When projects are just a pain in the ass ...

A fundamental change in the organization can prevent this from becoming the norm. From a purely factual point of view, this is not a problem. But the change must also strike a chord with employees in order to have a truly lasting and successful effect.

Striking a nerve
In the formulation that projects are annoying already lies the most important key for the successful change of an organization: namely to hit the nerve, to "touch" the people. On the one hand, objectivity is undoubtedly required. On the other hand, arguments such as "The projects take too long" or "The schedules are unreliable" run the risk of being factual, but of communicating little that really touches the people involved - and with which they in turn can touch their colleagues. If the "glow" is finally to return to the eyes of the employees, emotions must also be involved.

A long development path
For a long time, the basic assumption was that it was sufficient to use rational cause-effect relationships to get a grip on a problem. Eli Gold-ratt, founder of the Theory of Constraints, coined the term "focus" in this context. Focus understood in the sense of: What is to be done now? In order to exclude at the same time what is to be omitted now. The general basic assumption in companies was that people in organizations would work sub-optimally. The management had to use appropriate methods to ensure that the employees worked optimally again. However, this attitude and the presentation of clearly rational cause-and-effect relationships in the implementation did not trigger any great enthusiasm. The Eng-pass is another essential assumption of Eli Goldratt. If all areas of a company in a process chain are directly or indirectly dependent on each other, the overall system can only be as good as its weakest link. He concluded that management is the bottleneck. This is a completely different answer than the one suggested by the basic assumption described at the beginning. Because there the bottleneck was to be found with the employees and not at all with the management.

There is another way
Project work is based on the fact that departments work together across different areas. As long as only one or a few projects are running at the same time, the idea that one thing can be done faster across units works wonderfully. But if there are (too) many projects running side by side, none of them can be given full attention and the result is the unpleasant situation that they only get on your nerves. The opposite, that a project simply "slips", always happens when a project is given the highest priority. Then everyone in the company drops everything else without being asked and gives the project their full attention. Then it is quite possible to realize a single project in a fraction of the usual time and far below the project plan. And why don't you always do it this way: Equip projects with optimal resources? Does it make interruption-free, focused work possible? When you actually know how it can work!

The trappings tie up energy and time
In multi-project environments, almost half of the employees work on four to five projects simultaneously. Very few can concentrate on one task at a time. Who is particularly burdened by this multitasking in project work has to do with the hierarchy. From the perspective of a managing director, a board member or a division manager, something fruitful should come out of all projects relatively quickly, and if possible without having to constantly worry about it.

"The fact that a project just 'flows' always happens when a project gets top priority."

to have to. But the reality is completely different. A project is initiated and it is by no means certain that it will progress reasonably quickly without one's own involvement. Rather, there are conflicts, one has to take care, intervene, discuss with colleagues about the highest priority. It's not the project itself, the work that needs to be done, that ties up too much energy and time, but all this surrounding.

Do fewer projects at the same time!
The solution clearly lies in fewer projects at the same time. Anything else is cosmetic. By doing fewer projects at the same time, organizations can cut project durations in half or more. According to the Critical Chain Method, fewer projects are worked on in parallel. Work packages are prioritized, processed in sequence, and effectively completed faster. By concentrating one hundred percent on just one task, idle time and reserves are minimized at the same time. It is really touching when, during the introduction of this method in a company, the managing director honestly announces: "Dear employees, you have always told me that we do too much at the same time. Sorry I didn't understand." In such an emotional situation, the glow returns to the employees' eyes.

Conclusion: Companies should put the responsibility where it is, for the way things are. Where the rules are set, maintained or carried forward. Because here are those who are most likely to bring about change. This is how employees can be reached emotionally and projects can become fun again.