Re: slightly OT: Project Managers
From: Alistair Maclean (alistair_at_ld50macca.demon.co.uk)
Date: 11/28/04
- Next message: Alistair Maclean: "Re: slightly OT: Project Managers"
- Previous message: Alistair Maclean: "Re: Differences in data description in programming languages"
- In reply to: Pete Dashwood: "Re: slightly OT: Project Managers"
- Next in thread: James J. Gavan: "Re: slightly OT: Project Managers"
- Reply: James J. Gavan: "Re: slightly OT: Project Managers"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: 28 Nov 2004 08:30:46 -0800
"Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote in message news:<30sfupF33t5ikU1@uni-berlin.de>...
> My own opinions have been expressed elsewhere so I won't go over it all
> again. A summary would be as follows:
>
> 1. Any form of project management that requires signoffs (at the design
> stage) is suspect. (This is an emotive and controversial one, nevertheless,
> my own experience has shown me that signing off design, simply leads to
> disputes and the delivery of out-of-date solutions later. An interactive
> and iterative joint approach to goal attainment is infinitely superior to a
> single signed off statement describing what will be developed.)
I agree (as would my friend). We concluded that few projects now are
signed-off on tablets of stone at the beginning and most are now
iterative requiring change management and massaging of the clients'
expectations. Unfortunately, where I have worked, we have been subject
to changing requirements and expectations without changes in manpower
or delivery date. Obviously, project management in absentia.
> 2. Any form of project management that only includes users during
> "requirements gathering" and assigns ownership of the system to the IT
> department thereafter, is suspect. (Succesful projects are jointly owned by
> IT and the user department).
When I first trained in analysis and design we were taught that user
representatives should be co-opted on to projects from day one and
work as an integral part of the IT team responsible for a change.
That, in 20 years, has never happened.
>
> If your position in this discussion has been to support existing PM systems,
> Aistair, then your friend is probably going to have the better of it.
My friend has the advantage of undergoing Prince2 foundation and CMM
training at the moment. He has no desire to become a PM but as it is
part of his redundancy package (IT work going to India) he thinks it
will look good on his cv. I, however, want to work as a PM but am
being pidgeon-holed as a coder so my experience of PM is from being
the victim rather than the perpetrator. Perhaps I should develop my
bad-spelling, lack-of-grammar and poor-graphology skills further?
> However, any fool can find fault
Those who can do, those who can't criticise.
- Next message: Alistair Maclean: "Re: slightly OT: Project Managers"
- Previous message: Alistair Maclean: "Re: Differences in data description in programming languages"
- In reply to: Pete Dashwood: "Re: slightly OT: Project Managers"
- Next in thread: James J. Gavan: "Re: slightly OT: Project Managers"
- Reply: James J. Gavan: "Re: slightly OT: Project Managers"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|