If complexity is going to be happen anyway, we have to allow those
patterns to emerge from the interaction of people on projects, and from
the interaction of those projects themselves. We're guilty, as a
community, of signing up to "individuals and interactions over processes
and tools", then mandating processes to control the interactions, while
supporting the processes - and not the interactions - with tools. In
future, the practices we teach will be those which enable
interactions, rather than controlling them. We've seen this already with
the rise of metaprocesses like Kanban. Models for understanding
complexity, and particularly the complexity of people, are also being
taught in Agile conferences worldwide - Systems Thinking, Complexity
Thinking, psychology and sociology.
These are also the kind of practices we need to change behaviour at
higher levels in the organisation; to make the impact of anti-patterns
apparent. We haven't seen as much change as we prophesied at the
beginning. Maybe over the next ten years, we'll see a different
manifesto emerge - one which starts, "We are uncovering better ways of
enabling change by doing it and helping others do it."
About the author:
Liz Keogh is an experienced Lean and Agile coach,
trainer, blogger and well-known international speaker. Coming from a
strong technical background, her work covers a wide variety of topics,
from software development and architecture to psychology and systems
thinking. She is best known for her involvement in the BDD community,
and was awarded the Gordon Pask award in 2010 for deepening existing
ideas in the space and "coming up with some pretty crazy ones of her
own".
Read full article at:
http://www.infoq.com/articles/agile-prophecy-failure
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
Monday, September 12, 2011
Different Perceptions of Risk on Projects
1. Risks as facts: Risks are treated as objective, technical,
neutral events that can be managed based on the knowledge produced by
objective analysis using probabilities and expected values. The outcome
is rational decision making.
2. Risks as subjective constructions with multiple dimensions: Risk managers choose the context and perspective they adopt. This allows multiple rationalities to coexist, depending on the values and perspectives of the observers. (This explains why some people find jumping out of an aircraft fun.)
From a project perspective, risks are uncertainties that matter. All estimates about future project outcomes incorporate a degree of uncertainty. This includes the three key dimensions of project management: timing, cost and quality of future project deliverables.
The project manager cannot be certain that the estimates that make up the project schedule or cost plan will prove to be correct, or that the project team will create deliverables to the appropriate quality standards. The rational management approach is to assess the risk factors and develop appropriate time and cost contingencies, backed by appropriate reviews and tests to ensure optimum quality. This approach is highly objective and rational.
However, you cannot rely on your stakeholders having the same view as you. If a stakeholder sees your project in a different context, their perspective on risk will be different.
For example, if you created a contingency plan using a Monte Carlo analysis, an executive may interpret the plan as a sign you don't understand the project because he or she expects a single definitive result. From this stakeholder's perspective, the precise calculation of a critical path method schedule offers certainty and minimum risk.
The authors of A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK® Guide) have a different perspective, which understands the benefits of 'three-point estimating.' You cannot assume your stakeholder will have the same view.
The challenge is to accept that a range of stakeholder perspectives will occur. Stakeholders may derive completely different opinions from the same data.
You should anticipate this possibility and adjust the way you package your project information to communicate more effectively and ensure both you and your key stakeholders have a common understanding of the risks and issues confronting you project.
2. Risks as subjective constructions with multiple dimensions: Risk managers choose the context and perspective they adopt. This allows multiple rationalities to coexist, depending on the values and perspectives of the observers. (This explains why some people find jumping out of an aircraft fun.)
From a project perspective, risks are uncertainties that matter. All estimates about future project outcomes incorporate a degree of uncertainty. This includes the three key dimensions of project management: timing, cost and quality of future project deliverables.
The project manager cannot be certain that the estimates that make up the project schedule or cost plan will prove to be correct, or that the project team will create deliverables to the appropriate quality standards. The rational management approach is to assess the risk factors and develop appropriate time and cost contingencies, backed by appropriate reviews and tests to ensure optimum quality. This approach is highly objective and rational.
However, you cannot rely on your stakeholders having the same view as you. If a stakeholder sees your project in a different context, their perspective on risk will be different.
For example, if you created a contingency plan using a Monte Carlo analysis, an executive may interpret the plan as a sign you don't understand the project because he or she expects a single definitive result. From this stakeholder's perspective, the precise calculation of a critical path method schedule offers certainty and minimum risk.
The authors of A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK® Guide) have a different perspective, which understands the benefits of 'three-point estimating.' You cannot assume your stakeholder will have the same view.
The challenge is to accept that a range of stakeholder perspectives will occur. Stakeholders may derive completely different opinions from the same data.
You should anticipate this possibility and adjust the way you package your project information to communicate more effectively and ensure both you and your key stakeholders have a common understanding of the risks and issues confronting you project.
Sunday, September 11, 2011
Cloud computing meets Project Management
Excellent article by Raj Asava and Hussien Mzee.
Jun 2010 - PMWT Featured Paper - Asava Mzee - Cloud Computing meets PM - FINAL.DOC - Powered by Google Docs
Jun 2010 - PMWT Featured Paper - Asava Mzee - Cloud Computing meets PM - FINAL.DOC - Powered by Google Docs
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)