The Battle-Hardened PM

INTRODUCTION

Irony is a tool within satire that highlights the distance between the way individuals speak/feel about a topic and the broad issues that are presented by the topic.  It’s a way to pose questions and have challenge-based conversations because it purposely “stirs the pot” on all sides of the concern and/or issue.

I have put together three examples of it below, and am interested in how it is received.  If you have kept up with my articles and postings, you know that I’m interested in sharing transformative thought, in hopes of preparing the next generation to have the technical, business and interpersonal skills to tackle today’s dynamically changing environments. 

So, please recognize that I’m not making a positioned statement on any topic; I’m simply interested in seeing if this type of “device” can create productive conversations in project management.  I’ll ask a few questions at the end.

WHEN STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT REQUIRES AND INTERVENTION

There’s a time in every Project Manager’s life when one too many change requests takes you over the edge and requires you to give a literal meaning to the word "stake-holder".

Mr. Happy - the project manager is presenting signs of a disorder I call the PIT (i.e., Project Induced Trauma), and evidently missed the webinar on Mindfulness.  Who do you have empathy for?

A SOFTWARE DEVELOPERS INTERPRETATION OF AGILITY

When a software developer believes the “NO Accountability” movement has won the hearts and minds of the Enterprise, then it’s time for him/her to wake up and start their day.

John – the software developer is on cloud-nine taking in his coffee with no concern to accountability, as his form of agility has vanquished the need for 1) project managers, 2) Documentation, 3) Estimations and 4) Planning.  Although these NO’s are partial truths, why do their legends persist?

AGILE AND HYBRID ON A BONDING EXCURSION – WATERFALL AHEAD!

Agile and Hybrid were whitewater rafting one day (on a bonding excursion) when they noticed a sign stating “Danger: Waterfall Ahead.” Agile, recognizing a teachable moment, told Hybrid that the rigid structure of the upcoming Waterfall posed an extreme danger to the general public, but that they had full indemnification from injury due to their flexibility.

Hybrid, recognizing Agile’s emotionally driven statement, expressed the risk this opinion would have on their immediate wellbeing. Undeterred, Agile (still in the teachable moment) insisted that they accept this risk and move forward, while Hybrid - hearing a rumbling in the distance, recommended an immediate strategy of avoidance.

How does this story end?

Agile purists (as a whole) view waterfall approaches as the epitome of project evil and immediately take the contra view on a given subject if they sense anything that gives validity to a waterfall (e.g., a sign stating - waterfall ahead) – oh, now I get it.

WRAP UP

What are your thoughts on the actual subject material; did it make you ponder your position and/or reflect on its relevance or non-relevance in your practice; and finally, do you think this type of device has value in our community?