Registration Link | Guide to Upgrading Project Management Skills in Water Treatment

Due to my work, I often interact with many colleagues who manage projects at publicly listed environmental‑protection companies. I frequently discuss with them how project management in the environmental sector should be approached.

They also occasionally consult me on how other companies in the same industry manage their projects.

Through my interactions, I’ve noticed a rather curious phenomenon: many colleagues who manage projects at large enterprises hold the view that the workshop‑style management typical of small businesses is outdated—some even go so far as to call it flawed.

Even more puzzling is that many of my friends who hold this view, in my opinion, fail to recognize that their so‑called standardized management is, in fact, nothing more than the application of standardized‑management tools through a workshop‑style mindset.

In fact, regarding project management, To many, workshop‑style management may seem outdated, but for small businesses, it is often the most efficient management approach.

There is no such thing as management being “backward” or “advanced”; there is only what works and what doesn’t, and standardization and artisanal practices are not mutually exclusive.

We all know that sole proprietorships are the most organizationally efficient—so what lies behind this phenomenon?

Because the decision-maker, the executor, and the operator are one and the same, Top decision-makers are fully engaged throughout the entire business process, enabling adjustments to be made anytime, anywhere.

In the workshop, decision-makers, implementers, and operators work in the same environment, enabling rapid information flow, timely communication, and swift feedback.

In this scenario, forcing standardization and formalization across the board would, in fact, undermine organizational efficiency.

Once a company grows larger, Decision-makers, implementers, and operators do not work in the same environment. Moreover, information may suffer substantial losses during transmission, and its timeliness cannot be guaranteed.

At this point, standardized management becomes necessary.

Standards entail high costs and long implementation cycles, and once established, they make it more difficult to pinpoint issues and significantly complicate ongoing improvement efforts.

However, once a company grows larger, the problems stemming from non‑compliance may become even more significant.

Why do venture capitalists favor entrepreneurs with management experience?

Venture capitalists aren’t looking for management experience; they’re focused on the ability to establish sound governance in the later stages.

Early-stage operating costs are too high; venture capitalists won’t invest. If a company can’t scale, venture capitalists won’t invest.

If the entrepreneur possesses strong management capabilities, a small startup can grow into a large enterprise, thereby delivering substantial returns to venture capital investors.

Process standardization is a hallmark of discipline, but process rigidity can be deeply problematic: everyone may be working diligently, yet they fail to understand the rationale behind their tasks, and the end result may even fall short of what could be achieved under a more artisanal, ad‑hoc approach.

After standardization, it is also important to pursue flattening to prevent processes from becoming rigid.

So what is flattening? To what extent does something have to be flat to be considered “flat”?

Flat design has two key principles:

1. Decision-makers and implementers work within the same environment, preventing misalignment between decision-making and execution.

2. The executor and the operator work within the same scenario to prevent mismatches between execution and operation.

The most thorough way to achieve flattening is through democratization—breaking down the identity-based boundaries between decision-making, execution, and operations, thereby transforming management into a flat structure.

This approach also comes with significant challenges: while identity boundaries may blur, task boundaries and accountability boundaries remain unshakable. If everyone could clearly distinguish between task boundaries, accountability boundaries, and identity boundaries, the world would truly become flat.

Let me give you an example to help everyone understand:

The communal courtyard is essentially a workshop; when a respected elder gives the word, any problem gets sorted out. Yet having a property management company take over the courtyard is rather wasteful.

Residential communities are akin to large enterprises; they must have rules and require standardized management. If a residential community lacks rules, it’s no better than a traditional courtyard.

Community management should be democratic; a non-democratic community is no better than a traditional courtyard.

Democratic governance should be beneficial, but democracy is also conditional. If the residents of a community vote to stop paying their property management fees, the neighborhood will become less livable and no longer as desirable as a traditional courtyard residence.

Democracy plus the rule of law equals community management; standardization plus flexibility equals corporate management. Flattening is the incorporation of workshop‑style management practices into standardized governance.

Shouldn’t workshops also incorporate some standards? What makes it so difficult to standardize small businesses? Are there any role models among compliant workshops?

This is the course I’m recommending today: the Hydrosphere Environmental Protection Academy, in collaboration with the China Membrane Industry Association, has developed a course that… A course on project management for the water treatment industry. 。

If you often find yourself stuck in the quagmire of project management—constantly juggling endless issues, putting out fires everywhere, and feeling overwhelmed—I’m confident this training will be a real game-changer for you.