Of course, it was nice to Crossderry included. It was even better that my “short post” style was appreciated. Lots of sweat goes into getting these posts under 250 words!
I’ve been working on an initiative called “Value Delivery,” which will incorporate value management into our various PMO methods, tools, etc. These activities are often listed as typical PMO functions, but this really only honored in the breach. Value management never seems to take off given a PMO’s traditional emphasis on implementing project management methods, tools, training, etc.
In our approach, we will ensure that value management has its own identity, especially when it comes to training. While value and benefit management is baked into the various program and portfolio standards around, it isn’t part of the typical project manager’s skill set. Rolling out value management separately should emphasize the organizational and personal changes required to be successful.
What is value management’s objective? To ensure that execution remains focused on delivering against executives’s and stakeholder expectations. How does value management happen? Maybe the best way to illustrate is to briefly lay out the lifecycle we’re using below:
- Value Discovery: Establish a performance baseline
- Value Realization: Identify required process improvements and KPIs
- Value Optimization: Review and steer benefit attainment
Glen Alleman and a number of commenters contributed to a great thread on math, PM, and complexity (here).
I try to keep the ideas of complexity “science” in mind when planning strategy and its execution. In particular, I have a deep respect for the power of self-organization and the need to create flexible rather than brittle management systems.
However, I’m not sure how powerful CAS really is as a theory, at least w/r/t/ project management. For example, how do its predictions advance my estimation approach beyond what we’re doing w/ probability distributions (e.g., Monte Carlo simulations via Crystal Ball)? To I really need math beyond that to get “good enough” estimates?
Filed under: Complexity, Portfolio Management, Program Management, Project Management, Strategy Management | Tagged: complex adaptive systems, complexity theory, Glen Alleman, Herding Cats | 3 Comments »
Greg Balestrero — CEO of the Project Management Institute — recently posted (here) on his experiences at the Scrum Gathering in Orlando. In my experience, Greg and the PMI staff have been very eager to foster a better relationship among the various methodology camps. Per Greg’s post,
[t]he intent of the visit was to bridge the gap between the Scrum Alliance and PMI. But I guess the real reason we attended was to dispel the myths that surround the PMBOK® Guide and Agile practice. There is a widely held opinion that the PMBOK® Guide and Agile don’t mix… they can’t be “shaken, nor stirred” together.
Please read the post…it gives an interesting perspective on how to build alliances among disparate points of view and how to overcome misconceptions.
Regular readers know that I’ve been harping on the increasing importance of program management, especially when it comes to realizing the benefits or value of projects. Project managers who simply run projects without reference to the larger business environment are becoming a commodity.
During the recent Global Corporate Council forum, I heard two thoughts that illustrated the challenge for PMs:
- Greg Balestrero, the CEO of the Project Management Institute (Greg’s blog is here), calls project management “table stakes”. In other words, PM has become so widespread that it is no longer differentiating for an organization or person to be good at PM. In Greg’s opinion, PM-only lets/keeps you in the game…no more.
- One council member quanitified the value of the PMP in terms of experience. He had to counsel a project manager who was very itchy to advance but was perplexed that his PMP hadn’t taken him further. The council member put it to him bluntly: “A PMP is worth about two years of experience in our organization, which is something… But it isn’t equivalent to leading and delivering a multi-year project or program.”
One of the reasons I’ve been remiss in my posting is that I’ve been preparing to host the Spring 2009 executive forum of PMI’s Global Corporate Council. My SAP colleagues did a great job helping me host and this forum was particularly productive.
“Networking” is a pat response when one talks about joining or leading industry groups. What exactly that means came home to me after discussions with my counterparts from Siemens, Joe Sopko and Kevin McDevitt. On two topics, just a few minutes of conversation helped me confirm the validity of one approach (on how to augment on program management content) and introduced a better metaphor (for the architecture of our new methodology).
Nothing big, eh? But how much benchmarking and justification will I avoid because I can say “well, Siemens had a similar problem and they did X“?
I’m trying to tie up some loose ends, especially follow-ups promised in earlier blog posts (here). In particular, here are the top two answers from the “Is Project Management a Profession Yet?” survey (survey here):
- 38 percent: Yes, but second-tier — like engineering or non-university teaching (33 of 86 answers)
- 26 percent: No, not yet — could reach at least second-tier profession (22 of 86 answers)
I’m with the “No, not yet” crowd. I can see project management achieving some of professional attributes, but I see few in place now. For example, certifications are all well and good — and the PMP is becoming more universal — but they are a long way from licensure. Take a look at the some of the requirements, benefits, and documentation for the Professional Engineer license (here).
This post may court the Business Week curse, but I’m highlighting this story on BI and the recession (here) as the jumping off point for a couple of observations. Rob T.’s comment in the piece (sorry, but I can’t link directly) notes that:
Unlike ERP, BI can be implemented step-wise, first in targeted, strategic areas, and then using a broad brush once it’s value has been proven. A wise strategy for this economy is to start small, pick a problem or area where a quick win is possible and attack it with a 60-90 day effort.
I mentioned this opportunity for short, focused projects in my WSJ interview. These short cycle times and the nature of BI work pose problems for traditional ERP change control and deliverables definition.
For example. what exactly is “done” on a BI project? The traditional ERP definition of deliverables — focused on processes that deliver tangible, measureable outcomes (e.g., Order to Cash, Purchase to Pay, Hire to Retire) — doesn’t work well for BI. Typically, reporting projects focused on # of reports, explicitly defined. Also, in analytics projects those reports or queries often spark more ideas for how data can be cross-tabbed, projected, etc. Do you always want to be presenting a change orders for new reports?
What has worked for you when defining deliverables and change control for BI initiatives? Now if you’ve read this blog for a while, then you can guess that I’m in tune attacking these issues with a capabilities-focused approach to deliverables. This approach points one in the right direction when defining what done looks like. However, many PMs find it hard to grok the requirements and required capabilities of analytics-savvy stakeholders and consultants.
Filed under: Project Management, Requirements Management, SAP, Scope Management | Tagged: Analytics, Business Intelligence, Business Objects, change control, change control board, deliverables | Leave a comment »
FYI, a Wall Street Journal article (“Dangers of Clinging to Solutions of the Past”) based in part on interviews w/ yours truly came out today (link here, page B4 in the paper). Thanks to Kishore Sengupta of INSEAD for pointing the WSJ my way and to Phred Dvorak of the WSJ for conveying the perils of experience so well and so succinctly.
As I’ve noted to a couple of colleagues, it is hard to believe that only 250 words of copy came out of two hours of interview time. Insert your own joke re: my verbosity here…
Filed under: Complexity, Knowledge Management, Organizational Change Management, People Development, Performance Management, PMO, Portfolio Management, Program Management, Project Management, Project Success Factors | Tagged: INSEAD, Kishore Sengupta, Paul Ritchie, Phred Dvorak, The Experience Trap, Wall Street Journal | 1 Comment »
As a follow up, over 250 people attended last week’s SAP PMO webcast (original post here) hosted by Keith Johnson, the VP for the SAP North America PMO VP and Jim Curry, Program Delivery Director. It’s always great to have a customer — in this case, Kelly Gear, Senior Program Manager, Johns Manville — confirm the value of some of what SAP offers and suggests.
How to establish the critical link between the steering committee’s goals and the project team’s activities.
The recording is available here — you will need to do a free registration if you don’t have a SAP.com login already.
Filed under: Methodology, PMO, Portfolio Management, Program Management, Project Management, SAP | Tagged: Jim Curry, Johns Manville, Keith Johnson, Kelly Gear, PMO services, SAP America, SAP Services, SAP webcast | Leave a comment »