<?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: Compass: State of the Art of Project Management</title>
	<link>http://www.reformingprojectmanagement.com/2004/03/16/339/</link>
	<description>The magazine for the project age</description>
	<pubDate>Sun, 12 Oct 2008 19:41:36 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.5</generator>

	<item>
		<title>by: David A. Schmaltz
        </title>
		<link>http://www.reformingprojectmanagement.com/2004/03/16/339/#comment-194</link>
		<pubDate>Wed, 31 Dec 1969 16:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.reformingprojectmanagement.com/2004/03/16/339/#comment-194</guid>
					<description>
        Hal:

First, thanks for the unsolicited promotion! Very much appreciated. Second, I think that whatever you got from the newsletter works well for me. My intention, cloaked in several interweaving metaphors, was that the state of the art depends more upon the state of the artist and not the state of the script, theater, or director. I see so many PMs knocking their heads against the wall created by inept performers. There's much more than remembering lines to fulfilling a project role. Doing what the director orders might even be beside the point. Great directors depend upon their actors to interpret well. That's where the spark comes from in memorable performances.

And that we attend little to the personal responsibilities required to create memorable performances. We teach technique but don't attend much to developing the artist that must interpret whateven they start out with to contribute to a coherent outcome.

david
      </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hal:</p>
<p>First, thanks for the unsolicited promotion! Very much appreciated. Second, I think that whatever you got from the newsletter works well for me. My intention, cloaked in several interweaving metaphors, was that the state of the art depends more upon the state of the artist and not the state of the script, theater, or director. I see so many PMs knocking their heads against the wall created by inept performers. There&#8217;s much more than remembering lines to fulfilling a project role. Doing what the director orders might even be beside the point. Great directors depend upon their actors to interpret well. That&#8217;s where the spark comes from in memorable performances.</p>
<p>And that we attend little to the personal responsibilities required to create memorable performances. We teach technique but don&#8217;t attend much to developing the artist that must interpret whateven they start out with to contribute to a coherent outcome.</p>
<p>david
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Bob Wells
        </title>
		<link>http://www.reformingprojectmanagement.com/2004/03/16/339/#comment-195</link>
		<pubDate>Wed, 31 Dec 1969 16:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.reformingprojectmanagement.com/2004/03/16/339/#comment-195</guid>
					<description>
        David, Hal,

I have thought along these same lines; I think several months ago I posted on planner2planner yahoo forum how we were viewing a project similar to a theatrical production, as a means to highlight what is different.

David, I'll diasgree, respectfully, to a point.  In construction, the state of the script is awful.  It was developed based on an accounting objective.  The players are selected not by a casting professional, but by another player based on price.  The players do not rehearse; they figure out costumes, set and script concurrent with their delivery to the customer.

Now to me, the essence of a play is what arises as a whole from all these parts (script, players, set and costume).  That's the synergy concept.

In construction, we haven't learned to even define what it is that arises as a whole.  Using the play metaphor, the customer comes to mind.  Yes, it is simply perceived value.  Or is it?

To me the rehearsal needs to happen.  In construction, that means we have to plan with execution in mind.  No Architect does that for us.  Then at this point, your comments I feel are of greater importance.
      </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>David, Hal,</p>
<p>I have thought along these same lines; I think several months ago I posted on planner2planner yahoo forum how we were viewing a project similar to a theatrical production, as a means to highlight what is different.</p>
<p>David, I&#8217;ll diasgree, respectfully, to a point.  In construction, the state of the script is awful.  It was developed based on an accounting objective.  The players are selected not by a casting professional, but by another player based on price.  The players do not rehearse; they figure out costumes, set and script concurrent with their delivery to the customer.</p>
<p>Now to me, the essence of a play is what arises as a whole from all these parts (script, players, set and costume).  That&#8217;s the synergy concept.</p>
<p>In construction, we haven&#8217;t learned to even define what it is that arises as a whole.  Using the play metaphor, the customer comes to mind.  Yes, it is simply perceived value.  Or is it?</p>
<p>To me the rehearsal needs to happen.  In construction, that means we have to plan with execution in mind.  No Architect does that for us.  Then at this point, your comments I feel are of greater importance.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Bob Wells
        </title>
		<link>http://www.reformingprojectmanagement.com/2004/03/16/339/#comment-196</link>
		<pubDate>Wed, 31 Dec 1969 16:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.reformingprojectmanagement.com/2004/03/16/339/#comment-196</guid>
					<description>
        Yes, improv is the norm.  And we do have players who are good at it.  Value received is spotty.  Why? Because in construction, we disassemble our team for each performance and begin again anew.  We lose the synergy that could be nurtured by the continuity that is the norm for a serial production.

We are very green at the performing Lean.  Our first experience is an eye opener.  We scrubbed our script, we've pushed for some coordination, people are giddy and gleeful, morale is high, we're ahead of schedule.  We'll never look back.

Now this is the setting to work with people with regard to their performance!
      </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yes, improv is the norm.  And we do have players who are good at it.  Value received is spotty.  Why? Because in construction, we disassemble our team for each performance and begin again anew.  We lose the synergy that could be nurtured by the continuity that is the norm for a serial production.</p>
<p>We are very green at the performing Lean.  Our first experience is an eye opener.  We scrubbed our script, we&#8217;ve pushed for some coordination, people are giddy and gleeful, morale is high, we&#8217;re ahead of schedule.  We&#8217;ll never look back.</p>
<p>Now this is the setting to work with people with regard to their performance!
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
</channel>
</rss>
