No, I’m not talking about the 50’s song by The Platters. I’m talking about people on your team or project who really aren’t ‘with the program’ and are putting your work and possibly your career at risk.
Most of us have seen the acceptance model below at one point or another, so I’m going to use it to illustrate my point and show you where you are most likely to find those pretenders. Continue reading
In today’s business environment, many companies outsource a majority of a program’s work to stay competitive. Far too often, hidden subcontractor’s risks cause unplanned significant cost and schedule growth resulting in serious negative program impact.
Sound familiar? Learn how to mitigate these risks: Continue reading
I had a challenge from a colleague to write something about the topic of motivation. In thinking about this, I was reminded of all those slick posters we used to see with beautiful and striking scenes – all of them designed to focus you on some slogan or principle or other uplifting thought.
A lot of companies paid a whole lot of money to “motivate” their teams and bring cohesion to the workplace. In fact, a lot of companies still do this even if it manifests in new ways (free beer Friday comes to mind). Yet I’d like to ask one simple question if I may …
Can I as a team leader actually motivate my team? Continue reading
I came across Greg Carroll a few weeks ago when he was giving what we thought was a counter-intuitive blog called: Chaos Theory & C – Level Disillusionment with Risk Management.
Not good! This ran counter to the enter premise of CERM and our business model. But, we were intrigued. And, Greg was kind to expand on his views. Continue reading
Sometime after the release of ISO 9001:2000, a shortcoming of ISO 9001 auditing became clear: certifying body (CB) auditors were often using a standard-based approach to auditing. Auditors would arrive at an audit client’s worksite armed with a copy of ISO 9001 as a stage 2 audit checklist. This appeared to allow inconsistent application of the requirements.
Since the 2000 standard only reputedly required six procedures, stage 1 document review consisted of reviewing an organization’s 6 procedures against requirements contained in the 6 ISO 9001 clauses calling for documented procedures. This same mind-set is a carry-over from the 1987/1994 idea of auditing. Then, document review consisted of reviewing an organization’s 20 procedures against the 20 elements calling for documented procedures; stage 2 auditing consisted of assessing working practice against procedures responding to ISO 9001 requirements. Continue reading