$50 Billion Will Fix It

It's really difficult to look at world events passively. Any one who has ever run a project or driven improvement in an organization will see similarities and will have an opinion. As much as I hate to breach the subject of politics, there is a great deal for service managers and executives to learn from current events. The news media this morning is carrying a story about Hillary Clinton who signed a pledge for the next president to commit $50 billion to address the world wide problem of AIDS ( Clinton Signs AIDS Financing Pledge ). To be clear, I am not advocating one political party over another nor am I against eradicating AIDS. I am, however, very concerned that the good and reasonable knowledge we have learned about corporate and enterprise change and improvement is not being applied to decision making that potentially impacts our taxes, health or our standing in the world.

Several facts about the above article in the New York Times caught my attention:

• Ms. Clinton may have signed the pledge reactively or defensively to avoid a demonstration by activists in Philadelphia;
• The Clinton campaign released a statement that Ms. Clinton will be providing a formal AIDS policy that she will release in the "near future;"
• Candidate Bill Richardson signed the pledge;
  
• Candidates John Edwards and Barack Obama did not sign the pledge but do have AIDS plans which align with some of the pledge goals.

Let's apply these observations to an enterprise-wide improvement project. Ask any project manager which is best: to set the scope, objectives and goals first, gather the facts, design the key elements of a project plan and then seek funding to support the project's objectives, or to set a target budget first and then figure out how to "spend the money."

Put another way, which is likely to be more successful: a project plan with clear goals and objectives that seeks appropriate funding to support those objectives or a funding target that seeks a plan? In my experience, throwing money at a problem only creates more problems. This is particularly evident when we give in to political expediency to deal with complex issues.