<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Notes on The Underlying Theory of Project Management Is Obsolete</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.reformingprojectmanagement.com/lenses/project-management-theory/notes-on-the-underlying-theory-of-project-management-is-obsolete/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.reformingprojectmanagement.com</link>
	<description>The magazine for the project age</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 15 Mar 2010 21:07:44 -0700</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Amos Gileadi</title>
		<link>http://www.reformingprojectmanagement.com/lenses/project-management-theory/notes-on-the-underlying-theory-of-project-management-is-obsolete/comment-page-1/#comment-21191</link>
		<dc:creator>Amos Gileadi</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 12 Aug 2009 03:22:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.reformingprojectmanagement.com/notes-on-the-underlying-theory-of-project-management-is-obsolete/#comment-21191</guid>
		<description>Two points that may be worth considering:

1  The ideas of David Schmaltz about coherence and community and his &quot;Blind men and the Elephant&quot; metaphor or &quot;frame&quot;.  This would appear to me to be very powerful indeed.

2  The ideas of Tom Gilb about EVO and quantified requirements as expressed in  &quot;Competitive Engineering&quot; and in many papers on his web site www.gilb.com.

Now I realise that these sets of ideas may seem diametrically opposed, and clearly more is required.  However, some synthesis of these two approaches would provide both the psychological and social basis of project teams, and the controls and visibility required for on-going funding.

The question of resource availoability is not covered by either author, other than the observations that, in the words of Gilb, you &quot;design to cost&quot;/budget; and the old idea that &quot;you do what you do as  a consequence of the people (resources) you have&quot;

Amos Gileadi
ROSE BAY  NSW 2029
Australia</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Two points that may be worth considering:</p>
<p>1  The ideas of David Schmaltz about coherence and community and his &#8220;Blind men and the Elephant&#8221; metaphor or &#8220;frame&#8221;.  This would appear to me to be very powerful indeed.</p>
<p>2  The ideas of Tom Gilb about EVO and quantified requirements as expressed in  &#8220;Competitive Engineering&#8221; and in many papers on his web site <a href="http://www.gilb.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.gilb.com</a>.</p>
<p>Now I realise that these sets of ideas may seem diametrically opposed, and clearly more is required.  However, some synthesis of these two approaches would provide both the psychological and social basis of project teams, and the controls and visibility required for on-going funding.</p>
<p>The question of resource availoability is not covered by either author, other than the observations that, in the words of Gilb, you &#8220;design to cost&#8221;/budget; and the old idea that &#8220;you do what you do as  a consequence of the people (resources) you have&#8221;</p>
<p>Amos Gileadi<br />
ROSE BAY  NSW 2029<br />
Australia</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
