<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.0.5" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: State of the Art of Project Management</title>
	<link>http://www.reformingprojectmanagement.com/2004/02/07/329/</link>
	<description>The magazine for the project age</description>
	<pubDate>Sun, 07 Sep 2008 23:46:21 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.5</generator>

	<item>
		<title>by: Alexander Kjerulf
        </title>
		<link>http://www.reformingprojectmanagement.com/2004/02/07/329/#comment-175</link>
		<pubDate>Wed, 31 Dec 1969 16:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.reformingprojectmanagement.com/2004/02/07/329/#comment-175</guid>
					<description>
        Paulo,

I agree. The approach to metrics that you describe is one that acknowledges both the value of measuring a process, while also acknowledging the fact that there are things we can't measure, and that these things also matter. In these areas we must obtain our knowledge not through objective metrics, but through more subjective approaches.
      </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Paulo,</p>
<p>I agree. The approach to metrics that you describe is one that acknowledges both the value of measuring a process, while also acknowledging the fact that there are things we can&#8217;t measure, and that these things also matter. In these areas we must obtain our knowledge not through objective metrics, but through more subjective approaches.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: 
        </title>
		<link>http://www.reformingprojectmanagement.com/2004/02/07/329/#comment-176</link>
		<pubDate>Wed, 31 Dec 1969 16:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.reformingprojectmanagement.com/2004/02/07/329/#comment-176</guid>
					<description>
        Alexander,

I read your article and I hope you don't mind if i add some thoughts.

I agree that in a project we have things that we can measure and things that we cannot measure.
My opinion is that things that cannot be measured are responsible for the results of things that we can measure and vice-versa. Example? Commitment is one of them.
We cannot measure based only in one of them: measurable or not measurable. We need both and we need to establish the links between them to sense what is going on and decide.
But being humans sometimes (or most of the time) we measure what we want to measure, or we see what we want to see (Hal always tells me this) and to avoid it we need to ask ourselves and ask the team:
What are we measuring?
Why are we measuring?
How will we measure?
What are we going to do with these measures?

Without sharing these questions with your team and trying establish a common sense from different views of the members I have no doubt that we will fail in our attempt to use the measures to improve flow in our projects.
      </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Alexander,</p>
<p>I read your article and I hope you don&#8217;t mind if i add some thoughts.</p>
<p>I agree that in a project we have things that we can measure and things that we cannot measure.<br />
My opinion is that things that cannot be measured are responsible for the results of things that we can measure and vice-versa. Example? Commitment is one of them.<br />
We cannot measure based only in one of them: measurable or not measurable. We need both and we need to establish the links between them to sense what is going on and decide.<br />
But being humans sometimes (or most of the time) we measure what we want to measure, or we see what we want to see (Hal always tells me this) and to avoid it we need to ask ourselves and ask the team:<br />
What are we measuring?<br />
Why are we measuring?<br />
How will we measure?<br />
What are we going to do with these measures?</p>
<p>Without sharing these questions with your team and trying establish a common sense from different views of the members I have no doubt that we will fail in our attempt to use the measures to improve flow in our projects.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Paulo Napolitano
        </title>
		<link>http://www.reformingprojectmanagement.com/2004/02/07/329/#comment-177</link>
		<pubDate>Wed, 31 Dec 1969 16:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.reformingprojectmanagement.com/2004/02/07/329/#comment-177</guid>
					<description>
        Sorry  I am the anonymous
      </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Sorry  I am the anonymous
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Hal
        </title>
		<link>http://www.reformingprojectmanagement.com/2004/02/07/329/#comment-178</link>
		<pubDate>Wed, 31 Dec 1969 16:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.reformingprojectmanagement.com/2004/02/07/329/#comment-178</guid>
					<description>
        Mike,

As you note I am not saying go without measurements.  The unintended consequences of measurements, particularly a slew of meaurements, leads to all kinds of trouble.

The best situation I've seen is a small set of measurements that tell the people how they are doing while they are doing (in the moment).  This allows people to make adjustments without looking outside the team organization.  While not quite autonomic control, the team has the chance of staying in control.
      </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Mike,</p>
<p>As you note I am not saying go without measurements.  The unintended consequences of measurements, particularly a slew of meaurements, leads to all kinds of trouble.</p>
<p>The best situation I&#8217;ve seen is a small set of measurements that tell the people how they are doing while they are doing (in the moment).  This allows people to make adjustments without looking outside the team organization.  While not quite autonomic control, the team has the chance of staying in control.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Frank Winters
        </title>
		<link>http://www.reformingprojectmanagement.com/2004/02/07/329/#comment-179</link>
		<pubDate>Wed, 31 Dec 1969 16:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.reformingprojectmanagement.com/2004/02/07/329/#comment-179</guid>
					<description>
        The simple stuff is similar to common sense -- common sense is quite uncommon -- the simple stuff is not so simple.
      </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The simple stuff is similar to common sense &#8212; common sense is quite uncommon &#8212; the simple stuff is not so simple.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Alexander Kjerulf
        </title>
		<link>http://www.reformingprojectmanagement.com/2004/02/07/329/#comment-180</link>
		<pubDate>Wed, 31 Dec 1969 16:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.reformingprojectmanagement.com/2004/02/07/329/#comment-180</guid>
					<description>
        Paulo,

Yes, precisely, trust is at the base of this.

This site and others posting on the same topic got me thinking, and I wrote a little more about it here. trying to connect some similar threads from different blogs.
      </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Paulo,</p>
<p>Yes, precisely, trust is at the base of this.</p>
<p>This site and others posting on the same topic got me thinking, and I wrote a little more about it here. trying to connect some similar threads from different blogs.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
</channel>
</rss>
