- This topic has 3 replies, 4 voices, and was last updated 1 month, 2 weeks ago by
.
-
Posts
-
In the course, it was stated that the “best men” in organisation should be assigned as Project leads for the various workstream. Could anyone share their experiences of such instances or integration processes met problems with poor choices of project leads?
If you do not have a suitably qualified individual leading a work stream then you face (i) missed deadlines that could derail the project or have a knock on impact on other work streams (ii) a person who is not authorised to make decisions attending meetings where a decision may be needed in real time (iii) lead to conflict of interest in the transaction as parties may overreach (iv) miss critical components needed under the SPA- such as ensuring continuity of benefits ( HR), a failure to re brand ( comms), a failure to file statutory documents on time ( legal) which could have financial implications.
If you have poor project leads, more work ends up falling on the IMO, mainly project managers. The PMs usually have so much on their plates just keeping the teams on track with tasks that they should not be picking up and doing the work of the lead/team. Poor lead can also reflect to the incoming partner and show weakness in our own organization and make them question the reason for the merger to take place.
I would imagine you would want your best team members leading the project as they would have the most experience and insight into what is needed and would most likely juggle the dual accountabilities. Also, by leveraging those team members, you by default leverage the second tier of team members to also step up and assist with the day-to-day activities and project as needed.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
