Excellent activity operation can achieve any goal by any means, can use "any means" is the core competitiveness of excellent activity operation, can achieve "any goal" is the basic condition.
The project is about to go online only to find that has been and the initial target deviation of 108,000 miles, after the line found that the effect and expectation gap is very large but can not find a solution, the project implementation process constantly internal and external conflict all the energy spent on additional communication costs - i believe these scenes are not new, and these scenes are the project goal management collapse of some typical phenomena.
The first part of the activity operations series enters the body, starting with a talk about the most commonly used project management of the essential skills for activity operations, the basic work of which is goal management.
good activity operation (or good operation) can achieve any goal by any means (in the form of activity, of course, otherwise it can not be called activity operation), can use "any means" is the core competitiveness of excellent activity operation, can achieve "any goal" is the basic condition.
Why is goal management the foundation? what is the role of goal management?
The most important conditions for ensuring the most efficient and controlled propulsion of a project are:
- the objectives are clear enough;
- a high degree of consensus among the team;
- maximize synergies.
- the combination of the above three parts is the goal management we are going to explore.
Goal management is not all about a project's success. however, effective goal management can greatly help projects to achieve more with less effort and advance in an orderly manner, while ineffective goal management often results in a large number of additional costs, disrupt implementation, and create conflicts. activities that have experienced a large number of projects should all be operated in the same way, and the effectiveness of goal management can indeed have such an impact on a project.
the reason for this is that goal management actually plays the following role in a project landing:
- make vague instructions or orientations concrete into actionable, disassemble able and even measurable goals;
- assess the feasibility of the project and identify the key and risk links;
- unifying the awareness of all members of the project on the direction (value) of the work, ensuring that efforts are made in one direction at the same time;
- series work between project members to create synergies.
- if enough work is done on goal management before a project is executed, the project is almost half done.
The above concept sounds simple, but there are very few projects that can really do a good job of goal management as far as you see on a daily basis.
Here are some common myths and failures in goal management.
Why do goal management often fail? common goal management misconceptions:
1. do not do disassembly directly to run
Get the leadership of a vague instruction to find a group of people began to land, simple division of work, each in accordance with the established way to do things. afterwards began to find excuses, dig other bright spots fooling superiors (if the superiors poor memory may also be praised), and finally forget why the first reason to do this project.
Sadly, this is the most common case of a major internet company doing a project today (with gender to assure you it's true), and arguably without any goal-managed junk-mixing days.
2. do not know where the focus is
The second is better to know that you have a specific goal (perhaps to do 500w increments of transactions?). ）。 very specific and clear, also know what is right to do, which is run-off should be adjusted in time.
But ignoring that the resulting goal is actually the end result of the interaction between the various links, only know that the approximate action and strategy may lead to the promotion of the final goal. but how much can be improved, whether exponential changes or linear growth are completely uncertain, how achievable the goals are, and which part of the work is focused or risky without any concept. we call this condition high cataract patients shooting darts style.
3. define only numerical indicators
The third is better, and often does this part of the project can already go smoothly. get specific, detachable goals, disassemble, define operational actions and process metric bindings for each step, and find focus and risk focus: look perfect and reliable.
However, there is a dangerous trap: numbers don't actually deliver complete target information. here's an example, and here's a chat: with the big goal of achieving the overall sales amount, you get the dismantling goal of getting more traffic through social fission, so which scenario would you lead the user to share with the circle of friends and friends dialog box?
Provide personal practical experience reference: sharing to the circle of friends on the book digitally will introduce more traffic, but forcing users to share to dialog boxes will make selective sharing. also take a name: because only know that reading math scores are excellent but lack of social skills is likely to be lonely end-of-life style.
4. interference with each other's targets
The fourth is relatively tragic, hard to do goal management, unified the goal cognitive consensus, but in the target setting time introduced two indicators of mutual interference, not only do not have any synergy between the teams, but constantly in conflict, project leaders can only keep coordinating, the implementation of the whole project caused a lot of additional communication costs, little energy into the really important project work.
What are the two indicators of interference? a goal with blurred boundaries but mutual effect.
For example, the overall flow efficiency of the page indicators and the overall drainage target of the first core module of the page: the responsible team for goal 1 will try their best to let the user browse more content, and the goal 2 team will try its best to use deceptive copy in this module to trick the user into saying first. such situations are common, complex, and often due to the division of labor in their own large departments, often unhelpful.
The only solution is to require a greater sense of effective goal management for all project participants (activity operations roles) except the project leader. take a name: virity style, born with the size of an eye.
Three-dimensional goal management
Here's a complete set of solutions i've given for effective project management, which i call: at 3:15 a.m. i suddenly woke up to a wonderful goal management idea, so i opened the computer and wrote it down and drank a can of vitamin lemon tea and went back to sleep. referred to simply as: "three-dimensional goal management method."
First of all, i hope you will accept and understand a concept, under the three-dimensional goal management law for the definition of goal management: goal management is the boundary of matters, rational dismantling and emotional interpretation of the comprehensive expression.
The absence of any one of these dimensions is an incomplete goal representation, and the absence of one will lead to a target management collapse as mentioned above. the three dimensions each play and play a role:
- matters boundary: the heart of the goal, the intuitive definition of what to do and what not to do, the basis for the establishment of a project for operating the right or wrong judgment criteria in this project.
- Rational dismantling: the physical body of the goal, more reflected in numbers and formulas, how much to do and how much to do rational dismantling, a large goal with mathematical formulas to disassemble to the finest, to ensure the basis of teamwork
- emotional interpretation: the soul of the goal, the combination of the project vision and value orientation that numbers cannot express, and rational disassembly really expresses how much a goal is and what it really is, and really allows a team to collaborate and produce synergies at the heart.
- if you can understand the above concepts, can be practically applied to goal management, as long as you ensure that your definition of goals contains the above three dimensions, you can experience a truly effective goal management brought about by the super efficiency gains.
If you feel a little floating, which can refer to the following specific set of methodologies (three-dimensional goal management has a variety of application forms, the key is to master the above kernel, practice methods may not apply to all cases, please cite one by one and three):"three-dimensional goal management practice."
Step1. Reasonable disassembly of the target (rational disassembly) corresponds to the execution action (matter boundary)
consider a question of how the members involved in the project who are responsible for the metrics (other topics such as visual development that are responsible for progress and quality) are divided. in order to ensure that everyone's work in the process of project implementation is complementary and moving in a unified direction, it is important that the overall project indicators are dismantled. how you want the whole team to work together, you should have a corresponding goal-dismantling system.
As a common practice, members of a virtual team are otherwise assembly line jobs, or they are horizontal division of labor, or a combination of the two. dismantling things and goals to the finest level through a combination of two team divisions- goal disassembly tables is the first step in effective goal management:
- the dismantling logic of personnel division, organization of matters and objectives needs to be consistent, so as to ensure that there are no fuzzy zones, and the interaction logic between data ensures the effectiveness of division of labor and cooperation. (remember the interference metrics mentioned earlier, of course, there are times when there are reasons for team architecture, but try to avoid making you a lot less unnecessary).
- try to disassemble to the finest, the basic requirement is responsibility to the person, the higher requirement is that each person can also split their own work.
- a detailed enough target split form ensures orderly management of matters and effective data monitoring. when the overall project indicator is wrong, it can quickly locate the problem point and the person responsible.
- the flexibility of the two disassembly logic ensures that a project can have multiple division of labor and collaboration modes and indicator split modes, but further suggested is to follow the active user path to carry out key indicator splits (reflecting the user's key actions every step of the way: click on ads, click on content, click on shopping cart) and then push back for division of labor and dismantling, so that the entire disassembly table has one more function to become your user data path table, the effectiveness of project analysis is better. of course, objective circumstances may not be able to be very ideal split, then try to go in this direction.
- try to comb out your complete project split table before each project, analyze how much confidence is in each key link in it, and those that are uncontrollable or less confident in advance are the focus of your focus in the project management process.
- horizontally divided indicators and teams can be flexibly joined by some competition, and the mechanism of horse racing and resource matching can be effectively activated.
One drawback of the project goal split approach is that project members focus too much on the metrics at hand and ignore the impact of concerns about the overall goal and other metrics when dismantling is unreasonable or the overall business understanding of the project members is inadequate.
for example: students responsible for advertising will focus too much on the click-through rate of advertising and use a large number of deceptive copy to improve click-through rate, but the invisible introduction of a large amount of junk traffic led to a reduction in the follow-up indicators.
To avoid this, goal management requires a second step:
Step2. Binding of lead targets and numerical indicators (sensational interpretation)
to avoid the above, there is a need for a guiding guideline in goal management to work with digital indicators, such as 'our orientation is to enable more users to generate effective retention'. use this guidance to evaluate strategies for all aspects of the project at all stages of the project, and fixes that do not conform to this orientation.
Take a step further, tearing down orientation and goals, along with division of labor, to form the ultimate project objective management table:"we need to close deal volume growth" is disassembled to "we need to divert more efficient traffic" and "we need to improve the conversion efficiency of the page" .
Most of the projects start with a focused or fuzzy kpi, perhaps to reach xxx million, perhaps to do an xxx innovation project. many of the project planning was born from such a meeting hello everyone this is our kpi, let's think about how to do it."
But each project in the different role perspective and position is not the same, the understanding of the project background is not the same, often the understanding of the goal here there are differences, differences bring about implementation bias, implementation deviation brings rework adjustment delay or even everyone to run in the wrong direction together.
Believe that most of this phenomenon of project pm, product operation has a deep understanding and suffer from it. looking deep into the sources, an observation of all the project planning processes reveals that differences are often caused by differences in the ability of quantitative indicators and guidance to interpret under different roles.
The operations and business like to look at indicators, gmv to do how much, disassembled for traffic and conversion rate, respectively, how much to do, lack of traffic then i go to inventory resources. products (of course, most products are kpi) or research and development more oriented indicators, through the xx strategy to achieve xx purposes. this in itself is two kinds of dismantling and doing things, there is bound to be conflict. ”
Therefore, the effective solution is: when you receive a project goal, please invite all project members to sit together, on the understanding of the project objectives or disassemble consensus, and this consensus is specifically presented is to come up with a set of closely related quantitative indicators and guidance indicators, one is indispensable, one by one, one indicator must have a strategy corresponding. quantitative indicators constrain the direction of everyone's contribution to the project is consistent, and the guiding indicators ensure that everyone is making efforts under a unified strategy. but often most project goals have only one.
Effective projects must start with a quantitative-oriented indicator that disassembles and agrees on, and constantly use this set of metrics to help you check validation. Introduces a simple approach that is actually more complex, but the logic is general: use more sentences that reach XX (goal) through XX (strategy) to describe a specific orientation.
To sum up, a complete and effective project objective management should contain the disassembly of the same logic in three dimensions:
- Disassembling of project metrics
- The division of labor corresponding to the project indicators is disassembled
- Guided disassembly of the corresponding project division of labor
This disassembly table is best derived from the reverse derivation of the user path, reflecting the key operational and operational impacts of each user, and then analyzing the controllable points and risk points within for selective focus.
Then based on this table for monitoring of matters, data tracking, critical point assessment.
Confirm that your final goal management includes three dimensions of three-dimensional goal management: matter boundaries, rational disassembly, and peppery interpretation.
No comments:
Post a Comment