… What I Brought Back From the #pmcamp13str …

The PM Camp 2013 on May, 3rd and 4th in Stuttgart was a magnificent experience.

Let me just write down some questions/insights I brought back from Stuttgart. I will start with the questions, because if you want to come up with insights and solutions, the first thing you have to do is find and ask reasonable and good questions:

My Questions:

  • Would it not be better if the abbreviation PM were a short form for “People Management”, instead of “Project Management?”

    Reason:

    Projects mostly fail because of the people, not because of the tools or technology.

    Consequence:

    Change your strategy when you teach PM-s, use fewer and different tools!Note:

    People Management as a term also has a negative connotation.

  • Should you not, before you start the project, do a critical evaluation to find out whether a project is just a Routine Project or a Research Project?

    Reason:

    If you are talking a research project, you have a considerable amount of trial-and-error and experiments to do, but you cannot easily say in advance how much of it!

    Consequence:

    Perhaps you have to “forego too much innovation” in a classical project and instead should “migrate solutions into the future step-by-step”?    
Note:
Especially where established big and powerful solutions/systems are to be completely replaced by something totally new, most of the projects fail. The remainder basically always fail to meet time and budget and are often criticized for not being satisfactory.

  • Are not all projects “research projects” to some extent?

    Reason:

    Due to the permanent change in society and technology, the requirements, too, change permanently.

    Consequence:

    You have to organize the time and money needed for trial-and-error, experiments, research and well-structured “one-way-road management”.

  • Is it true that technology projects are “nothing but routine”? Do we, perhaps, when talking project management, often just think routine projects and forget that “true” projects always also have a research component?

    (I am sure this depends on your definition of project)

    Reason:

    If the requirement has been fulfilled numerous times already and the surrounding parameters have not changed, then technology projects can become routine projects (building terraced houses on gravel planes). But can these still be called projects? You will often make surprising experiences in new application/requirement situations with new technology. Social change and/or a change in values, too, can lead up to totally new and unexpected requirements!

    Consequence:

    Before you start a project, even if you believe it to be a routine project, you have to critically ask whether or not there might be some hidden innovation requirements and a huge amount of research and experimenting.

  • Do we, perhaps, talk too much about mistakes and learning from mistakes when talking projects?

    Reason:

    ‘The very term “trial-and-error” already includes a potential failure. If we then continue by considering the sheer process of trial and error a failure, because it was not a success, then we are belittling ourselves. You will always be wiser afterwards and if you punish yourself for failed experiments, you will kill positive courage.

    Consequence:

    Not to talk mistakes and learning from mistakes in PM.

  • Will a greater number of parallel projects in an enterprise not considerably increase the complexity of the individual projects?

    Reason:

    There will be more and more dependencies, eventually even on the competitors.

    Consequence:

    Limit yourself to what is important, more serial than parallel working, make dependencies less complex…

My Insights:

  • For whatever reasons: the incompetence among project stakeholders is on the incline.
  • There is a huge amount of desperation going on in this country, especially when we are talking big projects.
  •  The actual usefulness of projects is often questionable.
  •  People do not spend enough time thinking about the usefulness of projects.
  •  The usefulness-scenarios of projects are often not balanced, which puts a huge damper on the motivation both of the parties concerned and the victims.
  •  The impact a project has on the citizens are often not taken into consideration.
  •  I believe that I am now better able to explain why projects never seem to have an end.
  •  Let us first clarify the terms we use, before discussing the issues?

I think there will probably be some IF Blog articles on this in the near future, or else there will be a PM-Camps session dealing with the problem, for instance at Bad Homburg, Wien or Dornbirn.

RMD

(Translated by EG)

P.S.

So here is the meta question:

Many bridges still collapse all over the world. How is that possible? We have more than a thousand years of experience with building bridges. Wherever a relevant bridge collapses, engineers and professors visit the site of the accident, trying to find the reasons why the bridge collapsed. And they learn from it and hand on their findings. And still, bridges collaps. Why?

Twitter

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Suche

Categories

Aktuelle Umfrage

Wie würden Sie die EURO-Krise meistern?

Ergebnisse anzeigen

Loading ... Loading ...

Love it, change it or leave it!

Ich weiß , dass das leichter gesagt als getan ist. Zumindest überlegen kann man es sich aber!

PM Camp Meeting 2017 – #pmcamp – Jan, 20th, 2017

It is certainly not breaking news, but next Friday, we will have our 2017 PM Camp meeting. Once a year,…

Can We Reduce Complexity?!

A short time ago, I integrated a knowledge proposal (Wissensangebot) by Thomas Kleiner into IF-AGORA. The message was: “How to…
SUCHE
Drücken Sie "Enter" zum Starten der Suche