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.
Saturday, February 28, 2004
Russell Archibald Letter on PMI Action On His Open Letter to the PMI Board
Russell Archibald Letter on PMI Action On His Open Letter to the PMI Board
Dear Ken and Greg, ( Kenneth Hartley Chair and Gregory Balestrero CEO PMI )
Congratulations to you and all the Board members on the terrific March issue of PMI Today. You have dealt fairly with the issues and given me (and I believe most of the members who are concerned with these issues) substantial hope that you will continue to face and work on those that have not been resolved to date. I for one appreciate the fact that you are taking these issues seriously.
I am sending copies of this message to the same people to whom I sent my open letter on December 24, so that all will be up to date, and I will separately forward the pdf version of the March issue to those who are not Board members, since I presume that all of you have already received that file. Thank you again, Ken, for sharing this file with me in advance.
There is one significant error in your response, Greg: Under Issue 7, Formation of New Chapters, you have confused what happened in Ukraine with what happened in Russia. These were two different incidents. In the Ukraine, a person was given responsibility for a potential chapter in Kiev, and that person refused to communicate with another person who wanted to take responsibility for a potential chapter in Odessa. As I understand it, the person who was given the responsibility for Kiev was (at least at that time) a resident of the United States. In Russia, another person was trying to form a new chapter in Kraznoyarsk, a city in souther Siberia, Russia, and because of faulty communications a letter terminating his efforts was issued by PMI headquarters. I mentioned both Ukraine and Russia in my letter, but spared you the details.
Confusing Ukraine with Russia is another indication to our members over there that the Americans don't know much about geography and politics!
In spite of that, I applaud you for giving the visibility that you have to these globalization issues. Thanks very much on behalf of all PMI members, and especially those residing outside the USA.
Cordially,
Russ
Russell Archibal
Email: russell_archibald@yahoo.com
Web Site: http://www.russarchibald.com
Editor's Note: the PMI Today publication referred to by Russell Archibald is the March Issue. This Issue is available for download from the PMI Web Site at http://www.pmi.org or failing that by contacting Russell Archibald for a copy.
Dear Ken and Greg, ( Kenneth Hartley Chair and Gregory Balestrero CEO PMI )
Congratulations to you and all the Board members on the terrific March issue of PMI Today. You have dealt fairly with the issues and given me (and I believe most of the members who are concerned with these issues) substantial hope that you will continue to face and work on those that have not been resolved to date. I for one appreciate the fact that you are taking these issues seriously.
I am sending copies of this message to the same people to whom I sent my open letter on December 24, so that all will be up to date, and I will separately forward the pdf version of the March issue to those who are not Board members, since I presume that all of you have already received that file. Thank you again, Ken, for sharing this file with me in advance.
There is one significant error in your response, Greg: Under Issue 7, Formation of New Chapters, you have confused what happened in Ukraine with what happened in Russia. These were two different incidents. In the Ukraine, a person was given responsibility for a potential chapter in Kiev, and that person refused to communicate with another person who wanted to take responsibility for a potential chapter in Odessa. As I understand it, the person who was given the responsibility for Kiev was (at least at that time) a resident of the United States. In Russia, another person was trying to form a new chapter in Kraznoyarsk, a city in souther Siberia, Russia, and because of faulty communications a letter terminating his efforts was issued by PMI headquarters. I mentioned both Ukraine and Russia in my letter, but spared you the details.
Confusing Ukraine with Russia is another indication to our members over there that the Americans don't know much about geography and politics!
In spite of that, I applaud you for giving the visibility that you have to these globalization issues. Thanks very much on behalf of all PMI members, and especially those residing outside the USA.
Cordially,
Russ
Russell Archibal
Email: russell_archibald@yahoo.com
Web Site: http://www.russarchibald.com
Editor's Note: the PMI Today publication referred to by Russell Archibald is the March Issue. This Issue is available for download from the PMI Web Site at http://www.pmi.org or failing that by contacting Russell Archibald for a copy.
Tuesday, February 17, 2004
Hal Macomber Blog on Russell Archibald's Paper Part 1 The State of the Art of Project Management
The Hal Macomber Blog Comments on the Russell Archibald Paper Part 1 - The State of the Art of Project Management
David,
Thanks for the prompting. (see following letter from David Curling on Hal Macomber Comments)
)My intentions for my weblog go far beyond being a "record of personal observations." I cultivate discussions and sometimes arguments among a group of people who are generally dissatisfied with the results we're getting from project management. Russell Archibald's State of the Art of PM was a usual example. See the Jan 16th posting http://weblog.halmacomber.com/2004_01_11_archive.html#107426215848616853 and the 15 reader comments.
But it didn't stop there. I did a second and third read of the article and made my posting on Jan 27th, http://weblog.halmacomber.com/2004_01_25_archive.html#107526432025348909. That posting resulted in another 13 reader comments and a flurry of emails, some demanding that I explain myself while others encouraged me to charge the windmills.
I have yet to offer a critical review of the article. I probably won't. I will continue to operate at the fringe of this profession bringing to the center opinions and ideas of others as often as I can. I am pleased that you continue to follow my exploration. And I hope you join with me in bringing about a reform.
Russell, I just finished my first read of the second installment of your work. As usual I will bring it to the attention of my readers. While I can see what you are doing with the series acting as a reporter of the current state, I personally am much more interested in your assessment of the current situation.
Best wishes,
Hal
http://weblog.halmacomber.com
David Curling
Hal
In the interests of collegial discussion please send your Web Log observations on the Russell Archibald "State of the Art in PM" paper to Russell so that he is aware on your thoughts on the matter. This would advise him on the nature of your comments on his publication and the opportunity to reply to your public domain comments.
While I know that a web log is a record of personal observations I believe that when you comment in your public domain log, on a professional PM paper, you should "courtesy copy" the Author.
Keep in touch and the PMFORUM up to date on what is happening in your world of project management.
David
"Connecting the World of Project Management"
David Curling Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
PMFORUM Webmaster
http://www.pmforum.org
Wednesday, February 11, 2004
Top 10 Ways Software Projects are Different - James Conlow Comments
Top 10 Ways Software Projects are Different - James Conlow Comments
To the Editor, PMFORUM, I enjoyed "The Top 10 Ways Software Projects are Different" By James Bullock - Max Wideman Responds".
I have been a highly successful PM, COO, and EVP in construction for 25 years. 3 years ago I started my own company, Cortexion, Inc. We provide the CORTEXION� system which provides a financial management service for capital intensive projects, primarily construction. www.cortexion.com
Concerning the "Ways Software Projects are Different" I've discovered several differences. I agree that the PM process may be the same for all projects - but I have found the primary difference is the human perception problem. The feedback process needed for control is a different process for construction and software. In construction, I can see and touch the product as it is being completed. A weld can be inspected during the welding process.
With software coding it's a whole new ballgame in terms of perception of completion on a task by task basis. To be as accurate with testing of software during the project process as you can be with construction components will multiply costs and extend the schedule by a large degree. So the project management process is the same if you want to pay a fortune for perceptual tools and the management of them. But then I have these genius programmers that make mistakes and fix them before the lens of the tool could ever be focused. The operators of the testing tools would be wasting 98% of their time (at a high cost).
Then you take all the software objects and put them together and real testing begins. We subject the software to the equivalent of a 911 terrorist attack combined with a huge earthquake combined with total panic of the users and throw in total shutdown of the power grid for good measure.
In construction we test and inspect on a task by task basis to protect lives when a later disaster occurs. We can't destructively test the whole assembly.
In software we simulate the disaster at various times during the process to discover "bugs" that might harm customer relationships or cause a loss of data. Then we go fix the bugs and test again. Then we discover that a discount is being rounded off in an obscure data table that is only accessed in an extremely limited special case that changes the data in strange ways that one will not see for several months in real time. This is why we speed up time during testing. (Try that on a building).
As a project manager this has been a big adjustment for me. We are trying to break and destroy my system on a daily basis. Fun and frustrating. But we are hardening the steel.
A good book on the subject is: "The Mythical Man-Month: Essays on Software Engineering" by Frederick P. Brooks. So, another difference is cultural. Practitioners of construction and practitioners of software development live in totally different worlds. "The Mythical Man-Month: Essays on Software Engineering" describes some aspects of the software developer culture. The cultural differences make a difference in effectively managing these two kinds of projects.
A large aspect of my approach is that I am a Cyberneticist in the Gregory Bateson tradition. My commentary is based on the "applied epistemology" aspect of cybernetics. The feedback portion of the management/control process is different for construction than for software. And I believe it is a difference that makes a difference.
James Conlow
Cortexion, Inc.
Email: jconlow.@cortexion.com
Web : www.cortexion.com510-506-6164 direct
510-601-0800 office
To the Editor, PMFORUM, I enjoyed "The Top 10 Ways Software Projects are Different" By James Bullock - Max Wideman Responds".
I have been a highly successful PM, COO, and EVP in construction for 25 years. 3 years ago I started my own company, Cortexion, Inc. We provide the CORTEXION� system which provides a financial management service for capital intensive projects, primarily construction. www.cortexion.com
Concerning the "Ways Software Projects are Different" I've discovered several differences. I agree that the PM process may be the same for all projects - but I have found the primary difference is the human perception problem. The feedback process needed for control is a different process for construction and software. In construction, I can see and touch the product as it is being completed. A weld can be inspected during the welding process.
With software coding it's a whole new ballgame in terms of perception of completion on a task by task basis. To be as accurate with testing of software during the project process as you can be with construction components will multiply costs and extend the schedule by a large degree. So the project management process is the same if you want to pay a fortune for perceptual tools and the management of them. But then I have these genius programmers that make mistakes and fix them before the lens of the tool could ever be focused. The operators of the testing tools would be wasting 98% of their time (at a high cost).
Then you take all the software objects and put them together and real testing begins. We subject the software to the equivalent of a 911 terrorist attack combined with a huge earthquake combined with total panic of the users and throw in total shutdown of the power grid for good measure.
In construction we test and inspect on a task by task basis to protect lives when a later disaster occurs. We can't destructively test the whole assembly.
In software we simulate the disaster at various times during the process to discover "bugs" that might harm customer relationships or cause a loss of data. Then we go fix the bugs and test again. Then we discover that a discount is being rounded off in an obscure data table that is only accessed in an extremely limited special case that changes the data in strange ways that one will not see for several months in real time. This is why we speed up time during testing. (Try that on a building).
As a project manager this has been a big adjustment for me. We are trying to break and destroy my system on a daily basis. Fun and frustrating. But we are hardening the steel.
A good book on the subject is: "The Mythical Man-Month: Essays on Software Engineering" by Frederick P. Brooks. So, another difference is cultural. Practitioners of construction and practitioners of software development live in totally different worlds. "The Mythical Man-Month: Essays on Software Engineering" describes some aspects of the software developer culture. The cultural differences make a difference in effectively managing these two kinds of projects.
A large aspect of my approach is that I am a Cyberneticist in the Gregory Bateson tradition. My commentary is based on the "applied epistemology" aspect of cybernetics. The feedback portion of the management/control process is different for construction than for software. And I believe it is a difference that makes a difference.
James Conlow
Cortexion, Inc.
Email: jconlow.@cortexion.com
Web : www.cortexion.com510-506-6164 direct
510-601-0800 office
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
