Project Management

Project Management Central

Please login or join to subscribe to this thread

Topics: Business Analysis, Innovation, Requirements Management
WBS & Wardley Mapping
Any suggestions or opinions on using Wardley mapping as an approach for refining WBS?
Sort By:
Dear Bernard
Interesting your question
Thanks for sharing it

Do you think Wardley Mapping helps you break down project deliverables and work into smaller, more manageable components?

If so, use and abuse :-)
...
1 reply by Bernard Kahn
Jan 14, 2020 4:17 PM
Bernard Kahn
...
Luis,

Thanks for the reply. I'm still new to Wardley Mapping, and yes, wondering if this approach might lead to alternative ways of breaking down project deliverables and components, perhaps more manageable, but also looking towards reducing the degree of customization.
Reducing customization has benefits in multiple dimensions, including improving quality, reducing risk, etc.
Jan 14, 2020 3:45 PM
Replying to Luis Branco
...
Dear Bernard
Interesting your question
Thanks for sharing it

Do you think Wardley Mapping helps you break down project deliverables and work into smaller, more manageable components?

If so, use and abuse :-)
Luis,

Thanks for the reply. I'm still new to Wardley Mapping, and yes, wondering if this approach might lead to alternative ways of breaking down project deliverables and components, perhaps more manageable, but also looking towards reducing the degree of customization.
Reducing customization has benefits in multiple dimensions, including improving quality, reducing risk, etc.
Additionally, part of the value in using Wardley Mapping is the discussion around the mapping. So it's not just the map itself, while useful as visual guide, a navigation tool, but the conversations around what is being represented by the map.
Thanks for making aware of the Wardley model.

On a first look, it is a strategy cycle, which a WBS is not.

A WBS is more helpful in subdividing a given strategy, top down and serves as communication tool to stakeholders. It is concerned about the what (to work).

Wardley seems to be more dynamic, staying on a top level and concerned about the why.
I believe it might be a useful tool for a leadership team to decide which components of a portfolio to pursue or to help prioritize features within a product, but not for defining the scope of a project at an appropriate level of detail.

Kiron
You can use the tool to create the service and after that you can move the component part of the mapping to the WBS. No probem with that. The point is, if you will use the mapping for the first time, unless you have enough time to understand the tool, then go for other thing.
Interesting discussion .
I glanced through this article from Simon Wardley the founder
https://www.cio.co.uk/it-strategy/introduc...apping-3604565/

My key takeaways are that it's an effective tool at a more strategic business growth level than a tactical project execution level -

this actually summarizes what this mapping does :-
(Quote /Unquote )

" the entire process of mapping out a line of business from user needs, removing duplication, removing bias, identifying strategic plays, putting in measurements, breaking out into methods and teams "
...
1 reply by Bernard Kahn
Jan 15, 2020 10:19 AM
Bernard Kahn
...
while the main thrust of this seems to have been at the strategy level,
my feeling is that there's benefit from its use at the project level as well, in what, who and how parts are executed.
For example, in IT, identifying tasks that really should be more product or commodity than customized.
(as a concrete example, from history, instead of having every dev team write its own MQ calls, having a separate MQ team create them, to share across the enterprise. Wardley mapping might have more systematically identified that, instead of someone having that Eureka type insight .
Jan 14, 2020 6:58 PM
Replying to Deepesh Rammoorthy
...
Interesting discussion .
I glanced through this article from Simon Wardley the founder
https://www.cio.co.uk/it-strategy/introduc...apping-3604565/

My key takeaways are that it's an effective tool at a more strategic business growth level than a tactical project execution level -

this actually summarizes what this mapping does :-
(Quote /Unquote )

" the entire process of mapping out a line of business from user needs, removing duplication, removing bias, identifying strategic plays, putting in measurements, breaking out into methods and teams "
while the main thrust of this seems to have been at the strategy level,
my feeling is that there's benefit from its use at the project level as well, in what, who and how parts are executed.
For example, in IT, identifying tasks that really should be more product or commodity than customized.
(as a concrete example, from history, instead of having every dev team write its own MQ calls, having a separate MQ team create them, to share across the enterprise. Wardley mapping might have more systematically identified that, instead of someone having that Eureka type insight .

Please login or join to reply

Content ID:
ADVERTISEMENTS

A mind once stretched by a new idea never regains its original dimensions.

- Anonymous

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsors