Viewing Posts by Geoff Mattie
The Courage Behind Boeing's Dreamliner Project
Categories:
PM Think About It
Categories: PM Think About It
| I'm sure many of you heard about the Boeing 787 Dreamliner that made its first commercial journey on 26 October. It is the most technologically advanced commercial airplane and enables air travel that is cheaper, faster and more comfortable. Perhaps you also heard about the process, communications and quality issues that delayed the project by three years and cost the company close to US$10 billion in overrun charges, according to the business news outlet Bloomberg. As a project manager, what jumps out to me is the fortitude of Boeing's management to ensure a quality product -- despite extraordinary pressure. I have no doubt that if it had wanted to, Boeing could have completed this project earlier. But rather than take shortcuts and risk potential issues, it held out for a product that met its standards. Much attention has focused on Boeing's attempts to save money and to secure global accounts by outsourcing a large portion of its component manufacturing and design. The idea was that assembly and time to market would be accelerated by allowing various parts of the plane to be flown to Boeing's facility in Seattle, Washington, USA. There, they could be pieced together in order. According to news reports, the move initially netted Boeing nearly 1,000 orders and helped keep its prime competitor, Airbus, at bay. But it marked a big change in Boeing's existing process to keep almost all of its engineering design in-house. The company typically delivers very specific "build-to-order" instructions to its manufacturing partners, outlining specifications and direction, and then collaboratively designing the parts. There were many challenges associated with a project as complex and pioneering as the Dreamliner project. One example is the process for oversight and quality control of multiple, globally based contractors. Issues arose, such as contractors subcontracting to suppliers who couldn't meet deadlines or quotas. In other cases, contractors shipped parts that wouldn't fit together correctly. Think about it: In my opinion, Boeing realized that it was more important to get the project done right versus done fast. And while the company has faced criticism, suffered some embarrassment and, yes, spent more than it anticipated, these are all short-term issues. In the long run, I believe the project will bolster Boeing's reputation for quality. It will also have finely tuned a project management process that should bring the company much higher returns in the future. |
Is Crowdsourcing Most Effective in Doses?
Categories:
Nontraditional Project Management
Categories: Nontraditional Project Management
| In my previous post about whether crowdsourcing was worthy of all the exposure and hype, I asked for people's opinions. Well, you certainly responded, not only in comments on the blog but also through emails and on Twitter. Your responses were very helpful and well-thought-out. After reading your feedback and doing some research, I came to the conclusion that crowdsourcing can be a very effective tool. But only if it's used for a well-defined, focused portion of a project. Crowdsourcing generally works best when you need a sampling of input from a large population. This can include activities such as requirements gathering, securing non-rights-protected content or a resource donation (such as computer bandwidth). Some mentioned software testing as a crowdsourcing activity. In this case, it's no different than what companies have always done when their products go "alpha" and "beta." People are simply slapping a new label on an old activity. In any crowdsourcing scenario, the activities must be considered voluntary. There must be no compensation or contracts. And project participants must have a clear understanding that any contributions - tangible or intangible - are the property of the entity soliciting the input. My rule regarding compensation for work could potentially be broken through a contest approach such as the Netflix Prize project, which focused on algorithms to enhance the company's ratings system. But activities like these would have to be tightly managed. Are you or your company evaluating whether or not to foray into crowdsourcing? What types of projects will you use the activity for? |
Does Crowdsourcing Work in a Project Environment?
Categories:
Nontraditional Project Management
Categories: Nontraditional Project Management
| Can someone please help me understand the hype surrounding crowdsourcing? I understand the premise: Tasks are essentially outsourced to a large group of people through a call to action. (For more, see "The In Crowd" in the June 2009 PM Network®.) This seems like a project manager's worst nightmare. The requirements and quality management alone must be a huge undertaking:
With many highly visible crowdsourcing projects, for example, there seems to be a lot of press about individuals within the "crowd" who ultimately feel cheated or used for their skills, having been inadequately compensated -- or not compensated at all. It looks like you take a big chance when you sign on to these projects, given that there's usually no contract to fall back on. I imagine this risk goes both ways. I hope this will serve as a conversation starter. What does your organization think about crowdsourcing? Have you ever participated -- or managed -- a crowdsourced project? I'm very interested in hearing the challenges and victories out there around this approach. |
Mobile Project Management
Categories:
Nontraditional Project Management
Categories: Nontraditional Project Management
| Emerging technologies are changing the dynamics of project team leadership and communication. And the way people have begun using mobile platforms is presenting some challenges. Prior to 2006, mobility had a very narrow landscape. Organizations that allowed their work force to have cell phones were usually restricted to one carrier, platform and equipment model. The majority of these phones were used for e-mail and conversations. Fast-forward to January 9, 2007 and the introduction of the iPhone, which introduced users to a world of new mobile capabilities. While users immediately wanted to start using the iPhone at work, IT, security and cost issues made it impossible for many to do so. And to compound the problem, additional devices continued to appear with exciting, productive new features. Over the last few years, many organizations have caught on and begun to take advantage of these mobile work force capabilities. Such resources have introduced many intriguing possibilities for project managers as well. But this also means that now project teams are working across multiple platforms with unique requirements and configurations, which can cause performance and compatibility issues. Some organizations are taking such steps as implementing mobile application program interface (API) layers in their infrastructure, referred to as "Mobile Enterprise Application Platforms" (MEAPs). They allow users to run software shells on their devices and overcome platform differences while providing access to disparate tools. Other organizations have simply decided to continue to limit their work force to one standard device, choosing to take advantage of some new device capabilities and sacrifice others. Because this challenge is in its infancy, we've yet to see a solution. Can all of your mobile project team members effectively interact with conflicting mobile platforms? If not, do you have a plan to mitigate this? How is this situation affecting your project team? |
Who's Really the Project Lead?
| On teams that work in creative services, like those found in advertising and in consulting agencies, often the person who serves as the project lead is not a project manager. This situation can be very tricky for a truly robust project manager who provides -- or wants to provide -- strong leadership and guidance to the team. It can lead to conflicts of interest and power struggles that can leave team morale in shreds. When you see project managers in these environments, they've typically been relegated to a more administrative function. They essentially provide resource scheduling and reporting on data such as project profit and loss, rather than being empowered to provide much true leadership. (I discussed this in a little more detail in my first post.) So should we eliminate the project management position and have the creative leads or account managers take on those responsibilities? Well, no. Companies that attempt to eliminate the project management position from their ranks are ultimately just pushing this responsibility to other members of the existing team. Those members may believe they are able to take on the role of project manager, but more likely are too busy with their current responsibilities. Not to mention, they are nowhere near as knowledgeable or skilled in project management as they would like to believe. The challenge lies in the perception of what it takes to manage and lead a project team from start to finish. If you were to ask your creative team or your account team, I'm willing to bet their description of leading teams would be inadequate. And much of the job they describe will be tasks they simply don't have an interest in performing. So what do we do in these situations? To me, the answer lies in accountability. If creative or account teams are going to claim leadership positions on projects, they need to be clearly identified by senior management as owning of the final, holistic project outcome. These project leaders must understand that their success -- and the project's success -- is tied directly to their ability to make all of the parts come together, even when many of the parts don't fall squarely in their functional purview. Have you experienced this kind of conflict? How was it resolved? |
