Many years ago I worked with an Information Engineering guru who specialised, amongst other things, in the delivery of high quality data models. Those familiar with the art of data modelling will recall that they can become quite large and complex, and as the technology evolved, software solutions, called CASE tools (where CASE stands for Computer Aided Software Engineering) were progressively used to ease the pain of recording and maintaining these models. As often happens, the introduction of these software solutions made it easier for Information Engineering practitioners to claim analytical capabilities they did not really poses, until one day my guru friend made the following profound comment: A fool with a tool is still a fool. What my friend was trying so successfully to articulate was that just being able to operate a piece of software does not turn you into a subject matter expert. To be able to use the software effectively and efficiently require experience and this experience does not come packaged in the box.
Why am I mentioning this?
Over the past few years, commencing probably with Chris Lynch’s article from September 2007, there have been constant discussions regarding the merits and content of this new wave methodology. Driven further by consultants eager to exploit any new buzz word that comes their way, this now seems to have grown into a reality that, in my mind, should never have existed, as I will detail below.
November 2, 2009 at 11:06 pm |
Just a reminder. The first picture is prohibited on all US Department of Energy and US Department of Defense programs in which full Earned Value, formal requirements management, formal risk management, and measures of physical percent complete are used.
It’s prohibited because those same programs require IPTs. These are Integrated Product, Program, or Project Teams. The success of the program critically depends on the collaboration of all the participants.
The PM 2.0 and Web 2.0 paradigm have failed to understand the critical nature of project success in PM 1.0. Collaboration. The PM 2.0 “may” provide new tools for supporting this collaboration. The collaboration processes are mandated for success long before any the PM 2.0 tools providers were out of diapers.
November 2, 2009 at 1:37 pm |
PM 2.0 and Web 2.0 based tools don’t make project workers more competent, but it can make competent project workers more efficient and more collaborative while augmenting visibility. Actually I totally agree that PM 2.0 should not change the way people manage projects, but rather should allow everyone to participate in the PM process, simply by putting it inside the existing collaborative space.
The simplest use case for a PM 2.0 tool is one that allows centralization of the project schedule MPP, MPX or MSXML compatible formats and provides team members an intuitive Web 2.0 user experience to report on their task progress (preferably no more than one click). The PM 2.0 tool consolidates the project actuals into the schedule in real-time allowing project managers to save valuable time. Does this augment the team’s agility? Perhaps not. But this certainly increases efficiencies in keeping the schedule on track. Some PM 2.0 tools offer smart execution speed-based alerts which makes it even easier for project managers to anticipate delays before they even occur.
I think PM 2.0 is all about facilitating participation in the PM process, not necessarily changing it. I laugh when I see dozens of PM 2.0 solutions selling themselves as the way to get projects done. There is only one way to get projects done and it is to have a competent project team. And you give them tools that make their lives easier, saving them time to focus on their tasks, all the better.
November 2, 2009 at 6:20 pm |
Look mate, you’re 100% right and your closing paragraph sums it all. There is a right way to managing project, and there are many wrong ways to run projects. If you run your project ‘wrongly’ no tool in the world is going to save you. If you run it ‘correctly’ AND you use collaboration tools to enhance team performance, then that would better your chances at achieving your objectives.
Thanks for your comments.
p.s. this blog is being ported to a new self hosted server. Please free to join me at http://www.quantmleap.com/blog/.
September 27, 2009 at 11:17 am |
[...] see: A fool with a tool is still a fool, and you need the right tools for the right job. Amateurs try to do jobs with inappropriate tools. [...]
September 26, 2009 at 12:31 am |
Matthew,
Andrew mixed project management, business management, and software development all in one post.
Aside from the unsubstaniated claims in the graphic, it’s not clear what Andrew was trying to say about PM 2.0 other than forms using the bottom-up approach are somehow better off.
But he failed to state that all those firms using bottom-up operate within a business and proejct governanace model that is top-down. By skipping over that “little detail,” the suggestion is PM 2.0 is the “next big thing” in management theory – implemented by his tool of course.
PM 2.0 has many issues, not the least of which it is not connected to the core principles of project management. At least not in Andrew’s mind.
In the end I see Andrew’s approach as a common one – confusing software development methods using agile with project management methods using “some” agile.
In the absence of a framework for governing projects and the business processes they enable, the bottom up approach – while apealing – has limited traction in a real corporation.
September 26, 2009 at 9:26 am |
Glen, not sure why, but there seems to be some sensitivity amongst Agile proponents for anything that might sound as criticizing the Agile concept. What we are saying here, however, has got nothing to do with Agile and is rather a statement of concern regarding a possible confusion between the what project management is, compared with tool and techniques that project managers might use as part of their job. Agile is a great methodology, and using it in the right environment and under the correct circumstances can bring in the expected benefits.
September 26, 2009 at 11:36 am
My opinion some new to the agile message are on the “early adopter” part of the Moore curve. As such any criticism or assessment is seen as a challenge. Those agileist who have moved further to the right (Jefferies and Sutherland) have also moved beyond the gut reaction to criticism response and into the “let me tell you how you can improve your lot in life.”
Folks like Andrew still use extremist words – “no moral motivation,” and “our product is the nest in the world” type phrases. This was the approach in the early days of XP. I used to travel in those circles, speaking at XP and Agile conferences. I took another path for my work, but I remember completely over the top claims of how XP would save the world and put organized IT departments out of business – uh probably not.
But there remains a deep confusion about writing software for someone elses money inside a corporation that is subject to governance – both corporate and IT. And essentially writing software for your own project.
Add to that the confusion between software development and project management processes. Then add the misunderstanding about how corporation actually work. Independent of all claims that IBM has adopted agile and is a bottom up shop. I can assure you that this is not true in the way Andrew wants us to believe. I say this from direct hands on talk with my next door neighbor, the neighbors (3) up the street and former neighbors who have been transferred (IBM means I’ve Been Moved). All work for or manage large chuncks of IBM Global Services here in Boulder, Colorado.
Agile processes are certainly used as a software development process – IF you consider RUP agile. Bottom Up management has ALWAYS been a large corporation engineering development process for the simple reason there are too many people – they have to have small groups bottom up management.
But the customers of IBM GS are billion dollar firms, mega-cities, and the federal government. Strong Top Down, hierarchical, command and control management still resides at the top for governance, business development, and large scale decision making.
It would be complete nonsense to have a firm the size of IBM GS “managed” bottom up in the way Adrew wants us to accept. It just ain’t so, and he’s welcome to come to Boulder and meet the managers and take a tour to see how they run their many multi-million dollar business units.
September 25, 2009 at 10:39 pm |
Shim,
I have to disagree with you. Although you do have some valuable points in your post, I think you missed one important thought: agile software development is taken as an example of a bottom-up management approach. We all know that project management is not only about software development. There are lots of other industries that run projects that have to be managed. I’ve read Andrew’s posts and also checked out his slideshare presentation and I got the idea that when he says “agile” he means “agile organization” and “enterprise agility” and not agile software development. There’s a huge difference here.
September 26, 2009 at 9:20 am |
Thanks Matthew.
I’ve gone back to Andrew’s to double check my understanding of his stated points. Andrew is quite explicit in his view that “The idea of constant interaction and collaboration between managers, team members and stakeholders is not new, however. Here I want to write a few words about the origins of this idea, which later became the background for Project Management 2.0.” He then, in the very next paragraph, goes on to say that “The idea of constant dialogue in project management surfaced in 2001 as one of the principles of so-called agile software development and is described in the Agile Manifesto. According to evangelists of agile methods, cooperation is crucial for the success of a project.” This is clearly saying that the underlying foundation of the PM 2.0 concept has already been conceived as part of the Agile Manifeso.
Cheers, Shim
September 25, 2009 at 12:43 pm |
What a wonderful post. I never could have said this myself.
Here’s my added thoughts…
http://herdingcats.typepad.com/my_weblog/2009/09/no-fool-with-a-tool-is-still-a-fool.html
Thanks for the great words
September 25, 2009 at 4:08 pm |
Cheers mate, thanks.