I am a key PM consultant in a vendor company. Of late, the economic crisis has taken a toll on many companies. There are many projects that are shelved, and some they are thinking of "not acquiring" the PM services, but just the technical services...so as to save cost.
I've been trying to convince them that removing the project manager does not mean cost saving, and project management activities still have to go on regardless there is a PM on it or not, someone has to wear the hat.
I am wondering if anyone out there has any article or has a very strong arguments for situations such as this? i.e. selling arguments on the importance and neccesity of a vendor PM, and why the client cannot do it themselves.
thanks in advance Saving Changes...
Stephen MayeSenior Vice PresidentVa, United States
I believe the need for outside help is actually more obvious when implementing a PMO rather than just bringing in hired guns as Project Managers. (As far as managemening projects goes--given the required skilled, experience, and clout the client CAN do it themselves.) If you take the perspective that you want to teach the client to fish (establish something sustainable with defensible benefits) rather than just give them a fish (provide a PM) your value proposition is much stronger and the customer gets a longer lasting benefit. A good place to start is the following article: http://www.gantthead.com/Gantthead/article...0,17057,00.html
