People who have been reading about Project Management must know Mark Mullaly, PMP who is the President of Interthink Consulting and the author of Interthink's Project Management Process Model (PM2), a maturity model that has been used to assess over 550 companies worldwide.
I read one of his recent articles on Projects@Work where he said, “Project management depends on context, and needs to be defined and adapted to the needs of each organization and situation. People do what works. Processes that don't create or sustain value are not going to last very long.”
Very aptly said. Quite often we end up working on a single track and trying to improve it over a period of years. It might be worth experimenting with several tracks during this period. This could become a scientific means of process improvement.
There have been myriad discussions on various SDLC methodologies such as Waterfall or Agile, and Project Management methodologies such as PMBOK, Prince2, CPM or CCPM — all trying to find a means to guarantee project success. We should realize that these two frameworks (SDLC and Project Management) go hand in hand for a successful execution of a project. However, we haven’t given much thought on churning the true value out of them.
In my opinion, it definitely makes a case to use tools that gives the project manager an option to use a specific project management methodology in combination with a specific SDLC methodology. Institutionalize those methodologies as process templates and then let different projects be executed on different process templates. At the end of each project, verify and validate which combination worked well. This would give a quantitative answer to a problem that is often debated very subjectively.
Eduardo Miranda, a Program Director with Ericsson Research in Canada presented a similar thought in her paper “Combining Critical Chain Planning and Incremental Development in Software Projects”. I am putting this up here for the readers to get an insight into the scientific way of doing Project Management.
I read one of his recent articles on Projects@Work where he said, “Project management depends on context, and needs to be defined and adapted to the needs of each organization and situation. People do what works. Processes that don't create or sustain value are not going to last very long.”
Very aptly said. Quite often we end up working on a single track and trying to improve it over a period of years. It might be worth experimenting with several tracks during this period. This could become a scientific means of process improvement.
There have been myriad discussions on various SDLC methodologies such as Waterfall or Agile, and Project Management methodologies such as PMBOK, Prince2, CPM or CCPM — all trying to find a means to guarantee project success. We should realize that these two frameworks (SDLC and Project Management) go hand in hand for a successful execution of a project. However, we haven’t given much thought on churning the true value out of them.
In my opinion, it definitely makes a case to use tools that gives the project manager an option to use a specific project management methodology in combination with a specific SDLC methodology. Institutionalize those methodologies as process templates and then let different projects be executed on different process templates. At the end of each project, verify and validate which combination worked well. This would give a quantitative answer to a problem that is often debated very subjectively.
Eduardo Miranda, a Program Director with Ericsson Research in Canada presented a similar thought in her paper “Combining Critical Chain Planning and Incremental Development in Software Projects”. I am putting this up here for the readers to get an insight into the scientific way of doing Project Management.
Links to this post:
As the Product Marketing Manager @ Digité, I intend to use this web journal to share with you what I hear from Senior executives, Analysts and customers around the world about IT Governance. So, read on ...
Previous posts
0 Responses to “ Process Centric Development”
Post a Comment