Which one contributes more positively to your project success generally?
Keeping this as open-ended, love to hear your experience and insights!
Thank you in advance Saving Changes...
For us (federal government) signals can come in all sizes and shapes, and the most astute PMs pay very close attention to what department heads say, as well as the what our Prime Minister says. In many instances, formal positions, goals, priorities are stated in "passing" often at public speaking events during which many pay no attention and overlook.
For example, our director mentioned yesterday that the Liberal party's (current minority) platform stated the following:
Improving project management capabilities, so that all major projects in government are led by a certified professional with at least five years of experience; and
Noises on the other hand, typically come from those at your level or lower, and bring confusion, fear, and anxiety. They are most often not rooted in fact but opinion and hearsay. Saving Changes...
As PMs, I'd suggest we have to pay attention to two possible risks emerging from the signal:noise ratio.
One is missing a critical signal because of an overwhelming amount of noise - the proverbial "needle in a haystack".
However, the other is ignoring trends in the noise itself - sometimes that "chatter" might tell us a lot about a particular stakeholder group or sentiments towards our project. It may also be a useful input into tuning our stakeholder engagement and communications planning strategies.
Kiron
...
1 reply by Suzi MS
Dec 04, 2019 3:30 PM
Suzi MS
...
Thank you Kiron, that makes more sense. I guess the key is to define boundaries, getting the balance right, avoiding bias and making the right calls over what weighs more towards project success, but that it to say certain organisation can value noises over signals to succeed. (am still skeptical...)
Signal is the information we wish to receive. Noise is the background interference that gets in the way of the signal.
Unless a project is how to filter out noise, and can't see how it would ever be a benefit.
Thank you Keith, am with you, I value signal over noise. In other words signal=implicit input/instruction/direction whereas noises=gossips. Saving Changes...
As PMs, I'd suggest we have to pay attention to two possible risks emerging from the signal:noise ratio.
One is missing a critical signal because of an overwhelming amount of noise - the proverbial "needle in a haystack".
However, the other is ignoring trends in the noise itself - sometimes that "chatter" might tell us a lot about a particular stakeholder group or sentiments towards our project. It may also be a useful input into tuning our stakeholder engagement and communications planning strategies.
Kiron
Thank you Kiron, that makes more sense. I guess the key is to define boundaries, getting the balance right, avoiding bias and making the right calls over what weighs more towards project success, but that it to say certain organisation can value noises over signals to succeed. (am still skeptical...) Saving Changes...
Ashleigh Kennett-SmithICT Project Manager| Australian Red Cross LifebloodAdelaide, South Australia, Australia
Hi Suzi, a great question.
I agree with Steve that signals generally come from above. I think they can also come from people at the same level as the PM who have additional connections or insights.
I also agree with Kiron that noise can hide information but can also indicate trends, and Thomas that it can indicate insecurity within the team. My experience is that noise can indicate too things:
1. Communication is lacking or at least not getting to where it should
2. Health of the project eg team, goals, schedule, issues
Both obviously warrant some attention. Saving Changes...
