Don KimPROJECT-TO-PORTFOLIO MANAGEMENT EXPERT| Seeking opportunitiesSacramento, CA, United States
The following was blogged about and posed on LinkedIn, but I'd like to know what the Gantthead community thinks about this:
The 4th edition of the PMBOK is coming out and a draft edition was made available for current PMP certified and non-certified experienced project managers to review and comment on it. A section that particularly interested me was Section 2.1.3-2:
An iterative relationship, where only one subset is planned at any given time and the planning for the next period is carried out as work progresses on the current deliverable. This approach is useful in largely undefined, uncertain, or rapidly changing environments such as research, but it can lead to rework and reduce the ability to provide long term planning or scope control for the project. It also entails having all of the project team members (e.g. designers, developers, etc.) available throughout the project.
This section was no doubt influenced by the Agile software development and project management movement. Though in all fairness, the PMBOK has acknowledged that many project would be better served using a more iterative approach in the form of progressive elaboration or "rolling wave planning" since the 2000 version, I believe.
This notion addresses the idea of planning near term work in detail and later work in less detail. Then as new details emerge, going back to the plans and updating them with the new data. This is common sense to those in the Agile community, yet it seems that many in the Agile community seem unaware that it has been in the PMBOK for the last 8 years since, unfortunately, many Agile evangelists choose to ignore these important principles in the PMBOK Guide.
At least in regard to PMI, they seem to have acknowledged the importance of a more iterative approach and seem to have made it more explicit in the upcomming 4th edition of the PMBOK, since as they state "for multi-phase projects, more than one phase-to-phase relationship could occur during different parts of a project".
For those in PM and/or lead technical roles who have or are utilizing Agile, PMBOK or a combination of both, what are the implications or influences if any, that the above will have on your current practices?
I can't recommend the book enough as it is a great guide to help traditional PMs entrenched in a waterfall mindset transition to using agility. It is a great example of how PMBOK can be flexibly adopted while applying Agile concepts to your IT projects.
Mark Price PerryBusiness Driven PMO Evangelist| BOT InternationalOrlando, Fl, United States
Don, great post and replies by all. With respect to your first question, "what the gantthead community thinks about this [4th edition of the PMBOK, Section 2.1.3-2]," I can only speak for myself and perhaps I am being overly sensitive but I find the language in the text (if you read between the lines) to be a bit negative in the overall scheme of things. Why do I say this? Well, let's have a look/read.
"...This [iterative] approach is useful in largely undefined, uncertain, or rapidly changing environments such as research, but it can lead to rework and reduce the ability to provide long term planning or scope control for the project..."
How do I read this... Well, first of all, the first part of the sentence seems to position or relegate the approach to just undefined, uncertain, and changing environments such as research. This is a limiting declaration. It is code speak for, "Okay, you can use it in limited, one-off situations."
I actually find the second half of the sentence more problematic. Rather than discussing the approach in a positive light, the text reads, "...it [iterative] can lead to rework and reduce the ability to provide long term planning or scope control for the project."
Hmm, did anyone ever consider using a more positive and accurate approach such as "...it [iterative] can lead to early determination of the product of the project components and facilitate the long term integrity of the project effort and product of the project outcome."
In terms of your second question, "For those in PM and/or lead technical roles who have or are utilizing Agile, PMBOK or a combination of both, what are the implications or influences if any, that the above will have on your current practices?" - the train left the station long ago. The implications are that different projects are best served by different approaches as a matter of sensible PMO project type policy.
Sure, there are still those with a blind spot for Agile and any other innovative techniques outside the standard. But time, and practice, will render the one-track ponies to the race track they belong to.
Good luck...!
Saving Changes...
Mark Price PerryBusiness Driven PMO Evangelist| BOT InternationalOrlando, Fl, United States
Don, upon second thought, I would like to add to my reply to your post.
This morning, I was talking with a colleague and the subject of "Left-handed Compliments" came up. What is a Left-handed Compliment..? A Left-handed Compliment is a complimentary remark which is ambiguous or worded in such a way that it may be interpretted as having an unflattering or dismissive sense.
Again, perhaps I am being overly sensitive and just maybe I am reading in between the lines and seeing something that is not really there. But.... when I read the PMBOK v4 text about iterative [Agile], I am left with the feeling that it is not that much of a compliment, rather more like a forced acknowledgement. Again, the text that I am referring to is:
"...This [iterative] approach is useful in largely undefined, uncertain, or rapidly changing environments such as research, but it can lead to rework and reduce the ability to provide long term planning or scope control for the project..."
Does anyone share this perception..? Or, am I just a little bit wet behind the ears on this one..? I'm a askin for it - so let me have it; what do all of you think?
Saving Changes...
Anonymous
Mark - perhaps you are being overly sensitive and as you say "wet behind the ears" but I too was left with a "fuzzy-eyebrowed" countenance after reading the PMBOK v4 text about iterative that Mr. Kim posted. You also mention that the train has left the station regarding PMBOK and Agile. I agree, but I also don't see PMI on, or trying to get on, the train. Saving Changes...
Jesse FewellAuthor, Speaker, Coach| JesseFewell.comFalls Church, Va, United States
Regarding the text in Section 2.1.3-2, one can better understand the color of the "left-handed compliment" when considering this: the litmus test for does or does not get into the PMBOK standard is whether something is used "on most projects most of the time". This means PMBOK committee considers iterative phases to fit that criteria. However, they are not yet willing to declare that for most projects most of the time, iterative techniques are implemented with the rigor and discipline that Agilists bring to bear. This is a key market opportunity for Agile advocates: improve the execution of iterative, incremental techniques across all industries and all project types.
With regards to "the train has left the station regarding PMBOK and Agile", please see my earlier post further below. I assert that PMI has not been left behind, but is responding to changing reality. At the Agile 2009 conference in Agustust, PMI will be launching a formal component dedicated to Agile project management. See here for details: http://agile-pm.pbworks.com
Saving Changes...
Anonymous
Jesse, you make a good point and I stand corrected. But surely you must admit, the wording in the PMBOK v4 text (per Don Kim's post), is not flattering, whether deliberate or unintended. A much more positive, and I believe balanced, choice of words could have been used. I don't think this is nit-picking or being overly sensitive, just a critique. Saving Changes...
Dave PriorTrainer/Consultant| LeadingAgileNew York, Ny, United States
But why would the PMBOK need to be flattering when referencing iterative or Agile? The PMBOK is about the PMBOK. It has elements of iterative and Agile, but is a thing unto itself. A lot of times it seems to me that there is a desire within the traditional PM community to convince itself that Agile is already in the PMBOK or that the PMBOK is already pretending to be Agile. Why can't they both just be what they are - different ways to approach projects. Sometimes one is best, sometimes the other, sometimes a blend of the two. Why spend time getting upset at a fork for not being more complimentary of a spoon?
Dave
Saving Changes...
Anonymous
Dave - well said. But the point (and professional expectation) isn't that the fork should be more complimentary, just accurate. And the same goes for the spoon. For example, let's take the PMBOK v4 text regarding iterative and change it around as if we are in an Agile BOK making a reference to the PMBOK. Here goes, "... this approach (PMBOK) is useful in largely defined, certain, and non-changing environments such as developing a punch card based batch application, but it can lead to an inability to provide rapid and collaborative confirmation of requirements and early review and acceptance of deliverables for the project. It also entails not having all of the project team members (e.g. designers, developers, etc.) available throughout the project..." I am sure that such a passage about PMBOK would be perceived by PMBOKers not flattering and more importantly, not accurate. I could go further with this, but surely you get the point. Again, the PMBOK v4 text that Mr. Kim served up for discussion is not a gross error, just a small faux pas. IMHO. Saving Changes...
Paul NaybourFounder and Director| Parallel Project TrainingNailsworth, United Kingdom
Agile is coming to the PM BOK a careful review will identify significant streamlining in the 4th version of the BOK, several of the more rigid requierments have been relaxed such as Prelimanary scope statement. However the BOK still covers a broard church and so is not fully agile. Free APMP, PMP hints and tips Saving Changes...
