PMBoK has a set of process groups that are addressed in every project, intentionally or not. The Program and Portfolio Standards have related and interdependent process groups as well. Each project, like Glen’s development of a missle system, or the evolving creation of a web based business application address these process groups. I just don’t think we are going to get away from the capabilities of planning, communicating, staffing, procurement, quality, etc.

The issue is to figure out the appropriate trade-off between perfect planning versus organizational learning and progressive elaboration. The process groups may not even be all inclusive. In OPM3 we included a set of Organizational Enablers that could be addressed as well. But it is unreasonable to purposefully address all of these processes for many projects, so how do we limit our focus and investment into the project delivery capability to the smallest amount of effort neccessary to optimize the delivery of the project?

We keep getting caught up in the “How Trap” of historical implementations of these processes and not addressing the outcome gaps. Where we need to innovate is to figure out for each project how we implement the best practices to achieve the outcomes for that particular project. How do we bring in new practices and organizational/social constructs to continue to improve our ability to deliver projects? None of these questions are outside of the scope the PMI standards. In fact, if we can raise the conversation above the historical implementation of the process groups the standards provide a robust structure for the conversation.

Glen B. Alleman
VP, Program Planning and Control
Aerospace and Defense
Denver, Colorado

Planning for change means that we plan interventions to discover what the change needs to be. The problem with requirements is not unstable requirements. It is that we fail to stabilize the requirements before the end of the work. If we have not received any product changes for 6 months, we need to assume we have not looked!

All product development work involves learning. Perfect planning assumes we already know the solution. It simply is not true. Where is the learning, research, etc. in your project plan? How is that built into the needed replanning?

Bob Ferguson

Project management is environmentally specific – that is, the more complex, asymmetric and chaotic the environment the greater is the need for lean project management techniques. It is only in the very stable environments that rigorous project planning is possible – and how often do we come across them?

At its best the PMBoK defines those elements which must be considered, either briefly but concisely (in complex environments) or rigorously and with great detail (in stable environments). At its worst the PMBoK is a danger because some people regard it as a book of rules and procedures which must be slavishly followed. Sadly, too many of our formal education and training institutions fall into this latter category.

but i wonder about other ways of thinking about a big thing many people do (not calling it a project). like a political campaign, which is so amorphous and organic and emergent and social. or iterative creative works like filmmaking and software design, where the goals are approximate at best and the methods for doing work are adapted and improvised.

has the PMBoK met its natural limits? or do we want to enjoy some of PM’s benefits in areas of work where reductionist models never took hold?