I must agree with these Top 5. On numerous occasions many senior managers think that PM is magic. I went into a project once with the complaint that we are behind and what can we do about it. Programmers and Business Analysts were trying to do the work but they weren't focused on the big picture. The BA's wanted a lot of things that just weren't reasonable and the coders were saying that the functionality wasn't defined.
So I wrote my report and was quickly hired to bring the project up too speed. I quickly identified that the BA's were saying they needed more database fields and didn't think the ORACLE admin knew what he was doing. Big mistake. So I had to bring EVERYONE together (most BA's were remote) and we spent two days going over what they thought the requirements were. We got that straightened out by implementing Enterprise Architect and then the Java programmers got really busy.
The benefit of good PM was, we took a project that was behind a year (not idea how much that cost) and brought it up to speed and slightly ahead of schedule in six months. The sucky thing that happened was that they then assigned the PM work to a BA already a full time employee (I was a contractor). I found out later that it went behind schedule again and now who knows what happened to that project.
So the bottom line is, if you implement good PM work at the start, you save later by not having to rewrite and fix mistakes because of the TIME committed at the start of a project.
Discussion on:
View:
Show:
however, not only planning well but sticking to that plan from concept to delivery is important.
i worked in an environment once where the dropdead change deadline was Dec 31. the project manager was still letting the customer make changes in march.
the amount of regression testing and QA we had to do with all the changes was enormous and management wondered why we got 2 months behind even though we were working 55-80 hour weeks.
execution of the plan means making sure all things are being done right...not just that it is designed "good enough" and that you put tons of hours in to get it completed.
i've had both great PM and bad PM...it does make the difference.
i worked in an environment once where the dropdead change deadline was Dec 31. the project manager was still letting the customer make changes in march.
the amount of regression testing and QA we had to do with all the changes was enormous and management wondered why we got 2 months behind even though we were working 55-80 hour weeks.
execution of the plan means making sure all things are being done right...not just that it is designed "good enough" and that you put tons of hours in to get it completed.
i've had both great PM and bad PM...it does make the difference.
This highlights the need for PM's to be savvy in negotiating scope and relating to the business in non process terms. Don't try to sell process to business leaders-sell results and negotiate risk, cost and benefit.
I think on of the biggest reasons for software project failure is the ol' lack of executive support combined with lack of a clear product vision combined with Waterfall development methodologies.
Companies should consider Agile to improve clarity and stay committed. See this article:
http://blog.sciodev.com/2008/11/20/agile-is-an-attitude-not-a-method/
Companies should consider Agile to improve clarity and stay committed. See this article:
http://blog.sciodev.com/2008/11/20/agile-is-an-attitude-not-a-method/
Very well said,I think one of the most critical aspects is changing the culture of a company as still most non IT organizations think of Project Management in terms of a software tool ONLY.
This nicely sums up the proverbial "whole ball of wax". Project management is at it's core - management. There are a number of tools available and used where appropriate.
All projects need to have a sharp focus on "getting things done" but within a context of "changing". I've always liked the quote that "projects are the mechanism we use to facilitate change from one operational state to an improved one." (or something to that effect).
If more organizations treated all projects as "change management" first, and "technical" second -- we would be celebrating more successes.
All projects need to have a sharp focus on "getting things done" but within a context of "changing". I've always liked the quote that "projects are the mechanism we use to facilitate change from one operational state to an improved one." (or something to that effect).
If more organizations treated all projects as "change management" first, and "technical" second -- we would be celebrating more successes.
Oh, I think the #1 reason is missing! Sorry, but I do.
The number one reason that Project Management fails in North America is because of the inherent belief that project management must motivate the project to be as fast in delivery as possible, regardless of all other factors! This perspective of project management is fully reinforced by the fact that project managers in North American are solely rewarded based on "implement faster than anyone else"!
With 13 major projects (more than 6 months long) under my belt (as an analyst, consultant, senior consultant, project phase/stream lead), this is the sole consistency that I have experienced within every project and every project manager... especially the senior PMs!
I also have the fortune of working with a great many people from overseas (Germany, Spain, Russia, Switzerland, India, Pakistan, Singapore, China, Japan, Uruguay... etc etc) on North American projects and I hear their comparative thoughts on the North American P.M. They all say the same thing: North American Project Managers build such an irrational, unachievable plan and then they burn out their consultants in perpetuity trying to achieve those unrealistic timelines, and the projects fail because of missed milestones (and report-lying to the client to pretend those milestones have been met) and the unneeded turnover of burnt-out consultants causing the project learning curve to be repeated and repeated and repeated.
Now, I am all for being very busy on a project but there is a distinct and intelligent difference between crushing your consultants on a continual basis and asking them to perform in a timely manner with a responsible level of quality that is deserved by the client! Unfortunately, as long as N.A. PMs focus solely on their superior's demands to implement faster than any other P.M., consutlants will continue to quit at an unreasonable rate, clients will continue to be lied to, and the rest of the world will laugh at us in North America as we commit suicide by paper-work!
Sincerely,
Russ Willis
The number one reason that Project Management fails in North America is because of the inherent belief that project management must motivate the project to be as fast in delivery as possible, regardless of all other factors! This perspective of project management is fully reinforced by the fact that project managers in North American are solely rewarded based on "implement faster than anyone else"!
With 13 major projects (more than 6 months long) under my belt (as an analyst, consultant, senior consultant, project phase/stream lead), this is the sole consistency that I have experienced within every project and every project manager... especially the senior PMs!
I also have the fortune of working with a great many people from overseas (Germany, Spain, Russia, Switzerland, India, Pakistan, Singapore, China, Japan, Uruguay... etc etc) on North American projects and I hear their comparative thoughts on the North American P.M. They all say the same thing: North American Project Managers build such an irrational, unachievable plan and then they burn out their consultants in perpetuity trying to achieve those unrealistic timelines, and the projects fail because of missed milestones (and report-lying to the client to pretend those milestones have been met) and the unneeded turnover of burnt-out consultants causing the project learning curve to be repeated and repeated and repeated.
Now, I am all for being very busy on a project but there is a distinct and intelligent difference between crushing your consultants on a continual basis and asking them to perform in a timely manner with a responsible level of quality that is deserved by the client! Unfortunately, as long as N.A. PMs focus solely on their superior's demands to implement faster than any other P.M., consutlants will continue to quit at an unreasonable rate, clients will continue to be lied to, and the rest of the world will laugh at us in North America as we commit suicide by paper-work!
Sincerely,
Russ Willis
As opposed to talking to people who are from there and making judgements based on their musings, I've actually run projects in some of the places you mention. I hate to say it, but the same lack of understanding of the need for proper project planning exists everywhere. I read this article and can cite many of my own experiences that match the anecdotes mentioned. Yes, in North America timeframes are usually tighter but, as a result, American PMs are known and respected for being able to get things done.
Projects in Europe have a tendency to take much longer than they need to. That can be for different reasons. In Russia, over-reliance on existing bureaucratic process may result in unnecessary project delays. In Germany, there may be a tendency to over-analyze and over-plan. The resulting system will probably work perfectly, but its often over-engineered and they took twice as long to implement and as a result their competitor has beat them to the market.
There is a reason why innovation in tech is still for the most part originating in North America.
Projects in Europe have a tendency to take much longer than they need to. That can be for different reasons. In Russia, over-reliance on existing bureaucratic process may result in unnecessary project delays. In Germany, there may be a tendency to over-analyze and over-plan. The resulting system will probably work perfectly, but its often over-engineered and they took twice as long to implement and as a result their competitor has beat them to the market.
There is a reason why innovation in tech is still for the most part originating in North America.
Project Management is by no means only a tool. Tools, people and processes should be in balance. This is an idea from Andrew Filev's blog post: http://www.wrike.com/projectmanagement/09/08/2008/Can-Adoption-of-Project-Management-2-0-Tools-Guarantee-Success-of-Your-Projects
Your feedback is welcome.
Your feedback is welcome.
Number 2 is the Top reason, and number 1 never gets attempted. PM is a pull-the-trigger decision, and if there is no one person in the organization with the absolute authority with vision and the cojones to go for it, all else is a circle jerk.
If I knew how to prove such commitment, life would be a dream.
If I knew how to prove such commitment, life would be a dream.
For Project Management to be successful your organization and senior leadership have to support it. The result of this commitment will drive the change throughout the organization and impact all of the other reasons for success. If they only go halfway in the preverbial PM pool then you are bound to hit a roadblock(or one of the other four reasons why they fail).
- Keyboard Shortcuts:
- Prev
- Next
- Toggle
