Transparency, Accountability, and Commitment to the Projects Execution.

Currently, the requests and expectations of clients for the projects they hire are increasingly demanding in terms of execution times and costs. Nowadays, projects with execution times of less than one year are frequent, and more frequent those with execution times of 6 months or less, all with very tight budgets. Along with this, now it is also frequent that customers do not completely define from the beginning what is the scope of the work to be hired, but they only express their needs or what they aim to. Also added to this is the request to estimate as soon as possible the costs of major equipment and key contracts to have the necessary budget in advance.

To address the challenges described above, the current trend calls for strategies structured in accordance with PMI best practices and the application of three fundamental keys that would provide the solid base needed to achieve successful team management and a satisfied customer. These fundamental or essential pillars to be applied by all: managers, intermediate leadership and, executing staff, are the Transparency in the performance of the activities, the Accountability of this performance and the Commitment to the objectives of the project and the client needs.

Transparency, Accountability, and Commitment, essentially independent pillars, once activated, they positively interrelate among themselves. Therefore, Transparency leads to trust and then to a harmonious and safe work environment, which consequently drives to the reinforcement of natural leadership and then to Accountability at all levels, which in turn leads to alignment with the Commitment to the client, their needs and, the own organization ones.

For the activation of Transparency, Accountability, and Commitment within the working group, the following is recommended:

Transparency:

• Promote open communication and the exchange of information as a habit. This is the execution without secrets. It should be noted here that the internal security information of the organization may be exempt from transparency (e.g., administration, finance, and, human resources).
• Promote honesty and camaraderie among members.
• Encourage the need to receive comments.
• Promote due respect among all.
• Admit errors, if any, without fear of reprisal.
• Listen to each other. Do not assume anything a priori.

Transparency in the actions of the organization and communication of the team is as simple as establishing an execution without secrets. This is, executing the actions in such a way that others can easily see them. People like to know things. No one feels comfortable surrounded by secrets and hidden information, especially in a workplace.

Productive people thrive on teams that rely on trust.

Accountability:

• Clearly identify the roles.
• Promoting periodic alignment with the objective.
• Promoting expansion of the focal vision and reinforce the global vision.
• Delegate activities and promote the sense of ownership over the results obtained from this delegation.
• Strengthen the working group self-confidence in the approach of solutions that lead to appropriate and timely decisions. Managers remain behind the scene vigilant and responsible for what the team is handling.
• Emphasize that the management is confident in the working group.
• Dignify the integrity of each person in the working group.
• Emphasize that management supports and defends the working group regarding proposals that led to the decisions taken, the risks assumed and the results obtained.
• Promote problem-solving without seeking blame.

The promotion of accountability of the working group responsibilities helps establish peer respect and guide the team to meet their expectations.

Commitment:

• Give staff visibility and recognition within the organization.
• Define clearly from the start the expectations to be met.
• Identify realistic goals
• Provide the staff with the necessary training.
• Provide recognition about achievements, big or small.

Teams that manage to internalize the commitment use a common language, share ideas and opinions and debate them internally, supporting the decisions as a group, even if someone initially disagrees.

Spanish version available at: 
https://ingconcurrente.blogspot.com/2018/07/la-transparencia-la-rendicion-de.html

The Lessons Learned and the Storyteller

The lessons learned from an activity, project or any entrepreneurship are the documented information that reflects the positive and negative experiences of that activity, project or entrepreneurship and includes recommendations to improve future performance in new developments. So it is about preventing a person or organization from repeating the same mistakes and taking advantage of the successes achieved. 

According to the Project Management Institute (PMI), the process of Lessons Learned from a project includes five steps: Identify the findings, Document them, Analyze them, Record them and Take Advantage of them. 

The first step: Identifying the findings, means discovering and capturing the facts, figures, comments, and recommendations of the project under study, which could be valuable for future projects. This requires that the lessons learned sessions be Prepared and Oriented or Conducted. 

Preparing the lessons learned session means identifying the participants, including the Facilitator, defining and assigning roles and responsibilities, writing the basic rules of the process and developing the agenda. Additionally, the selected Facilitator must provide a summary of the project to the participants (scope of the project, key facts, and figures, etc.) to help them be better prepared for the sessions. 

Guiding or conducting the lessons learned session means focusing on identifying the successes and failures of a project and obtaining recommendations to improve performance in future projects. Here the Facilitator is the key figure, because he or she is in charge of ensuring that all relevant issues are included in the debate and that the process of lessons learned is fluid, in line with the basic rules, promoting among the attendees the criticism to the facts and findings that are identified, avoiding signaling people. 

Under this scheme, the Facilitator acts as a guiding and pivoting element of the session, in which the listed facts and figures of the project lead to the participants being able to identify the potential findings. 

Now, let’s imagine that the lessons learned sessions instead of starting with the guidelines given by a guiding leader begin with a fluent narrative (the Story), presented by the Facilitator or someone selected to do that (the Storyteller), which describes in a pleasant way what happened in the project from the beginning, starting with the start-up meeting of the project and from there tells the story about how was the relationship with the client at all levels: management, administration, planning and execution, continuing the narration with those key events that could have impacted the course of the project and how we reacted to them at that time, at all levels. Here the Storyteller could open the "Story" by promoting the audience participation in the narrative, asking for example, what other experience or relevant event happened to us? Who were the featured characters? and what was the positive thing that they did to solve the event, including also, in a positive way (without signaling people) how we could have failed and how these events were also closed. 

Nick Morgan, author of "Power Cues", points out the following: "The facts and figures and all the rational things that we believe are important in the business world, do not really stick in our minds at all." 

In addition, activating our memory with memories of the project's experiences facilitates the visualization of the events under the situations experienced, which favors the detection of findings that could otherwise be omitted. The incidents experienced move people internally more than the evaluation of the facts and the figures that are shown on a blackboard. Consequently, saying an incident can be worth more than reporting facts and figures. Here is the importance of telling the story of the project.

Then, for an activity that is based on the review of past events like as the lessons learned sessions, it would be useful to use any tool that allows the events reappear as smoothly as possible. Thus, the implementation of the figure of the Storyteller at the beginning of these sessions, who would tell the summarized history of the project under evaluation, acquires strength in comparison with the traditional procedure of identifying findings from a list of facts or figures. However, it should be noted that this summary history of the project must be effective (focused on key events) and should motivate the participants of the lessons learned session. So, the following question arises: How to make a summary story of the project effective and motivating? 

Carolyn O'Hara in her article "How to tell a great story" (Harvard Business Review - July 30, 2014's edition) wrote the following: 

"Stories create sticky memories by adding emotions to things that have happened". 

"We tell our co-workers and friend stories to persuade someone to support our project". 

When we listen to a story, our mentality changes drastically. Not only are activated the language processing parts, but also those areas that would be used if you were in the story yourself. Thus, "stories create sensory experiences" (The Psychology of Stories: The Storytelling Formula Our Brains Crave, by Shane Jones, Hubspot blog, 2017). 

"When you listen to shocking stories, the brain can really make you develop thoughts, opinions, and ideas that align with the person telling the story. When we tell stories that have really influenced our way of thinking, we can also achieve the same effect on our audience, influencing them. The brains of the narrator and the listener can really synchronize" (The Psychology of Stories: The Storytelling Formula Our Brains Crave, by Shane Jones, Hubspot blog, 2017).

Then, a motivating story could be based on the following: 

• It must be chronological. It contains a beginning and end. 

• It must say who we are, not only what we do because human relationships require reciprocity and authenticity. 

• It must explain how the shared purpose will be fulfilled and also explain the roles needed to fulfill it. 

• It must ensure that the figures and events that occurred are explicitly translated into clear, simple and visual messages. 

The objective is to say something that provokes the emotional response of the audience.

" I've learned that people will forget what you said, people will forget what you did, but people will never forget how you made them feel."_ Maya Angelou.

Spanish version available at:

https://ingconcurrente.blogspot.com/2017/08/las-lecciones-aprendidas-y-el-narrador.html

Application of some principles of Quantum Theory to Project Management. Could it be real, or just a common pop-science claim, not based on facts?

If we aim for effectiveness, we must acknowledge the observer effect and also consider that there can be multiple incompatible solutions to any problem.

Key question here: Can the principles of quantum mechanics, such as superposition, be extended to the macroscopic realm of human relationships?

This could be a truly fascinating question, situated at the intersection of physics and psychology. The short answer is: not literally, but its analogical extension is surprisingly rich and deserves to be taken seriously.

Understanding the unpredictable.

Where the analogy works well:

Quantum superposition describes a system that exists in multiple possible states simultaneously until an observation "collapses" it into a single one. Human relationships, such as those necessary in project management, have a similar structure. Before a difficult conversation, a relationship genuinely exists in multiple possible states: it could grow closer, drift apart, become conflictive, or transform. The act of having the conversation (the "observation") collapses those possibilities into a specific reality. This isn't just a metaphor; the indeterminacy is real, even if its mechanism is social rather than quantum.

Entanglement is another interesting concept. Two people in a deep relationship develop correlated emotional and behavioral states, not through a mystical connection, but through a shared history, mirrored habits, and mutual learning. Change one, and you will have truly changed the other, even at a distance.

Where the analogy falls short:

Quantum effects operate at scales where thermal noise doesn't eliminate them, so they disappear at macroscopic scales. Human relationships are thermodynamically hot systems. Decoherence would destroy any literal quantum effects almost instantaneously. Therefore, when it is claimed that relationships are literally governed by quantum mechanics (a surprisingly common claim in popular science), a physical error is being made.

There is also a more subtle problem: quantum indeterminacy is fundamental; it is not merely ignorance, it is the actual state of reality. Human relational uncertainty is primarily cognitive: we don't know what will happen because information is hidden, not because the future is not yet fully formed.

Perhaps the real insight isn't that quantum mechanics applies to relationships, but that quantum mechanics can reveal something broader: that observation is participatory, that systems can be genuinely indeterminate, and that the act of measuring changes what's measured. These ideas, when developed on their own terms in social and psychological contexts, are powerful. 

So the most defensible position is probably this: quantum mechanics does not govern human relationships, but it serves as a conceptual advance that allows us to loosen the grip of classical determinism, and that relaxation has genuinely useful echoes in how we understand complex, observer-dependent, and indeterminate human systems.

Furthermore:

The principle of complementarity states that quantum objects, such as photons or electrons, possess mutually exclusive properties (wave and particle) that cannot be observed simultaneously. Measuring one obscures the other. Both descriptions are necessary, yet incompatible.

Applied to relationships, this principle suggests something genuinely profound: that people, and the connections between them, can contain incompatible truths that are both real and necessary.

Some dimensions where this manifests:

Intimacy vs. Autonomy. The more a relationship is measured or defined by closeness and merging, the more each person's individuality is suppressed. But if one takes a step back to preserve independence, intimacy fades. Both cannot be maximized simultaneously; however, a healthy relationship needs both. Applying this concept to project control could be fascinating and very revealing.

Knowledge vs. Unknown. The more you try to "know" someone or something, to categorize them, predict them, explain them, the more you flatten the living mystery of who or what they are. Yet, without some understanding, there is no real connection. The act of observing changes what you see.

In short, the act of observing changes what is observed, and this is profoundly true in relationships. When you analyze a person or something too closely, you transform them. When you demand that they be completely consistent or completely knowable, you impose a kind of violence. Relationships, like quantum systems, can be richer than any description can capture.

Suggestion-Warning:

Quantum mechanics, as a literal physical theory, does not govern human behavior. The danger lies in the fact that seeking analogy becomes a way to avoid clarity rather than accept complexity. But we shouldn't dismiss the fact that it offers a beautiful perspective: it suggests that, in relationships, contradiction is not a failure. Two opposing truths about a situation can both be real, even necessary.

Finally, if we move from the essentially theoretical to the potentially practical, the truly useful perspective of everything described above would be:

Observing changes the system.

In quantum mechanics, measurement is not passive; it affects the state of what is being measured. In project management, this is profoundly true and often underestimated.

When you monitor and manage the progress of a work group on a given project, you are not simply collecting data. You are:

• Changing their priorities.
• Affecting their stress and motivation levels.
• Highlighting what you consider important.
• Potentially disrupting flow states.

This suggests that you should be strategic about what you observe and how often. Excessive monitoring creates its own problems, not because work groups resent it, but because the observations actually disrupt the work. Recommendation: A light touch on stable tasks and more attentive observation on high-risk or poorly defined ones.

The Superposition and Collapse of Commitment:

This is where the analogy becomes practical: before committing to a delivery date with a client, the project exists in multiple possible states: different scopes, different timelines, different risk profiles. The act of committing narrows those possibilities down to a specific reality.

This means strategically delaying collapse: keeping options open longer when uncertainty is high. It means not making commitments before gathering enough information to progress toward a positive rather than a negative state.

It's key to recognize that vague, sometimes forced, commitments don't help. A vague "we'll aim to resolve this soon" isn't superposition; it's simply poor communication. The parallel with quantum mechanics would be: be precise when making measurements (commitments), but choose carefully when to measure.

Entanglement and Teamwork:

Working groups aren't independent entities; they are entangled. When one person falls behind, it affects everyone else, not only through dependencies but also through morale, workload redistribution, and cultural momentum.

Practical implications:

Don't treat problems in isolation: when one person struggles, review the entire system.

Create positive entanglement: pair programming, code reviews, and shared ownership create beneficial correlations.

Beware of negative entanglement: one demoralized person can change the mood of the entire workgroup.

The biggest pitfall to avoid:

The quantum analogy can lead you to believe that systems are more mysterious or uncontrollable than they actually are. Unlike quantum particles, workgroups can communicate what's happening. They have intentions, make plans, and can adjust course. Indeterminacy in a project stems primarily from incomplete information and the complexity of coordination, not from fundamental unpredictability.

So the practical conclusions could be:

• Observation is intervention.

• Commitments stifle possibilities.

• Team members are interconnected systems.

• “We must act accordingly.”

Project management isn't quantum physics, but the analogies described above remind us that observation is intervention, that commitments define realities, and that teams are interconnected systems. Wisdom lies in knowing when to look, when to decide, and how to maintain system cohesion.

Spanish version available at:

https://ingconcurrente.blogspot.com/2017/11/aplicacion-de-principios-de-la-mecanica.html