Management doesn't see need for project management
Anonymous
We have an approach best described as Build/Fix institutionalized in our corporate office. Any ideas how to change their minds? It's the old Ready, Fire, Aim without the Ready. How do we overcome this, or better yet, work harmoniously with it? Saving Changes...
There a not a lot of specifics in your initial comment, but it sounds to me as if you and your crew are acting more as "firemen" dealing with situations as they arise and "putting out the fires."
If the "Fire, Aim" attitude is institutionalized as you say, it will be hard to overcome, but try to convince the powers that be that project management will help to cut down, if not eliminate, the fires that have to be reacted to, and will free up the employees to act and plan, rather than react and scramble. In the long run, good project management will make you more productive and put out a better product/system Saving Changes...
Make a powerful friend. It always helps. You have to go around what you can not cross. Saving Changes...
Anonymous
project management requires serious back office infrastructure without which you will have one more guy who just acceses the current situation and reacts with intuition as the only resource we had an experience with a pm who just kept asking 'whats your status' Saving Changes...
Khalid Ahmad KhanProfessor of Project Management| Riphah International UniversityLahore, Punjab, Pakistan
I wonder if Build/Fix is another variant of Plan/Forget. I think the key is performance measurement - unless you can generate numbers to prove your case - management is just happy to view Project Management as modern artists specializing in decorating boring corporate walls with colourful charts. Saving Changes...
The Project Management is a tool to increase profit, reduce inefficiency, save cost and time. This has to be told in the way in which the management can understand. For them technical jargon is a waste of time. The management would listen if it is told in debit and credit terminology Saving Changes...
I'm curious about your statement that project management requires "serious back office infrastructure." While it does require a particular mind set that may be a significant change from our original poster's "build/fix" mentality, I've seen effective schedules put together with postits and tracked with a magnetic white board.
What did you have in mind? What assumptions were behind your statement?
Instead of trying to prove how a non-existent project management system will be able to help, how about showing management how the practices used to cope with typical project situations are linked to less than satisfactory performance?
And when defining that performance, don't forget to put it into terms that are related to the problems faced by the decision makers.
Once a logical connection between current practices and undesirable effects is drawn, you can then start to replace them in their minds with effective PM practices, and indicate why you think the undesirable stuff will go away, using the same logic.
Saving Changes...
Anonymous
The effectiveness of Project Management methodoligies is directly related to the skill of the Project Manager. Their ability to apply the methodologies in a manner which "fits" the project is a key skill. All too often, the PM views the methodology as a rigid framework which must be followed in painfully and seemingly infinite detail. If this is the perception your management has of Project Management or is the mindset of those attempting to convince management of its value, it is understandable there would be resistance. Particularly, if the management is goal oriented versus process oriented. Perhaps the demonstration of an approach which stresses flexibility of structure while applying the appropriate level of Project Management principles may aid your case. Saving Changes...
PMs are given far too much credit and blame. I don't think individual PM skill is the determining factor for project success. An organization will benefit far more from marginal PMs in a commonly applied, consistent, coherent, straightforward process than with a couple of PM supermen applying the latest sophisticated processes. Projects are team endeavors, and teams (including resources, resource managers, and higher management) need to be playing a game that they understand. The PM is only a part of the team.
Sometimes I think I see evidence of a PM priesthood that emphasizes the need to understand a wide range of aspects of a complex approach to PM that both solidifies their position as keepers of the knowledge and also gives pause to outsiders from considering application of the tools.
The tools and techniques of effective project management don't have to be seen as rocket science.
My experience with companies fluctuating between level 1 and level 2 of the Capability Maturity Model (CMM) is that the coders who got promoted to managers set the goal higher and the keep the bar set the same, and condemn the players who can't jump over. Why should a manager listen to coders who can't jump the bar? You see how hypocrisy and condemnation obscure organizational vision and perception. But maybe through numbers of attrition and exit interviews these companies will listen? Saving Changes...
