Military teamwork benefits project teams

I had some free time and a PMI Community Post caught my eye; it baited me with a reference to the military in the June 2010 issue of Project Management Journal.  I just could not resist…

Overall it is an interesting article, the full version being more interesting than the condensed version in the PMI Community Post.  My interpretation of the article is:

• You can’t use predefined coordination methods developed for routine environments in a project environment. I would call that a tautology as projects are not, by definition, routine endeavors.
• Theoretical decision frameworks do not work well when uncertainty increases.  Again, this is a tautology.  Theoretical models and frameworks are just that; theories.  Reality is more of the SNAFU flavor.  By the way, F does not stand for fouled; use your imagination…
• Planning is essential and contributes greatly to success but the ability to adapt to changing conditions is also essential.  Looks like the old saw “No plan survives contact with the enemy”, attributed to many but probably due to Helmuth Karl Bernhard Graf von Moltke still holds true.

• Using a common language and methods helps.  As in everyone speaks the same language but also uses the same terms, concepts, and methods with a common understanding of those terms,concepts, and methods.  Especially important when the fur starts flying.

I would think most project managers would not be surprised by the items in my bullet list.  Most of this stuff is common sense I think.  By the way, you can get the benefits listed in the Project Management Journal article fairly easily; just hire an ex-soldier to be a project manager or team member.  It could do wonders for you and your projects…

I have a beef with the teaser in PMI Community Post; it says that Ms. Godé-Sanchez (the author of the original article) warns against soldiers spending too much time together and developing habits and methods that stifle their ability to think creatively.   That is not my reading at all; I believe she calls for changing team composition to increase the shared experience level of the team.  Throw in a few cherries with the old crusties; that should do it.

Finally, one thing that really gets me is Newspeak.  Why did the author feel the need to use “warfighter”?  This is a term that has been popularized by the Bush administration and the pseudo-news outfits since about 2003.  Warfighter?  Really?  Soldier was not good enough anymore?

What do you think?  As always comments are welcome.

Connect with me on LinkedIn.  I am a LinkedIn Open Networker (LION); you can use “Friend” to add me to your network, please mention the blog in your request.

Comments

[Glen B Alleman]

Pat,

The term warfighter has entered the lexicon because there are huge numbers of military folks who never see combat.

In the Vietnam era (my time), those in the combat zone saw combat, no matter where they were (pretty much). We had very few if any contractors. We had a Vertol (now Boeing) guy who looked after the engine mechanics and a bit of airframe work for the helicopter. But not in the way the services do today.

With the advent of "Joint Command" the distinction between the warfighter (on the pointy end) and those who support the warfighter cam into use.

It is somewhat of a marketing approach. Here's a sample of the marketing...

http://www.manprint.army.mil/manprint/promo.asp

[Patrick Richard]

Glen,

I knew it was a marketing thing of sorts but who does it really target; civilians or the military itself?

Anyway, chalk my "warfighter" comment to me getting older. Kind of like a "when I was a kid we'd go to school barefoot, in 4 feet of snow, uphill both ways, in -40 weather even in summer" rant...