Expert Project Managers - ZM

A Better Question Than "Whose Fault Was This?"
Something slips on a project, and the next meeting turns into a search for who is responsible rather than what to correct. It is a familiar pattern on work involving several parties.
On projects now, we put a different question in its place. Rather than asking whose fault it was, we ask what each side missed that led to the issue.
It is a small change in wording and it seems to change how the meeting goes. A dropped item usually has two sides to it. A request that was not clear, or clarity that nobody thought to ask for. Asking the second question makes room for both.
What has been noticed since is that issues come up earlier, because raising one no longer feels like admitting fault. The same problems also recur less often, because the outcome of the meeting is usually an agreement on who sends what and when, rather than an instruction to someone to be more careful.
None of this removes conflict from a project, and it is not meant to.
It only seems to help when the conversation is set up so that a disagreement ends in a correction rather than a grudge.
hashtag hashtag hashtag

Some repeat mistakes survive simply because nobody wrote them down. Three questions at the end of the week can help with that.

Your EOT claim is only as strong as your site diary

Larger Zambian projects often run on a FIDIC-based contract, and under those conditions an Extension of Time claim tends to stand or fall on the site diary, long before anyone sits down to assess it.
Here are four things that can quietly weaken it, and each has a way of being held.
1. The notice was late. These contracts give a narrow window, often 28 days, to notify the delay event. Miss it and even a strong claim can be time-barred before it is assessed.
2. The diary was thin. "Rained heavily" is not really a record. Rainfall figures, hours lost, the activities on the critical path that day, and photographs, are.
3. The critical-path link was never shown. A delay to a non-critical activity does not extend completion on its own. If the updated programme cannot trace the chain from the event to the completion date, the claim is easy to reject.
4. The instruction trail is missing. A verbal instruction on site is easy to give and easy to agree to, but it is hard to rely on later when you need to show what was actually agreed. Where an engineer's instruction changed scope, getting it down in writing that same week, rather than at final account, is what holds up.
What holds all of this together is fairly ordinary work: keeping the diary current, updating the programme as things move, and sending delay notices on time. Easy to say, harder to keep up when the site is busy, which is exactly why it decides so many claims
The claim is mostly won or lost long before the assessment. It is won on site, in the ordinary work of writing things down.

A Project Manager's Workflow for Results-Based M&E in Zambia

Project managers in Zambia, whether on a Lusaka road upgrade or drilling boreholes in Lundazi, are very good at tracking inputs. Bags of cement counted. Metres drilled recorded. Budget spend known.

But here is a more interesting question: are we tracking activities, or tracking real change?

The World Bank's Ten Steps to a Results-Based M&E System by Kusek and Rist puts it plainly. Implementation monitoring watches inputs, activities and outputs. Results-based M&E watches outcomes and impacts. One tells you the work is happening. The other tells you the work is working.

This shift is not just good practice, it is where Zambian public delivery is already heading. The Eighth National Development Plan moved government away from reporting what was spent and toward reporting what actually changed for people. So a PM who can only certify outputs is increasingly out of step with how projects are now judged and funded.

Take a common scenario: drilling boreholes to improve community health.

Outcomes, not just outputs. "Drill 10 boreholes" is an output. Households using the borehole as their main water source is the outcome. Fewer waterborne illnesses in the community is the impact. That chain is the whole point, because a village can have new boreholes and still be drinking from the same contaminated stream.

CREAM indicators. Good indicators are Clear, Relevant, Economic, Adequate and Monitorable. So track the percentage of households using the borehole as their primary source, and the number behind it.

Baselines and targets. The step most rushed in the field. If 80% currently draw from a contaminated stream, the target might be 75% using the borehole within 12 months. No baseline, no way to prove change.

Monitor for results. A site visit should not stop at "the borehole was sunk." Is the pump drawing water? Are people actually using it, or still walking to the stream? We have all seen a borehole handed over, only to sit unused a year later. Drilled is not the same as used.

Evaluate the "why". Monitoring shows you what is happening: people are still using the stream. Evaluation goes further and asks why the project did not produce the change it promised. Perhaps the pump failed because no one was trained to maintain it. Perhaps the borehole was sited too far from where people actually live. Because these answers can be uncomfortable, evaluation is best done impartially, ideally by someone outside the project team.

Then use the findings, and build a system that outlives the project.

Next time a project starts, ask not just "How will we build it?" but "How will we know if it actually worked?"

People are talking about you in meetings you are not in.
Not dramatically. Not often. But it happens, and most of us only find out by accident.
A project manager told us a story recently. A passing remark about their work, made between two other people on a project, had reached them secondhand. Nothing remarkable in itself. Ten seconds of conversation.
Except the thought would not leave them alone.
Because if a small good comment can travel through the industry like that, without anyone even intending it to, then a small bad one travels just as easily.
Think about how quietly it happens. An engineer answers her queries the same day they come in, and nobody says a word to her about it. But two site meetings later, maybe on a completely different project, her name comes up and someone just nods.
A contractor quietly builds a reputation for cutting corners on finishes. Each snag gets corrected, each project gets handed over, and nobody makes a scene. But when his company appears on the next tender list, somebody in the room remembers.
Nothing is written down. Nobody is keeping score on paper. The industry simply files each of us under reliable or unreliable, and the next opportunity tends to follow that file.
In Zambian construction, this is worth taking seriously because the market is small. Lusaka is just a big village. The same architects, quantity surveyors, engineers, and clients keep meeting each other on the next project.
Someone remembers how the last dispute was handled. Someone mentions it, in passing, to someone who was just about to make a decision.
Which means a reputation is not built in the moments anyone prepares for. It is built in the routine follow-up, the unglamorous close-out, the ordinary week when nothing even seemed to be at stake.
There is rarely an audience. That is precisely the point. The work done when no one appears to be watching is the work people quietly judge you by.
People are noticing. In passing, without telling you.
The only question is what they are finding.

Two boreholes, same plot, less than 100 metres apart.
One hits solid rock at 1.5m. The other finds nothing but weak soil all the way to 7.5m.
Same site. Same investigation. Totally different ground.
That is karst. And if your project sits in MFEZ or anywhere on Lusaka's limestone, that is the ground you are dealing with.
Bearing capacities swinging from very weak soil to solid rock within a single building footprint. No pattern. No warning. It is not a one off. It is the character of the ground.
Here is why this is a project management problem, not just an engineering one.
On normal ground, foundations are a predictable line item. On karst, they are your biggest risk.
The contractor prices footings at 1.5m. Then half the excavations hit soft pockets and need to go deeper, with imported crushed stone fill. That is a variation. That is a claim. That is your float gone before the superstructure even starts.
So what does a prepared project manager do?
Spend properly on the geotech investigation. It is one of the cheaper items on the whole project and the one most likely to save it.
Price the uncertainty. Provisional quantities for over excavation and stone fill in the BOQ. Agreed rates before site handover, not negotiated mid crisis.
Protect the programme. Foundation approval on karst is hole by hole. Build that inspection time in.
Respect drainage. Water is what carved those cavities in the first place. A badly placed soakaway can restart the process right under your building.
Karst does not forgive assumptions. It punishes the projects that treated ground investigation as a formality.

What if we planned our holidays the same way we plan our projects?
Let's be honest: most holidays fail before they even begin.
You arrive at your dream destination only to find the lodge is overbooked, the main attraction is closed, and your budget blown by day two.
That's not a holiday. That's a headache.
The fix? Treat your holiday like a short-term project.
Let's use a classic Zambian getaway, a trip to Livingstone, as a case study:

1. Initiation: Define Scope by Season
Before booking anything, align your goals with environmental constraints. The Zambezi is highly seasonal. Visit around March or April and you'll experience the Victoria Falls at its thundering peak, though heavy spray can obscure the views. If you want to see the exposed rock face and gorge, or swim at Devil's Pool, your scope needs to shift to the low-water months around September and October. Define your desired outcome first, then let the season dictate your itinerary.

2. Planning: Map the Time Constraints
Don't assume tourist attractions operate on a flexible schedule. In destinations like Livingstone, specific tours and park access have specific entry and closing times. Map your itinerary around these hours, and always make advance reservations for dinners or activities to avoid disappointment.

3. Risk Management: Plan for the "What Ifs"
Domestic travel in Zambia comes with a few logistical risks to mitigate early:
Road Logistics: If you are driving to Livingstone, factor in potential delays like roadworks or flat tyres. Build buffer time into your schedule so an unexpected stop doesn't make you miss your afternoon activity.
Payments & Connectivity: Network outages can happen, making mobile money or card machines unreliable in certain spots. Always carry a physical cash backup to ensure you aren't stranded.

4. Ex*****on: Watch out for Scope Creep
That last-minute add-on activity sounds amazing, but does it fit the budget and timeline? It's okay to say "next time" to protect your peace and stick to the original plan.

A holiday is a project with a fixed budget and deadline. A little upfront planning goes a long way in ensuring you actually get to relax.
What's your best travel planning tip? Or a lesson learned the hard way on a trip?

Where do most construction disputes actually start?
Not where you think.