From the category archives:

theory

If you’re new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!

Seth Godin writes a monthly column in Fast Company where he rails against our attachment to our common sense. There are too many favorite Seth Godin FC essays for me to mention here. Now I have a ‘new [...]

{ 1 comment }

Gray Matters — No JELLO® Attack

by Hal on November 23, 2003

in PM practice, books, lean, theory

Conventional wisdom goes out the door in this serious comic book on management and prorjects.

{ 1 comment }

Let’s start with my definition of a breakdown:
An interruption while in the midst of fulfilling ones commitment jeopardizing the completion of the commitment.
In the previous five postings I described three actions for preparing for breakdowns:

Make commitments at the last responsible moment by engaging in recurrent conversations exploring, “Is it time to act?”
Make our commitments with [...]

{ 0 comments }

I last wrote about Designing Breakdown-Tolerant Project Environments in a four-part series: [1] [2] [3] [4]. It’s not complete — my thinking that is!
I keep thinking about uncertainty and variation. One of my clients says we are preoccupied with making our futures certain. Wondering, I think we just don’t have enough trust [...]

{ 1 comment }

Life happens. It just does. If we wake up in the morning we are bound to be surprised at some moment during the day. I bought a Jeep Wrangler to share with my about-to-be 17 year-old son. The vehicle had 71,200 miles on it when I purchased it. I was [...]

{ 5 comments }

In the first part of this series I explored the circumstances for breakdowns and the action to take to minimize the general situation for breakdowns:
Make commitments at the last responsible moment by engaging in recurrent conversations exploring, “Is it time to act?”
Step Two: Making commitments with confidence that they can be fulfilled as promised
No commitment [...]

{ 2 comments }

I left off looking at the question, “Do we make commitments at the last responsible moment or at the most responsible moment?” I looked at the consequences of acting later than the ‘last responsible moment’ concluding that a breakdown was likely. So the trick is to make it just before the last moment. [...]

{ 2 comments }

My exploration of variation started with a chapter title The Corrupting Influence of Variability in Factory Physics (2nd Ed.), by Hopp and Spearman. This book had a huge influence on the development of the Last Planner System of Production Control™ and Lean Construction. (I’ve skimmed the book a few times.) A 2nd [...]

{ 4 comments }

First of a series on project breakdowns and how to avoid them…

{ 7 comments }

{ 7 comments }

Consider this a starting point in a series of postings. At this moment I’m just rambling. I’ll use following postings to develop my thinking.
My basic claim about the environment of projects has not changed. Projects are conducted in an uncertain and unknowable future. In addition, project participants learn, collaborate, innovate, and [...]

{ 0 comments }

So claims David Schmaltz in his book The Blind Men and the Elephant, Mastering Project Work. Those are words only a self-described heretic could utter. The key word is “thing”. While we speak of projects as nouns, the experience of a project is much more like a verb.
I won’t make this a [...]

{ 0 comments }

Model Project Managers

by Hal on April 5, 2003

in PM practice, theory

Model Project Managers, Dr. O.P. Kharbanda writing for Gantthead.com. Dr Kharbanda points to Mahatma Ghandi, Henry Ford, and Benjamin Franklin as models of project managers. One thing that made all three models for project managers is their outlooks on life:
One step is enough for me! and The customer is king!
Mahatma Ghandi
Whether you think [...]

{ 2 comments }

Today I complete my comments of the paper The Theory of Project Management: Explanation of Novel Methods by Lauri Koskela and Greg Howell. The authors are careful to use the phrase underlying theory to denote that project management theory is not explicit. The authors make their inferences of theory from the practices and [...]

{ 1 comment }

Converging on a New Theory

by Hal on November 4, 2002

in PMBoK, theory

Lauri Koskela and Greg Howell (K&H) argue successfully that current theory is obsolete in their paper The Underlying Theory of Project Management is Obsolete. However the authors may be limited in producing a new theory by exactly the same background paradigm that makes current theory obsolete. K&H seemingly accept the machine metaphor as [...]

{ 1 comment }

Lauri Koskela and Greg Howell (K&H) do a marvelous job of capturing the experience of projects on page 11 of The Underlying Theory of Project Management is Obsolete:
“The deficiencies of the theory of the project and of the theory of management reinforce each other and their detrimental effects propagate through the life cycle of a [...]

{ 0 comments }

Set It and Forget It? Hardly!

by Hal on October 31, 2002

in PMBoK, project control, theory

Project controls espoused theory isn’t working. The good news is the theory-in-action can keep us out of trouble.

{ 0 comments }

Management-as-Determining?

by Hal on October 30, 2002

in PMBoK, project planning, theory

The PMBoK® describes 10 planning processes out of a total of 13 core processes for project management. These 10 processes comprise what Koskela and Howell (K&H) call management-as-planning in their paper The Underlying Theory of Project Management is Obsolete.
It is crazy to give the greatest effort to detail when we know the least about [...]

{ 4 comments }

IPO Theory is Incomplete

by Hal on October 29, 2002

in PMBoK, theory

Koskela and Howell (K&H) claim in their paper The Underlying Theory of Project Management is Obsolete the theory-in-use of project management is based on a production theory and a management theory. The production theory is transformation: input-process-output (IPO). The management theory is closed-loop: planning-executing-controlling, with the emphasis on planning (management-as-planning, the dispatching model, [...]

{ 0 comments }

I’ll start my comments on Koskela’s and Howell’s (K&H) paper The Underlying Theory of Project Management is Obsolete by addressing the interest in theory. Many of you may want something of more practical value. Although the engineers in the group may be quite comfortable with a discussion of theory. Why should we [...]

{ 0 comments }

Koskela and Howell Argue for a Reform

by Hal on October 27, 2002

in PMBoK, theory

Lauri Koskela and Greg Howell presented their original paper The Underlying Theory of Project Management is Obsolete at PMI’s bi-annual Research Conference this past July. A number of people have asked me to comment on it. I’m struck by how persuasive Lauri and Greg are. It takes them just 12 pages to [...]

{ 1 comment }

Unsettled about project management got me started on writing a paper to change it…

{ 0 comments }