Refining your portfolio of management projects can require difficult choices

The majority of law firm leaders want to be liked and to pursue strategic objectives that are popular and engaging. The danger however is that, in trying to please everybody, the managing partner ends up with an overly broad set of strategies and initiatives that lack sufficient focus in any one area to have a good chance of implementation success.

By trying to run multiple strategies to satisfy all constituents, the firm ends up both with a batch of uncompleted or half-finished projects and a handful of only moderately well-executed initiatives.

What differentiates the best from the mediocre in terms of project execution is the discipline of linking the firm’s overall strategy with a tailored (and not too large) portfolio of projects and initiatives that directs the scarce investment resources of time and money to the firm’s strategic development and towards the fulfilment of its strategic intent.

I suggest three essential steps to ?help firms decide what to do and what ?not to do.

1. Differentiate projects by type?

The first step is to obtain clarity over the various types of management projects under consideration. Management projects fall into three basic types – operational, improvement and transformational – and it is important to distinguish between them.

1. ?Operational projects are those which relate to the day-to-day running of the firm and which the firm needs continually to execute in order just to stand still.

2. Improvement projects are concerned with the progression of the firm towards being better in terms ?of service, the achievement of ?financial hygiene and the attainment ?of best practice in people and ?general management.

3. Transformational projects are truly strategic in that they are aimed at taking the firm to the next level in terms of beating competitors, qualitative growth and the firm’s strategic positioning – all the elements of a firm’s plans that enable it to achieve its strategic intent (identity, purpose and vision).

Operational and improvement projects are clearly vital and may, at times, require tough decisions, heavy investment and concerted effort.

The business case, however, is often straightforward and the projects themselves often form core parts of the day jobs of the managing partner and ?the senior management team.

It has to be recognised, nevertheless, that such projects are often difficult to implement, as they may require the leadership to grapple with emotive issues of underperformance.

Transformational projects are less easy to prioritise and justify (particularly in terms of investment cost) to anxious, negative or change-averse partners. These definitely form areas in which partners can be difficult to please.

Differentiating project types can however help a firm to distinguish between urgency and importance.

2. Choose between projects

The second step requires projects to ?be prioritised. Longer-term ?transformational projects will be ?needed to support an ambitious firm’s overall strategic intent to become one of a small group of dominant firms geographically, sectorally or in terms of ?its service portfolio.

The choice of such projects may ?imply some exciting investments, but ?often also may involve difficult and unpopular consequential decisions to discard unprofitable or irrelevant teams, partners, clients or work types as the firm seeks to upgrade its brand and to ?replace and rebuild its resources and capabilities. As the famous saying ?goes, “what got you here may not get ?you there”.

A logical and business-like approach ?can help to take the emotion out of ?the debate. trategic initiatives should be tested and prioritised against four criteria:??

1. how well the project supports the firm’s strategy (strategic alignment);

2. the expected outcomes and results (strategic benefit); ?

3. the implications in terms of time and money to bring the project to success (resources); and

4. ?the firm’s overall ability to deliver success (capabilities).¹

3. Develop engagement

The final step is to gain commitment to the choice of projects. Using the four prioritisation tests rigorously and with well-considered metrics can often help ?to attain project engagement.

Lasting buy-in requires engaging with partners and stakeholders to understand their specific needs as well as their fears, uncertainties and doubts.
Perhaps more importantly, it ?provides a further reality check on the practicality and achievability of the firm’s ?strategic intent.

Nick Jarrett-Kerr advises law firms worldwide on strategy, governance and leadership development ?(www.jarrett-kerr.com)

Endnotes
1. See ‘Juggling priorities’, Nick Jarrett-Kerr, Managing Partner, Vol. 13 Issue 4, ?Dec 2010/Jan 2011