Project management methodologies: a second life?
Submitted by Hans van Nes on Thu, 14/10/2010 - 09:09
People who have worked with me know that I believe in the value of methodologies but at the same time never stop explaining that a wrong used methodology in the hands of mediocre people will lead to a disaster (but certainly a good documented one...). Since most IT-projects still fail, the “project experts” now found their own new explanation: there is no ideal method....
In earlier blogs I commented on the sometimes ridicule demand for experience in Prince 2, Ipma, Six Sigma, etc., in vacancies and job profiles. First because having 25 certificates will not guarantee at all that you are a good project manager, just that you know all forms and procedures. Secondly because a “natural” project manager will perform regardless of which methodology.
An expert board of people working in the Dutch project management arena, most of them having earned money by promoting the use of methodologies in the past, now have concluded that there is no ideal method, only ideal ingredients. But just below the surface it seems that not all experts agree on what ingredients to use.
First there is still a large group that simply believes the methodologies are good but the people using them are bad. Or that a newer, more agile and compact version of a methodology will do the trick. Dream on, would be my response.
More pragmatic is the group that advocates applying a circumstantial methodology: not the one size fits all kind of approach you see in most companies but light or pro versions depending on project type, size, number of stakeholders and complexity. Better but still as one expert calls it “giving too much attention to framework fetishists”.
Luckily there is another group that brings back methodologies to the roots: a conceptual toolkit that supports the most important ingredients of a successful project: project ownership, business focus, creativity and leadership.
Additionally I would suggest to only make it an IT-project when a business project has set a clear scene. The reason is simple: IT is good in creating the technical solution, not in analyzing the business. To overcome this a 3-phase approach should be applied:
- Business Analysis and Design
Run by business analysts and under supervision of the business owner, to find out what is needed, what it may cost and what it should encompass. - IT Analysis, Design & Construction
Run by IT under ownership by the business, creating what has been defined in phased one thus within scope and budget. - Business Acceptance
Run jointly by business people and IT people under supervision of the business owner, testing the IT solution and implementing as part of the business solution.
If you approach projects in this way, many projects may not even make it to phase 2. But when they get there the chances for one time, on budget, on spec delivery rises dramatically. Also the clear distinct in phases makes it easier to outsource (parts of the) phases.
Project management methodologies are and will remain useful toolboxes, but only in the hands of capable pragmatic people, focusing on the needs of the business and context aware of the projects phase.
As always, comments welcomed.
back to top more blogs
