist for low priority Risks:   Those risks that don’t make the cut for response planning should still be monitored on a watch list periodically to ensure that their characteristics don’t change and that they don’t require more detailed attention later in the project.

Continued Review through Project execution:   Once response plans are devised, risk teams should review top risks and plans in regular meetings to determine if plans are still appropriate, discuss status of any plans that have been activated, and identify and assess any new risks that may have materialized as the project progresses.  This keeps the project team one step ahead of the problems that are out there waiting to bite you in the rear.  They become less scary.  There are plans in place, triggers identified and owners assigned waiting to take action.  Unanticipated things can still happen, but you have that much more control of the unknown, uncontrollable project landscape.

Qualitative Analysis: During risk identification, the focus was on quantity – identifying as many as possible.  But not all the risks identified merit action.  The purpose of qualitative assessment is to subjectively declare which ones are the most important ones deserving focused attention.  The term subjective is an important distinction from methods used later during quantitative analysis because the assessment is not measured in any precise way.  During qualitative analysis judgment is used to assess evaluations.  This is done by working through the following steps:

1. For each risk, the impact is assessed according to a standard project scale (declared during project risk planning)
2. For each risk the probability or likelihood of occurrence is assessed between (0.0 and .99)
3. The impact rating is multiplied by the probability to obtain a risk score
4. The risk scores are rank ordered to determine the relative priorities
5. According to predetermined thresholds determined during project risk planning, the risks with scores above those thresholds or the top so many in rank order move on to either quantitative analysis (if done for the project) or risk response planning.

Quantitative Analysis:  Not all projects will warrant quantitative analysis.  This is usually only performed for complex projects, long projects, important or high profile projects.  You should use your best judgment as to whether this is warranted or whether it makes more sense to move directly to risk response planning.   Many organizations that perform this process invest in software tools that perform Monte Carlo simulation when there are continuous probability distribution iterations necessary to calculate the possible impact on project objectives.  However, even without such software, it is still possible to perform quantitative analysis by simply shifting emphasis to numerically and objectively analyzing impact and probability for those risks that advance to this phase, rather than the subjective measurement done in qualitative assessment.  Impacts are declared in precise terms of time and cost such as $10000.00 or 10 days rather than a scale value of .8 for example.  Rather than calculating risk scores, expected monetary value (EMV) is used to calculate the exact cost in both time and money for each risk.  This leads to a contingency reserve, which is a budget set aside for funding risk contingency and fallback plans.  The following are the steps:

1. For each risk, the impact in exact time units is assessed (i.e. days, etc.)
2. For each risk, the impact in cost is assessed (i.e. $)
3. If not already available, for each risk numeric probability (0.0 – .99) declared
4. EMV (Time) = probability X Impact time
5. EMV (Cost) = probability X Impact Cost
6. Contingency Reserve (Time) = SUM ( #4)
7. Contingency Reserve (Cost) = SUM (#5)

This allows a more precise calculation of exactly how much the risks and their management will cost.  In my next article I will discuss risk response planning where we will take a look at how to plan strategies to control risks in order to prevent threats and leverage opportunities.

The discipline of risk has six sub component processes:
• Risk management planning
• Risk identification
• Qualitative assessment
• Quantitative assessment
• Risk response planning
• Risk monitoring and controlling
In this article we talk about the first two – planning and identification. In the remaining articles of the series we will discuss the other processes.

Risk Management Planning:  A risk management plan is a document that declares how the remaining steps of the risk process will be performed. It can be a very simple document prepared for each project from an organizational template that states methods and standards that will be utilized for the project. Important things to include in the risk management plan are:
• Methods/techniques to be used for risk identification. Methods/techniques/tools to be used for quantitative analysis (if this step is done)
• Whether quantitative analysis will even be done for the project.
• Historical records and risk categories to use for risk identification – which project archives to explore.
• Roles and responsibilities – who will be part of the team assigned to identify and manage risks.
• Timing – when risk activities will occur – what meetings, etc.
• Definitions of probability and impact – define a common scale and meaning for qualitative ratings.
• Thresholds and tolerances – define the thresholds for advancement of a risk score to risk response planning and where there are special sensitivities (such as cost or time).
• Reporting formats – risk management reports that will be issued and the format.
• Tracking – how the risk process will be reviewed and audited and how activities will be documented. (e.g. where the risk register lives, etc.)
Risk Identification:  After you’ve put some thought into how you are going to do all your risk activities for the entire project, decided who needs to be involved, and written it down into the risk management plan, it’s time to begin identifying risks and writing them down into a risk register. The first thing to be aware of is that a risk is an uncertain event. A fact is NOT a risk. If you know that a certain key team member will not be available for a critical task, that is not a risk to be dealt with in risk management activities. That is a fact to be dealt with in project scope/time/cost/resource activities. So be sure you understand the difference when you begin identifying risks. Also, although not intuitive from the name, a risk can be either positive or negative – either an opportunity or a threat, so be sure to focus on identifying both. Don’t just focus on preventing threats, but also think about how to take advantage of opportunities like sourcing from a supplier that has a lower cost, or finishing a task sooner than planned, etc. Think about who needs to be included to help you with the risk identification activities. These should be subject matter experts who have expertise in the various disciplines involved. This might require that you even go outside the project team and even include customers and stakeholders up and down the organization and in a wide variety of functions. The goal is for quantity over quality at this point so you don’t want to be too restrictive. If someone says “We might get struck by lightning”, go ahead and capture it. You can assess the probability and prioritize it in the next step of the process. Capture all risks in the risk register. Some techniques for risk identification include:
• Review list if risk categories – either a generic commercially available category list or one tailored for your organization. Better still would be one created from past projects. This should not be done as the first risk id step. This should be done after one or two other steps as a “catch-all” to see if anything was missed. The danger in using this first is that people get a false sense of comfort that the list is a comprehensive list of everything possible and they forget to think about what is not on the list.
• Review historical records from previous projects (if available) that are similar to current project – look at risks that were relevant for those projects that may plague your project.
• Review project documentation – There is a reason risk identification comes after all the other project planning activities. You need the output of those exercises to see what the project entails so you know where there is risk. Review the charter, scope statement, WBS, schedule, budget, requirements, specs, etc. for risk.
• Expert Interviews – talk to key stakeholders, customers, sponsors, or members of senior management as necessary to obtain opinions about risk.
• Brainstorming – perhaps the most popular technique, if done properly this method can generate a lot of risks. Best practice is to have 2 scribes in addition to the facilitator. Try to solicit risks in multiple ways: by the project as a whole, by each activity, and by category. Don’t judge – just collect as many as possible! Group them, then clarify.
In the next article we will discuss how to assess and prioritize the risks once you’ve identified them with the qualitative and quantitative assessment steps.

1. March 23 – Passage of the Healthcare Bill, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.  Regardless of what your opinion is on this legislation, the project of getting it passed was successful, and achieved what Presidents as far back as Teddy Roosevelt were not able to accomplish. 
2. April 3 – Arrival of the iPad, demonstrating the beauty of a solution filling a need.  Three million devices have been sold this year and countless new apps have been launched to thrill iPad users. 
3. April 14 – Iceland’s Eyjafjallajokull Volcano shuts down European air travel, and disrupts the global economy.  Although businesses around the world were affected, I can’t imagine that even the best risk managers spent much time and effort mitigating this risk. 
4. April 20 – The BP Oil Spill was an unprecedented disaster, no matter how you look at it.  The final history has yet to be written on this, but I think time will show hideous project management practices before the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig, while some pretty rigorous project management practices were applied to the aftermath. 
5. November 2 – Lisa Murkowski becomes the first write-in candidate to win a Senate seat since 1954.  Great lesson in perseverance and the power of getting creative to overcome obstacles. 
6. November 8 – Queen Elizabeth joined Facebook.  In Malcolm Gladwell parlance, this is truly the tipping point for a social media platform, and ought to be considered for every project communication plan. 
7. November 8 – Another lesson in risk planning, or lack thereof, comes from Carnival Cruise Lines.  The Carnival Splendor, with 4,500 souls aboard, lost all power due to a fire in the engine room.  The ship drifted 200 miles off the coast of San Diego, electricity, refrigeration, hot water or air-conditioning, for three days, with aid provided by the US Coast Guard, the US Navy, and Mexican Navy, until a Coast Guard cutter pushed them into the harbor in Ensenada, Mexico.     
8. November 28 – the preview of the so-far disastrous run of Spiderman: Turn off the Dark on Broadway takes place on Thanksgiving weekend.  Rumored to be the most expensive Broadway production in history, with music and lyrics by Bono and The Edge (of U2) and directed by Broadway whiz kid Julie Taymor, the show’s premier has been delayed numerous times due to accidents that led to multiple cast members being injured, as well as the resulting investigations by the New York State Department of Labor and the Actors’ Equity Association.  Opening night is currently scheduled for 7 February.  A project manager’s nightmare… 

In this case, the project manager is retired U.S. Coast Guard Adm. Thad Allen, who is in charge of the federal government’s response to the oil spill resulting from the April 20^th explosion at one of British Petroleum’s (BP) offshore oil rigs in the Gulf of Mexico.  His title is officially National Incident Commander, but that just means he’s the most senior project manager on this mess.  I simply can’t imagine all the constraints he is juggling as he attempts to right things in the aftermath of the largest offshore oil spill in the history of the United States. 

Just consider force majeure effects the project manager has to deal with, particularly the weather.  Today, Day 96, brings the news that the cleanup effort that was halted due to the expected arrival of Tropical Storm Bonnie, is back on, as Bonnie failed to materialize.  Before anyone breathes a sigh of relief, however, officials are quick to point out that this is the season for tropical storms.  Weather experts are predicting ten this year and Bonnie was only the second.    

In Cindy’s blog last week, she talked about managing the public relations around troubled projects.  In the Deepwater Horizon situation, oil rig owner BP can hardly have done a worse job in the PR department.  CEO Tony Hayward has come across as flippant and out of touch in his many appearances before an American public that is very concerned about the environmental and economic impacts of this catastrophe.  In a dubious attempt to improve the company’s image, BP Board Chairman Carl-Henric Svanberg stated several times that “We care about the small people,” which didn’t necessarily warm the hearts of the stakeholders who had not, until this point, considered themselves “the small people”.  Fortunately, Allen has done a much better job with project PR than his “client”, BP, by appearing to be a straight shooter: providing frequent updates with as much clarity as the situation allows.  

With the passage of time and lawsuits and congressional hearings, we will learn much more about all the things that went wrong with the Deepwater Horizon rig and how they contributed to this disaster, resulting in the need for a “response project”.  And certainly the response itself will be studied by scholars of all types of disciplines, who will attempt to capture lessons learned from this highly visible, and downright painful, public mess.

But as project managers who may at some point in our careers be called on to lead an almost impossibly troubled project, what lessons can we learn as we watch the situation unfold, from a safe distance and with an increasing benefit of hindsight as each day passes?  And what can we identify that is going right, so we can repeat them on our own troubled projects?

I am eager to hear your observations.  At this point in the response project, I can identify two areas for the “What Went Right” column:

1. Admiral Allen as the leader of the response project definitely goes in the “What Went Right” column.  Not only does he have almost 40 years of service in the Coast Guard, a Master of Public Administration degree from George Washington University and a Master’s degree in Management from the MIT Sloan School of Management, he was also lead Hurricane Katrina onsite relief efforts in September 2005, and his stewardship of that project was highly regarded.  People in the Gulf know him and respect him.  He has a track record and the perception is that if anyone can get their arms around this mess, it’s him.
2. Another check in the “What Went Right” column goes to adequate resources.  So far, BP has seemed quite willing to foot the bill for the cleanup effort, although many of the business affected need more relief faster.  With time, we will understand exactly who is at fault for what, and BPs willingness to accept responsibility may turn out to be a shrewd PR ploy instead of a demonstration of corporate responsibility.  Nonetheless, right now it’s nice to see resources being committed instead bickering about who will pay for it.  There will be plenty of time for that later…

Please let me know what your thoughts are about the response project, and if you can identify anything else that is going right.

Ultimately, it came down to Holly Robinson Peete and Bret Michaels, neither whom I would have predicted would be a finalist.  Both played the game well, and if you could take the best of both of them, you would have the Super Hero of Project Managers: Bret’s creativity, warmth and ability to leverage the skills of his resources with Holly’s fierce determination and drive for success.  Over the course of 11 weekly episodes, Bret ultimately impressed Donald Trump the most and was offered the ostensible job of Celebrity Apprentice, following in the footsteps of Piers Morgan and Joan Rivers.

The show mimics the real world insofar as most of us have about 12 weeks, or 90 days, during which our new organization can terminate us without cause.  In the United States at least, we have 90 days to impress our new manager, peers and direct reports, make them happy they hired us, and want to keep us around. 

In his book “The First 90 Days: Critical Success Strategies for New Leaders at All Levels”, Michael Watkins identifies 10 key challenge areas that a leader in a new situation needs to manage. 

One of these challenges, which Watkins characterizes as “negotiating success”, involves your manager.  “Because no other single relationship is more important, you need to figure out how to build a productive working relationship with your new boss and manage his or her expectations.”  In the Celebrity Apprentice example, we know that Trump has a history of picking an outlandish figure as his celebrity apprentice, a real character.  He loves a clever turn of phrase, as both Piers Morgan and Joan Rivers did so well.  Although Bret is much kinder then either of his predecessors, his colorful style of dress, peculiar vernacular and endearing view of the world undoubtedly provided enough flair to appeal to Trump, who wanted some celebrity “cred by association”. 

Another key challenge that Watkins recognizes is to secure early wins.  “Early wins build your credibility and create momentum.  They create virtuous cycles that leverage the energy you are putting into the organization to create a pervasive sense that good things are happening.”  This season started with Bret as the winning project manager for the first task.  Joan Rivers was the winning project manager for the first task last season.  Piers Morgan, while not the project manager, served on the winning team for the first task and differentiated himself from the first episode by gleefully engaging in a blood feud with arch-villain Omarosa.   

The ability to create coalitions is a further key challenge identified by Watkins.  “Your success will depend on your ability to influence people outside your direct line of control.  Supportive alliances, both internal and external, will be necessary to achieve your goals”.  Bret did a masterful job in this area, and may have been where he really pulled ahead of Holly’s grim efficiency.  Bret was nice to everyone and never lowered himself to interpersonal squabbles.  Early in the season, like the Kodak challenge in Episode Two, Bret acted a little high maintenance and needed an inordinate amount of hand-holding, but he pulled himself together and ultimately won the respect and admiration of all of his team mates, even before facing any of the health challenges that he and his family were confronted with during the season. 

The Celebrity Apprentice demonstrates that just because we made the first cut doesn’t mean we will have a successful run at an organization, and offers lessons to us all on how to navigate those critical first three months to ensure that we really get a chance to make a long-term impact.

For the next few weeks, I will be blogging about how we, as project managers, can help our project teams think more creatively.  In my last blog, I looked at the systems and causes of teams that are in a creativity crisis.  Today, I offer the first technique for helping your team break out of a creativity rut.  I will follow with many more techniques over the next several weeks. 

The Six Thinking Hats was created by Dr. Edward de Bono, M.D., a pioneer in “deliberate thinking models” who believes that conventional thinking needs random interruptions so creative thinking can take place.  Dr. de Bono has several different approaches to thinking and has published many books over the last 40 years.  One of his most popular concepts is the Six Thinking Hats, which is designed to help groups think together more effectively.  Sounds like a great idea, right?  I have certainly participated in a number of “brainstorming” meetings over the years where precious little thinking was in evidence! 

The premise behind the Six Thinking Hats is that the human brain thinks in six discrete ways which can be harnessed individually to produce different ideas.  When considering the same topic, each of the six thinking states will generate different ideas on the same topic.  Each state is identified with a color, and many practitioners of this method will actually provide “thinking hats” in every color to every meeting participant.  By putting on a hat of a certain color, you are aware of the type of thinking you are engaged in. 

The six states and the associated colors are:

• Questions (White) – What are the facts?
• Emotions (Red) – What are the feelings?  
• Judgment (Black) – What are the flaws?  What are the difficulties and the dangers?
• Good points (Yellow) – What are the benefits? What is positive about this idea?
• Creativity (Green) – Where can we go with this thought?  What are the possibilities?  What are the alternatives? 
• Thinking (Blue) – Are we managing the thinking process?  

Obviously, the Black hat, judgment, is one that all project teams are familiar with.  With a cohesive team that works well together, you probably wear the Yellow hat and acknowledge benefits to the ideas generated by your group thinking exercises.  You may even put on the Green hat and get creative with teams that trust each other and enjoy collaborating.  A good project manager probably wears the Blue hat, for managing processes, quite often when running meetings. 

But what about the White hat, the facts? How often, when identifying requirements, solving a project problem or assessing a risk, do we rush through the facts?  Or treat assumptions as facts?  Or treat facts as assumptions?  Wearing the white hat, either literally or figuratively, might help our teams avoid some project problems. 

And finally, the Red hat, which represents emotions.  Few project teams spend any time or effort on emotions, unless the ignored emotions erupt, causing a situation that has to be confronted.  Not only is it useful to address your project team’s emotions, you have to put the Red hat on and discuss emotions when you are planning any sort of activity or event that will change people’s jobs.  Any student of Organization Change Management will tell you that you ignore organizational emotions at your peril.    

De Bono’s Six Thinking Hats can help you think comprehensively about any topic confronting your team.  This has been a very brief overview, but there is plenty of information available online to learn more about this technique.  For more information, start at Dr. De Bono’s website, http://www.debonogroup.com/six_thinking_hats.php.

Stay tuned next time, for some additional techniques to improve team creativity.

In his book Team Troubleshooter: How to Find and Fix Team Problems, Dr. Robert Barner says teams that are struggling with accountability issues often display the following symptoms:

A Focus on Activities, Not Results: Who among us doesn’t relish the idea of updating a project plan to show that a task or even a sub-project is complete?  But are these completed tasks actually accomplishing anything except improving the project’s “percent complete” column?  As Barner says “activity-based evaluations can easily fool teams into believing they’re making valuable organizational contributions when their employers are actually deriving little from their activities”.  As project managers, we must ensure our project teams focus on the end results, not the task victories, in order to provide real value to our organizations. 

Lack of Direction or Motivation: Project team members who are working from a comprehensive project plan which is reviewed and updated frequently should be well aware of the direction of the project.  But motivation is another story.  A project plan can contain thousands of tasks that team members diligently plod through.  But are they aware of the results of their efforts? 

“It’s hard to stay interested in a game if you can’t tell the score.  Team members who are trying to function without solid measurement systems are often unmotivated and apathetic.  Well-designed scorecards help team members focus on the most important work activities” Barner advises. 

So if your team is struggling with accountability issues, think about what you are using to report project progress.  You may find that the standard project reporting is too broad and diffuse to be able to inspire your team members.  You may need to tie milestone information to another metric within your organization, like costs, usage, time to market or customer feedback, in order to keep your team’s “eyes on the prize” and ensure that your team understands their contributions to the larger organization. 

Difficulty Recovering From and Analyzing Setbacks:  Risk management is a huge part of project management, and many of us have seen a team devastated by an unanticipated or under-anticipated risk.  This is particularly challenging for teams that have made risk management a priority through frequent reviews of risk events, their probabilities and impacts, and who have invested the time in creating and maintaining project risk artifacts. 

“Even the best teams encounter occasional performance setbacks.  When faced with reversals, teams with reliable scorecards in place are able to put the situation in perspective by reminding themselves of the steady improvement they’ve made over the long run”, Barner reports.

This is where a mid-project Lessons Learned session becomes valuable.  When your team suffers a setback, use those risk documents to get a realistic view on what went wrong.  Bring your group together to discuss what went wrong, what went right and how to do it better in the future.  Learn from it and then move on. 

Henry David Thoreau said “Aim above morality. Be not simply good; be good for something.”  From a project manager’s perspective, this means sharing accountability with your team by focusing on business, not just busyness!