Archive for November, 2010

New project management articles published on the web during the week of November 22 – 28, 2010.  We read all of this stuff so you don’t have to!  Recommended:

  • Paul Deuth writes about the limited focus of Six Sigma, and suggests that maybe it’s not meant to last.
  • Cornelius Fichtner continues with Part Six of his series on how to prepare for the PMP exam.  This week, he writes about using practice tests.
  • Dave Neilsen offers an approach for project managers to deal with performance problems, in the form of consistently missed deadlines.
  • George F. Brown suggests five questions for the IT department to answer before a project kicks off.
  • Elizabeth Harrin follows up her Computer Weekly IT Project Management Blog of the Year win last week with two interesting posts, including a video interview of Peter Milsom on why he followed up his PMP credential with a PRINCE2 credential, and her notes from Keith Richards’ address on the eight dangers of implementing Agile, delivered at the APM conference.
  • Kiron Bondale presents his “elevator pitch” on the benefits of project management.
  • Glen Alleman offers some guidance on risk management, as well as links to some authoritative references.
  • Bruce McGraw shares his suggestions for planning and conducting an off-site project planning meeting.
  • Keith Mathis has a few suggested negotiation strategies for project managers.
  • Rebecca Porterfield tells of her company’s experience with “Wagile,” a transitional mix of Waterfall and Agile methodologies.
  • And Bob Lewis describes his alternative to “Wagile,” which he calls “Rapids Development,” as in a series of small waterfalls you might encounter while white-water rafting.  Not to be confused with Rapid Application Development …
  • George Huhn dismisses non-standardized, subjective ratings (excellent, good, fair, poor) as metrics for portfolio and project decision making.

Enjoy!

Two weeks ago, I wrote about using a mind map to define project scope at a high level.  Last week, I wrote about using Post-It Notes and a white board to develop a detailed scope statement based on the deliverables to be produced.  This week, I’m going to describe scope maintenance via the change control process, from the perspective of a Change Request.  Note that fifteen of the forty-two processes documented in the PMBOK may produce Change Requests, so it’s probably a good idea to have a clear vision of a change request life cycle in mind when you develop and administer your integrated change control process.

According to the PMBOK, any stakeholder can initiate a Change Request.  However, some organizations require a Change Request to be sponsored by someone with some level of decision-making authority, in order to avoid inundating the project team with requests that haven’t been vetted for business value.  In either case, each Change Request should be documented, and an entry made in the Change Log upon receipt.  A good Change Log is an important tool in configuration management – it helps keep track of what changes were requested, what decisions were made with respect to the request, and who approved the decision.  Many organizations will have different handling processes and reviewing authorities for different kinds of requests, or those with variously sized cost, schedule, quality, or risk effects, so part of Change Request intake should include recording the classification of the request, in order to facilitate processing.

Once a Change Request has been received and recorded in the Change Log, a reviewing authority should consider the request as soon as possible.  Not all requests are feasible, and some may be out of scope.  Others may negatively impact information security, regulatory compliance, or raise other concerns.  In such cases, the reviewing authority might either disapprove the request without further action, or return it to the requester or sponsor for additional information and justification.  Those requests that are deemed feasible and in scope should be “linked” to one or more deliverables, and analyzed for their impact to business benefit, cost, schedule, risk, and quality.  Note that the PMBOK refers to “expert judgment” for this analysis; in practice, that probably means the same person who provided the original estimates for that deliverable, or the team members responsible for producing it.  The affected deliverables and the estimated impact should be documented, either as an update or an attachment to the Change Request.  Some organizations also record “bottom line” estimate values in their Change Log, to facilitate analysis during a “lessons learned” review.

At this point, the request should be routed to a deciding authority, based on the classification of the request and your organization’s standard procedures.  Many organizations delegate some level of authority to the project manager, but require requests with potentially higher impact to be considered by a Change Review Board.  It is important to act on Change Requests quickly, in order to avoid unnecessary costs or delays in implementation.  Decisions should be recorded in the Change Log, and the requester or sponsor notified of the decision.  If a Change Request is approved, needed updates to requirements, project plans, contracts, and other project documents should be communicated to the team as quickly as possible.  Reasons for rejecting a Change Request should also be documented, both to close the loop with the requester and to facilitate reviews and handling of future requests.

Whatever change control procedures you use on your project, ensure that a change control process document is available to those stakeholders who might want to initiate a Change Request.  A good process flow chart, with clear criteria for classifying and reviewing requests, can minimize the number of questions and possible disputes.  And since the Change Request is a primary communication medium between the stakeholders and the project team, it just makes sense to describe those procedures from that perspective.

New project management articles published on the web during the week of November 15 – 21, 2010.  We read all of this stuff so you don’t have to!  Recommended:

  • Michael Young writes about effective sponsors, and the relationship between project manager and project sponsor.
  • Jim Vaughan asks, do you manage your projects by data, or by information?
  • Samad Aidane interviews Bipin Shah, CEO of Kovair Software, about their experience integrating several tools to provide a software development and IT life cycle management environment for a top global IT services firm, based in India.  A project to develop a global project management suite!  About 35 minutes.
  • Petrus Keyter offers ten steps to a high quality project communications plan.
  • More project managers are using SharePoint to support team collaboration, but Shane O’Neill says the users don’t get it: you don’t have to Email files back and forth any more.
  • Organizational / industrial sociologist Dr. Martin Hahn explains the cultural context of organizations.  A must-read for anyone working with a diverse team.
  • Paul Krill reports that CollabNet is now offering a hosted version of their ScrumWorks Pro software for agile software development projects.
  • Bill Krebs lists some interesting new tools that simulate a visual environment for teams that aren’t co-located.  The most interesting to me was Team Space, which allows you to create a virtual office suite and conference rooms.
  • Ben Snyder argues that your biggest risk is poor project management, and offers a five-part prescription for dealing with it.
  • Glen Alleman asks, what does done look like for being a credible project manager?
  • Dick Billows describes three broad models for the project management office, and when each might be the best approach for an organization.

Enjoy!