Friday, July 17, 2009

Sacred PM Practices – Possible Explanation

It may seem reasonable that with strong leadership, ownership, and trust in place, there is less of a need for the standardization of project management procedures/activities (e.g., resource estimation, risk assessment, change management).

In contrast, there is a need for standard project management procedures in the absence of leadership, ownership, and trust.

This possible explanation implies that standard project management procedures serve as a substitute for project leadership, ownership, and trust.

Am I reaching here? Have I oversimplified the observations?


  1. Jeff,
    With those elements in place...
    1. How do you what "done" looks like?
    2. How can you tell you're making progress toward "done?"
    3. What are the impediments toward "done."
    4. How much will it cost to get to "done?"
    5. What is the approximate cost of "done?"

    Both process and people are needed for success

  2. Thank you for your comment. I know it sounds like I am reaching.

    I would like to key in on the term, standard. I didn’t mean to suggest that project schedules and budgets do not exist. I should have been more clear. I found that these artifacts existed in each of the projects of the sample. There just didn’t seem to be a standard way at arriving at the estimates. It seems as though these “leaders” relied more on judgment and less on a standard approach.

    I appreciate your viewpoint. Thanks for sharing.