PM World Today Letters To The Editor
Letters to the Editor are comments on the Editorials, Viewpoints column or other project management notices that appear in issues of the Project Management World Today.
Thursday, October 17, 2002
David Curling comments on the October 02 Editorial " On Requirements Definition"
I do not think that the systems engineering approach has much to learn from the last 10 years of IT project management. I am struck by the thought that most of the current technology and advances came out of the systems engineering approach with much thanks to the maligned defence systems/equipment and EPC project management processes. In my current reading I am struck by the fact that there is much hyperhole but that what is proferred is much needed metrics and structure for software progress measurement rather than project management processes.
The record of the IT Industry over the past 10 years has done little for me to believe in any of the custom software development processes that offer much except a stomping ground for out of control programmers and IT systems people. I do understand that the software business is different. But not that different that we would want to discard a solid systems engineering project management process for a open systems process that has no ending which results in the establishment of a black money hole.
I am not impressed with the hype and hyperbole that has come from those who would malign the past as not appropriate for the future of project management without any real understanding of that past.. In this regard I would be kept busy correcting the technical papers that I receive that have done little or no real research into the project management processes that brought us an advanced technology, infrastructure and information systems that exists today.
I personally saw how effective systems engineering management was in various capacities in the Canadian Major Crown Projects and major international projects. This included the development of sophisticated computer and software systems that had to be reliable and at the same time affordable.
I have been put in this contrarian mood after reading a couple of books on the project/program management past. "Rescuing Prometheus" by Thomas P. Hughes - a story of the mammoth projects SAGE, ICBM, ARPNET/Internet that created new styles of management ( read project management ) , new forms of organization and a new vision of technology and "Systems, Experts, and Computers" - the systems approach to management and engineering, World War II and after.
Finally, I think that rather than adopt any new processes for IT project management that we should return to use of PM basics. For more on this one can read the April 22 Computerworld article by Julia King where she declares that the IT Project Management is "returning to sanity". Julia tackles the world of IT Project Management with a series of case briefs that support traditional reasons for project success.
Regards
David Curling
Email: curlingd@loday.com Web Site: http://www.pmforum.org/
I do not think that the systems engineering approach has much to learn from the last 10 years of IT project management. I am struck by the thought that most of the current technology and advances came out of the systems engineering approach with much thanks to the maligned defence systems/equipment and EPC project management processes. In my current reading I am struck by the fact that there is much hyperhole but that what is proferred is much needed metrics and structure for software progress measurement rather than project management processes.
The record of the IT Industry over the past 10 years has done little for me to believe in any of the custom software development processes that offer much except a stomping ground for out of control programmers and IT systems people. I do understand that the software business is different. But not that different that we would want to discard a solid systems engineering project management process for a open systems process that has no ending which results in the establishment of a black money hole.
I am not impressed with the hype and hyperbole that has come from those who would malign the past as not appropriate for the future of project management without any real understanding of that past.. In this regard I would be kept busy correcting the technical papers that I receive that have done little or no real research into the project management processes that brought us an advanced technology, infrastructure and information systems that exists today.
I personally saw how effective systems engineering management was in various capacities in the Canadian Major Crown Projects and major international projects. This included the development of sophisticated computer and software systems that had to be reliable and at the same time affordable.
I have been put in this contrarian mood after reading a couple of books on the project/program management past. "Rescuing Prometheus" by Thomas P. Hughes - a story of the mammoth projects SAGE, ICBM, ARPNET/Internet that created new styles of management ( read project management ) , new forms of organization and a new vision of technology and "Systems, Experts, and Computers" - the systems approach to management and engineering, World War II and after.
Finally, I think that rather than adopt any new processes for IT project management that we should return to use of PM basics. For more on this one can read the April 22 Computerworld article by Julia King where she declares that the IT Project Management is "returning to sanity". Julia tackles the world of IT Project Management with a series of case briefs that support traditional reasons for project success.
Regards
David Curling
Email: curlingd@loday.com Web Site: http://www.pmforum.org/
Ken Bunzel comments on the PMFORUM Highlights September 2002
Sent: Friday, September 13, 2002 11:06 AM
Subject: Re: PMFORUM Highlights September 2002
Any experienced Project Manager knows that there is no one-way that is right for all occasions in Project Management, EVER.
A "Steering Counsel" of experienced PMP's should select the most effective alternative, i.e. recommended alternative based of their experience (assuming no Historic Information is available), but the other ideas should be published as "Other Alternatives"; they are like extra ammunition once the war of getting major projects done in the face of the
"dynamic" expressed by the responder gets underway.
Only real life Pilots and Projects can identify/prove the most effective alternatives... and even then they are only a guide as the "dynamic" continues. The final answer is historic project information administered by a Corp PMO, it's the key to increasing the probability of success in project management. Let's remember by definition a project is a temporariy event in the life of a corporation so don't look for permanent answers; look to be agile and adaptable to whatever situation presents it's self and be armed with alternatives, ideas and flexible thinking.
Ken Bunzel, PMP
ken_bunzel@compaid.com
Sent: Friday, September 13, 2002 11:06 AM
Subject: Re: PMFORUM Highlights September 2002
Any experienced Project Manager knows that there is no one-way that is right for all occasions in Project Management, EVER.
A "Steering Counsel" of experienced PMP's should select the most effective alternative, i.e. recommended alternative based of their experience (assuming no Historic Information is available), but the other ideas should be published as "Other Alternatives"; they are like extra ammunition once the war of getting major projects done in the face of the
"dynamic" expressed by the responder gets underway.
Only real life Pilots and Projects can identify/prove the most effective alternatives... and even then they are only a guide as the "dynamic" continues. The final answer is historic project information administered by a Corp PMO, it's the key to increasing the probability of success in project management. Let's remember by definition a project is a temporariy event in the life of a corporation so don't look for permanent answers; look to be agile and adaptable to whatever situation presents it's self and be armed with alternatives, ideas and flexible thinking.
Ken Bunzel, PMP
ken_bunzel@compaid.com
Archives: September 2002 October 2002 December 2002 January 2003 February 2003 March 2003 April 2003 May 2003 June 2003 September 2003 October 2003 November 2003 December 2003 January 2004 February 2004 April 2004 July 2004 September 2004 January 2005 July 2005 August 2005 February 2006 March 2006
