What is a Project?
A project grows out of the wants and needs of the organization that are not being met by normal operations. It is unique--not done before, temporary (maintenance is not a project), shares operational similarities to other work done within the organization, requires strategy, and represents a progressive elaboration on the work that has been done to-date.
What is Project Management?
According to the Project Management Institute (PMI), project management includes the carrying out of five basic processes: initiation, planning, execution, control, and closure. It requires a project team to manage the work of the project which includes identifying requireements, and meeting the various needs and expectations of the stakeholders. Project Management involves the application of knowledge and skills using whatever tools and techniques are available to project activities to meet project requirements.
Thursday, August 7, 2008
Business Leadership and the Movies
http://www.inc.com/magazine/20000301/17290.html
This is a great reflection on leadership styles illustrated in movies by Mike Hofman from Inc.com, published in March 2000 (due for an update exploring leadership in more recent movies, I expect). My favorite is this excerpt that describes the character development of Queen Elizabeth in "Elizabeth" and how she learned that governing with her personality was ultimately more effective than using royal authority.
Elizabeth (1998)
Newly minted CEOs who worry that leaders are born, not made, should find the 1998 movie Elizabeth reassuring. The woman responsible for England's golden age starts off with the fierce independence of any company founder, refusing her dying half-sister's demand that she uphold the Catholic faith and declaring that "when I am queen, I promise to act as my conscience dictates." But thrust into a maelstrom of politics and religion, when Elizabeth (Cate Blanchett) does take the throne, she frets, hesitates, and falls back upon the wrongheaded counsel of others.
Defeated in battle and with England's powerful bishops aligned against her, Elizabeth laments that she will never equal her father, Henry VIII, at running the family business. But slowly she grows comfortable in the ruler's skin, learning to win by using the force of her personality rather than the power of her position. (The scene in which the new queen sways a hostile Parliament by combining calls to conscience with sly, self-deprecating humor is a masterpiece of meeting management.) As betrayal is heaped upon betrayal, she becomes a shrewd judge of people, learning to trust only herself and the sole nobleman loyal enough to kill for her.
Elizabeth's decision to renounce romantic love in favor of total devotion to her subjects could resonate with anyone trying to satisfy the demands of a family and a business. Yes, her sacrifice appears extreme. But it's hard to argue with success: Elizabeth ruled for more than 40 years, and at her death England was the most powerful and prosperous country in Europe.
http://www.inc.com/magazine/20000301/17290.html
This is a great reflection on leadership styles illustrated in movies by Mike Hofman from Inc.com, published in March 2000 (due for an update exploring leadership in more recent movies, I expect). My favorite is this excerpt that describes the character development of Queen Elizabeth in "Elizabeth" and how she learned that governing with her personality was ultimately more effective than using royal authority.
Elizabeth (1998)
Newly minted CEOs who worry that leaders are born, not made, should find the 1998 movie Elizabeth reassuring. The woman responsible for England's golden age starts off with the fierce independence of any company founder, refusing her dying half-sister's demand that she uphold the Catholic faith and declaring that "when I am queen, I promise to act as my conscience dictates." But thrust into a maelstrom of politics and religion, when Elizabeth (Cate Blanchett) does take the throne, she frets, hesitates, and falls back upon the wrongheaded counsel of others.
Defeated in battle and with England's powerful bishops aligned against her, Elizabeth laments that she will never equal her father, Henry VIII, at running the family business. But slowly she grows comfortable in the ruler's skin, learning to win by using the force of her personality rather than the power of her position. (The scene in which the new queen sways a hostile Parliament by combining calls to conscience with sly, self-deprecating humor is a masterpiece of meeting management.) As betrayal is heaped upon betrayal, she becomes a shrewd judge of people, learning to trust only herself and the sole nobleman loyal enough to kill for her.
Elizabeth's decision to renounce romantic love in favor of total devotion to her subjects could resonate with anyone trying to satisfy the demands of a family and a business. Yes, her sacrifice appears extreme. But it's hard to argue with success: Elizabeth ruled for more than 40 years, and at her death England was the most powerful and prosperous country in Europe.
http://www.inc.com/magazine/20000301/17290.html
Monday, August 4, 2008
Reporting Relationships for a Director of Project Management
The DPM should be the person the CEO can rely on to give impartial advice about what commitments are safe to make, as opposed to what commitments would be wishful thinking from sales. In general, the DPM is there to facilitate negotiations between sales and operations, and as such, would need to be operating from neutral ground, which is only possible if she is a direct CEO report.
My previous experience includes a variety of reporting relationships. When the PMO reports to product management, they are inclined to overcommit, and end up in conflict with operational people over "non-delivery." This is not productive.
As far as reporting within the PMO itself, I have worked primarily in matrixed environments in which the resources I am relying on do not report to me. I find this arrangement manageable, although not ideal. It is a fairly typical scenario for Project Management to work this way, since resources often report to operational leadership and have multiple deliverables. Depending on the amount of authority the PM has, this situation is known as a "weak matrix".
Ideally, the PM has authority to make decisions about staffing their projects and have dedicated resources to work with. This is more expensive than a matrixed environment, and therefore quite rare. This is known as a "strong matrix".
A "balanced matrix" provides the PM with good, although not complete, authority with team members who are allocated to his or her projects but not 100% dedicated.
My previous experience includes a variety of reporting relationships. When the PMO reports to product management, they are inclined to overcommit, and end up in conflict with operational people over "non-delivery." This is not productive.
As far as reporting within the PMO itself, I have worked primarily in matrixed environments in which the resources I am relying on do not report to me. I find this arrangement manageable, although not ideal. It is a fairly typical scenario for Project Management to work this way, since resources often report to operational leadership and have multiple deliverables. Depending on the amount of authority the PM has, this situation is known as a "weak matrix".
Ideally, the PM has authority to make decisions about staffing their projects and have dedicated resources to work with. This is more expensive than a matrixed environment, and therefore quite rare. This is known as a "strong matrix".
A "balanced matrix" provides the PM with good, although not complete, authority with team members who are allocated to his or her projects but not 100% dedicated.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
