Posted on January 17, 2009 by Paul Ritchie
Just saw this article of the power of checklists in medicine (here) which reminded me that I had forgotten to include a link in an earlier post (here). Atul Gawande wrote a long piece in the New Yorker a little more than a year ago simply entitled “The Checklist“. It is far too rich to summarize effectively — please read the whole article — but below are a few snippets
[I]t’s far from obvious that something as simple as a checklist could be of much help in medical care. Sick people are phenomenally more various than airplanes… Mapping out the proper steps for each is not possible, and physicians have been skeptical that a piece of paper with a bunch of little boxes would improve matters much.
In 2001, though, a critical-care specialist at Johns Hopkins Hospital named Peter Pronovost decided to give it a try. He didn’t attempt to make the checklist cover everything; he designed it to tackle just one problem, the one that nearly killed Anthony DeFilippo: line infections…. These steps are no-brainers; they have been known and taught for years. So it seemed silly to make a checklist just for them. Still… [i]n more than a third of patients, [doctors] skipped at least one.
The results were so dramatic that they weren’t sure whether to believe them: the ten-day line-infection rate went from eleven per cent to zero. So they followed patients for fifteen more months. Only two line infections occurred during the entire period. They calculated that, in this one hospital, the checklist had prevented forty-three infections and eight deaths, and saved two million dollars in costs.
Still think your project is too complicated to benefit from a checklist or two?
Filed under: Complexity, Methodology, Organizational Change Management, PMO, Program Management, Project Management, Quality Management | Tagged: Atul Gawande, checklists, Quality Assurance, Quality Control | Leave a comment »
Posted on December 2, 2008 by Paul Ritchie
[T]he critic is the only independent source of information. The rest is advertising.
This quote came to mind as we’ve been going through an internal program’s requirements. One of my colleagues regularly refers to, and insists on, using the “Four Eyes” principle. In other words, one should always involve a second set of eyes to verify and validate work product. If the project team is the only arbiter of progress
Too often, the four eyes principle often only gets honored in quality control — e.g., during post-build testing processes. As my colleague’s insistence suggests, we find that an independent opinion is most valuable early in an initiative. For example, wouldn’t it be useful to have an independent validation during planning that the requirements and deliverables really represent (and will make real) the capabilites the project or program is intended to put in place?
It is tough enough to re-work a deliverable that doesn’t conform to requirements. It is worse to have to re-build a deliverable that had conformed to requirements, but find that those requirements were never valid in the first place.
Filed under: Program Management, Project Management, Quality Management, Requirements Management, Scope Management | Tagged: Four Eyes Principle, Pauline Kael, PM Quote of the Day, Quality Assurance, Quality Control | 1 Comment »
Posted on November 23, 2008 by Paul Ritchie
Practice does not make perfect. Only perfect practice makes perfect.
When I was younger, I never got the point of practice. Sure, I knew that it would get me in shape and knock of the rust off. However, I never got the idea that practice would help me perform better under pressure. Too many times I found myself over-thinking a situation because I hadn’t practiced enough to make it automatic. I finally started to realize that realistic practice in all sorts of endeavors — in particular, public speaking and presenting — helped to take the edge off along with the rust.
Practice?... We're talkin' about practice?
Lombardi’s point also applies to how we test our processes and systems. Too often I’ve seen customers and consultants assume away difficulties in their desire to save testing time and money. Even worse, this saving “spasm” usually comes towards the end of the project, just as the testing was about to get serious.
The best testing practice (so to speak) I’ve seen came at a global firm that does dirty and dangerous work. As you might imagine, that company is very conscious of safety and quality. That firm called their last round of testing not integration or user acceptance, but “business simulation.” Business simulation didn’t simply involve folks following a script. We brought the system, interfaces, and data up like go-live, then encouraged the users to go “do their jobs” and call support if something went wrong.
Sure, such an approach is expensive. But how much is that peace of mind that comes with a no-holds-barred validation that the system and its support conformed to requirements worth?
Filed under: Complexity, Implementation Costs, Program Management, Project Management, Project Success Factors, Quality Management, Risk Management, SAP | Tagged: PM Quote of the Day, Quality Assurance, Quality Control, Quality Management, Vince Lombardi | Leave a comment »