July 3, 2008

Dear Editor

On the subject of your May Editorial on “Future Energy," my good friend Russ Archibald posed an erudite question (May 10, 2008):

"Do we want to continue to let 'market forces' drive our policies and strategies for energy, or should we figure out how to apply sound 'strategic project management' concepts to the development of international strategies, followed by identification, selection, prioritization, authorization, and funding of programs and projects?

"We can then apply our well-known 'operational project management' concepts to make sure that these programs and projects are well planned, scheduled, and executed. But which national and/or international agencies will hold responsibilities for these efforts at the strategic and operational levels?"

Yes, indeed!  Which national and/or international agencies will hold responsibilities for these efforts?

In a perfect world, applying "sound 'strategic project management' concepts" is a captivating thought, but has anyone yet come across any governmental agency applying "sound 'strategic project management' concepts" if indeed such things even exist?

Russ should be reminded of Sir Winston Churchills' famous words:  "Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." Hansard, 1947.

For my money, I would much prefer to rely on "market forces" than on the tinkerings of a politically-motivated all-powerful but impotent and bungling bunch of bureaucrats.

R. Max Wideman
Vancouver, BC, Canada

---

On the Subject of Your July Editorial –
PM in Earth Sciences

July 8, 2008

Dear David: 

As you know working in the government sector especially in the field of research and development, I feel that the day is here.  What I feel we are missing as a profession is our ability to be agile enough with our processes and models to accommodate these new fields, especially in the R&D venue.  We tend to be stuck in constructs that function per the PMBOK® Guide instead of being agile and nimble with much more emphasis on metrics that are fully integrated. 

While the field speaks to integration, our standards fail to demonstrate to us the true capabilities of integration that would afford the project/program manager the agility and flexibility necessary to function in the fields mentioned in your editorial.  Having worked in nanotechnology at ANL, engaged in climate change discussions for initial strategic planning, and the early days of wind power, the profession must being to discuss new ways to package the focus of integration and the communication of project activities and risks.  The PM is being asked to be more communicator for the technology or technology area than technologist, and he or she is not being prepared to answer that call.

We need to listen to the senior executives and the needs they are expressing.  We are not completely addressing them.  They are looking for more bundling of skills in the PM.  Are we accommodating this call?  In my humble opinion, we are not.

Rebecca A. Winston (Becky)
Idaho, USA
Winston Strategic Management Consulting
rebeccawinston@yahoo.com
http://www.winstonstrategicmanagementconsulting.com

---

On the Subject of Lee Lambert’s Survey, Fred Baker’s Letter to the Editor & Bob Youker’s Volley

July 20, 2008

Dear Editor: 

Oh my G** !  We have met the enemy and,  you got it, us!

Astounding!  This mis-information cannot stand!

I know Lee and I thought I knew Fred.   I guess not.  I regretfully have misjudged both of them.

How could 2 esteemed members of PMI, and PMP’s no less, be so misinformed ? As for Lee and his misconceptions about work-packages, I will give him the benefit of my doubts and ascribe his mischaracterization of work-packages to a sloppy choice of words.  When he becomes aware of his transgressions he will be vigorously [and humorously] in his acknowledgement that of course he knew better.

And Fred, the PMBoK has it RIGHT !  The fact that most practitioners don’t do what they should do

does not make the Guide to the PMBoK wrong!   For example, only one in eight construction contractors even consider resources in their work plans at all and most of those few never level those resources so that their plan and schedule will be a better representation of how the work will be performed on the site or in the shop as the case may be.  Does this make resources immaterial to performing the work in a cost efficient way?  Of course not because only with resources do we do the work.  And further, “no one makes Activity Lists”

Pogo was right-on here too.  You have to make the Activity Lists for each work-package because this is where, and, when you give a complete description of the work to be done by each schedule activity since the 36-48 character limitation in Primavera and most other scheduling programs preclude a complete, unequivocal description.  

Also recorded on the Activity List are the scope of work, the estimated resources needed, the estimated work-day durations along with which work calendar is planned for computing the calendar-day span of the activity, and most importantly what assumptions were made regarding the estimate of resources and calendars. All of this activity information MUST be recorded at the start of the project to support whatever challenges may come along, usually in the defense of claims or the repudiation of them.

The best way for the team to capture all this is by using a simple spreadsheet that is completed for each activity and organized by work-package.  I use such a ‘list’ that can record up to 4 activities per page.  [I’ll send it by email to every one who wants it. earl_bg@yahoo.com ]   The ‘list’ is then my tool for preparing the logic diagram for each work-package and then these 2 documents are input to my PMIS database.  With projects of hundreds to several thousands of activities no one can remember all the data that goes into preparing a work plan and schedule.  And the ‘Activity List’ is used to validate the PMIS database before any analysis is made.

As usual, Bob Youker has it right!

Class dismissed!

Yes, we have met the enemy !

Earl Glenwright, BS, MBA, PSP
Registered Professional Engineer, Master Scheduler
Citizen of USA, part-time resident of Bulgaria
On project assignment in Gabon