Accendo Reliability

Your Reliability Engineering Professional Development Site

  • About
    • Adam Bahret
    • Alex Williams
    • Andre Kleyner
    • Anne Meixner
    • Arthur Hart
    • Ash Norton
    • Carl Carlson
    • Chris Jackson
    • Chris Stapelmann
    • Dennis Craggs
    • Dev Raheja
    • Doug Lehr
    • Doug Plucknette
    • Fred Schenkelberg
    • George Williams
    • Gina Tabasso
    • Greg Hutchins
    • James Kovacevic
    • James Reyes-Picknell
    • Joe Anderson
    • John Paschkewitz
    • Katie Switzer
    • Kevin Stewart
    • Kirk Gray
    • Les Warrington
    • Mike Konrad
    • Mike Sondalini
    • Nancy Regan
    • Perry Parendo
    • Philip Sage
    • Ray Harkins
    • Rob Allen
    • Robert (Bob) J. Latino
    • Robert Kalwarowsky
    • Ryan Chan
    • Shane Turcott
    • Steven Wachs
    • Tim Rodgers
    • Usman Mustafa Syed
  • Reliability.fm
    • Dare to Know
    • Speaking Of Reliability
    • Rooted in Reliability: The Plant Performance Podcast
    • Maintenance Disrupted
    • Practical Reliability Podcast
    • Reliability Matters
    • Masterminds in Maintenance
    • Accendo Reliability Webinar Series
    • Asset Reliability @ Work
  • Articles
    • CRE Preparation Notes
    • on Leadership & Career
      • Advanced Engineering Culture
      • Engineering Leadership
      • Managing in the 2000s
      • Product Development and Process Improvement
    • on Maintenance Reliability
      • Aasan Asset Management
      • CMMS and Reliability
      • Conscious Asset
      • EAM & CMMS
      • Everyday RCM
      • Maintenance and Reliability
      • Plant Maintenance
      • ReliabilityXperience
      • RCM Blitz®
      • Rob’s Reliability Project
      • The Intelligent Transformer Blog
      • The RCA
    • on Product Reliability
      • Accelerated Reliability
      • Achieving the Benefits of Reliability
      • Apex Ridge
      • Musings on Reliability and Maintenance Topics
      • Reliability Engineering Insights
      • Reliability in Emerging Technology
    • on Risk & Safety
      • CERM® Risk Insights
      • Equipment Risk and Reliability in Downhole Applications
    • on Tools & Techniques
      • Big Data & Analytics
      • Experimental Design for NPD
      • Innovative Thinking in Reliability and Durability
      • Inside FMEA
      • Testing 1 2 3
      • The Manufacturing Academy
      • Reliability Reflections
  • eBooks
    • Reliability Engineering Management DRAFT
  • Resources
    • Accendo Authors
    • FMEA Resources
    • Feed Forward Publications
    • Openings
    • Books
    • Webinars
    • Journals
    • Higher Education
    • Podcasts
  • Groups
    • Reliability Integration
    • Mastermind
    • Study Groups
  • Courses
    • 14 Ways to Acquire Reliability Engineering Knowledge
    • Reliability Analysis Methods online course
    • SPC-Process Capability Course
    • Reliability Centered Maintenance (RCM) Online Course
    • Process Capability Analysis course
    • Root Cause Analysis and the 8D Corrective Action Process course
    • Return on Investment online course
    • 5-day Reliability Green Belt ® Live Course
    • 5-day Reliability Black Belt ® Live Course
    • CRE Preparation Online Course
  • Webinars
    • Upcoming Live Events
  • Calendar
    • Call for Papers Listing
    • Upcoming Webinars
    • Webinar Calendar
  • Login
    • Member Home
Don’t show this message again.

Cookies

This site uses cookies to give you a better experience, analyze site traffic, and gain insight to products or offers that may interest you. By continuing, you consent to the use of cookies. Learn how we use cookies, how they work, and how to set your browser preferences by reading our Cookies Policy.

by Robert Allen Leave a Comment

Why an owner of a task or deliverable doesn’t really exist…

Why an owner of a task or deliverable doesn’t really exist…

When it comes to ensuring a task or deliverable is accomplished, we often see the word “owner” used.  Perhaps surprisingly, there really is no true ‘owner’ of anything in the context of program or project management.

We can begin explaining this with two adjectives:  responsible and accountable.

Responsible is simply the person responsible for completing the task or deliverable (response-able), and accountable is the person who provides the resource(s).

If the responsible person is not resource constrained, it is possible for them to be both responsible and accountable (the responsible person may have everything they need and may not need an escalation path).  However, the manager of the responsible person is still ultimately accountable because they are providing the responsible resource.  (Instead of accountable, the terms such as sponsor, champion or leader can be used as well.)

For example, a project manager responsible for analyzing and communicating resource needs, while a project sponsor is accountable for providing a project with resources.  Subsequently, the project manager is responsible for ensuring task completion with these resources, but aren’t accountable if the resources aren’t provided.

One can see how the term ‘owner’ doesn’t quite fit…what does the owner own?  Ideally, they might ‘own’ the task completion with good quality within the triple constraints (scope, time and cost), however:

  • …what if “the owner” is relying on other team members? (which is often the case).  This might mean multiple responsible resources and multiple accountable resources.  The ultimate accountability (to a leader in the organization) can be found going “up-the-ladder” in an organizational chart.
  • …who is placing constraints on time or scope to accomplish the task? (often constraints are established by a PMO residing outside the function without the sponsor acknowledging or even aware).
  • …what if “the owner” needs an escalation path for additional resources or assistance?
  • …rather than tag someone as “the owner” why not assign a sponsor (manager) as the responsible resource to provide technical guidance, coaching or mentoring? (for employees who might lack the will, or skill, in particular)

Also, recall that your project governance model might involve a steering committee of project sponsors.

No doubt, a manager wants a resource to ‘take ownership’, however, a resource is often (involuntarily) given ‘ownership’.  Without true ownership, organizations might benefit from clarifying resources as responsible (response-able) and sponsors instead.  Rather than tagging resources as owners, a culture of responsibility and supportive leadership can be much more efficient.

Filed Under: Articles, on Leadership & Career, Product Development and Process Improvement Tagged With: agile product development, Critical to Quality, customer value, Design for Six Sigma, New Product Development, PLC process, product development, product life cycle, Project Management, six sigma

« Is Safety Really Important?
The 5 Whys Method of Root Cause Analysis »

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Articles by Rob Allen
in the Product Development and Process Improvement series

Join Accendo

Receive information and updates about articles and many other resources offered by Accendo Reliability by becoming a member. It’s free and only takes a minute.

Join Today

Join PD&PI

Stay in touch with Rob and improve your product and processes.

You will receive occasional emails with announcements, recent articles, and maybe a question or two.

Your email is safe and the opt-in here provides your permission to send messages concerning the PD&PI article list plus special announcements. Privacy Policy

Recent Posts

  • Establishing Fixed Time Maintenance Intervals
  • Risk-Based Analysis of Random Variables
  • The Basics of PM Programs
  • The Power of a Sample
  • Taking Care of Our Equipment Requires More than just Proactive Maintenance

© 2021 FMS Reliability · Privacy Policy · Terms of Service · Cookies Policy