New PM Articles for the Week of June 3 – 9

New PM articles published on the web during the week of June 3 – 9.  Dave and Sandra read all of this stuff so you don’t have to!  Recommended:

  • John Ager looks at the human capital management of projects: planning staffing to get the work done on schedule.
  • Elizabeth Harrin gets some advice from coach Janice Haddon on returning to work after maternity leave.  Or any other extended absence.
  • Dave West wants to apply the principles described in “The Lean Startup” with application life cycle management.
  • Don Kim calls our attention to an article on the Scrum Alliance site that advocates Kanban as a better alternative, under certain circumstances.
  • Carmen Nobel reports on a research project at Harvard Business School that looked at the effects of rituals.  Like, the Scrum daily stand-up?
  • Bertrand Duperrin reviews Paul Miller’s book, “The Digital Workplace: How Technology is Liberating Work.”
  • Mary Shacklett lists ten highly valued “soft” skills for IT professionals.  Time for a self-assessment!
  • Michael Wood reports on what’s changed in the new COBIT 5 IT governance framework.
  • Roz Baker focuses in on the five most important artifacts for managing a project.
  • Chuck Morton begins a series on the process of (project, not organizational) change management.
  • J. LeRoy Ward extols the virtues and value of the business analyst.
  • Tristan Wember explains how to manage project issues.
  • Brad Egeland looks at the process needed to deal with the “problem” team member.
  • Patrick Richard keeps seeing the same recruitment ads, and wonders how many projects are being delayed, waiting for the perfect candidate?
  • Daniel Burrus warns us that we should never let our business become a commodity.  Good career advice, too!
  • Bob Lewis presents a slide show listing tips for sure fire IT project success, adapted from his book, “Bare Bones Project Management.”
  • Glen Alleman explains his dislike of the “triple constraint” notion of project management.
  • Ian Webster takes on the notion of “percent complete.”  And broken clocks.
  • Dave Gordon uses a long-ago blizzard to explain the difference between conditions and risks.  Thanks for letting me share a guest post, Tristan!
  • Bob Tarne reports from the PMI Leadership Meeting for the communities, where the Agile Community held a retrospective.  Of course!
  • Joel Bancroft-Connors and Hogarth celebrate one hundred imaginary conversations.
  • Shim Marom has found a possible replacement for the soon-to-be-departed Google Reader.  It’s called “The Old Reader.”
  • Kerry Wills anticipated that you would ask that question, and he has an answer ready.  So, Kerry, why is abbreviation such a long word?

Remember: Beginning on July 31, 2013, the PMP exam will be based on the Fifth Edition of the PMBOK.  Schedule accordingly, and don’t wait until the last minute!

Enjoy!

Thus I Refute #NoEstimates

In a recent blog post, Woody Zuill – fellow blogger, fellow middle-aged software guy, and fellow banjo picker – gave his personal definition of the #NoEstimates Twitter hash tag that has been the venue for a lot of online discussion lately.

#NoEstimates is a hashtag for the topic of exploring alternatives to estimates for making decisions in software development.  That is, ways to make decisions with “No Estimates”.

Woody and several others in the Twitterverse and Blogosphere have been advocating for making decisions (more accurately, applying constraints) that don’t require estimates, in order to eliminate the need to make other decisions that would require estimates.  Neil Killick recently posted an explanation of how to do Scrum without estimates, including this example:

Instead of depending on an accurate estimate for predictability we can take away the unknowns of cost and delivery date by making them… well, known. The Product Owner can fix the delivery date based on a concrete budgetary and/or time constraint (e.g. 3 days before the Australian Open starts for the Australian Open app is a concrete time constraint, and “we have to build something for $30,000″ is a concrete budgetary constraint).

Implicit in the example is that once time and schedule are fixed, only the scope is flexible.  While this would certainly make things easier for the software developers, it adds complexity for everyone else.  To explore Neil’s example, let’s assume that the Australian Open app is a public-facing, self-service web site where the general public can buy tickets, see the daily results, read and comment on the news coverage of the event, and possibly follow links to the personal web sites of the players.  But what else is involved in serving the public audience interested in the Open?  I ask because, in the real world, not all members of the public are going to use that web site.

Presumably, the Open will have a call center to handle inquiries and purchases from those who don’t find or can’t access the web site.  They may also have an interactive voice response (IVR) system to support certain kinds of queries and possibly even ticket purchases.  So the Decision Makers will want to make the Australian Open app fit into this operational framework, providing capabilities and services for the public that supplement or complement each other.  To do this, they need to have a firm list of capabilities (or scope) defined for each of the three projects – Call Center, IVR system, and web app.  That way, the can staff the Call Center appropriately, work with the marketers to provide instructions to people in directing them to the IVR or app, and otherwise direct user traffic.  But if the Call Center folks and IVR configuration team don’t know until three days before the Open starts what functionality the web app will have, that doesn’t leave them much time to react, do they?

Of course, it might be wise for the Decision Makers to conduct a “buy or build” analysis, since large events are quite common and have spawned a number of service offerings, including Software as a Service.  But in order to conduct that analysis, they would need a firm feature / capabilities list and cost estimate for the internal development effort, to compare it with the vendor offerings.  And if all the internal developers can commit to is cost and schedule, it makes comparisons impossible.

A group of frogs who live at the bottom of a well are enjoying their nightly chorus of croaking, when one of them announces that he is studying astronomy.  When he gets a quizzical look from one of his comrades, he explains that it is the study of the sky.  “You know: that little round thing at the top of the well.”

Complexity will persist in the face of all attempts to reduce it through simplifying assumptions.  Few modern business problems are simple enough to reduce to a small number of decisions, which then drive all other activity.  Apples falling out of trees are fine for explaining gravity to school children, but celestial mechanics has to contemplate multiple bodies.  Similarly, modern business problems are not simply about software.  And that is why we should devote our energies to improving the quality of our software development estimating methodologies, rather than advocating adoption of simplifying assumptions that don’t reflect a holistic view of the operating environment.

New PM Articles for the Week of April 29 – May 5

New project management articles published on the web during the week of April 29 – May 5.  Dave and Sandra read all of this stuff so you don’t have to!  Recommended:

  • Avinoam Nowogrodski sees us entering a new era in project management – social, personalized, and empowering – reflecting the future of work.
  • Speaking of the future of work, Chess Media is conducting a survey on how social media, BYOB, and flexible work arrangements are being adopted, today.
  • Elizabeth Harrin summarizes Pernille Eskerod and Anna Lund Jepsen’s book, Project Stakeholder Management.
  • Andy Jordan notes that one of the most surprising failures of governance seems to happen in the project management office.
  • Jeff Furman poses an ethics case study, from real life.
  • Paul Culmsee demonstrates dialog mapping, using Compendium, and introduces the concept of powerful questions.  Fifteen minutes, safe for work.
  • Ted Hardy says that if your stakeholders won’t give you an answer, offer a really bad suggestion.  Like lunch at McDonald’s.
  • Donna Reed shares a recorded presentation by Vicky Haney, “Emotional Intelligence for Project Managers and Business Analysts.”  One hour, safe for work.
  • Roz Baker explains the difference between a project management framework and a software development life cycle model.  And potatoes and tomatoes.
  • Chuck Morton continues his series on project change management, with the observation that change cuts across all PMBOK knowledge areas.
  • Glen Alleman offers “hard” definitions and principles of risk management, his favorite risk management process diagram, and sources of failure.
  • Patrick Richard shares his comments on a post by Glen Alleman on cost and schedule estimating, with an observation about story points.
  • Samad Aidane warns that a project manager should never, EVER agree to be the project sponsor and project manager at the same time.
  • Abid Mustafa shares his perspective as an IT executive on the best way to utilize an executive as a project sponsor.
  • Lou Adler, recruiter extraordinaire, says there are only four jobs – thinkers, builders, improvers, and producers.
  • Penelope Trunk offers her take on why Jason Collins should be a positive career example for everyone.
  • Will Kelly explains how MS Project 2013 integrates with the SaaS solution called Mavelink to form a comprehensive project team solution.
  • Jerry Manas extracts the key takeaways from the recent “Resource Management and Capacity Planning Benchmark Study.”

Enjoy!