How important is sector knowledge when managing a project?

Absolutely there will be. While there is a common basis for projects it's might be considered a bit like asking a civils engineer to build a spacecraft or design a mobile phone. We must apply ourselves to the area of expertise that we have a capability in. Having said that Project Management is probably one of the most portable skill sets. The differentiation between sectors is not so clearly defined.

Many still continue to ask for sector or technology expertise as a separator when looking for a project manager. Is this right?

Is project management the same in a large corporate or government project the same as that in an SME. I would argue not in many ways but the same in some. How do we define the difference. That will take a while and a couple of drinks I might suggest to discuss. In fact there are several pieces of research underway at the moment to try to better understand just that. This is a topic  close to my heart as someone who has worked in both large and small business. Who gains the most benefit from good project management a large corporate or a tiny SME?

With 6000 large corporates in the UK accounting for less than 50% of business pounds earned and 1.2 million SME's accounting for almost 60% of UK business pounds made, who needs project management more?

I have worked in project management for the delivery of software projects in the defence industry and more recently for a completely different area of automated warehouse solutions. For as long as I can remember there has always been something of an air of mystery around this type of project. Project Managers are often expected to have specific skills. There is frequently a view that this type of project is "different", sometimes "harder" to manage. As I have spent so much of my time in this sector and have not strayed much into the PM of other types of project I am not sure whether execution is really different, or needs to be different.

There do seem to be different tools available. There does seem to be some benefit in having a greater technical understanding of the subject. There is rarely a visible deliverable for a software development that is part complete compared to, say, the construction of something, so arguably it is harder to be confident about progress.

Suggestion - all projects lend themselves to a universal means of execution apart from projects to deliver software, which are more difficult, needing specialist skills and tools.

I cannot believe that I will get away with that statement but offer it up for debate.

Project management as a discipline may well be pan-sector, but the same does not apply to the effectiveness of the project managers executing it.  Those with industry knowledge will be at a major advantage. 

I find this all the time in civil engineering in almost every aspect of what I am doing.  In an engineering environment there is very often an expectation (or usually a client requirement) that the PM "speaks the language" and appreciates the issues because in most cases he is part of an engineering team. Without some level of knowledge, the simplest issue described with a minimum of technical langauge becomes a major issue because the PM doesn't understand it - an extremely complicated technical issue goes from being something serious to something completely baffling and unmanageable.  Engineers tend to be very bad at putting things into layman's terms and it quite simply is not an effective use of time breaking everything down into Ladybird book terms for the PM to understand - and having the PM as the weak link is simply not a tenable situation.

I am fortunate enough to have an engineering background and I like to think that I am a much better project manager (on engineering projects) for it because:

1) I understand what is being discussed;

2) I appreciate the issues, and what is or isn't possible and realistic;

3) I have the respect of my colleagues because I can discuss knowledgably the issues to hand and I can offer constructive input;

4) I can roll up my sleeves and make some engineering decisions should the need arise, confident that I'm not doing something stupid;

5) I've done this type of job before so I know the type of risks that arise, how best to manage them, what procurement mechanisms work well etc etc etc.

Now I am not saying that it is not possible for a PM without engineering sector knowledge or experience to be an excellent project manager - I have worked with some who are superb, but I think it is much more difficult for them and the good ones are fairly thin on the ground.

Project management is ‘executed’ by working with and through people. Technically knowledgeable experts are always available. People who can manage and lead a team are scarce. The PM needs a working knowledge of the environment but does not need to be the technical expert. Similarly in my area of expertise, scheduling, you need to know the right questions to ask but then listen to the expert’s expertise.

Generally the best technical experts make very poor project managers. Technicians are focused on the technical aspects of a problem; 90%+ of project management is focused on people (otherwise called ‘stakeholders’).

I strongly believe its not.  I've worked in many different industries and the key is being able to grasp an awareness of the subject without becoming overly involved.  What you lose in not having sector specific knowledge, you gain in bringing a different perspective from other industries.  I'm not interested in the detail of the problem, I simply need to be aware it could become a problem and at what point in the cycle.  As long as I then have a workaround in place - job done.  It comes down to how you manage your team.  You have technical/engineering resources for a reason, don't try and do their job for them.  Empower them to own and solve problems themselves.  I have no issue in telling an engineer/technician to talk in laymans terms to me.  Once I grasp the issue, its a case of facilitating the solution.  You are not there to solve the problem, but to ensure the problem is solved. 

The detailed structure of the team may vary according to the sector and the specifics of the project - for example, the T&C plan for a peice of software will not be the same as that for a BMS commissioning or a safety critical system. But these are dealt with by technical capability within the team. It is the role of the PM to bring together. motivate and lead that team. As noted elsehere in these comments the skill is about managing through people and getting the best out of them all. A suitable mind set and the ability to ask probing questions, combined with a sense of when to dive into the detal and when to stay above it are key requisites. That does not mean that the PM needs to be the technical expert, if he is unconvinced by his chosen / appointed technical experts and knows he is outside his area of expertise then seeking peer support or a second opinion is a sensible option.

If we limit ourselves to having to belong to this or that sector and sub-group within sector then the opportunities for cross learning and improvement / innovation are stifled - sharing the experience widely both the good and the bad can only help to drive improvement.

I must admit that in my experience, sector knowledge does provide a definite edge over those who do not possess it. However there is more than one aspect here.

I started working for an organisation as an IT Project Manager, being responisble for IT infrastructure projects related to the construction of new buildings. As such I was part of the Design Team working for the Construction Project Manager. When the Construction Project Manager had to leave the project (Happily she left to have twin baby girls!) I was appointed Construction Project Manager because of my knowledge of the project, the relationships I had with the design team and the relationships and I knowledge I shared with the client. Happily the organisation saw the benefit of continuity of knowledge in leading the project.

I now work permenantly as a Construction Project Manager even if I am given the projects with an M&E bias because of my background. I relish the fact that I had the opportunity to 'hop' industries from IT to Construction and I like to think that I am a useful tool for my employers to have when the need arises.

I think if you can keep the same 'client knowledge', it is possible to migrate PM skills between disciplines. Likewise it is possible to migrate between differing client sectors if you keep the same discipline/industry. It is possible to do the two together, but I doubt it would be an easy step to take and I think it would be a brave organisation that let's you take that double risk.

As a self-employed Project Management consultant who has had the privilege of hopping between a range of industry sectors internationally over the last 13 years (in IT/IS, Business Change, Defence, Construction and Engineering); I like to think that the real value I offer as a professional is the ability to manage and motivate a team of technical and delivery specialists effectively in order to truly execute the project strategy (as opposed to actually delivering it myself).

My mantra is derived from Donald Schon's observations on reflective professionalism and the temptation to 'roll up your sleeves' in order to complete a task - put simply, I cannot and do not see the value I might offer with the interference of one more technical expert chipping in his/her take on how to solve a particular problem.  If you have the right people in the team with the appropriate skills and expertise, they will inevitably and collectively solve the problem.  If they can't, then you need to look outside the team for a specialist who's judgement/creativity isn't clouded or distilled in your own project context, that potentially/probably can.

I see my appointment as Project Manager as one of facilitation and collaboration, providing the team with a framework of common values and a working environment that can nurture opportunity, derive creative solutions and consequently realise success.  Sure - I push and reward, I report and escalate and in general do all the things that a good Project Manager should - but my main focus is always concentrated in balancing the seemingly forgotten 'tri-chotomy' of time, cost and quality.

Whilst on assignment with my client organisations - I have witnessed numerous examples of Project Managers who have been 'shoved' or 'coerced' in to a Project Management role because they have a technical background in that particular field or industry sector and in many cases they have tended to revert back to what they know in trying to micro-manage the technical aspects (after all, we are creatures of habit).  This pastime is fraught with danger - focussing on technical issues at the cost of not managing stakeholders, losing control of their schedule, letting commercial relationships slide in to an unhealthy position and so on…

Upon reflection, the really successful Project & Programme Managers that I have come across in the IT/IS space are the ones whose origins are sewn from very diverse backgrounds - initial careers in Aviation Engineering, Physics, Consruction and even one Ph.D graduate in Chemistry.  All of them have built their reputations on the understanding and adoption of sound business principles, harbouring a good understanding of general/team management philosophies and knowing intimately their specific delivery methodology.

So the next time you feel inclined to 'descend in to the swampy lowlands of technical problems which seemingly defy solution', think to yourself...  Is it my responsibility to fix this and can I actually add value to the problem solving process over and above the technical specialists appointed within my team?  If the answer is yes and you absolutely feel the need to interject, then maybe you are not in the right profession or you aren't focussing your time in the right areas?

Project management is a universal management approach to project delivery but sector knowledge will add spice and effectiveness to it. The question is "why project management?" Project management came into being because of project failure across all sectors. It started in the USA military projects in the late fifties. If sector knowledge is more important than project management, then sector experts should be able to do project successfully without project management. But the acceptance of project management across all sectors after its exemplary success in military projects showed that it is profitable to use project management for all project delivery. Project management is a set of process, methodologies, instructions, guides, tools and techniques that must be followed and used for projects to be successfully executed. Sector knowledge is also important but not as important as project management. It is like saying that which is more important between knowing how to drive and knowing the road from destination A to destination B. A driver can have a navigator, global position system (GPS) and compass to guide him or her on her route, but he or she cannot learn how to drive on the day of the journey and drive from destination A to destination B successfully. Project management is knowing to drive, that is knowing how to do a project. Sector knowledge is knowing the route. Knowing the route will help you get to your destination without referring to navigator or GPS or compass but it will not guide you to drive safely, timely and fuel-efficiently. Project management is about delivering project on time, to cost and to quality. It is advisable that project managers should also learn about the sector they are practising. For example, a project manager with computer engineering background will be more effective in IT project management than a project manager with construction background. This is why it is important for project managers to network and ask questions to guide him or her about the sectorial project.

The discussion seems to have evolved into a question of whether or not the Project Manager needs to be a sector expert. Here, I tend to side with those who say that it is not necessary, for two reasons:

1.  The PM's job is to manage the expert resources to deliver the project. As such the PM needs only enough knowledge to interact with and lead the experts efficiently and effectively.

2.  The PM's own expert knowledge can be a distraction from the management task. It can even be a disruptive influence within the team if not aligned with that of the person who is employed as the expert. However, a good PM should be able to "switch off" his expert knowledge as necessary to prevent this happening.

To return to the original question, I believe that there are (and should be) significant differences between the way a project is executed depending on sector. Depending on sector, businesses operate differently and have different drivers. A project in a low margin, low-tech, highly competetive industrial sector will be executed significantly differently from a high-tech health sector project. This, simply because the main business drivers (in these cases, cost reduction vs. patient health) are different.

Having said that, the principles contained in the APM Body of Knowledge are (or at least I think should be) found in all projects. The degree to which they are implemented constitutes the significant difference.

Which kind of brings me back to contradict the point I made at the start. One significant difference that I have encountered when I have worked on low margin, low tech industrial projects is that there is rarely sufficient finance to employ all the technical experts that might be needed. So the PM has to have technical expertise in order to fill in the gaps!

APM's head of membership, Julie Legge, has this week released a blog post covering this subject:

http://www.apm5dimensions.com/blog/are-you-wearing-sector-blinkers