Categories: Artificial Intelligence
Just to recap, in part 1 & part 2 GenAI presented some stereotypical negative opinions about project managers, executives, and other stakeholders. In part 3 I asked Gen AI to take on the role and tone of coach and mentor and give each of them advice to overcome their negative perceptions of each other. Looking back at this, I realize I made a mistake. After getting the initial response, I should have asked GenAI to elaborate.
Consider the response to the project manager. "Imagine you're leading an expedition through uncharted territory..." This does sound like a coach, and the advice is not bad, but it's not enough. A lot of project managers spend their time in the weeds and details. They're not often dealing directly with executives, and on the occasions when they do, they may not have the relationship with them to immediately take GenAI's advice. There may be some relationship building that needs to take place, first, and that can take time. In this circumstance, a project manager might need their manager, or someone higher up above them, that has a relationship with the executive to allay any concerns and help establish a relationship.
I felt the advice to the executives and stakeholders works. Parts of it seemed a little generic and incomplete, but 1) I didn't ask for additional information, and 2) that's what I've come to expect from GenAI. I don't expect it to tell me everything I need to do in any given situation (especially when I don't ask for more), even if I give it all the context I have. I expect GenAI to point me in a direction and get me started. I may choose to ignore some of what it says.
What are your takeaways and what would you have done differently?
