Project Management

Project Management Central

Please login or join to subscribe to this thread

Topics: Benefits Realization, Change Management, Consulting
I need comparison of work done without a project methodology as opposed to work run as a project, please.
Hi all. I am trying to convince my organization of the importance of running projects with a proper methodology. Does anyone have examples or links of comparisons between work done without a project methodology and work done with a proper project methodology?
Sort By:
Tricky question to answer with hard data. There is anecdotal data, but often a lot of bias so it is difficult to convince people who are set in their ways.

I'm facing a similar problem with some stakeholders who believe early coordination and planning is a waste because plans change as we know more and some rework is required to update the plans.

I'm focusing on the recurring problems we face, and how the current behaviors drive those problems which grow over time. I can show cost curves, commonly accepted lifecycle models, and other information widely known in business administration and engineering, but it doesn't seem to change opinions.

I am hoping that focusing on the complaints I see and hear over time, and how basic PM best practices can alleviate that pain will provide some motivation to change.

Good luck!

I do not have a link about proving the value of a PM methodology, maybe it helps to point at any activity of an organization and that having a methodology for it is benefitial. Take accountants, hiring managers, sales guys, all of them. If you do not use a methodology, a standard way of doing this activity, mostly expressed in processes, you are indeed dependent on the individual kings and not mature as an organization. No repeatable process, no metrics, no improvements, no insights - good luck. Maybe OK for a startup, but will kill it during the scaling phase.

Peter -

Let's switch "standards" for "methodology" and I believe PMI has published at least a couple of times over the past decade research showing the difference in companies which had consistent PM standards to those that didn't.

Methodologies are a double-edge sword - while they provide guidance, their prescriptive nature is counter to the context-sensitive nature of project work.

Results are not achieved by "methodology" but by method. Surely what matters is identifying what is being done well and what can be improved.
As Keith mentioned, it is a tricky question. Kiron made a valid point as well.
I would explain the benefits of my proposal linking them to the status quo.
I sincerely believe the most important asset u have is trust. Try to show results in near future, then make a reasonable roadmap.
Maybe you can find something in this year's or previous years' Pulse of the Profession, look
Here's a link to an old project management ROI study from Bill Ibbs:
I'm surprised that no one has brought up risk management (identification, analysis and mitigation). We manage work -projects and operations - to minimise risk impacts and enhance benefits. If you can't show that management achieves more effective delivery that then why manage?

The approach: "this is what happens if/when we do not apply specific management practices, this is what happens if we do."

Project management should not be the application of ideology and/or process, it should be best practices to achieve efficient and effect project delivery.
Find out how the bottom line is impacted by a lacking adoption of methods: show how go-to-market, revenue, expenses, reputation, resourcing, client service etc. are impacted (preferably in $). Then link these business impacts to the way projects are managed today. Some execs may not find methodology maturity assessments or benchmarks from other companies very accessible.

Please login or join to reply

Content ID:

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts."

- Bertrand Russell