"Another important change, not yet complete, has been the change from the predictable model of project management to the unpredictable. In the early days we assumed that projects could be carried out in accordance with the original plan if the planning was good enough. We assumed that project clients would not change their minds about what they wanted. If they did, it messed up our projects and it was their fault. We tried to impose design freezes. We assumed that the client's objectives, his organisation and his people would not change whilst we did their project. We assumed that our own objectives, organisation and people would not change. We did not do risk management because we had thought of everything and everything was predictable.
"The rejection of this stable model has begun in project management but still has a way to go. I still find people who feel upset if we change the original plan and if the client changes his mind about his objectives. The unstable model says that a real project manager will change the plan whenever a better one for finishing the project can be established. A really good project manager will happily accommodate as many changes as the client wants in his objectives. It's his project and he can do whatever the changes in his world dictate. Every project is somebody else's sub-project. Our project is only a sub-project for him.
"A project plan is a series of forecasts, all of which are likely to be wrong? - some not so far wrong that it matters, but many quite a lot wrong. And every project will get its ration of unexpected problems. We must manage the risks effectively and expect our project to change. The unstable model is the real one. "
This link is the text of the same keynote that I saw in Hong Kong in March, 2002 at World Project Management Week where I presented on risk management.
Frank, interesting reading... also read a few of your articles on critical chain concepts, which was enlightening as well, in a zen sort of way. However, a prudent CIO hires or directs the PM/ consultant/ guru to specifically put constraints on a project so that it can become reality. Else, the project becomes another example of the "Ready, Fire... Aim" mentality that scuttles so many otherwise well-meaning project teams. In the environment I work in now, IT, and by extension PM's; are viewed by our CIO as the "utility company" of the organization. We do not have the ultimate authority on project decisions. We serve the project stakeholders, and at the head the project sponsor. I find myself time and time again communicating along the path of the project, the pitfalls and risks associated with the unbridled change and lack of control spoken of in the article. Perhaps, I am not yet enlightened enough, but I see no way projects run in this manner can hit any projected estimates of time, price, or scope. Your further thoughts, or input from others, is welcome. Saving Changes...
Thanks, Grasshopper. And don't forget...reality is perception.
But anyway -- further thoughts...
I don't think Barnes was saying give up and let the project flow wherever it goes. My interpretation of the written keynote was colored by one of the phrases he used in the spoken version in Hong Kong...something along the lines of "Risk Management is not part of Project Management. Project Management is part of Risk Management." PM is the practice of turning very uncertain events into certain outcomes. The organization that uses PM lives in a changing environment. PMs need to be prepared to accept the fact that projects are not deterministic efforts. You can't expect to map out a plan and schedule and have reality track it perfectly. To attempt to do so will either result in insanity for the PM or a bloated over-safe train schedule project that subotipmizes the benefit to the project owner.
If scope and deliverables remain valid, and the environment changes, PMs must be prepared to shift course. If scope and deliverables do not remain valid in the face of environmental changes, the project sponsor must be prepared to scrap the effort. A good PM should be able to advise in either situation.
There is one piece of the Barnes article that I part company with -- that's the notion that this environment of risk, change, and fluidity of goals is something new. It may be hard to swallow for a PM community that views a project as a deterministic train schedule that is supposed to be in a particular state at a particular point in time, or match (earn?) some sort of predetermined partial budget dollar for dollar and day for day.
Management is a blend of prediction and reaction. Today's Future Shock pace of change plays down the value of prediction and emphasizes the value of appropriate reaction. Both of these are tools of PMs. Effective PMs know however, when to let go of old predictions when new ones invalidate them.
Thanks, Grasshopper. And don't forget...reality is perception.
But anyway -- further thoughts...
I don't think Barnes was saying give up and let the project flow wherever it goes. My interpretation of the written keynote was colored by one of the phrases he used in the spoken version in Hong Kong...something along the lines of "Risk Management is not part of Project Management. Project Management is part of Risk Management." PM is the practice of turning very uncertain events into certain outcomes. The organization that uses PM lives in a changing environment. PMs need to be prepared to accept the fact that projects are not deterministic efforts. You can't expect to map out a plan and schedule and have reality track it perfectly. To attempt to do so will either result in insanity for the PM or a bloated over-safe train schedule project that subotipmizes the benefit to the project owner.
If scope and deliverables remain valid, and the environment changes, PMs must be prepared to shift course. If scope and deliverables do not remain valid in the face of environmental changes, the project sponsor must be prepared to scrap the effort. A good PM should be able to advise in either situation.
There is one piece of the Barnes article that I part company with -- that's the notion that this environment of risk, change, and fluidity of goals is something new. It may be hard to swallow for a PM community that views a project as a deterministic train schedule that is supposed to be in a particular state at a particular point in time, or match (earn?) some sort of predetermined partial budget dollar for dollar and day for day.
Management is a blend of prediction and reaction. Today's Future Shock pace of change plays down the value of prediction and emphasizes the value of appropriate reaction. Both of these are tools of PMs. Effective PMs know however, when to let go of old predictions when new ones invalidate them.
Thanks, Grasshopper. And don't forget...reality is perception.
But anyway -- further thoughts...
I don't think Barnes was saying give up and let the project flow wherever it goes. My interpretation of the written keynote was colored by one of the phrases he used in the spoken version in Hong Kong...something along the lines of "Risk Management is not part of Project Management. Project Management is part of Risk Management." PM is the practice of turning very uncertain events into certain outcomes. The organization that uses PM lives in a changing environment. PMs need to be prepared to accept the fact that projects are not deterministic efforts. You can't expect to map out a plan and schedule and have reality track it perfectly. To attempt to do so will either result in insanity for the PM or a bloated over-safe train schedule project that subotipmizes the benefit to the project owner.
If scope and deliverables remain valid, and the environment changes, PMs must be prepared to shift course. If scope and deliverables do not remain valid in the face of environmental changes, the project sponsor must be prepared to scrap the effort. A good PM should be able to advise in either situation.
There is one piece of the Barnes article that I part company with -- that's the notion that this environment of risk, change, and fluidity of goals is something new. It may be hard to swallow for a PM community that views a project as a deterministic train schedule that is supposed to be in a particular state at a particular point in time, or match (earn?) some sort of predetermined partial budget dollar for dollar and day for day.
Management is a blend of prediction and reaction. Today's Future Shock pace of change plays down the value of prediction and emphasizes the value of appropriate reaction. Both of these are tools of PMs. Effective PMs know however, when to let go of old predictions when new ones invalidate them.
Frank, thanks for the follow-up. I meant no dis-respect with the Zen comment. Only appealed to my sense of fluidity and movement that I perceived from the Critical Chain article I read. I wholeheartedly agree with your thoughts below, (in triplicate, no less... is there no end to bureaucracy!!) Risk management is the true "essence" of project management. You're right... we do not do our work in a vacuum, and its the management of the risk element... the triggers, the events, and it effects and consequences that differentiates a good PM from a good linear thinker like a programmer. I am curious though, (having not read "Critical Chain", Goldratt) about a solution for the following quandry. For just in time management of tasks, and hence projects, to be successful; much change also needs to happen in the area of executive management. In my experience in the healthcare industry, too much weight and value is placed on management by crisis. How can a PM influence executive governance to see the value of a change in that philosophy? Thank you again for your thoughts and input. Saving Changes...
Brian Wrote: "For just in time management of tasks, and hence projects, to be successful; much change also needs to happen in the area of executive management."
Yes siree Bob. Actually, for any process as significant as Project Management to be effective, top management must be conversant in and supportive of its core concepts. After all, the higher you are in the organization, the greater your power to f**k up a good thing with a careless comment or inappropriate request.
He continues: "In my experience in the healthcare industry, too much weight and value is placed on management by crisis. How can a PM influence executive governance to see the value of a change in that philosophy?"
It's simply a matter of identifying some of the pain they feel -- the problems that wish would go away -- and point out, logically and completely, the source of those problems in the current mode of operation, or more precisely, in certain assumptions that perpetuate that mode or philosophy.
There a paper on my website that discusses achieving buy-in and collaboration for a proposal that identifies as the first necessary step agreement on the problem. Actually it talks about agreement on the source of the problems suffered by your desired target for buy-in and support.
In the case of healthcare, the confusion could come from a confusion of the value of management OF crises (which could very well be matters of life and death in such an environment) and management BY crises, which is really no management at all. After all, didn't Deming identify as a major component of management the ability to predict outcomes of actions. An effective manager should be able to predict and avoid most crises. Not all -- we haven't yet managed to repeal Murphy's Law -- but at least enough to make them special situations.
