I´m a PMP and PM practitioner moving into Agile. The more I step into agile and talk to peers and colleagues the more I hear "traditional PM and Agile are mutually exclusive", "traditional PM is stiff, an unflexible methodology".
I, however, do not see it like that. I believe in tailoring project management processes and methodologies and even including "unorthodox" activities according to the needs of the project.
I would like to know what your opinion on this is. Are traditional PM and Agile really mutually exclusive?, what has your experience been so far?, any stories? Saving Changes...
Wade HarshmanScrum Master| GDITIndianapolis, In, United States
Daniela, one of the more popular Agile frameworks is Scrum, which has no project management role in it. This causes many people to believe there is no such thing as an agile project manager. Note, however, that other frameworks, like DSDM, has a defined project manager role. Even when the role is not defined, as in Scrum, it is permitted and common, but under the umbrella of the Product Owner. (In other words, a Scrum Product Owner will fulfill project management processes, or will hire a project manager to assist.)
When people talk about "traditional" project management, they're probably referring to the mindset associated with the 4th or 5th edition of the PMBOK and the difficulty in passing the PMP exam. In reality, the PMBOK is not (and never has been) a step-by-step method to project management success, but rather a description of the project manager's many responsibilities.
A project manager can contribute to success in any organization, whether it's a "traditional," agile, or some other type of culture. But we have to understand the organizations we work in. Saving Changes...
Stéphane ParentSelf Employed / Semi-retired| Leader MakerPrince Edward Island, Canada
Jul 05, 2019 8:36 AM
Replying to Kiron Bondale
...
Daniela -
There are very, very few projects which are 100% predictive or 100% adaptive. Most lie somewhere in the continuum between those two extremes.
It is important to distinguish agile approaches & an agile mindset from an adaptive lifecycle. We can run a project using a predictive lifecycle but apply an agile mindset to the delivery work and leverage agile techniques where they will add value.
Kiron
There is a lot of valuable feedback in this answer.
The one thing I would be careful is to put predictive and adaptive at opposite ends of a spectrum. That seems to imply that one reduces the other.
I tend to treat them as different dimensions, rather than opposite ends of the same dimension. Saving Changes...
I believe your peers and colleagues are ill-informed. I've worked at an organization where the teams are managed in Agile, but the project is managed in Waterfall. It was a bit of an adjustment at first, but that's all.
People think of Waterfall as year-long projects, but the man who came up with the framework said that was not correct. He believed large projects should be broken into multiple Waterfall projects of a few months' duration. Saving Changes...
Trying to study project management I have discovered that there is a huge difference between theory and reality. Agile, Waterfall, traditional PM, self-managed teams, etc. are just some words with very little meaning as organizations usually have their own processes and they don't follow the theory.
In conclusion anything is possible even a Waterfall project with an Agile managed team. But by far the biggest aberration of all is the managed self-managed team. Although this concept defies elementary logic there is people who defend it.
In conclusion "traditional" PM (whatever this means) can coexist with Agile. Anyway, these terms don’t mean much for organizations.
...
1 reply by Sergio Luis Conte
Jul 18, 2019 6:06 AM
Sergio Luis Conte
...
Adrian bring to the table a great point. Teams are not self-managed. Teams are self-organized which is not the same. Some people (I am not saying you Adrian) are "selling" the idea that teams must be self-managed. If you read the Agile literature, mainly related to Agile methods/frameworks for creating software products, you will understand that. Self-organized mant "no micromanagement needed" basically.
Saving Changes...
Eric IsomOwner| learn.pmguaranteed.comUt, United States
I'm going to give you a very different answer: Scrum NEEDS traditional project management to be complete.
I'm a huge fan of Scrum. I think it should be used on EVERY project. (I know a lot of people will disagree with me on this.)
But as great as Scrum is, it needs to be implemented in the context of other best practices in project management, including things like a needs analysis, a business case, a project benefits management plan, a project charter, an overall project management plan, requirements management, quality management, risk management, and much more.
Sergio Luis ConteHelping to create solutions for everyone| Worldwide based OrganizationsBuenos Aires, Argentina
Jul 17, 2019 8:51 PM
Replying to Adrian Carlogea
...
Trying to study project management I have discovered that there is a huge difference between theory and reality. Agile, Waterfall, traditional PM, self-managed teams, etc. are just some words with very little meaning as organizations usually have their own processes and they don't follow the theory.
In conclusion anything is possible even a Waterfall project with an Agile managed team. But by far the biggest aberration of all is the managed self-managed team. Although this concept defies elementary logic there is people who defend it.
In conclusion "traditional" PM (whatever this means) can coexist with Agile. Anyway, these terms don’t mean much for organizations.
Adrian bring to the table a great point. Teams are not self-managed. Teams are self-organized which is not the same. Some people (I am not saying you Adrian) are "selling" the idea that teams must be self-managed. If you read the Agile literature, mainly related to Agile methods/frameworks for creating software products, you will understand that. Self-organized mant "no micromanagement needed" basically.
...
1 reply by Adrian Carlogea
Jul 18, 2019 7:57 PM
Adrian Carlogea
...
Thanks for pointing out this difference Sergio. Indeed self-organized teams sounds better than self-managed teams. Still I believe that the role of the manager is to organize the team so not even managed self-organized teams does not sound great, although better than managed self-managed.
Regarding micro-management, in my opinion, aggressively tracking and monitoring the progress achieved by the members of a team is not micro-management.
If you are a PM and check very frequently the tasks on which the team members are working, also asking for the progress, but you don’t give team members concrete instructions on how to perform the tasks then you are not micro-managing.
Micro-managing in my opinion is only when you don’t let the team members perform the work as they see fit but you give them very detailed instructions on how to perform the tasks.
Aggressive tracking without giving detailed working instructions can become annoying for the team members but usually it does not affect the time in which the tasks complete. On the other hand, real micro-management in which detailed work instructions are giving usually has an impact either positive or negative.
Adrian bring to the table a great point. Teams are not self-managed. Teams are self-organized which is not the same. Some people (I am not saying you Adrian) are "selling" the idea that teams must be self-managed. If you read the Agile literature, mainly related to Agile methods/frameworks for creating software products, you will understand that. Self-organized mant "no micromanagement needed" basically.
Thanks for pointing out this difference Sergio. Indeed self-organized teams sounds better than self-managed teams. Still I believe that the role of the manager is to organize the team so not even managed self-organized teams does not sound great, although better than managed self-managed.
Regarding micro-management, in my opinion, aggressively tracking and monitoring the progress achieved by the members of a team is not micro-management.
If you are a PM and check very frequently the tasks on which the team members are working, also asking for the progress, but you don’t give team members concrete instructions on how to perform the tasks then you are not micro-managing.
Micro-managing in my opinion is only when you don’t let the team members perform the work as they see fit but you give them very detailed instructions on how to perform the tasks.
Aggressive tracking without giving detailed working instructions can become annoying for the team members but usually it does not affect the time in which the tasks complete. On the other hand, real micro-management in which detailed work instructions are giving usually has an impact either positive or negative.
...
1 reply by Sergio Luis Conte
Jul 19, 2019 5:37 AM
Sergio Luis Conte
...
Well, generally speaking I do not agree with you about not using self-management or using agressive monitoring of task. BUT, to be honest, I could agree with you about it will depends on the environment where the initiative is running. No matter that, in my personal opinion and experience, the worst thing you can do as project/program manager is to track detailed tasks instead of "summary" tasks to discover "road blocks", On the other side, self-managed has to be applied on agile and non agile environments at detailed tasks or at activity level. Each person must know what to do, how to do it, when to do it in advance and each person must request the needed resources to the manager to do it. Obviously all these stuff is planning in advance including agile environment where planning is performing. Some people think there is not planning in agile but if those people go to the documentation you will find planning in everywhere. At the end are diferent styles of managing projects/programs and it is impossible to make a value judgment without context because without context the value of judgment is subjective.
Saving Changes...
Sergio Luis ConteHelping to create solutions for everyone| Worldwide based OrganizationsBuenos Aires, Argentina
Jul 18, 2019 7:57 PM
Replying to Adrian Carlogea
...
Thanks for pointing out this difference Sergio. Indeed self-organized teams sounds better than self-managed teams. Still I believe that the role of the manager is to organize the team so not even managed self-organized teams does not sound great, although better than managed self-managed.
Regarding micro-management, in my opinion, aggressively tracking and monitoring the progress achieved by the members of a team is not micro-management.
If you are a PM and check very frequently the tasks on which the team members are working, also asking for the progress, but you don’t give team members concrete instructions on how to perform the tasks then you are not micro-managing.
Micro-managing in my opinion is only when you don’t let the team members perform the work as they see fit but you give them very detailed instructions on how to perform the tasks.
Aggressive tracking without giving detailed working instructions can become annoying for the team members but usually it does not affect the time in which the tasks complete. On the other hand, real micro-management in which detailed work instructions are giving usually has an impact either positive or negative.
Well, generally speaking I do not agree with you about not using self-management or using agressive monitoring of task. BUT, to be honest, I could agree with you about it will depends on the environment where the initiative is running. No matter that, in my personal opinion and experience, the worst thing you can do as project/program manager is to track detailed tasks instead of "summary" tasks to discover "road blocks", On the other side, self-managed has to be applied on agile and non agile environments at detailed tasks or at activity level. Each person must know what to do, how to do it, when to do it in advance and each person must request the needed resources to the manager to do it. Obviously all these stuff is planning in advance including agile environment where planning is performing. Some people think there is not planning in agile but if those people go to the documentation you will find planning in everywhere. At the end are diferent styles of managing projects/programs and it is impossible to make a value judgment without context because without context the value of judgment is subjective.
...
1 reply by Adrian Carlogea
Jul 19, 2019 9:39 AM
Adrian Carlogea
...
When a team is self-managed it means that it is not managed by a single individual but by all of its members; managed self-managed team is a contradiction in terms no matter how you put it. Managed self-organized team is acceptable to some degree because you can say that and individual manages the team but the team has some degree of liberty on how to organize itself without the manager to impose things.
Many people that are working on projects don't want to be involved in the actual project management process all they want to do is to do their work without being given detailed work instructions (that is without micro-management) and also they want to be involved into the technical decisions.
The fact the PM coordinates the team, manages the tasks and monitors the progress is not an issue for many people working on projects. On the contrary as the PM deals with these things the team members can focus on the actual work. The only thing that the PM has to do is to take input from the team members or technical leads so he/she does not make promises to the stakeholders when the team can't deliver what is being promised.
The so called project team management that the PM performs is in reality more a facilitation process, the PM does not give orders to the team members but instead he/she helps the team or the work leads take the right decisions and perform the work as best as possible. This has nothing to do with agile, all PMs should do this no matter the methodology being used.
The ones that can really lead with an iron fist are the technical leads and the technical managers, as they can give employees detailed work instructions that they must follow.
Well, generally speaking I do not agree with you about not using self-management or using agressive monitoring of task. BUT, to be honest, I could agree with you about it will depends on the environment where the initiative is running. No matter that, in my personal opinion and experience, the worst thing you can do as project/program manager is to track detailed tasks instead of "summary" tasks to discover "road blocks", On the other side, self-managed has to be applied on agile and non agile environments at detailed tasks or at activity level. Each person must know what to do, how to do it, when to do it in advance and each person must request the needed resources to the manager to do it. Obviously all these stuff is planning in advance including agile environment where planning is performing. Some people think there is not planning in agile but if those people go to the documentation you will find planning in everywhere. At the end are diferent styles of managing projects/programs and it is impossible to make a value judgment without context because without context the value of judgment is subjective.
When a team is self-managed it means that it is not managed by a single individual but by all of its members; managed self-managed team is a contradiction in terms no matter how you put it. Managed self-organized team is acceptable to some degree because you can say that and individual manages the team but the team has some degree of liberty on how to organize itself without the manager to impose things.
Many people that are working on projects don't want to be involved in the actual project management process all they want to do is to do their work without being given detailed work instructions (that is without micro-management) and also they want to be involved into the technical decisions.
The fact the PM coordinates the team, manages the tasks and monitors the progress is not an issue for many people working on projects. On the contrary as the PM deals with these things the team members can focus on the actual work. The only thing that the PM has to do is to take input from the team members or technical leads so he/she does not make promises to the stakeholders when the team can't deliver what is being promised.
The so called project team management that the PM performs is in reality more a facilitation process, the PM does not give orders to the team members but instead he/she helps the team or the work leads take the right decisions and perform the work as best as possible. This has nothing to do with agile, all PMs should do this no matter the methodology being used.
The ones that can really lead with an iron fist are the technical leads and the technical managers, as they can give employees detailed work instructions that they must follow. Saving Changes...
