December 8, 2008

Dear David,

In his letter to you "On the Subject of Your Editorial, November 24, 2008" Russ asks for dialogue on your editorial, so I would like to add my own comments – see below.

RA: Dear David, Your November Editorial -- "The Future of Project Management Is ... Not a Straight Line!" -- is excellent and stimulates the following responses on my part. The definitions of PM that you quote are almost entirely related to "Operational PM". We must expand the recognition of the significant difference between Operational and Strategic PM. Strategic PM deals with program and project selection, alignment with higher level strategies, prioritization, allocation of resources, and strategic direction during execution. In other words, Strategic PM is the management of programs and projects at the portfolio or enterprise level.

MW: Agreed, but in which case, I would prefer to see this as a new discipline and labeled: Project Portfolio Management (PPM) as indeed Russ does in his next paragraph. Certainly the label "strategic" sounds good, but sticking it on to project management infers that it is simply an extension of project management with its tools and techniques. I believe PPM is a separate discipline with its own kit of tools and techniques quite separate from so-called "operational" project management.

RA: While PMOs and project managers can and do contribute to Project Portfolio Management/PPM, they do not make the strategic decisions that comprise PPM, as I tried to prove in the paper "Interfaces Between Strategic Management of an Enterprise and Project Management Portfolio Management Within the Enterprise" that I presented on Nov. 11 2008 at the 22nd IPMA World Congress in Rome. (Available for download at www.russarchibald.com .) I am happy to see your emphasis on the importance of reaching a broadly recognized (and systematic, I hope) definition of project categories among all PM practitioners. As I have argued in the references you cite, project categories must be defined differently for each of the various strategic or operational purposes for which they are being categorized. To add support to your position on this I offer the following observations:

        * Organizational maturity in PM is meaningless unless it refers to specific project categories.

MW: Agreed!

RA:  * An organization's PM Process, in order to be practically useful and to enable the application of systems thinking for continual improvement, must reflect the best adaptation of the most appropriate project life cycle model, whether predictive or adaptive, for each project category of importance to the organization. One sized life cycle model does not fit all projects. One PM Process does not work well for all project categories.

MW: I think that Russ's remarks here highlight a serious oversight on the part of PM academics and practitioners in general, that is, failure to recognize the difference between management of the technology and management of the project. In other words, recognizing the difference between project management and technology management. For purposes of successful PPM it is essential that the project life span process is essentially similar across all types of project to enable comparison of project status and current strategic value. Management of the technology, on the other hand, is as Russ indicates very different according to the type of technology involved.

RA:  * Project Managers are not readily interchangeable between most major project categories. Advanced training of Project Managers must be tailored to specific project categories.

MW:  Based on my previous remarks, it is my position that project management knowledge and experience is indeed transferable but technology management is clearly not transferable between one technology and another. Since, in practical project work a working knowledge of the technology is essential, this give rise to the perception that PMs are not transferable between one type of project and another. Let us look at two project managers: one experienced in technology A (PM-A) and the other in technology B (PM-B). For PM-A to work on technology B it is clear that PM-A only has to learn about the technology – he or she does not have to relearn project management! In fact, it could well be that PM-A could bring valuable "external" experience when properly taking over the responsibilities of PM‑B.

RA:  * Advanced project specialist training, in particular in planning and scheduling and in the use of advanced PM software packages, must be tailored to specific project categories.

        * In reality, most effective PM consultants become specialists in specific project categories.

        * PM certification beyond the entry level really has little value to enterprise executives unless it is tied to specific project categories.

MW: I agree, all of these observations are quite true

RA: There have been some research and some useful publications on how projects can be (and are) categorized and classified. In my opinion, what we really need is recognition and acceptance of how organizations are actually categorizing their projects for what purposes. Then we can determine if there are better ways to define those categories, as well as the purposes. Rather than more classical research, we need a task force to establish a framework for compiling the current practices in this regard within industries and governmental agencies in all countries where PM is important, and then we need to perform the actual compilation. I predict the results of such an effort will produce significant improvements throughout the world of Project Management.

MW: I have some reservations about current research based on what companies are presently doing, and then trumpeting the findings as "best practices", especially as it relates to the emerging discipline of PPM. Practitioner-based research only reveals what companies and organizations are presently doing and not what they should be doing. That is not to deny the value of industry-based research, but at this time it would be useful to ponder what a best PPM practice ought to look like. I believe that my own recent PPM research highlights several areas that require serious examination.

Max Wideman
Vancouver, BC, Canada

---

On the Subject of Humour in Project Management

December 26 , 2008

Dear Editor,

Zelda Jones raises some very important issues in "Humour in Project Management" in the December 2008 PM World Today; she exposes the lack of its KPI comedic progress compared with the feverish expansion of other areas of PM knowledge and entertainment; and she indicates the opportunities for further, much needed informal PM laughter research.

In the UK we have been investigating these areas of PM hilarity for some time and we are finding a number of aspects:

# there are many international considerations - such as the funny anecdote of the Japanese PM, the Canadian PM and the Scotsman who attended a meeting - by walking into a bar - with only one parachute - and a crocodile. But most people know that one by now.

# there are humour difficulties with the growing professionalism of PM as Zandra illustrates in relation to accountancy. We also see uncertain comparisons with other "established professions" who do not have the most humorous of outlooks - such as teachers, lawyers, doctors and ,heaven forbid, bankers! for example - what a current bunch of jokers! and stockbrokers!!

# we have found that Project Management is the subject of the full moisture spectrum of humour measurement. At one end there is the full, laugh-out-loud, spittle launching "wet" jokes - which are actually quite rare in PM. At the other end there is the driest of PM wit - which may be simply acknowledged by a slight nod and the wiping away of a small tear of suppressed merriment - which is found to be the norm in temperate Europe.

# in searching for PM humour it is best to avoid the rather dull internal Technical Competences ( excluding the naturally hilarious Earned Value) and to search more in the fun fields of Behaviour and even Contextual Competences. This can be extended to diverse, wider applications - such as PM situations in elf world, goblin land and far off planets with their slightly different funniness circumstances.

# But we must not forget project management's real purpose - which is to serve the needs of society - not its own needs. This means one can look at the many sectors we serve, work with and integrate with their comedic activities - such as I.T., defence, construction, toothpaste, etc..

# Alternatively there are the new PM frontiers - such as Blame Management - in development by others as noted by Zandra. Similarly we are looking at "Luck - good luck, bad luck and no luck at all".

Also there are other modern PM opportunities, for example, in Intermediate and Advanced Excuses, Hats, Zero Tolerance and Genetically Modified Project Manager (GMPM).

In the informal consultative approach to PM Humour research we have noted that Bistamundi may be of assistance - see www.bistamundi.com - to meet and greet within the PM community - with smiles and good humour.

Many thanks.

Bon soir.
Tom Taylor
Project Manager and author.
dashdot.
London UK