Demian Entrekin has posted an article titled “What is the IQ of your Project Team” where he proposes a set of variables that could be used to measure the team’s performance over time. The variables he suggests used are Skills, Ability to Learn, Experience, Speed, Communication, Unity, Curiosity and Openess.
One of my biggest issues with the ‘Project Management 2.0′ concept is that it is conceptualized around other ‘2.0′ concepts like ‘Web 2.0′ and ‘Enterprise 2.0′; both of which are terms that emphasis and denote a technological dimension relating to human interactions. In that context, and following the same logic, PM 2.0 is meant to be denote the application of ‘2.0′ technologies to enhance project management capabilities.
If we were not convinced already, a study conducted by researchers from the Stanford University (see here) concluded that people who engage in a number of simultaneous activities are not able to achieve the same level of effective attention or control as the ones who complete their tasks, one task at a time. The research showed that one of the reasons multitaskers achieve lower productivity is because they tend to waste productive energy on unproductive, unimportant or irrelevant information.
In “Projects failure rate – the conventional wisdom is wrong!” I’ve made the argument that despite the popular belief fueled by research studies, the real projects’ failure rate is not as concerning as some might want you to believe.
I wouldn’t have returned to this topic if not due to an article published by Neil Ryder where, yet again, he refers to the ‘fact’ that “over 80% of all projects will fail to deliver the desired functional outcome”.
Over the past few months I’ve come across a number of interesting, yet conflicting, views regarding the benefits associated with allowing the use of Social Media tools in the workplace.
Share this Post
Freakonomics has published an article about the psychologist Barry Schwartz’s book The Paradox of Choice. The book makes the argument that (apart from economists) most people would find too much choice a bad thing and would rather having less choice than more.
Gill Corkindale has published an interesting article dealing with the concept of ‘In leaders’ and ‘out leaders’. The definition of ‘in’ and ‘out’ is based on the amount of time that a leader spends with his/her team (in which case that would be ‘in’ leadership) and how much is spent with the wider organization (’out’ leadership).
