Reforming Project Management » PMBoK

Looking for 32 or more Dumb Project Management Questions

Hal — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 04:25:45 +0000

My last post created some interest and a little controversy. I don't think there are any dumb questions among team members. As the cliche goes, only the un-asked questions are dumb. Projects go much better when there is a free exchange among the participants. We all know this. Yet, for whatever reasons, usually having to do with fear, people often fail to ask when something looks unusual. Enron, Madoff, AIG…these tragedies in some way all involve people failing to ask questions.

Help generate a list of great dumb project management questions

I proposed 10 questions that are worth asking on our projects. The list was my list. Not scientific. No survey. Just based on my experience working on projects. A number of people left comments proposing other questions. Some sent me emails. So, let's try something together. I'm getting a book ready based on my project e-tips. It's in editing. I'm not sure when it will be published, although I have it on the front burner. What if we make my list of 10 dumb project management questions your list, but bigger? Let's see if we can generate a list of 42 really good dumb PM questions. (I'll tell you later why 42.) I'm looking for at least another 32 good dumb questions. Once I have a bunch, then I'll create a survey where you can vote up or down the questions. The top 42 will get published.

(...)
Read the rest of Looking for 32 or more Dumb Project Management Questions (134 words)

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh

Out with Deterministic Project Planning

Hal — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 20:42:37 +0000

One of the highlights of the PMI Global Congress 2008 for me was my meeting with Greg Balestrero, CEO of PMI. On the last day of the congress Greg met with the PMI New Media Council for lunch. We had an hour-long chat. We heard what was on his mind and we shared some topics with him. Along the way we got into a conversation about standard practice and best practice. Eventually, Greg let out the "T" word. Let me back up…

The reductionist deterministic approach to planning had outlived its usefulness.

The PMI member community routinely misunderstands PMBoK® as PM methodology. It's not methodology. It is a guide to the generally accepted practices. And it is an ANSI standard. All that is meant by standard is that most people most of the time would do the actions described. It is not best practice. As the New Media Council members and Greg were discussing the usual confusion about PMBoK, one of the council members asked about featuring more best practice at the coming PMI Global Congress. Someone went on to say that we needed research into Project 2.0. It was in that conversation that Greg uttered the word "theory".

(...)
Read the rest of Out with Deterministic Project Planning (176 words)

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh

Not Managing Perceptions: The 10th Waste of Project Management

Claude Emond — Sat, 12 Jan 2008 01:17:34 +0000

"Project Quality Management must address the management of the project and the product of the project"

(p.180, PMBoK, 3rd edition)

In an earlier blog entry, I presented the Nine Wastes of Mismanaged Projects, according to Lean Project Management gurus (Howell, Macomber, Koskela, Bodek). I said then that I saw a 10th waste adversely affecting project success: Not Managing Perceptions. Today, I will briefly explain why I believe that not managing perceptions is a major project waste, and why it has to be taken care of for our projects to be successful.

The sentence from the PMBoK quoted above is one of the most important messages on successful project management. It means that project quality, a strong indicator of project success, does not only depend on the physical characteristics of project deliverables, it also depends on HOW they were delivered. It means that a project is not only a destination, it is also a journey. It means that in matters of quality, BOTH the journey and the destination are important.

(...)
Read the rest of Not Managing Perceptions: The 10th Waste of Project Management (371 words)

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh

Project Management for Professional Service Firms

Hal — Sun, 28 Jan 2007 02:49:09 +0000

The vast majority of projects involve a few people and take a few months. PMI and Prince seem to ignore that majority…but not Ron Rosenhead. Ron offers project management consulting and advice for accountants, attorney, librarians, and other professionals. He offers an approach based on a stripped-down version of Prince. Still, it may be more than these people need.

"Soft" is what makes projects successful.

Ron makes it easy for the motivated service professional to be successful with projects. He offers introductory material, a course-by-email, and an eBook, Deliver that Project. I've just finished reviewing the eBook. Attorneys and accountants will find it to be comprehensive. Most projects don't need more than Ron is advising.

I found one thing missing. Projects of all sizes and complexity depend on successful conversations for coordination. We act like conversations are the soft stuff of projects. For some reason "soft" is not important. Too bad. In my experience, "soft" is what makes projects successful. For those of you who are open to exploring the "soft" side of projects, have a look at these project meeting protocols. And, subscribe to Ron's email course while you're at it.

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh

A New Idea…Can I Face the Pain?

Hal — Tue, 02 Jan 2007 02:37:25 +0000

Article Series - Notes on Obsolete Project Management Theory

I read the following quote from Walter Bagehot in Time Magazine's end-of-year farewell to John Kenneth Galbraith.

"One of the greatest pains to human nature is the pain of a new idea."

The quote reminds me of the theory-trap we are in with projects. So with this posting I am updating my Notes on the Underlying Theory of Project Management is Obsolete.

While our tools are ever more sophisticated and there is more project management training, our project results languish. The new idea — projects are conducted in an unfolding network of commitments — challenges the very nature of what people do today in the project setting. The PMI is going to great lengths to teach people the old ideas.¹ In essence saying, "Just get good at doing what we've been telling you to do all along and your projects will come out just fine." Following that teaching with certification is producing a world-wide paradigm that is having the affect of blinding practitioners to alternative ideas (theories). In the face of that, the agilists are dealing with the pain of their new ideas; so are those adopting lean construction.(...)
Read the rest of A New Idea…Can I Face the Pain? (669 words)

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh

Art of Project Management Redux

Hal — Wed, 08 Mar 2006 21:10:14 +0000

In the last two weeks, three people have recommended Scott Berkun's The Art of Project Management to me. (They hadn't seen my posting the Art of Scott Berkun.) While I was impressed with the book when I read it last summer, I hadn't picked it up since. Now I have. I'm even more impressed.

Two years ago, Boston University said that the PMBoK® only represents 1/3 of what a project manager needs to know to succeed, Project Management: Art and Science. The art of project management is generally not taught and not well-described. 18 months later Scott's book filled that gap. The Art of Project Management is a handbook for developing yourself as a project leader. Notice my shift in terms from manager to leader. I'm taking my cue from comments Scott made in an online forum¹, "It's what I wish someone had told me when I started leading projects." Of course there are management tasks on projects, but what people need most from us is leadership. Here are five chapter titles to give you a sense of what he means by leadership: (...)
Read the rest of Art of Project Management Redux (177 words)

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh

What Is Project Management?

David Green — Fri, 16 Sep 2005 03:00:48 +0000

've been looking lately at the PMBoK®. In our work here in the New South Wales Department of Commerce we have a model of projects according to 7 parameters and I'm getting
someone to 'map' the PMBoK 9 areas of knowledge to our 7 'key success factors'.

Project management models neglect the fact that projects are humanistic endeavors: done by and for people, and thus are constrained primarily socially.

Our 7 are: service delivery (being that we're in public administration), affordability, sustainability, governance, risk, change (the change the project will bring about) and stakeholders (related to 'change').

I've taken a look at other models of project management recently and am coming to the conclusion that the (mechanistic) models are generally flawed because they concentrate not on the project, but on 'project management' as though this activity of bringing projects to fruition has an independent importance. They also neglect the fact, in my view, that projects are humanistic endeavors: done by and for people, and thus are constrained primarily socially.

I looked at Max Wideman's website where he summarises the state of project management in the 90s writing about how its expanded since the 70s:

"… Conceivably (project management) could still be expanded further by such potential additions as stakeholder management, cash flow management, data management, document storage and retrieval management, management of cultural differences, and even vocabulary management … With a little imagination, and research reading, one could add several more, such as critical chain buffer management,[27] customer relations management, issues management, public relations management, and even knowledge management[28] itself — the list seems almost endless."

Not only is this an example of thinking that seems to be more Fayol than Flores (or even more Fayol than Ford!), but it misses the point of what PM is. It's surprising that PM in traditional thinking gets hooked up on the secondary game, and simply seems to take to itself more and more descriptors which are about the project manager more than the project.

[As I write this I also am calling to mind what Mintzberg writes about management proper. Management as I understand his analysis is about facilitating productive relationships. That entails a heap of 'managements' of course (of finance, people, stakeholders, change, training, meetings, etc) but that's the fundamental organisational responsibility of a manager. refer, e.g. Mintzberg, H, The Manager's Job: Folklore and Fact, HBR March-April 1990 p163ff]

You could go on forever saying that project management includes [something] management, but that would achieve nothing more than statements of the bleedin' obvious and not be of any great help.

It helps me to think of project management as being about three things:

defining the outcome that is to be achieved (finished product, organisational change, etc by a certain time for a certain cost: quality of performance is implied in the basic requirement),
facilitating activity to effect the outcome (getting the right people, resources and knowledge to work in an effective co-operative sequence), and
taking steps to avoid or prevent harms to the outcome (ie risk, change and stakeholder management, and developing metrics to forewarn of potential problems to allow corrective action to be taken).

It goes almost without saying that the project manager role is to achieve the identified outcome with the minimum expenditure of resources and within the minimum time possible. Any trade-offs which have to be managed must be done so to maximise the 'outcome position' agreed by the 'community of intention' (the project team and its stakeholders) for the benefit of the 'community of interest' (the project recipients, users or customers).

It is merely trivial to say that this entails 'time management', 'communication management', 'issues management' or any other particular 'management', because the project manager is looked upon to do what ever is required to effect the outcome, administering and managing the project as appropriate; and that's the main demand upon the project manager. The project management models are strong on the administration and management minutiae, I think, without providing a theoretical or practical core value for project management.

Project management is facilitation of communities of productive intent to achieve desired outcomes.

As a corroborating illustration, a production manager in a factory doesn't define his/her role as a whole bunch of 'managements' to effect production, but as doing that which is necessary to effect production. Project management can be seen, I think, as production management where the purpose is one product which is somewhat individually characterised with respect to the relationships it affords with its 'community of interest' (those who will be affected by the project) and those it requires of its 'community of intention' (that is those doing the project, those who are its 'owners' and those who are its 'customers'). To be less abstract, compare a building to a toaster, or a public policy innovation to buying photocopier paper.

Like general management, project management is facilitation of communities of productive intent to achieve desired outcomes. With 'projects' noted as being more customised than routinised, relying on a temporary community for their realisation rather than an established or semi-permanent one.

But on the other hand, most projects have similarity with other projects. When I worked as an architect (registered), I did every project more or less the same: talked to the client, analysed needs, produced a 'brief', did a design, documented it, got approvals, estimated it, called tenders, and administered the contract. It was more like production management with the 'box' we produced changed to meet customer needs. The production system itself was almost identical each time.

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh

Projects @ Work – No-How: Can You Manage by PMBoK®?

Hal — Fri, 02 Jul 2004 18:03:00 +0000

Projects@Work – No-How: Can You Manage by PMBoK?: "A checklist of standards does not a methodology make. You need to go beyond what should be done on your project and figure out how it should be done."

This is a good article by Mark E. Mullaly, PMP on PMI, PMBoK®, and project management.

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh

Project Management: Art and Science

Hal — Tue, 13 Jan 2004 07:54:46 +0000

BUCEC Introduces Project Management Competency Model; Failure To Consider "Art" Called Major Factor In Project Failure

A major reason projects fail is that organizations typically think of project management as a science, not as an art, according to research from the Boston University Corporate Education Center (BUCEC).

BUCEC's model divides project management skills into three major categories – technical, personal, and business and leadership. The nine technical skills were previously identified by the Project Management Institute and are incorporated into the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBoK®). They include the ability to manage project integration, scope, time, cost, quality, human resources, communications, risk and procurement.

The other two thirds of the model – personal, and business and leadership – focus on the art. Personal characteristics identified by the model include achievement and action, helping and human services, impact and influence, managerial, cognitive and personal effectiveness. Business and leadership skills include a "big picture" focus, business acumen, organizational savvy and a productive work environment.

This is an important step. Boston University is a leading provider of PMP certification preparation training. That training typically focuses on the 9 technical areas of the PMBoK®. For BU to call this one third of what is needed to be successful will redirect the way companies are investing in their project management skill development. Let's hear it for BU!

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh

CPM: What Do You Prefer?

Hal — Mon, 12 Jan 2004 06:40:03 +0000

Over a year ago I published a series of postings on the critical path method that produced all kinds of comments and emails from readers. I collected those postings into a two-page article that I published on this site as CPM: Fool Me Once, Fool Me Twice. Shortly thereafter, Greg Howell caught some article in ENR on CPM. It was the usual stuff about project managers just need to learn how to use the CPM tools. In an unpublished letter to the editor (with a copy to me) he replied this way:

"CPM is the tool for you if you believe what you know is more important than what you can learn, and if you prefer being "In Charge" to getting the project done, and if out-of-date plans are more useful than a team prepared for action."

Without promising the project is full of delay. That is waste. And it leads to more waste.

While I see what he is saying, and I think the phrasing is clever, many people might not get why he says it. Greg is indirectly pointing to the stasis of the use of the CPM tools. People don't have the habits or the inclination to keep the CPM schedules up-to-date. Little variations and missing task status can throw a CPM schedule out of whack. Soon people lose confidence and ignore the schedule.

Another key issue has to do with the authorization of work. The PMBoK® says something like, "Work is authorized by the schedule." Authorization is not the issue. Coordination among the team is the issue. Team members depend on the completion of work (prerequisites) so they can begin their work. But beginning work is the easy part. Other team members want to know when you will finish your work. They, just like you, want a promise. Without promising the project is full of delay. That is waste. And it leads to more waste.

Team members can make promises on the work they will perform informed by a CPM schedule. That would be wonderful. But we don't see that behavior. In fact, we see, as Greg so aptly puts it,

"The usual project meeting is a commitment-free zone." The CPM schedule is just one of the excuses for not doing what needs to be done."

What do you prefer? I don't know anyone who would identify with Greg's characterization. And teams need some guidance of overall sequence of work. Bob Huber, Scheduling Manager, The Boldt Company, suggests The Marriage of CPM and Lean Construction in his paper co-authored with Paul Reiser presented at last year's International Group for Lean Construction's 11th Conference. He urges people to use CPM at a high level rather than a detailed task level. Further detail is left to the people performing the work. The result is a CPM schedule that is easy to keep up-to-date and doesn't have swings in it from week to week. People will use that schedule.

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh

Take Another Look at Project Success Measures

Hal — Wed, 21 May 2003 07:51:37 +0000

Bill Duncan, original author of A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBoK®), wrote a concise article, METHODS AND MEANS: For Good Measure, in the May/June Projects@Work journal. Bill covers the bases providing both a context for measuring project success and guidelines for developing useful metrics that matter.

I suggest we step back from the usual success criteria of cost schedule, and customer satisfaction. While performance in these areas matter, they are the result of doing other things well. Try these:

What is the point or mission of the whole project? We might describe it as design and build something, or we could describe the mission in terms of the overall value created for the customer. Why the latter? Because even project missions can be expected to change over the project life. The customer learns, the team learns, circumstances change, and life happens.
What is the reliability of task completions? When team members' work completes as expected others' work is released as planned.
How are we doing learning and adjusting to the ever-changing project circumstances? Are we innovating? Are people growing in their roles? Is the customer getting more value than expected?

Take another look at your project measures. Focus on the variables not just outcomes.

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh

Context is Everything for Managing Projects Successfully

Hal — Wed, 02 Apr 2003 05:48:48 +0000

The editors at Project Management World Today argue in their April editorial The Case of the Missing Domain that project managers struggle in a context-free project management process.

When business people take an interest in projects they ask different questions from project managers.

Any manager in a business organization these days will ask "(W)hen will this project be completed, and how much will it cost when it is?" as a start, but will also ask: "(H)ow will this project meet it's business goals, what risks are there to the business process? What value is delivered when we're done here? What does done mean?"

Those questions provide the context for shaping future action.

The author questions the relevance of project management that is context-free.

Missing is the acknowledgment that a "process" oriented approach is not sufficient. Putting the processes of PMBoK® to work in a context is not only necessary it is mandatory for the profession. But what context? Software development? Construction? Hard goods manufacturing? Aerospace? All have unique context dependent needs.

Concluding the PMBoK provides little value to the process of software development.

The editorial argues that practitioners want methods but aren't finding them.

(A)s a non-method, PMBoK leaves the PM professional without the tools to move forward. Methods are the means to problem solving. Without methods, the discipline of project management is simply a list of processes — it is context free.

People will continue to translate knowledge into methods and practice with or without the PMI.

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh