I was recently involved in a virtual discussion on the Association for Project Management (APM - UK) website around the use and differences between a Product Breakdown Structure (PBS) and a Work Breakdown Structure (WBS). The resulting briefing document produced by the APM is summarised here[1] with some additional commentary.
A couple of conversations in the last week or so has highlighted the importance of effective communication if you want anyone to take notice of the project information you have carefully gathered and analysed. Good data, good analysis and good information are useless if no one gets the message.
On many occasion we, and others, have defined good governance as balancing the needs of stakeholders and the objectives of the organisation to achieve long-term, sustainable value for the majority, if not all, stakeholders (see: Mosaic’s governance archives). From these considerations, Dr. Lynda Bourne developed the ‘six functions of governance’:
The need for effective planning and scheduling has been recognised for well over 100 years. Projects fail when they overrun the allocated time and budget and overrunning on schedule is a great way to make sure you also overrun on cost.
The elements needed to enhance the probability of project success are also well known, starting with a skilled project manager and team, with the necessary knowledge, skills and experience. The next layer of support to build success is making sure the ‘right’ PM tools, processes and methodologies are used; again these are hardly new:
Project controls processes and project reports are full of numbers and calculations and one would think that most project stakeholders, particularly senior managers, would see and understand the numbers in the same way. Unfortunately resent research[1]
One of the hardest things to do is to stop wasting money and resources on a losing proposition, emotions, biases and focusing on simple but irrelevant measures can all lead to bad decisions. A proper consideration of ‘sunk costs’ can help eliminate these ‘always wrong’ decisions.
Some organisations perform consistently well, others don’t! This statement is true of all aspects of an organisation’s performance including its ability to manage projects and programs effectively. Consistent high performance in the creation of value from projects and programs certainly requires the technical capabilities to manage projects effectively (see more on the strategic management of projects); but technical organisational maturity is not enough. A culture of high performance is also needed.
We presented papers at the Engineers Australia MCPC14 conference late last year. They are now available on our website.
Understanding Design – The challenge of informed consent looks at the problem of communicating complex project information to stakeholders in a way they can understand.
This is part blogs series about Portfolio Management, the discipline of managing which projects you do and which you don't.
So far we have observed that:
