Sebastian HelmInternational PM| -Redmond, Wa, United States
Richard S. Sloma, in No-Nonsense Planning, advises against using processes and activities as the basis of one's planning, saying "Allowing activities to be used as the planning quanta allows use of totally useless measuring sticks such as "man-weeks". The use of these amorphous measuring sticks allows, in turn, the escape from accountability of the very people upon whom successful event achievement is dependent. The likelihood of plan success will have been erased." This flies in the face of the PMBoK. Does he have a point? Saving Changes...
Sort By:
Michael AdamsSolutions Architect| LANLLos Alamos, Nm, United States
The question I have then, is what does Richard Sloma suggest we use as the basis of planning then?
Does he propose an alternative that makes sense to you? Saving Changes...
Sebastian HelmInternational PM| -Redmond, Wa, United States
Excellent question! The alternative he advocates in that section is merely semantic: Instead of the plan element "feasibility review", speak of "submittal of feasibility analysis". While I can see the benefit of a mindset that focuses on the result, I didn't see a replacement for the estimation of effort, which certainly doesn't satisfy the physicist in me.
Maybe what we can take away from this is to consider using more milestones for reasons of morale. Saving Changes...
Mohamed SobairPrincipal Solution Architecture| FreelanceRiyadh, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
From my humble opinion, I don't see this is feasible.
In Order for a Successful event achievement to take place, Activities Planning & accountability of those people who are engaged with it is required.
Leaving it to an event rather than process or activity deceives the purpose of planning in the first place while Planning in Project Management was there to ensure the success of the Project.
I know that in some Project Circumstances , Planning could be skipped , however, its most likely to increase the probability of issues/problem throughout the project & its done in special project cases. Saving Changes...
Michael AdamsSolutions Architect| LANLLos Alamos, Nm, United States
I might be misunderstanding something here, but it seems to me that typically a project is laid out with milestones in mind...those are significant results, which are then broken down into the work activities and results required to produce those milestones.
So from my perspective the measures are actually milestones, or "stuff achieved," and not simply hours worked. This is how we are able to calculate EV, SPI, CPI, etc... which allows us to see how much value has been produced, if work is on schedule, and if that work is within budget.
I really may be misunderstanding though, so please let me know if I missed that one by a mile or something similar.
I hate to admit, but I don't really understand what is meant by the distinction between:
plan element "feasibility review"
and "submittal of feasibility analysis"
Can you clarify that please? Saving Changes...
Sebastian HelmInternational PM| -Redmond, Wa, United States
Mohamed, I agree that if the author advocated leaving all planning to events, it would defeat the purpose. And he is vague enough to allow that interpretation. I choose to rather see it as a reminder to focus on the goal, and would illustrate this with the anecdote of the construction worker, who, when asked what he was doing, did not reply “I’m laying bricks”, but “I’m building a mosque.” This squares well with other principles he cites, such as “Plans are Self-Fulfilling Prophecies”. (But then again, he also says “Always Plan for Failure”. Go figure!)
Michael, allow me to let the author clarify the wording difference:
?One of the most frequently used planning exercises is the new product introduction plan. Far too often the intermediary steps are described in terms of activity rather than the event. It is not uncommon to observe the use of such plan elements as “feasibility review,” “state-of-the-art search”, “bread-board design,” and so on. While on the one hand these activities must usually be performed in some form or another, they are useless for managerial control purposes. Much more effective are “submittal of feasibility analysis,” “submittal of state-of-the-art evaluation” “completion of bread-board prototype testing,” and so on. [...] Effective planning, merely by the prudent selection of measurement quanta, helps those performing the tasks to do them more effectively by /reorientation of focus from efforts to results/.? (last 7 words in italics.)
I don't know how Richard Sloma would do EVM, but it seems your perspective already addresses his concern, if you measure stuff achieved by milestones instead of person hours. So, in conclusion I don’t think you’re misunderstanding anything. You’re just trying to see more behind it than there is. I just posted it here because I found it a refreshing idea, but it’s probably not that fundamentally different.
Saving Changes...
Sebastian HelmInternational PM| -Redmond, Wa, United States
(Off topic note about the formatting: The question marks were big quotes, which appeared nicely in the preview. Who would expect the actual display to choke on them?!) Saving Changes...
Michael AdamsSolutions Architect| LANLLos Alamos, Nm, United States
Sebastian, thanks for the clarification. I understand and think that is a good point. It does make sense to state milestones as results, rather than as activities. It clarifies the aim of any task, and clarifies the due date! Saving Changes...
