Artifacts should be the naturally occurring results of of a project, not items manufactured to be artifacts. Unfortunately, it is this latter definition of artifact that has been foisted upon us by the world of CMM/CMMI/ISO 9000.
Ancient civilizations did not create artifacts to tell historians about their world. Most of the information about the civilation has been lost, and historians have to dig to find shards of pottery, broken beads, and fireside remains. From these, they try to piece together what happened in the civilization on a day by day basis.
Should a CMMI auditor, however, darken one's door, one cannot say "Go observe what is happening." Instead, one needs to provide a prescribed set of "artifacts" on demand. As a project manager, one must direct people to create shards of pottery to make life easier for the auditor. An auditor is not willing to observe status meetings, rather he requires the creation of meeting minutes preserving transient information for eternity. The cost? Typically, 1 - 2 hours per meeting. The result? Necessary meetings are held is secret depriving projects from sharing information about what works and what doesn't. This is precisely the opposite of what CMMI sells itself as accomplishing.
Artifacts need to be the naturally occurring results of the project. If the project must create artifacts for their own sake, then the focus of the project is divided. Should the project accomplish its stated goal or should it generate artifacts.
Discussion on:
View:
Show:
Most of them met their doom by doing something that today appears colossally stupid. The Mayans cut down every tree within an ever-increasing radius to build temples and then wondered why the ecosystem began changing into one that would no longer support teeming human life. The Mesopotamians overfarmed the breadbasket of the Middle East and turned it into a desert.
I'm not suggesting that they might have figured this out if they'd held more meetings. I'm just suggesting that since we know more about a lot of subjects than they did, one of those subjects just might be project management.
Graft, corruption, and inefficiency were rampant in those times. The key to enabling the construction and maintenance of a civilization is a surplus, and their surplus dipped dangerously low over and over again until it failed to revive and the cities were abandoned. One of the ways you keep your civilization functioning efficiently so as to maintain as high a surplus as possible is record-keeping. Another is auditing. Both of these things facilitate a reduction in graft and corruption, and even to some extent inefficiency.
The Chinese and the Romans were the first civilizations to discover this. The former is the only ancient civilization that has survived more-or-less continuously into Post-Industrial Era. The latter at least left robust shreds that supported the creation of its successors.
I'm not suggesting that they might have figured this out if they'd held more meetings. I'm just suggesting that since we know more about a lot of subjects than they did, one of those subjects just might be project management.
Graft, corruption, and inefficiency were rampant in those times. The key to enabling the construction and maintenance of a civilization is a surplus, and their surplus dipped dangerously low over and over again until it failed to revive and the cities were abandoned. One of the ways you keep your civilization functioning efficiently so as to maintain as high a surplus as possible is record-keeping. Another is auditing. Both of these things facilitate a reduction in graft and corruption, and even to some extent inefficiency.
The Chinese and the Romans were the first civilizations to discover this. The former is the only ancient civilization that has survived more-or-less continuously into Post-Industrial Era. The latter at least left robust shreds that supported the creation of its successors.
The intent was not to say that ancient civilizations were brilliant. The intent was simply to say that artifacts allow us to see what has happened. I can decide to build a new computer that runs on rocks. It's a dumb idea. People only know that I was stupid enough to persue it if I write it down.
The artifacts are considered proof that the control process is being used, auditing types not being trusting on that account.
The trick is to produce useful atifacts that help you do the job as opposed to simply producing them to keep accreditation.
The trick is to produce useful atifacts that help you do the job as opposed to simply producing them to keep accreditation.
There is certainly a way to over do artifacts. There are certainly project managers that have the mentality that the project team is there to create artifacts. However, done correctly, artifacts clarify the thinking that was done, verify alignment in objectives, and verify understanding. These are all essential parts of successful project management.
Hmm, yes, I can see future archaeologists concluding that most project documentation is to cover the backside of the chief priests in case a ritual sacrifice might be required.
With regard to "Future Technology" research papers, it is sometimes fascinating to see how some great ideas never make it, and some are eventually realised, but usually not for the reason, or in the way that the writers imagined. Often one is rather reminded of the efforts that went into alchemy in the 16th century.
In my experience, the main problem for systems analysts is finding the reason why organisations do things the way they do. Usually this depends on some old-timer who carries on the "oral tradition". I heard an archaeologist on TV recently say that "when we don't know what an artifact is for, we say it is a 'ritual object'". One could probably write a book about projects that have come crashing down because of failure to understand an undocumented but essential data item.
With regard to "Future Technology" research papers, it is sometimes fascinating to see how some great ideas never make it, and some are eventually realised, but usually not for the reason, or in the way that the writers imagined. Often one is rather reminded of the efforts that went into alchemy in the 16th century.
In my experience, the main problem for systems analysts is finding the reason why organisations do things the way they do. Usually this depends on some old-timer who carries on the "oral tradition". I heard an archaeologist on TV recently say that "when we don't know what an artifact is for, we say it is a 'ritual object'". One could probably write a book about projects that have come crashing down because of failure to understand an undocumented but essential data item.
- Keyboard Shortcuts:
- Prev
- Next
- Toggle
