Reforming Project Management » theory

The Future of Project Controls — Five Years Later

Hal — Sun, 30 Nov 2008 22:23:26 +0000

In the spring of 2003 I started some serious thinking about project (management) controls. Greg Howell had done some writing about it indicating that the usual practices he observed created a pressurized situation for the project participants. Since the PMI has updated the PMBoK® 3 times and they still separate planning, execution and control. So I'm going to do a little more writing on project controls. But first, I'll take you back to one of my first posts on the subject. The following post was titled "The Future of Project Controls", appearing April 29, 2003. I made some small updates. Enjoy.

I'm somewhat hesitant to write about (project controls). This morning I received an email newsletter that included advice on How to give negative feedback properly. I can't say that John Reh's ten recommendations are either good or bad advice. Take a look…decide for yourself. It got me thinking about project controls.

When we announce we have negative feedback we create a break in the conversation and the relationship.

Let's look more closely at what is meant by "negative feedback". When we say, "I have negative feedback," what does that mean? It might mean, "I don't like you and I'm gonna tell you why." It could mean, "I have seen negative consequences and I attribute them to your actions." This might be getting closer. At the heart of it negative feedback is about failing to meet a standard of performance. That standard could be stated or only implied. When we announce we have negative feedback we create a break in the conversation and the relationship. It's an unusual or extraordinary event.

(...)
Read the rest of The Future of Project Controls — Five Years Later (601 words)

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh

Extreme Toyota’s Lesson for American Auto

Hal — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 02:43:19 +0000

While American Auto go hat-in-hand to Washington, I thought it might be instructive to take a look at what those firms have missed while Toyota has steadily out-invested, out-innovated and racked up more profits than all three combined. Who's got the answer? How about three professors from a Japanese business school.

In their book Extreme Toyota, Osono, Shimizu and Takeuchi claim that Toyota managers embrace contradictions, opposites and paradoxes. Rather than find the best on either side of the argument, Toyota pursues the approach they call "this yet that".

(...)
Read the rest of Extreme Toyota’s Lesson for American Auto (321 words)

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh

Lastest Discussion of 8th Waste

Hal — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 00:38:39 +0000

Over at NWLean there's been quite a riff on the 8th waste. Eventually, the contributors concluded that recreating knowledge is the one true 8th waste. While it's hard to argue with any of the writers' arguments, getting at the roots of that waste is where we can begin to take effective action.

Waste in production, services, healthcare and construction are pervasive and seemingly intractable. Ohno and others noticed that. We've also noticed that the opportunity for waste reduction is right in front of us. All we have to do is tap the ingenuity of the workforce. The key question for me is, "What gets in the way of doing so?" It was that question that led Greg Howell and I to observe participants in the construction process.

(...)
Read the rest of Lastest Discussion of 8th Waste (137 words)

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh

Vroom and the “Capability Principle”: from sharing the project vision to successfully delivering projects

Claude Emond — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 14:52:55 +0000

I still meet many project managers who just state that sharing a project vision (if ever there is one) is a waste of time and that the project team should just concentrate on what they are asked (told ?) to do. This always reminds me of my first project management courses, more than 30 years ago (dinosaurs were still alive), when I was told that: "The more information people have about a project, the more veto power we are giving them…so, it is important to keep information sharing to the strict minimum, using as a strict yardstick of information distribution direct-task-oriented need-to-know information."

I am appalled to see that this primitive belief still endures today, since it shows so little understanding of how human minds and hearts really work. I am also appalled that, each time I ask about Vroom's Expectancy Theory of Motivation (dating back from the early 1960s) and it's significance to project management audiences (including many PMPs), I find out that it is still mostly unheard of or, when it is known of, it rings no bell about the relationship between sharing a project vision and mobilizing project teams to ensure project success. This is very unfortunate since Vroom's simple theory:

(...)
Read the rest of Vroom and the “Capability Principle”: from sharing the project vision to successfully delivering projects (337 words)

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh

The Proximity Principle and Project Success: Revisiting Project e-Tip 016

Claude Emond — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 06:43:20 +0000

In my first guest-blogger entry, I mentioned the importance of managing perceptions. I wrote that not doing so was the main cause of why only one project out of three was considered successful by major stakeholders, according to the Standish Group's Chaos Report¹. I concluded that "not managing perceptions" could be considered the 10th waste of ill-managed projects.

It is easy to say that we have to manage perceptions. But where and how should we start doing that? The Chaos Report gives us pretty good leads on that. The report identifies the involvement of end-users as the No.1 in its Top Ten List of project key success factors. I talked about that also when Hal gave me the opportunity to contribute a project e-tip back in 2003 (e-tip 016: Keep the Customer/End-User Involved). After all these years, this e-tip is still relevant and I propose to rename it The Proximity Principle and to revisit it as it pertains to fighting the 10th waste.

(...)
Read the rest of The Proximity Principle and Project Success: Revisiting Project e-Tip 016 (319 words)

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh

Was Bill Gates Lucky? How about Einstein?

Hal — Fri, 08 Jun 2007 01:15:39 +0000

We often discount great accomplishments by saying people were just lucky. The luncheon speaker at the TWI Summit says otherwise. Luncheon speakers are about as good as the conference budget allows. I wasn't expecting much at the TWI Summit. It's the first of its kind conference. While it was the largest meeting of TWI proponents in over 50 years, it was only about 135 people. Boy was I surprised by the luncheon speaker on the first day. Jim Swartz spoke about finding and seizing great opportunities. His talk was based on his book Seeing David in the Stone, by James and Joseph Swartz.

Due to significant Florida weather delays, I had the opportunity to read and finish Seeing David in the Stone in one setting. I am impressed. Very impressed. I shouldn't be. Norman Bodek introduced Jim to me calling him a genius. After listening to his speech, being in a private conversation and reading the book I can see that Norman is right. Not only is he a genius, he's written an easy-to-read and engaging book.

The book is based on many years of private research into what makes the great ones successful. They studied 70 great people to discover what was common among them. In addition to Gates and Einstein, the authors studied Galileo, Edison, Michaelangelo, DaVinci, Pasteur, Curie, Eisenhower, and Walton. The authors identified three groups of behaviors with a total of 12 actions. Here they are:

(...)
Read the rest of Was Bill Gates Lucky? How about Einstein? (126 words)

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh

Misunderstanding Project Planning as Anticipation

Hal — Tue, 20 Feb 2007 03:26:17 +0000

Our everyday speaking gets in the way of better planning. This weekend I was listening to Tim Russert interview Presidential Spokesman Tony Snow on Meet the Press. Tim asked Tony about the plan for winning the war in Iraq. The question inferred that something went terribly wrong. Tony replied,

"I'm not sure anything went wrong. Battle plans don't live beyond the first encounter with the enemy."

Tony went on to say that like most of life we can't anticipate the future…no amount of planning can change that. Tony is right about that. The future is uncertain and unknowable. Grasping that fact is a key to better planning. (...)
Read the rest of Misunderstanding Project Planning as Anticipation (318 words)

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh

You Can’t Manage or Improve what You Don’t Understand

Hal — Thu, 01 Feb 2007 04:48:18 +0000

This morning I was having a conversation with Greg Howell about measuring various aspects of project and program performance. Greg mentioned the universally accepted wisdom of Peter Drucker, "What gets measured gets done." He said it missed the point. Greg commented, "What matters more is understanding. Professor Clark Oglesby always said,"

'You can't manage (or improve) what you don't understand.'

That makes sense to me.

So here I am working my way through today's RSS feeds and I see this item, You Can't Manage What You Don't Measure, by John Reh. I read John's article a few times. After listening to Greg, I admit I was reading with skepticism. John did a good job presenting Drucker's wisdom. Is that good enough? or should we be paying more attention to Oglesby?

I won't argue for no measures. I'm now more interested in how we can bring understanding to our projects and business along side of measures. One clear way I know of doing that is with Five Whys. Anyone have other ideas?

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh

Gantt, Earned Value, Critical Path, or Project Jazz?

Hal — Wed, 17 Jan 2007 04:46:43 +0000

Article Series - Using Gantt Charts

Gantt, Earned Value, Critical Path, or Project Jazz?
What Has the Gantt Chart Done for You Lately?
How Are You Using Gantt Charts to Brief Project Teams?
Don’t Give Up on Gantt Charts Yet
Use a Gantt Chart as a Conversation Starter
Visiting Gantt Again with Apologies to Glen

What project techniques make the biggest contribution to project success? Gantt charts? No. Earned Value? No. Critical Path? No. The biggest contributor just might be "all that jazz." Read what these authors have to say, Playing the Live Jazz of Project Management.

Next in series

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

Why Project Managers Can’t Manage Projects

Hal — Fri, 03 Nov 2006 03:33:17 +0000

Is project management even possible? David Schmaltz thinks not. He writes Why Project Managers Can't Manage Projects. Just read it…please…for your sake. It's Pure Schmaltz!

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh

When it Comes to Project Management Theory Can You Go by the Book?

Hal — Mon, 04 Sep 2006 04:33:15 +0000

In PMI's September 2006 PM Network CareerTrack section Karen Bannan has an article titled, In Theory: You can't always go by the book. (Sorry, it's not available online, even to PMIers.) Three things caught my attention. First, just a few weeks ago, Karen interviewed me for an up-coming article. Second, my friend Lauri Koskela was interviewed for this article. Third, the article was about the usefulness of theory in practice. I was somewhat surprised by what I read.

The article opened quoting Lauri Koskela, Ph.D., Univ. of Salford,

"Many of the methodologies taught in textbooks are idealizations. What project managers encounter in reality are plenty of stumbling blocks. This means that students or new project managers often find out that theories don't work for them in practice."

Karen goes on with quotes from Paul Hassels, CapGemini,

"It's always a balance between process and content. Getting too far carried away from either poses a risk."

After including a number of other quotes, Karen begins her close with a doosey from Gregory B. Beacher, Ph.D., Univ. of Maryland,

"Theory is not otherworldly. Theory is just distilled best practices."

To Beacher's credit, Karen finishes this way,

"Your practice will be much richer if you are informed by theory."

It looks to me that these people don't agree on the meaning of the word "theory". Some speak of it as "conjecture" while others indicate a scientific explanation that can be used for prediction. I prefer the last.

The books are relying on obsolete underlying theory.

Four years ago, Lauri Koskela and Greg Howell presented their research in a paper for PMI's bi-annual research conference. They titled their paper, The Underlying Theory of Project Management Is Obsolete. I was told the presentation of the paper generated quite a controversy. In my opinion, Lauri and Greg wrote a great paper. It pointed to flaws in our conjecture about how we succeed on projects. I blogged about the paper for 5 or 6 postings. You will find a collection of my commentary on the lens for Project Management Theory.

I have to agree with Karen's conclusion when it comes to project management theory, "…you can't always go by the book." The books, as Lauri and Greg put so well, are relying on obsolete underlying theory. It's not so much that putting theory into practice fails us, as it is we are relying on the wrong theories. Further, methodologies are no substitute for theory. Following them with an appreciation for theory, as Beacher says, will enrich our practice and lead to better results.

Thanks to Karen's article, I was prompted to create a new lens. You'll find all the project management lenses from a navigation button on the top of each page.

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh