 Reforming Project Management |
||
|
|
||
|
Friday, March 28, 2003
Towards a New Theory of Project Management
Today I complete my comments of the paper The Theory of Project Management: Explanation of Novel Methods
by Lauri Koskela and Greg Howell. The authors are careful to use the phrase underlying theory to denote that project management theory is not explicit. The authors make their inferences of theory from the practices and behaviors of prescribed project management. Making inferences is tricky business. We can never be sure that what we say is right or wrong. So, we make our case. Later, all we can do is assess the relative usefulness of the inferences when we set out to act in accordance with them. K&H use the word obsolete as their summary characterization of the effectiveness of current theory in use. Obsolete: Outmoded in design, style, or construction. Superseded.To call underlying theory obsolete is only to say that there is indication that it falls short in producing what is desired and something better is available. K&H are out to uncover better theory. The authors place high value on theory. Not higher than being effective in action...explicit theory provides the opportunity for examination, measurement, learning, innovation, and resulting effectiveness of action. Like many others, the authors have been dissatisfied with the results of projects conducted along the lines of traditional or conventional practice. Their investigation of theory took them to the PMI PMBOK® as the obvious repository of theory. Reading their first paper I see their disappointment in the absence of explicit theory in the PMBOK® for guiding practice. I know the authors. They would like nothing more than to engage in serious inquiry with project management theorists. So I Googled 'project management theorist' to see what I'd find. Max Wideman came out at the top of the list. Coincidentally, K&H have recently engaged in conversations with Max. Perhaps we'll see Max write about those dialogs. Max too calls for a need for explicit theory in a series of papers on First Principles. Redo the Google search to investigate others. The authors chose an unfortunate point to break their text to insert Table 2: The underlying theories and assumptions of project management. Without carefully reading one might be left with the impression the contents of the table are the intended evidence to support their claims. In fact, the authors only name their sources of evidence without offering it in this paper. Those sources are:
Why write about all this? Some say it's just pickin' a fight. I say why not write about it? Projects routinely take too long, cost too much, and fail in often significant ways to satisfy the customer. Scrum is one response to that dissatisfaction. Lean project delivery using Last Planner™ is another response. Both approaches are producing good results. So...what's the fuss? Let new theory emerge. Thursday, March 27, 2003
Towards a New Theory -- A Look at Scrum
Scrum has emerged as one of the leading approaches for delivering software projects on time, on budget, and performing as intended. It is one of a class of methods known as agile development. Koskela and Howell (K&H) take a look at Scrum as an example of a project delivery approach that strays from convention conforming instead to 'new' theory, The Theory of Project Management: Explanation of Novel Methods.
First, I'm no scrum master. I'll do my best with this, but PLEASE correct me in a comment or by email if I've misunderstood. ScrumScrum is a dynamic integrated planning and execution process for delivering software projects. Teams work in highly collaborative ways. They shun the usual practice of detailed up-front requirements analysis and specification writing. Instead, the scrum approach works in one-month intervals -- sprints -- to deliver a working feature set. One sprint is followed by another until the completed system is delivered. Tasks are derived and offered up by the performer of the task in daily scrum meetings. The teams' heightened level of communication and coordination more than compensate for the traditional detailed planning and structured work break-down structures. Theory of the ProjectK&H explain the theory of the project operating with this approach as principally flow and value generation. The teams' attention is on producing and delivering what they understand is of value to the customer. Any more than that is not value, particularly when additional features get in the way of completing a feature set that can be put into use. The Scrum approach keeps the team focussed on just one project avoiding multi-tasking and the consequent delays and remobilizations. Theory of ManagementThe Scrum approach relies extensively on managing as organizing to set the conditions for the team to conduct themselves while system requirements evolve and they manage development. Effective execution relies on the competence of team members to conduct coordination conversations -- language/action perspective. Control is accomplished through continued adjustments learning from one task completion after another. K&H call this the scientific experimentation model. CommentsScrum evolved in response to a dissatisfaction with project delays, budget busts, and buggy bloated software. K&H ascribe theory to make sense of how Scrum has been successful. Tomorrow I will offer some summary comments on their paper. Read more about the agile approach at The Agile Alliance and the Agile Manifesto. Wednesday, March 26, 2003
Towards a New Theory -- A Look at the Last Planner System™
Koskela and Howell use the Last Planner System™ (LPS) to explore a basis for a new theory of project management in their paper The Theory of Project Management: Explanation of Novel Methods. Calling the LPS novel they describe how the practices evolved empirically in response to dissatisfactions with current methods. Their paper requires a close reading. It may be easy to misunderstand the arguments. Further, you might want to revisit their paper The Underlying Theory of Project Management is Obsolete.
Theory of the ProjectThe LPS routinely gets better results than traditional project management -- 30% better as a median. How? By giving attention to reducing variability. The authors speak repeatedly about the issues of dependence and variation. They claim a principle aim of the LPS is to keep work flowing from the completion of one task to the other. Theory of ManagementPlanning is a practice that continues throughout the life of the project with the people who are executing the work. The last planners, those people who negotiate work assignments with performers, are in the best position to know the circumstances of the project. Planning is practiced in successive fashion for increasing levels of detail from far out to close in. The practices of making work ready put the tasks in a condition so that when a performer starts the task he can finish without interruption, rework, or remobilization. On-going planning benefits from team learning and responds to the expected uncertainty. Execution, usually described as separate from planning and control, comes about as conversations for producing commitment rather than with authorizations to proceed either by plan document or direction. The conversations can be characterized as negotiations among the last planners (crew foremen) and between the last planners and the crew members. This produces alignment among all crews while producing clear commitments for completion by each crew. Control in the LPS is practiced by giving attention to completion rate rather than progress (effort) compared to schedule. Plan failures are investigated for removing the causes. CommentsI wonder how well I am doing introducing Koskela's and Howell's paper. They claim the 'new' theory is at the level of paradigmatic change. In a way, both their paper and my introduction are rather short for addressing this subject. While knowing the LPS helps, close reading and practice may be required to make sense of it all. Tuesday, March 25, 2003
Towards a New Theory of Project Management
The Theory of Project Management: Explanation to Novel Methods
After reviewing their argument for calling the underlying theory of project management obsolete, Koskela and Howell introduce a proposal for a new basis. In this paper they propose to additions to current theory rather than replacements to it. (Those additions are identified in bold text in the following table.)
Koskela and Howell are careful with their comments on new theory. It is clear that what has been presented does not yet provide a unified and complete theoretical foundation for project management. However, this foundation shows manifestly that a better theoretical foundation can be created for project management. Future research will extend and unify the ingredients found until now. Tomorrow I will explore how the authors say the Last Planner System™ conforms to the evolving theory. The following day I will examine Scrum. Finally, I will offer summary comments on the paper. Sunday, March 23, 2003
Scrum and Last Planner™: Novel Methods Explained?
Lauri Koskela and Greg Howell expound on Scrum and Last Planner™ as "practical responses to the failure of conventional project management methods" in their paper The Theory of Project Management: Explanation to Novel Methods. The authors published this paper as a follow-on to their paper The Underlying Theory of Project Management is Obsolete.
In the next few days I will explore the authors' paper. In the meantime, get yourself a copy, read ahead, and get ready to offer your comments. Visit the Archives for more postings |
 Reference Papers
|
|||||||
| ||||||||
