I received a great question from a subscriber to my PMP Guide newsletter about methodologies and frameworks.
Information Overload - by woordenaar via Flickr
He cited a bountiful list with a question of whether he needs to know all of these in and out:
- Adaptive Project Framework
- Agile software development
- XP
- FDD
- ITIL
- Lean Development
- Scrum
- Spiral
- 10 Step
- JAD
- RAD
- RDD
- Crystal Method
- DSDM
- Waterfall
- SDLC
- Prince 2
While this list is a mixed bag of methodologies, frameworks, etc. my general advice is as follows to everyone who may be getting overwhelmed by the multitude of ways to “get r dun”.
Be Purposeful About Your Career Path
I would not be too concerned about learning every methodology or system out there. I certainly haven’t looked into everything on this list. There are a few I’m pretty sure I’ve never even heard of.
- Take a look around where you work now. What is available to you as a possible move to gain experience? What do they use? If your short-term career milestone involves a particular methodology or framework, get to know it well. Be curious. If they have documentation, read it. Ask to volunteer your free time (unpaid) to help them. Your pay is the learning and networking opportunities. You may also get a great mentor out of it.
- Take a look at the company or department you work in or WANT to work in 2-5 years in the future. Ask what they use and learn that. There are general project management principles that will apply more broadly, but depending on each individual implementation things change.
- Alternatively, learn just a little about some of these and pick one that you find really interesting. Go after deeper knowledge about that one. By becoming well versed in a specific way of doing projects (that you really enjoy) you can enter a niche in the job market you are really passionate about. Once you learn one, it’s easier to learn others later on.
I hope that helps!
Share your insights with the community by leaving a comment!
No related posts.
{ 91 comments… read them below or add one }
Like probably most others, I don’t recognize half of these “methodologies”. The ones I am familiar with appear to me to be largely different perspectives on the same old stuff.
I had the privilege to be part of the”Reinventing Project Management” research, headed up by Professor Peter Morris. Peter pretty much summed up where project management is today. He stated “Project management is a discipline caught in a 1960′s time warp”. Essentially, nothing “new” has been discovered or created in the world of project management since the 1960′s. About the only major leap forward was when CPM scheduling software moved from the main frame to the PC, which happened circa 1984 or thereabouts (Harvard Graphics, Primavera and Microplanner come to mind)
Having explained some background, IMPO, the “best” methodology I have seen is not listed above at all. What I am recommending to our clients is the Asset based model which was originally developed during the mid 1960′s by companies such as Kodak, Diamond Shamrock, Exxon (Esso back then) and is now still commonly used by the oil, gas, mining and process plant people.
The reason this model does not appeal to organizations such as PMI is because the project manager is NOT the “star” of the show. In this methodology, the star of the show is OPERATIONS, which, for oil, gas, mining and process plants, is where the money is. The asset managers are those functional managers who provide money, people, knowledge and physical assets to both operations and projects. In this model, project managers play a vital, but merely supporting role. We come in, develop or enhance the “asset” in some way, then turn it over to operations who runs it. We go away to work on other projects, but always playing a supporting, not starring role.
Interesting, but the latest version of the PMBOK seems to be coming around to understanding that relationship. In the PMBOK, they talk of “Organizational Assets” and they talk of Portfolios and Programs. So it looks like they are heading in the right direction although they still lag several years behind what John Hollmann, over at AACE has done. John, and his “Total Cost Management Framework- Integrated Portfolio, Program and Project Management Methodology” http://www.aacei.org/tcm/ has captured the essential elements of the Asset based methodology developed over 40 years ago by the oil, gas, mining and process plant people.
The very nice thing about AACE’s approach is they have made this tested and proven methodology available at NO COST. All you have to do is log on and download free soft copy. I also support AACE because unlike the world’s largest professional organization, AACE also publishes “Recommended Practices” which it also makes available at no cost. http://www.aacei.org/technical/rp.shtml
I have been teaching and advocating this model to our clients in telecommunications and some IT organizations, and am starting to see it work for them just as well, and with few modifications. BUT, the important thing it to recognize that the project manager is not the star of the show, but merely a supporting actor/actress.
Bottom line- project management is NOT rocket science. The tools and techniques associated with project management have been around since the late 1800′s (I consider Henry Fayol to be the real “father” of Project Management) If and when we can put project management into the proper context with operations and asset management, we will begin to see that it works and works well, PROVIDED each of the actors knows his or her part and plays it appropriately and well.
BR,
Dr. PDG, Jakarta, Indonesia
http://www.getpmcertified.com
I don’t see how this can be a true statement unless you are speaking in the broadest manner possible.
The contributions of Sutherland and Schwaber, Goldratt and many others are “new”. Perhaps “breakthroughs” like CPM, etc that are widely accepted are not present, but progress happens through small tweaks and testing too, not just in leaps and bounds.
I think an apt analogy would come from science. We may not have people like Newton and Einstein who dramatically change our paradigm by themselves with a handful of theories, but we do have many more excellent teams of scientists around the world making amazing progress on so many different fronts.
Your are correct Josh – it’s not a true statement.
We’ve introduced many new processes and tools at Rocky Flats – which was essentially a de-construction project.
To name a few..
1. Integrated Master Plan / Integrated Master Schedule – where cost, schedule, and technical performance measures are mandated. This parading is still emerging. Paul Solomon’s Conformance Based Earned Value (www.pb-ev.com).
2. Probabilistic Programmatic Risk (Monte Carlo) tools were only developed in the early 90′s. Now they are mandated by DID 81650
3. Earned Schedule, developed by Walter Lipke and Kym Henderson was applied to early IMP/IMS at Rocky Flats (circa 2002).
4. Full seamless integration of Integrated Product Teams (IPTs) in planning and cost performance only came about with the advent of ERP systems used by every participant.
5. Design Structure Matrix de-conflicting of dependencies
6. SAS probabilistic Markov chain models which we borrowed from Lockheed Martin to model the shortest path to closure, for the least cost, with the minimal staff, and the lowest risk. These take large (mainframe class) processors to solve the several 100 simultaneous differential equations of the dynamics of the project.
7. And as you mention TOC – which was also used on Titan production at Lockheed
8. Not to mention XP, Scrum, and the myriad of other agile software development techniques. While not PM per se, they are considered PM methods by their proponents.
I used Monte Carlo Analysis for both cost and schedule in 1973 … and it wasn’t new then.
MCS was developed during WWII for nuclear scattering theory at Los Alamos, using the Metropolis, Rosenbluth, Rosenbluth, Teller, and Teller algorithm.
About 1948 Fermi, Metropolis, and Ulam obtained Monte Carlo estimates for the eigenvalues of Schrodinger equation for fission scattering device design.
Before that George Louis Leclerc, Comte de Buffon, defined the underlying concepts in the 18th century to assign the probability of risk at the Monte Carlo casinos – the source of the name Monte Carlo simulation.
But since the Lurie-Goldberg algorithm was only developed in 1998, “An Approximate Method for Sampling Correlated Random Variables from Partially-Specified Distributions, Management Science, Vol 44, No. 2, February 1998, pp 203-218,”
The foundation of the computer based MCS methods became useful for variable cohesion and coupling networks of activities (task) could you tell us what tool you used with your computer scheduling tool in 1973 to produce the needed confidence levels to make management decisions?
A CPM-based tool called DEMAND that ran on a timesharing service provided by a company called Rapidata. My recollection (it’s been awhile!) is that it provided a probability density function for the entire project as well as some statistical information for each activity such as what percentage of the time it was on the critical path.
I am more than willing to accept that idea that the concept has been refined, and that the new tools provide more and better information (see my other post below). I was simply reacting to what I saw in your post as the implication that Monte Carlo tools dated only to the early 1990s.
Guys,
If you look at the fundamental research behind Goldratt, Sutherland et al, you will be able to trace that original research to the great minds of the late 18 to early 1900′s. Fayol, the Gilbreths, Taylor et al.
What the “Rethinking Project Management” group did was analyse everything that had happened since the 1960′s and while without question there were improvements made, there was nothing NEW.
Even Systems Dynamics, which is probably the next incarnation we use in project management, actually was “invented” by Jay Forrester back in the 1960′s.
So before you attempt to discredit my posting, perhaps it would be worth your time and effort to read over the methodology and the conclusions and then see if you still believe what we found was “wrong”?
BR,
Dr. PDG, Jakarta, Indonesia
http://www.getpmcertified.com
Forrester’s original HBR article was 1958. His first book on the subject, “Industrial Dynamics,” was published in 1961.
I saw no mention in the list of SD
It was discussed by some of us (Terry Williams and a Scottish women whose name eludes me) but deemed to be beyond the scope of our research.
Even now, having attended 3 SDS annual symposia, SD remains largely in the realm of academics.
The big users remain the environmentalists, climatologists and meteorologists along with Homeland Security.
Jim Lyneis, from my alma mater, Worcester Polytech and Dave Ford from UTexas? seem to be at the forefront of adapting SD to Project/Program Management.
I am currently supervising two PhD students doing their research on SD applied to project management. One is doing his on cumulative impacts of change orders and the other is doing his on risk analysis using SD simulation….
I suspect that sooner or later, especially for large, complex projects, the work being done by Homeland Security will spill over and probably the DoD/DoE will be the ones to drive the adoption of SD by project/program managers….
But even that may only be an evolutionary rather than quantum leap……
Additionally Dr. Paul, it appears to me that you are advocating one approach for all situations? Can this be correct, or am I mistaken?
I don’t mean to attack so please don’t take any of my comments as such. I either disagree or misunderstood, that’s all.
Your preferred approach may work great for oil, gas, mining, and process plant people, and other areas too….but I highly doubt any one approach is optimal for all environments.
Not only that Josh, but the tailoring of the specifics of any one PM process is highly dependent on the context and domain.
The Brookhaven National Labs has a wonderful “graded project management method” wall chart they developed. We used it in the DOE to tailored the O413.3. Which now has “graded” methods. Sandia Labs has a similar handbook. The Sandia Handbook can be located in the web. I have the source file for the Graded PM Method Brookhaven and Rocky Flats used if anyone wants a copy.
Like probably most others, I don’t recognize half of these “methodologies”. The ones I am familiar with appear to me to be largely different perspectives on the same old stuff.
I had the privilege to be part of the”Reinventing Project Management” research, headed up by Professor Peter Morris. Peter pretty much summed up where project management is today. He stated “Project management is a discipline caught in a 1960′s time warp”. Essentially, nothing “new” has been discovered or created in the world of project management since the 1960′s. About the only major leap forward was when CPM scheduling software moved from the main frame to the PC, which happened circa 1984 or thereabouts (Harvard Graphics, Primavera and Microplanner come to mind)
Having explained some background, IMPO, the “best” methodology I have seen is not listed above at all. What I am recommending to our clients is the Asset based model which was originally developed during the mid 1960′s by companies such as Kodak, Diamond Shamrock, Exxon (Esso back then) and is now still commonly used by the oil, gas, mining and process plant people.
The reason this model does not appeal to organizations such as PMI is because the project manager is NOT the “star” of the show. In this methodology, the star of the show is OPERATIONS, which, for oil, gas, mining and process plants, is where the money is. The asset managers are those functional managers who provide money, people, knowledge and physical assets to both operations and projects. In this model, project managers play a vital, but merely supporting role. We come in, develop or enhance the “asset” in some way, then turn it over to operations who runs it. We go away to work on other projects, but always playing a supporting, not starring role.
Interesting, but the latest version of the PMBOK seems to be coming around to understanding that relationship. In the PMBOK, they talk of “Organizational Assets” and they talk of Portfolios and Programs. So it looks like they are heading in the right direction although they still lag several years behind what John Hollmann, over at AACE has done. John, and his “Total Cost Management Framework- Integrated Portfolio, Program and Project Management Methodology” http://www.aacei.org/tcm/ has captured the essential elements of the Asset based methodology developed over 40 years ago by the oil, gas, mining and process plant people.
The very nice thing about AACE’s approach is they have made this tested and proven methodology available at NO COST. All you have to do is log on and download free soft copy. I also support AACE because unlike the world’s largest professional organization, AACE also publishes “Recommended Practices” which it also makes available at no cost. http://www.aacei.org/technical/rp.shtml
I have been teaching and advocating this model to our clients in telecommunications and some IT organizations, and am starting to see it work for them just as well, and with few modifications. BUT, the important thing it to recognize that the project manager is not the star of the show, but merely a supporting actor/actress.
Bottom line- project management is NOT rocket science. The tools and techniques associated with project management have been around since the late 1800′s (I consider Henry Fayol to be the real “father” of Project Management) If and when we can put project management into the proper context with operations and asset management, we will begin to see that it works and works well, PROVIDED each of the actors knows his or her part and plays it appropriately and well.
BR,
Dr. PDG, Jakarta, Indonesia
http://www.getpmcertified.com
I don’t see how this can be a true statement unless you are speaking in the broadest manner possible.
The contributions of Sutherland and Schwaber, Goldratt and many others are “new”. Perhaps “breakthroughs” like CPM, etc that are widely accepted are not present, but progress happens through small tweaks and testing too, not just in leaps and bounds.
I think an apt analogy would come from science. We may not have people like Newton and Einstein who dramatically change our paradigm by themselves with a handful of theories, but we do have many more excellent teams of scientists around the world making amazing progress on so many different fronts.
Your are correct Josh – it’s not a true statement.
We’ve introduced many new processes and tools at Rocky Flats – which was essentially a de-construction project.
To name a few..
1. Integrated Master Plan / Integrated Master Schedule – where cost, schedule, and technical performance measures are mandated. This parading is still emerging. Paul Solomon’s Conformance Based Earned Value (www.pb-ev.com).
2. Probabilistic Programmatic Risk (Monte Carlo) tools were only developed in the early 90′s. Now they are mandated by DID 81650
3. Earned Schedule, developed by Walter Lipke and Kym Henderson was applied to early IMP/IMS at Rocky Flats (circa 2002).
4. Full seamless integration of Integrated Product Teams (IPTs) in planning and cost performance only came about with the advent of ERP systems used by every participant.
5. Design Structure Matrix de-conflicting of dependencies
6. SAS probabilistic Markov chain models which we borrowed from Lockheed Martin to model the shortest path to closure, for the least cost, with the minimal staff, and the lowest risk. These take large (mainframe class) processors to solve the several 100 simultaneous differential equations of the dynamics of the project.
7. And as you mention TOC – which was also used on Titan production at Lockheed
8. Not to mention XP, Scrum, and the myriad of other agile software development techniques. While not PM per se, they are considered PM methods by their proponents.
I used Monte Carlo Analysis for both cost and schedule in 1973 … and it wasn’t new then.
MCS was developed during WWII for nuclear scattering theory at Los Alamos, using the Metropolis, Rosenbluth, Rosenbluth, Teller, and Teller algorithm.
About 1948 Fermi, Metropolis, and Ulam obtained Monte Carlo estimates for the eigenvalues of Schrodinger equation for fission scattering device design.
Before that George Louis Leclerc, Comte de Buffon, defined the underlying concepts in the 18th century to assign the probability of risk at the Monte Carlo casinos – the source of the name Monte Carlo simulation.
But since the Lurie-Goldberg algorithm was only developed in 1998, “An Approximate Method for Sampling Correlated Random Variables from Partially-Specified Distributions, Management Science, Vol 44, No. 2, February 1998, pp 203-218,”
The foundation of the computer based MCS methods became useful for variable cohesion and coupling networks of activities (task) could you tell us what tool you used with your computer scheduling tool in 1973 to produce the needed confidence levels to make management decisions?
A CPM-based tool called DEMAND that ran on a timesharing service provided by a company called Rapidata. My recollection (it’s been awhile!) is that it provided a probability density function for the entire project as well as some statistical information for each activity such as what percentage of the time it was on the critical path.
I am more than willing to accept that idea that the concept has been refined, and that the new tools provide more and better information (see my other post below). I was simply reacting to what I saw in your post as the implication that Monte Carlo tools dated only to the early 1990s.
Bill,
The use of MCS with software can be traced to the Black-Scholes assessments of futures in the early 80′s. But as an early (not the first) user of Risk+ the algorithms needed to simulate a “project schedule’s” behavior started in earnest with the Lurie-Goldberg algorithm and the Latin Hyper Cube random number generator.
The “class room” style MCS using excel and the simple random number generators produce highly biased results. I used the FORTRAN Scientific Subroutine Package random number generator to build signal processing algorithms – noise modeling – for radar systems. This was an extension of my physics graduate work on deep inelastic scattering with similar signal processing algorithms.
I’ll look further in the archives to see “first mention” papers of “network modeling” – which was used for scattering models that moved to the logical engineering application of task-network models.
But 1973 – not likely without a manual or a paper in th4e archives.
Guys,
If you look at the fundamental research behind Goldratt, Sutherland et al, you will be able to trace that original research to the great minds of the late 18 to early 1900′s. Fayol, the Gilbreths, Taylor et al.
What the “Rethinking Project Management” group did was analyse everything that had happened since the 1960′s and while without question there were improvements made, there was nothing NEW.
Even Systems Dynamics, which is probably the next incarnation we use in project management, actually was “invented” by Jay Forrester back in the 1960′s.
So before you attempt to discredit my posting, perhaps it would be worth your time and effort to read over the methodology and the conclusions and then see if you still believe what we found was “wrong”?
BR,
Dr. PDG, Jakarta, Indonesia
http://www.getpmcertified.com
Forrester’s original HBR article was 1958. His first book on the subject, “Industrial Dynamics,” was published in 1961.
I saw no mention in the list of SD
It was discussed by some of us (Terry Williams and a Scottish women whose name eludes me) but deemed to be beyond the scope of our research.
Even now, having attended 3 SDS annual symposia, SD remains largely in the realm of academics.
The big users remain the environmentalists, climatologists and meteorologists along with Homeland Security.
Jim Lyneis, from my alma mater, Worcester Polytech and Dave Ford from UTexas? seem to be at the forefront of adapting SD to Project/Program Management.
I am currently supervising two PhD students doing their research on SD applied to project management. One is doing his on cumulative impacts of change orders and the other is doing his on risk analysis using SD simulation….
I suspect that sooner or later, especially for large, complex projects, the work being done by Homeland Security will spill over and probably the DoD/DoE will be the ones to drive the adoption of SD by project/program managers….
But even that may only be an evolutionary rather than quantum leap……
Additionally Dr. Paul, it appears to me that you are advocating one approach for all situations? Can this be correct, or am I mistaken?
I don’t mean to attack so please don’t take any of my comments as such. I either disagree or misunderstood, that’s all.
Your preferred approach may work great for oil, gas, mining, and process plant people, and other areas too….but I highly doubt any one approach is optimal for all environments.
Not only that Josh, but the tailoring of the specifics of any one PM process is highly dependent on the context and domain.
The Brookhaven National Labs has a wonderful “graded project management method” wall chart they developed. We used it in the DOE to tailored the O413.3. Which now has “graded” methods. Sandia Labs has a similar handbook. The Sandia Handbook can be located in the web. I have the source file for the Graded PM Method Brookhaven and Rocky Flats used if anyone wants a copy.
Excellent points Josh; great advice. I would add a clear focus on “broader” prior to “niche” in the sense that, for project managers, credentials like PMP or Prince2 are the initial door openers. Then, the niche expertise / credentials kick in. Also, for project managers, an MBA is an excellent high-level adjunct.
An excellent point Woody. Following up on my science analogy in response to Dr. Paul, before someone decides to become an evolutionary biologist or any other scientific specialist, they need to understand the basic principles of the scientific method, etc.
Excellent points Josh; great advice. I would add a clear focus on “broader” prior to “niche” in the sense that, for project managers, credentials like PMP or Prince2 are the initial door openers. Then, the niche expertise / credentials kick in. Also, for project managers, an MBA is an excellent high-level adjunct.
An excellent point Woody. Following up on my science analogy in response to Dr. Paul, before someone decides to become an evolutionary biologist or any other scientific specialist, they need to understand the basic principles of the scientific method, etc.
As always Dr. Paul, a coherent retort to the fallacy of “Structuralism”.
The scientific method is great, if you understand the resolution of your problem. Science uses strict “views” that are meant to elicit a specific response, which hopefully fit into some “expected reaction” that has already been carefully studied and understood. The issue with “Methodologies” is they claim to be “Theories of Everything”, which if you’ve read Einstein, Feynman, or Hawking you realize such understanding is currently out of our grasp. PM is meant to be a guide, not a foundation (there is no elementary particle to management).
The people that “buy” Project Management as a “cure” to “failure”, will always be disappointed.
Ryan Gensel
twitter.com/readysetproject
ryangensel.blogspot.com
Ryan,
You last sentence is likely more common than we would like to think.
The first paragraph is “good olde high school science, or college liberal arts” view of science.
As a former particle physics graduate student, see
“Constructing Quarks: A sociological History of Particle Physics,” Andrew Pickering. Our accelerator is one of the sample studies.
“Beamtimes and Livetimes: The World of High Energy Physics,” Sharon Traweek
“Thematic Origins of Scientific Thought: Kepler to Einstien, Revised Edition” Gerald Holton.
All will provide insight into the chaotic, random walk of science – both theory and practice. The notion of “understanding the resolution of your problem” does not exist in the practice of science – it works in High School or the “Physics for Non-Physics majors” class. But not in practice.
Great points Glen!
I think my digression to “Physics for Non-Physics majors” explanation is the result of always being the “specialist”. Project Managers need to realize that the further “theoretical” we go with our practices, the harder it is for the “less intellectually endowed” to understand what we’re actually doing. I think there’s plenty of great research and prose written about better ways to manage, but it’s not our responsibility as a Project Manager to revolutionize every industry (If it was, the right people would listen). We as Project Managers need to marry our “language and ontology” to individual industries, not the other way around. I think generalized PM theory has a limit, and it does not exist within a vacuum. Creating “best practices” for millions of unique tasks isn’t the job of any one Project Manager, but it’s the job of each organization to know when structure is required. Organizations need a better understanding of Project Management, not PM’s themselves.
For every page we read about Project Management, we should be required to read a corresponding section from David Maister. It’s the “professional” in PMP that augments the “theoretical” capabilities of PM to a realistic plan that organizations elect.
Maybe I’ve read too many Jazz critics, with their “holier-than-thou” language, that just makes me resent non-practitioners, but the individuals “playing” the manager are only improvising.
Ryan Gensel
twitter.com/readysetproject
ryangensel.blogspot.com
Ryan,
Interesting points. I work in a very narrow domain compared to the broad brush stroke some speakers use. US DoD/DOE/DHS, with DCMA compliant earned value process along with several other FAR/DFAR guidance documents.
I try – usually with success – to get our clients to speak in actionable outcomes in units of measure all can agree on as describing “done.”
This is what I think will lead to success as program and project managers. This is how other “professionals” speak to each other – Systems Engineers and flight software engineers are a few of our clients.
Providing people, processes, and tools to describe, manage and guide “What does done look like,” in the vernacular of the problem space? That’s the contribution I’m looking for from the current processes – possibly based on the past processes.
Awesome reply Glen!
That’s exactly what I wanted to hear:
“What does done look like,” in the vernacular of the problem space?
So we would be constrained to the language of our peers?
How about if the clients are really naive, but super successful in their line of work(industry)? How can we use common language to not alienate ourselves, monetize the effective planning we do (without “education or training”), but still “blow the whistle” as an authority?
The more intellectually I communicate with a client as a Project Manager, the more I sound like “noise” and not “signal”. The “evolving study” of any topic is great, but I think the “theoretical / specialized” processes re-dressed in generic vernacular are no replacement for actual empathy.
Project Management “educators/trainers” are businesses, separated by publishing processes, editorial reviewers, murder boards, committees, and bias. We can read all we want, but the “work”, in the context of experience is what builds intuition. Intuition is what makes empathy possible. You can’t sell “intuition”, but you can role-play scenarios to “practice”.
The motivation to be effective at anything is not reliant strictly on competence, but is an equilibrium between competence and performance. If the performance we criticize is always archetypal/hypothetical – are we just emphasizing to each other that “we know”.
I get stuck with Godel, but the incompleteness theorem and wave/particle theory of light always make me realize it’s all about perspective (the sensors we currently have). There is no “elemental particle” to Project Management, and more than there is to any informal system. Language is semantic, I don’t think projects are immune. Institutions do not make money with “ideas”, they make money monetizing “ideas”. I think some practitioners are so eager for “the newest thing”, because of the current economic condition, in hopes of becoming a better candidate for some “job”. What might sound really smart and obvious to a Project Manager, might be annoying and condescending to your team. By separating, and intellectualizing Project Management as a “profession”, we have a forum to complain about “people”, not “projects”.
Ryan Gensel
twitter.com/readysetproject
ryangensel.blogspot.com
As always Dr. Paul, a coherent retort to the fallacy of “Structuralism”.
The scientific method is great, if you understand the resolution of your problem. Science uses strict “views” that are meant to elicit a specific response, which hopefully fit into some “expected reaction” that has already been carefully studied and understood. The issue with “Methodologies” is they claim to be “Theories of Everything”, which if you’ve read Einstein, Feynman, or Hawking you realize such understanding is currently out of our grasp. PM is meant to be a guide, not a foundation (there is no elementary particle to management).
The people that “buy” Project Management as a “cure” to “failure”, will always be disappointed.
Ryan Gensel
twitter.com/readysetproject
ryangensel.blogspot.com
Ryan,
You last sentence is likely more common than we would like to think.
The first paragraph is “good olde high school science, or college liberal arts” view of science.
As a former particle physics graduate student, see
“Constructing Quarks: A sociological History of Particle Physics,” Andrew Pickering. Our accelerator is one of the sample studies.
“Beamtimes and Livetimes: The World of High Energy Physics,” Sharon Traweek
“Thematic Origins of Scientific Thought: Kepler to Einstien, Revised Edition” Gerald Holton.
All will provide insight into the chaotic, random walk of science – both theory and practice. The notion of “understanding the resolution of your problem” does not exist in the practice of science – it works in High School or the “Physics for Non-Physics majors” class. But not in practice.
Great points Glen!
I think my digression to “Physics for Non-Physics majors” explanation is the result of always being the “specialist”. Project Managers need to realize that the further “theoretical” we go with our practices, the harder it is for the “less intellectually endowed” to understand what we’re actually doing. I think there’s plenty of great research and prose written about better ways to manage, but it’s not our responsibility as a Project Manager to revolutionize every industry (If it was, the right people would listen). We as Project Managers need to marry our “language and ontology” to individual industries, not the other way around. I think generalized PM theory has a limit, and it does not exist within a vacuum. Creating “best practices” for millions of unique tasks isn’t the job of any one Project Manager, but it’s the job of each organization to know when structure is required. Organizations need a better understanding of Project Management, not PM’s themselves.
For every page we read about Project Management, we should be required to read a corresponding section from David Maister. It’s the “professional” in PMP that augments the “theoretical” capabilities of PM to a realistic plan that organizations elect.
Maybe I’ve read too many Jazz critics, with their “holier-than-thou” language, that just makes me resent non-practitioners, but the individuals “playing” the manager are only improvising.
Ryan Gensel
twitter.com/readysetproject
ryangensel.blogspot.com
Ryan,
Interesting points. I work in a very narrow domain compared to the broad brush stroke some speakers use. US DoD/DOE/DHS, with DCMA compliant earned value process along with several other FAR/DFAR guidance documents.
I try – usually with success – to get our clients to speak in actionable outcomes in units of measure all can agree on as describing “done.”
This is what I think will lead to success as program and project managers. This is how other “professionals” speak to each other – Systems Engineers and flight software engineers are a few of our clients.
Providing people, processes, and tools to describe, manage and guide “What does done look like,” in the vernacular of the problem space? That’s the contribution I’m looking for from the current processes – possibly based on the past processes.
Awesome reply Glen!
That’s exactly what I wanted to hear:
“What does done look like,” in the vernacular of the problem space?
So we would be constrained to the language of our peers?
How about if the clients are really naive, but super successful in their line of work(industry)? How can we use common language to not alienate ourselves, monetize the effective planning we do (without “education or training”), but still “blow the whistle” as an authority?
The more intellectually I communicate with a client as a Project Manager, the more I sound like “noise” and not “signal”. The “evolving study” of any topic is great, but I think the “theoretical / specialized” processes re-dressed in generic vernacular are no replacement for actual empathy.
Project Management “educators/trainers” are businesses, separated by publishing processes, editorial reviewers, murder boards, committees, and bias. We can read all we want, but the “work”, in the context of experience is what builds intuition. Intuition is what makes empathy possible. You can’t sell “intuition”, but you can role-play scenarios to “practice”.
The motivation to be effective at anything is not reliant strictly on competence, but is an equilibrium between competence and performance. If the performance we criticize is always archetypal/hypothetical – are we just emphasizing to each other that “we know”.
I get stuck with Godel, but the incompleteness theorem and wave/particle theory of light always make me realize it’s all about perspective (the sensors we currently have). There is no “elemental particle” to Project Management, and more than there is to any informal system. Language is semantic, I don’t think projects are immune. Institutions do not make money with “ideas”, they make money monetizing “ideas”. I think some practitioners are so eager for “the newest thing”, because of the current economic condition, in hopes of becoming a better candidate for some “job”. What might sound really smart and obvious to a Project Manager, might be annoying and condescending to your team. By separating, and intellectualizing Project Management as a “profession”, we have a forum to complain about “people”, not “projects”.
Ryan Gensel
twitter.com/readysetproject
ryangensel.blogspot.com
Josh,
You make a very good point here. Methodologies can be learned. e tend to forget that project management is not so much about the method. To be a good project manager, you must be a good leader, a good people manager. Here’s my take on the subject.
I absolutely agree Karine, great point! Project management is about managing people! If someone is an awesome manager of people but has no knowledge of a specific methodology, I’d rather hire them than someone who has no people management skills but knows the details of a methodology in and out.
Karine,
I think your position is a good starting point. But the success in many project domains also depends on processes and to some extent tools. Having people alone may be necessary. And I’d certainty start with that for every program we’re on. Without the right people it’s going to be trouble from day one.
But with the right people, the wrong process will lead to trouble as well. With the right process and the wrong tools, trouble will soon visit.
All three are needed, starting with people.
Josh,
You make a very good point here. Methodologies can be learned. e tend to forget that project management is not so much about the method. To be a good project manager, you must be a good leader, a good people manager. Here’s my take on the subject.
I absolutely agree Karine, great point! Project management is about managing people! If someone is an awesome manager of people but has no knowledge of a specific methodology, I’d rather hire them than someone who has no people management skills but knows the details of a methodology in and out.
Karine,
I think your position is a good starting point. But the success in many project domains also depends on processes and to some extent tools. Having people alone may be necessary. And I’d certainty start with that for every program we’re on. Without the right people it’s going to be trouble from day one.
But with the right people, the wrong process will lead to trouble as well. With the right process and the wrong tools, trouble will soon visit.
All three are needed, starting with people.
Hi Josh,
While I don’t agree with all of Paul’s statement, I would tend to agree with him regrading nothing ‘new’ in the world of PM.
Look at all of the methods in the original post, and all those mentioned by Glen and others, and then ask, are we really managing projects any better than we were 40 years ago? We’ve complicated the process, but are we any faster, more efficient, cheaper, or more successful today than we were in the 60′s? Is there anything that we do differently at a fundamental level, something that we didn’t know?
We’ve found a multitude of ways to track, review, analyze and report on projects (and given a new name to each one), but do we really do anything better?
First, there is no “we”.
Individual organizations I know of are managing products better. Sometimes it’s due to the well-run implementation of a methodology. In most cases, it’s a better systemic approach to measuring and improving performance, sometimes within the same paradigm though.
Hi Josh,
“We” are a community of practice and practitioners, as evidenced by the number of PM’s who visit and interact on your site.
And there will always be ‘individual organizations’ who are doing things better, and those that are not.
But when you see a survey or report on the current state of Project Management is it positive or negative? Is the success rate cited improving or decreasing? And do you see it single out “individual organizations” and Project Managers, or does it lump us all together?
Trevor,
That question is missing some dimensions. The answer is not a scalar, it is a vector. The complexity of projects has outgrown our ability to mange them in many domains. Systems-of-Systems for example, multiple layers of subcontractors.
When some claims we managed projects better in the past, we MUST define the dimensional attributes of those projects. This includes the business, technical and organizational complexities of the project. In the absence of those “factors” no comparison can be made, no matter how anecdotal the claim.
The taxonomy of projects has been studied in Terry Williams book “Modelling Complex Projects,” as well as other academics in Belgium and Sweden.
Like all complex problems, there always appears a simple solution that is absolutely wrong.
I agree.
How do you remove yourself from the infinite loop of recursive possibilities in a framework that is supported by limited un-empathetic “language”?
How do YOU know when to put “theory” aside and start “work”? I think it depends on a balance between experience with the problem area and experience with the people (or charisma). Dale Carnegie already wrote that book in a very “Suck it up, at least you’ve got your legs” kind of tone. Sociopaths do better in business because the don’t empathize or care if they burnout people – capitalizing on their skills by manipulating them with the “guilt” of squandering some potential. Management is about getting something done effectively without burning out your people, but “Project Management” is about getting the best result, regardless of burnout.
I might be an asset to an organization, but I’m not a commodity. People aren’t sheep, and we really shouldn’t organize them like they are, even if they “Baaah” very convincingly.
Ryan Gensel
twitter.com/readysetproject
ryangensel.blogspot.com
Glen,
Isn’t what you are describing the very essence of a “complex, dynamic, adaptive system”? And if yes, then why, at the Systems Dynamics Society meeting Albuquerque NM, there as a HANDFUL of us project managers present? And of that handful, there was no one from PMI or who was PMP certified.
AACE had 3 people (including Past President, Steve Warhoe, myself and my boss, Yani Suratman)
Bottom line here- I think the status quo is untenable. Projects, especially the larger and more complex they get, “fail” with alarming regularity. Some parts of the US government- EPA, NOAA, DoE and Homeland Security all seem to be fully on board with SD as the “right” or “better” approach.
Now, for sure, that will break some of the big rice bowls over at PMI HQ and for some consultants, but if we truly care about project management as a delivery system, then we need to be looking outside of what we have been doing for the past 40 or 50 years, as things are not getting appreciably better.
BR,
Dr. PDG, Jakarta
http://www.getpmcertified.com
Hi Josh,
While I don’t agree with all of Paul’s statement, I would tend to agree with him regrading nothing ‘new’ in the world of PM.
Look at all of the methods in the original post, and all those mentioned by Glen and others, and then ask, are we really managing projects any better than we were 40 years ago? We’ve complicated the process, but are we any faster, more efficient, cheaper, or more successful today than we were in the 60′s? Is there anything that we do differently at a fundamental level, something that we didn’t know?
We’ve found a multitude of ways to track, review, analyze and report on projects (and given a new name to each one), but do we really do anything better?
First, there is no “we”.
Individual organizations I know of are managing products better. Sometimes it’s due to the well-run implementation of a methodology. In most cases, it’s a better systemic approach to measuring and improving performance, sometimes within the same paradigm though.
Hi Josh,
“We” are a community of practice and practitioners, as evidenced by the number of PM’s who visit and interact on your site.
And there will always be ‘individual organizations’ who are doing things better, and those that are not.
But when you see a survey or report on the current state of Project Management is it positive or negative? Is the success rate cited improving or decreasing? And do you see it single out “individual organizations” and Project Managers, or does it lump us all together?
Trevor,
That question is missing some dimensions. The answer is not a scalar, it is a vector. The complexity of projects has outgrown our ability to mange them in many domains. Systems-of-Systems for example, multiple layers of subcontractors.
When some claims we managed projects better in the past, we MUST define the dimensional attributes of those projects. This includes the business, technical and organizational complexities of the project. In the absence of those “factors” no comparison can be made, no matter how anecdotal the claim.
The taxonomy of projects has been studied in Terry Williams book “Modelling Complex Projects,” as well as other academics in Belgium and Sweden.
Like all complex problems, there always appears a simple solution that is absolutely wrong.
I agree.
How do you remove yourself from the infinite loop of recursive possibilities in a framework that is supported by limited un-empathetic “language”?
How do YOU know when to put “theory” aside and start “work”? I think it depends on a balance between experience with the problem area and experience with the people (or charisma). Dale Carnegie already wrote that book in a very “Suck it up, at least you’ve got your legs” kind of tone. Sociopaths do better in business because the don’t empathize or care if they burnout people – capitalizing on their skills by manipulating them with the “guilt” of squandering some potential. Management is about getting something done effectively without burning out your people, but “Project Management” is about getting the best result, regardless of burnout.
I might be an asset to an organization, but I’m not a commodity. People aren’t sheep, and we really shouldn’t organize them like they are, even if they “Baaah” very convincingly.
Ryan Gensel
twitter.com/readysetproject
ryangensel.blogspot.com
Glen,
Isn’t what you are describing the very essence of a “complex, dynamic, adaptive system”? And if yes, then why, at the Systems Dynamics Society meeting Albuquerque NM, there as a HANDFUL of us project managers present? And of that handful, there was no one from PMI or who was PMP certified.
AACE had 3 people (including Past President, Steve Warhoe, myself and my boss, Yani Suratman)
Bottom line here- I think the status quo is untenable. Projects, especially the larger and more complex they get, “fail” with alarming regularity. Some parts of the US government- EPA, NOAA, DoE and Homeland Security all seem to be fully on board with SD as the “right” or “better” approach.
Now, for sure, that will break some of the big rice bowls over at PMI HQ and for some consultants, but if we truly care about project management as a delivery system, then we need to be looking outside of what we have been doing for the past 40 or 50 years, as things are not getting appreciably better.
BR,
Dr. PDG, Jakarta
http://www.getpmcertified.com
Folks, this “nothing new” is not coming from me alone, but from some of the leading academic and practitioners. If you want to see the full research and all the names involved, IPMA has published extensively on the findings.
And I am not trying to say that “one” methodology alone will work for everyone. What I am saying is that a holistic approach that includes not only project managers but asset and operations is, IMPO, the “better” approach.
And being a heretic, I am not afraid to say that in that holistic model, the project manager is not the star of the show. NOW, make certain you understand that I am talking about OWNER companies, not contractors. IF you are a project manager and want to be the star of the show, THEN you need to work for a CONTRACTOR.
For while OPERATIONS is the star of the show in owner companies (their “core competency”) for the contractor, PROJECT MANAGEMENT is the “core competency”)
BR,
Dr. PDG, Jakarta, Indonesia
http://www.getpmcertified.com
Holistic – possibly.
But domain and context sensitive – absolutely.
What is used on construction in a foreign land quite possibly is a felony in the US DoD.
Glen……. This method was developed by Diamond Shamrock, Exxon and Kodak back in the late 50′s to mid 60′s and is used in one form or another globally by nearly all the oil, gas, mining companies up until today……
And yes, it is context sensitive but that doesn’t mean it can’t or won’t work in ANY organization that relies on or funds their projects through CAPEX or OPEX budgets. Which includes your domain as well, I believe? (See GAO-09-3SP)
Instead of being so negative, why not TRY SOMETHING NEW? God knows the US Government’s (or most other Governments for that matter) track record is far from stellar and now they want to get into health care as well?
Surely, as a taxpayer, you must agree that SOMETHING needs to change, and whether you like it or not, with oil at ~$70 a barrel and gold at +$1,000/oz these companies are managing their projects a whole lot better than what I see the US and most other Governments doing.
So instead of continuously challenging me and telling me why “my” ideas and suggestions don’t work in “your” world, why not try them out and see if you can make them work? Who knows, you may just save the overburdened taxpayer some money?
BR,
Dr. PDG, Jakarta
http://www,getpmcertified.com
Folks, this “nothing new” is not coming from me alone, but from some of the leading academic and practitioners. If you want to see the full research and all the names involved, IPMA has published extensively on the findings.
And I am not trying to say that “one” methodology alone will work for everyone. What I am saying is that a holistic approach that includes not only project managers but asset and operations is, IMPO, the “better” approach.
And being a heretic, I am not afraid to say that in that holistic model, the project manager is not the star of the show. NOW, make certain you understand that I am talking about OWNER companies, not contractors. IF you are a project manager and want to be the star of the show, THEN you need to work for a CONTRACTOR.
For while OPERATIONS is the star of the show in owner companies (their “core competency”) for the contractor, PROJECT MANAGEMENT is the “core competency”)
BR,
Dr. PDG, Jakarta, Indonesia
http://www.getpmcertified.com
Holistic – possibly.
But domain and context sensitive – absolutely.
What is used on construction in a foreign land quite possibly is a felony in the US DoD.
Glen……. This method was developed by Diamond Shamrock, Exxon and Kodak back in the late 50′s to mid 60′s and is used in one form or another globally by nearly all the oil, gas, mining companies up until today……
And yes, it is context sensitive but that doesn’t mean it can’t or won’t work in ANY organization that relies on or funds their projects through CAPEX or OPEX budgets. Which includes your domain as well, I believe? (See GAO-09-3SP)
Instead of being so negative, why not TRY SOMETHING NEW? God knows the US Government’s (or most other Governments for that matter) track record is far from stellar and now they want to get into health care as well?
Surely, as a taxpayer, you must agree that SOMETHING needs to change, and whether you like it or not, with oil at ~$70 a barrel and gold at +$1,000/oz these companies are managing their projects a whole lot better than what I see the US and most other Governments doing.
So instead of continuously challenging me and telling me why “my” ideas and suggestions don’t work in “your” world, why not try them out and see if you can make them work? Who knows, you may just save the overburdened taxpayer some money?
BR,
Dr. PDG, Jakarta
http://www,getpmcertified.com
I think the “nothing’s new” vs. “so’s your old man” argument is a red herring. It is mostly a matter of perspective. If I observe the eastern coast of the USA from 35,000 feet, little or nothing has changed in the past 50-60 years. From the 10,000 foot level, some things have clearly changed, but an awful lot still looks mostly the same. On the ground, there are many differences in detail. But I could also argue that I still see people, cars, trucks, office buildings, single family residences, roads, traffic lights, and so on and say “even at ground level, nothing has changed.”
I am also constantly amazed by the knee-jerk reaction from so many software developers any time anyone suggests that we might be able to learn something from engineering and construction. My background is software development, and I am constantly learning from my clients in EPC. I once had someone tell me that “construction projects are different because they have ‘owners’ and we don’t.” Of course no one here would ever make such a silly comment …
Back to the “nothing’s new” discussion … I am a big fan of Robert Eccles’ book “Beyond the Hype.” In that book, he argues that the basic practice of management hasn’t really changed in any fundamental way this century. He has a somewhat mind-blowing quote about how the pace of change is faster than it has ever been, and that companies that don’t recognize the imperatives of globalization are doomed … yet the quote was taken from a 1927 issue of Business Week.
Eccles also argues that we need to constantly develop new terms to present the same concepts. He presents some pretty convincing evidence that most management trends last about 10 years, although they may have a long tail. For example, there are still TQM consultants out there who are making good money because they deliver value to their clients.
There is an enormous amount of good stuff in the AACE materials, but you have to open your mind and do some translation. Owner becomes client or user or sponsor. Asset becomes application.
And while I’m at it, the best book ever written on how to manage a software development project is called “Simultaneous Management” by Alexander Laufer. Just be prepared: all of the examples are from engineering and construction, and bit of advice is 100% applicable to software development.
Hi Bill,
While I am thrilled to see an IT guy finally saying that us construction stiffs just might have some good ideas, I don’t completely by into your analogy of looking at growth on the US East Coast.
The “Reinventing Project Management” (which Lynn C was also heavily involved with) was making a comparison against other professions, including engineering and medicine. If you compare us against them, we are lagging woefully behind in making advances of any kind. Now if you want to categorize project management as a “mature” discipline, along the same lines as Accounting, that might be reasonable, except that in accounting, (save for the occasional Enron or Global Crossing) the relative track record of accountancy is rather good, especially compared to our track record in project management, which is not so great.
So on one hand, we are making precious little progress on our methodologies or on the soft side of things, while at the same time, our success rate remains dubious at best.
When combined together, it screams out for something to change…
BR,
Dr. PDG, Jakarta
http://www.getpmcertified.com
I think the “nothing’s new” vs. “so’s your old man” argument is a red herring. It is mostly a matter of perspective. If I observe the eastern coast of the USA from 35,000 feet, little or nothing has changed in the past 50-60 years. From the 10,000 foot level, some things have clearly changed, but an awful lot still looks mostly the same. On the ground, there are many differences in detail. But I could also argue that I still see people, cars, trucks, office buildings, single family residences, roads, traffic lights, and so on and say “even at ground level, nothing has changed.”
I am also constantly amazed by the knee-jerk reaction from so many software developers any time anyone suggests that we might be able to learn something from engineering and construction. My background is software development, and I am constantly learning from my clients in EPC. I once had someone tell me that “construction projects are different because they have ‘owners’ and we don’t.” Of course no one here would ever make such a silly comment …
Back to the “nothing’s new” discussion … I am a big fan of Robert Eccles’ book “Beyond the Hype.” In that book, he argues that the basic practice of management hasn’t really changed in any fundamental way this century. He has a somewhat mind-blowing quote about how the pace of change is faster than it has ever been, and that companies that don’t recognize the imperatives of globalization are doomed … yet the quote was taken from a 1927 issue of Business Week.
Eccles also argues that we need to constantly develop new terms to present the same concepts. He presents some pretty convincing evidence that most management trends last about 10 years, although they may have a long tail. For example, there are still TQM consultants out there who are making good money because they deliver value to their clients.
There is an enormous amount of good stuff in the AACE materials, but you have to open your mind and do some translation. Owner becomes client or user or sponsor. Asset becomes application.
And while I’m at it, the best book ever written on how to manage a software development project is called “Simultaneous Management” by Alexander Laufer. Just be prepared: all of the examples are from engineering and construction, and bit of advice is 100% applicable to software development.
Hi Bill,
While I am thrilled to see an IT guy finally saying that us construction stiffs just might have some good ideas, I don’t completely by into your analogy of looking at growth on the US East Coast.
The “Reinventing Project Management” (which Lynn C was also heavily involved with) was making a comparison against other professions, including engineering and medicine. If you compare us against them, we are lagging woefully behind in making advances of any kind. Now if you want to categorize project management as a “mature” discipline, along the same lines as Accounting, that might be reasonable, except that in accounting, (save for the occasional Enron or Global Crossing) the relative track record of accountancy is rather good, especially compared to our track record in project management, which is not so great.
So on one hand, we are making precious little progress on our methodologies or on the soft side of things, while at the same time, our success rate remains dubious at best.
When combined together, it screams out for something to change…
BR,
Dr. PDG, Jakarta
http://www.getpmcertified.com
Great discussion so far. Returning to the original question, does the questioner *need* to know all these, here’s a pragmatic take.
I’d recommend knowing waterfall and SDLC concepts, since for 30+ years that’s how a majority of software was done. Thus one encounters much legacy code developed under those methods and many programmers who have those methodologies as a core of their skillset. If you’re doing “greenfield” development and never touching legacy code or working with people who have 10 years+ experience you can probably ignore it. At your peril. You don’t need to be “fluent” in these methods nowadays but a basic level of literacy will serve you well.
As for the others, I have a personal fondness for Agile – but the other methods have merit too. I would informally survey your coworkers and find out which methods are most used in your current projects and be sure to get a handle on those. My biggest revelation about methodology over time has been that most benefits of a methodology arise from having a team that can reliably predict one another’s responses and can efficiently agree on how to get work done. The type of method isn’t as important as it is to have a consensus in how to proceed.
Great discussion so far. Returning to the original question, does the questioner *need* to know all these, here’s a pragmatic take.
I’d recommend knowing waterfall and SDLC concepts, since for 30+ years that’s how a majority of software was done. Thus one encounters much legacy code developed under those methods and many programmers who have those methodologies as a core of their skillset. If you’re doing “greenfield” development and never touching legacy code or working with people who have 10 years+ experience you can probably ignore it. At your peril. You don’t need to be “fluent” in these methods nowadays but a basic level of literacy will serve you well.
As for the others, I have a personal fondness for Agile – but the other methods have merit too. I would informally survey your coworkers and find out which methods are most used in your current projects and be sure to get a handle on those. My biggest revelation about methodology over time has been that most benefits of a methodology arise from having a team that can reliably predict one another’s responses and can efficiently agree on how to get work done. The type of method isn’t as important as it is to have a consensus in how to proceed.
I recently did a blog something along these lines. We tend to focus a big much on methodology and miss the basic skills required to effectively manage a project. IMHO
http://resonantchaos.org/wp/2009/07/10/pm-secret-you-only-need-two-skills-to-be-a-good-project-manager/
I recently did a blog something along these lines. We tend to focus a big much on methodology and miss the basic skills required to effectively manage a project. IMHO
http://resonantchaos.org/wp/2009/07/10/pm-secret-you-only-need-two-skills-to-be-a-good-project-manager/
Hi Tim et al,
Not sure but I seem to recall it was Amory Lovins who said “the system is the solution” or something along that line.
None other than Peter Drucker was of the belief that “management is management is management” that is, it doesn’t matter what the application- project, operations, asset, portfolio, program, for profit, not for profit- managing people requires the same “tasks, responsibilities and practices”. (Drucker, 1973)
So if “management is management is management” then the only differentiator becomes “the system” which is why I am so keen on Systems Dynamics and why I think PMI’s PMBOK Guide is missing a whole big chunk of the picture or system.
It is why I believe that what AACE has published, which is based on a much larger look at asset, operations and project management as an integrated system makes much more sense to me.
I have worked with that Asset Based, integrated system for well over 20 years now and while it too has failures, they tend to be failures of MANAGEMENT rather than failures of the system itself.
So while I agree with you that “management” is important, a “good” manager in a “bad” system is probably worse off than an “average’ manager in a “good” system. My mission in the remaining years is to try to fix “the system”, trusting (hoping?) that the appropriate and necessary management skills will evolve along with the system.
BR,
Dr. PDG, Jakarta, Indonesia
http://wwww.getpmcertified.com
Hi Tim et al,
Not sure but I seem to recall it was Amory Lovins who said “the system is the solution” or something along that line.
None other than Peter Drucker was of the belief that “management is management is management” that is, it doesn’t matter what the application- project, operations, asset, portfolio, program, for profit, not for profit- managing people requires the same “tasks, responsibilities and practices”. (Drucker, 1973)
So if “management is management is management” then the only differentiator becomes “the system” which is why I am so keen on Systems Dynamics and why I think PMI’s PMBOK Guide is missing a whole big chunk of the picture or system.
It is why I believe that what AACE has published, which is based on a much larger look at asset, operations and project management as an integrated system makes much more sense to me.
I have worked with that Asset Based, integrated system for well over 20 years now and while it too has failures, they tend to be failures of MANAGEMENT rather than failures of the system itself.
So while I agree with you that “management” is important, a “good” manager in a “bad” system is probably worse off than an “average’ manager in a “good” system. My mission in the remaining years is to try to fix “the system”, trusting (hoping?) that the appropriate and necessary management skills will evolve along with the system.
BR,
Dr. PDG, Jakarta, Indonesia
http://wwww.getpmcertified.com
This is for Glen re Monte Carlo Simulation (MCS). In an exchange above, we seem to have reached the limit of the site’s ability to nest replies …
Glen — if I understand your comments correctly, you appear to be asserting that MCS was not applied to project schedules until 1998. I have found a LinkedIn alumni group for the company that marketed DEMAND (the product I mentioned that I believe did MCS back in the early 1970s), and I hope to confirm my recollections there.
In the meantime … here’s a copy of Primavera brochure dated 1995:
http://www.p3k.com/data/montecrl.pdf
That would seem to prove conclusively that MCS for project scheduling was available before 1998. In fact, my recollection is that this product was introduced by Primavera at a PMI conference in Dallas in 1991. I even remember hearing someone joke that given the power of the computers of the time, that a 1000 trial simulation might take longer than the project being simulated.
I also found a couple of references in one of my scheduling books:
– Ringer, 1966, “Analytic and Monte Carlo Distribution Theory for PERT”
– Van Slyke, 1963, “Monte Carlo methods and the PERT Problem”
– Burt, et al., 1971, “Conditional Monte Carlo: a simulation technique for stochastic network analysis”
All of which would seem to imply that people were discussing the idea early enough that there could have been software to implement the idea by 1973.
So Glen … did I misunderstand your comments?
Duncan,
No you comfirmed them. The came into being in the mid-90′s. The Lurie-Goldberg was published in 1998. Close enough.
Your references above don’t seem to be for MSFT Project or Primavera tools.
The MC algorithms and code bases for simulation go much further back. Into the late 1940′s. But stochastic network are not schedule networks. The Van Skyke paper [63], along with Kleindorf [71], Shogan [77] and Hartly & Wortham [66] described “methods” and a few small network simulations. The accuracy of the results was heavily dependent on the sample size and for large (useful) networks prohibitively high if accuracy is required. This is from “Exact and Appriximate Distributions of Schastic PERT Networks,” O’Conner [2007].
There were discussions of this problem as far back as the mid-1940′s.
The statement was “when did the MCS come to general use for the project tools?” You’ve confirmed Primavera spoke to it as early as 1995. This seems to me to be far removed from the mid-70′s.
Am I misunderstanding you statement?
Your initial post (9-22) made no mention of either MS Project or Primavera, so I have no idea why you thought I was addressing the capabilities of those tools. Heck, in 1973, Bill Gates hadn’t even dropped out of Harvard yet!
DEMAND was a standalone product that did critical path analysis and (as I recall) also allowed MCS of the schedule as an option. It was available exclusively on the Rapidata timesharing system. There were quite a few mainframe tools available back in the those days. One of the best known was P2 from PSDI, and I believe the McAuto timesharing service had one as well.
As I’m sure you know, network analysis software dates to PERT and CPM in the late 1950s. Both PERT and CPM were computerized from the beginning.
You are, of course, correct that the articles mentioned don’t guarantee the availability of MCS for project networks. I was just trying to make the point that there was discussion of Monte Carlo in the context of project scheduling long before the 1998 article that you referenced.
I had naively assumed we would be talking about “general use” of MCS on projects or programs we have worked. I also assumed you personally had used MCS tools on project or program you had managed.
And yes, discussion was long before general use. But as Yogi reminds us.
“In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is.”
How about a useful tack? Could we both look for when MCS came into wide spread use for Primavera and/or Project and see if the estimates to complete or estimates at completion improved in any way?
That would be a very useful piece of information for me at least.
Interesting idea. I don’t have any information on that.
do you have hands on experience using MCS tools with the current PM tools you use to manage projects?
Bill,
Here’s an interesting “first use” of MC with a mechanical “computer”
http://www.scribd.com/doc/7107054/The-beginning-of-the-Monte-Carlo-method
This is for Glen re Monte Carlo Simulation (MCS). In an exchange above, we seem to have reached the limit of the site’s ability to nest replies …
Glen — if I understand your comments correctly, you appear to be asserting that MCS was not applied to project schedules until 1998. I have found a LinkedIn alumni group for the company that marketed DEMAND (the product I mentioned that I believe did MCS back in the early 1970s), and I hope to confirm my recollections there.
In the meantime … here’s a copy of Primavera brochure dated 1995:
http://www.p3k.com/data/montecrl.pdf
That would seem to prove conclusively that MCS for project scheduling was available before 1998. In fact, my recollection is that this product was introduced by Primavera at a PMI conference in Dallas in 1991. I even remember hearing someone joke that given the power of the computers of the time, that a 1000 trial simulation might take longer than the project being simulated.
I also found a couple of references in one of my scheduling books:
– Ringer, 1966, “Analytic and Monte Carlo Distribution Theory for PERT”
– Van Slyke, 1963, “Monte Carlo methods and the PERT Problem”
– Burt, et al., 1971, “Conditional Monte Carlo: a simulation technique for stochastic network analysis”
All of which would seem to imply that people were discussing the idea early enough that there could have been software to implement the idea by 1973.
So Glen … did I misunderstand your comments?
Duncan,
No you comfirmed them. The came into being in the mid-90′s. The Lurie-Goldberg was published in 1998. Close enough.
Your references above don’t seem to be for MSFT Project or Primavera tools.
The MC algorithms and code bases for simulation go much further back. Into the late 1940′s. But stochastic network are not schedule networks. The Van Skyke paper [63], along with Kleindorf [71], Shogan [77] and Hartly & Wortham [66] described “methods” and a few small network simulations. The accuracy of the results was heavily dependent on the sample size and for large (useful) networks prohibitively high if accuracy is required. This is from “Exact and Appriximate Distributions of Schastic PERT Networks,” O’Conner [2007].
There were discussions of this problem as far back as the mid-1940′s.
The statement was “when did the MCS come to general use for the project tools?” You’ve confirmed Primavera spoke to it as early as 1995. This seems to me to be far removed from the mid-70′s.
Am I misunderstanding you statement?
Your initial post (9-22) made no mention of either MS Project or Primavera, so I have no idea why you thought I was addressing the capabilities of those tools. Heck, in 1973, Bill Gates hadn’t even dropped out of Harvard yet!
DEMAND was a standalone product that did critical path analysis and (as I recall) also allowed MCS of the schedule as an option. It was available exclusively on the Rapidata timesharing system. There were quite a few mainframe tools available back in the those days. One of the best known was P2 from PSDI, and I believe the McAuto timesharing service had one as well.
As I’m sure you know, network analysis software dates to PERT and CPM in the late 1950s. Both PERT and CPM were computerized from the beginning.
You are, of course, correct that the articles mentioned don’t guarantee the availability of MCS for project networks. I was just trying to make the point that there was discussion of Monte Carlo in the context of project scheduling long before the 1998 article that you referenced.
I had naively assumed we would be talking about “general use” of MCS on projects or programs we have worked. I also assumed you personally had used MCS tools on project or program you had managed.
And yes, discussion was long before general use. But as Yogi reminds us.
“In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is.”
How about a useful tack? Could we both look for when MCS came into wide spread use for Primavera and/or Project and see if the estimates to complete or estimates at completion improved in any way?
That would be a very useful piece of information for me at least.
Interesting idea. I don’t have any information on that.
do you have hands on experience using MCS tools with the current PM tools you use to manage projects?
Bill,
Here’s an interesting “first use” of MC with a mechanical “computer”
http://www.scribd.com/doc/7107054/The-beginning-of-the-Monte-Carlo-method
Interesting discussion!
Artemis running on HP-1000 came out with Monte Carlo simulation for its scheduling tool in 1981. I used that tool from its first pre-release on an Esso oil/gas project until 1983 when the project was completed as predicted by the MC analyses we did 2.5 years earlier.
I actually still have those old printouts.
The programmer of Artemis back then was James Miller, who runs his own site: http://www.jamesmiller.com/.
By 1983 Artemis was the dominant PM software of the world and Primavera was born that year.
Interesting discussion!
Artemis running on HP-1000 came out with Monte Carlo simulation for its scheduling tool in 1981. I used that tool from its first pre-release on an Esso oil/gas project until 1983 when the project was completed as predicted by the MC analyses we did 2.5 years earlier.
I actually still have those old printouts.
The programmer of Artemis back then was James Miller, who runs his own site: http://www.jamesmiller.com/.
By 1983 Artemis was the dominant PM software of the world and Primavera was born that year.
{ 3 trackbacks }