The back page of The Times on 17th January carried the headline “Games cash ‘frittered’ on £22m cost of legacy survey”. The story goes on to outline the history of the Active People Survey and comments that this is more money than has been invested in the two high profile sports of swimming and athletics.
Launched in 2005, the survey was designed to support the legacy aims of the 2012 bid in promoting increased participation. However, a growing chorus are suggesting that the survey is not meeting the expectations of the stakeholders.
Who will speak up when ideas seem to be getting rubber stamped?
I am not in a position to question the efficacy or suitability of the survey but it did raise the question of Groupthink.
“Groupthink, a term coined by social psychologist Irving Janis (1972), occurs when a group makes faulty decisions because group pressures lead to a deterioration of ‘mental efficiency, reality testing, and moral judgment.’ Groups affected by groupthink ignore alternatives and tend to take irrational actions that dehumanize other groups. A group is especially vulnerable to groupthink when its members are similar in background, when the group is insulated from outside opinions, and when there are no clear rules for decision making”.
Taking a project management perspective on the Active People Survey it has to be questioned as to the business case for the project. On the plus side it is not a failing project like so many we see coming from government, but equally does this represent value for money. I am sure that the same amount invested into grass roots activities with a requirement for impact assessment could have yielded a similar survey result and potentially greater impact.
The question becomes as to how much Groupthink has influenced the decision making process. Our culture possibly contributes to this as we tend to question projects that are closed down. But if we are using project management frameworks effectively then deciding a project is not reflecting the business case should be an acceptable alternative.
This leads to two possible conclusions. The first is that we should always be wary of Groupthink. This can be avoided by the use of independent auditors who are prepared and equipped to stand back and look objectively at the decision making process. This could be part of the PMO function, but again: does this reflect true independence?
The second is a change in our culture. We, at Arras, have asked project management job candidates before about their failures. Not to identify a potential weakness but rather to see what has been learnt by the experience. Perhaps if our business culture was more accepting of wrong decisions then perhaps we would find project boards that we were willing to stop (or perhaps not even start) projects that are not in the best interest of stakeholders.
Image courtesy of Ollie Craaford @ Flickr and re-used with permission.
