28 February 2011

PM Failure and Success

I've been thinking that the success/failure discussion is the wrong way to be looking at this.

I remember reading (Rodney Turner?) that when PM is applied projects are X% cheaper, faster etc than if no project management is applied, but that the increased efficiency had to be measured against the increased costs (i.e. you don't put a PM onto a minor system enhancement.)

So, rather than talk about failures what we should be talking about is relative improvements.

(Dan Strayer was the catalyst for writing this down.)

1 comment:

  1. I find that, often, project plans are littered with non-value-add functions that are required by Program Management Offices (PMOs) that require work be performed to keep them happy, rather than focusing on tasks that are value-add and that represent real work that must be performed to build, deploy, test and operate a system or solution that must be delivered. I've looked at numerous Program and Project Management solutions and tried to marry them with SDLC delivery tasks. Over the years, I've found that the SDLC tasks always outweigh and are more important than the PMO tasks, since they correlate to what's being built and delivered. Take a look at sites like IF4IT (http://www.if4it.com) and you'll see that they teach IT leaders and managers to focus on delivery tasks, too. I've found doing so to be most effective in my career and, to me, it is about doing the things that work, as opposed to the things that don't work or don't really matter.