General discussion


Defending Methodologies

By Pioneer0943 ·
While the article makes interesting points, there are some real world situations where an established and uniform methodology is required. For a company that might have several projects in process, top management may need a frame of reference to understand the status of a project. If project managers were free to organize their own unique methodology, the likelihood for confusion or misunderstanding could be high. When I first used the Rational Unified Process, developed by IBM, I groused about all the forms, templates and requirements. However, this methodology was being used by every project at the company, which meant that I could detail where we were in the project lifecycle and management could legitimately confirm understanding and acceptance. Even though Users are theoretically the Client, most project managers work under the direction of Sponsors and/or Steering Committees who are not as aware of processes as the client, but who, nevertheless, make project decisions that can determine success or failure. If they have misunderstandings about the project this could impact their decisions.

Furthermore, on a complex project with a large project team, an established methodology provides some clarity to a team that has worked on other projects with the defined methodology. They have a better understanding of their requirements and the status of development. Without that understanding team members work in silos that depend exclusively on a project manager for coordination.

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Related Discussions

Related Forums