Project Management Methodologies, what a way to start the year for this blog... Don’t blame me; blame Mark Perry for his wise comment in Cornelius Fichtner’s last podcast of 2010. To paraphrase Mr. Perry; “The purpose of a methodology is NOT to align itself to a standard, PMBOK or other, but rather to promote repeatability and consistency”. This is spot on! He goes on to discuss how a project methodology is a living thing; another very important aspect that often gets overlooked.
I could not avoid drawing parallels to the intent behind ISO 9000 and Quality Management Systems. ISO 9000, Quality Management System, and Project Management Methodologies share the same overall goals; continuous improvement, repeatability, and consistency. However, their implementations often share the same shortcomings; extreme initial effort, lack of buy-in, and eventual abandonment. Some personal experiences:
- ISO 9000. The first two attempts at ISO 9000 I experienced where multi three ring binders full of procedures, best practices, workflows, forms, etc. that were so cumbersome that the emergency change management procedure was the only one really used. A pared down version was finally developed, audited, certified, and promptly forgotten. Its legacy was periodic panics every time we were getting audited…
- Quality Management Systems. Pretty much the same as ISO 9000; once again three trips around the block but nothing much at the end. The actual starting point was a NASA Quality Management System but it eventually became a collection of one page documents devoid of real content. Most people don’t even know it exists…
- Project Management Methodologies. There is/was one, based on a fusion of PMBOK and on an industry specific standard. Once again it was a massive, all-encompassing bible. It does exist in a document management system, mostly forgotten and never revised…
At this point you may think that I am against ISO 900, Quality Management Systems, or Project Management Methodologies but you would be dead wrong. What I am against is ass backward implementations of these methodologies. Typically, the need for a methodology is decreed because everyone else has one or because some cataclysmic event creates a feeling of panic we seek to alleviate by identifying some “savior” and his “good book”. It often turns out that the “savior” is not an expert in the matter at hand but rather the person willing to volunteer for the task and the “good book” is some canned, fully formed but badly fitting methodology.
The following comments do not apply automatically; for example, regulated industries have to adhere to lots of regulations and this may cause a methodology to be very detailed.
If you are not in a regulated industry you should question a methodology that presents itself like a cult or religion. A methodology should not require that you buy-in blindly, it should not attempt to guide your every action, and there should not be a group of “clerics” that are the only ones capable or allowed to interpret its teachings. If any of these shortcomings are present the whole thing is stillborn.
Based on my past experience I would suggest the following approach to methodology implementation:
- Identify the main pain points and go for the most bang for the buck. Think Pareto law.
- Ask you own subject matter experts for their tools, procedures, best practices, workflows, forms, etc. One or many of those experts may have dodged in the past the particular bullets you are trying to consistently dodge. As a bonus you get instant buy-in because you don’t have to impose something new.
- If you don’t have to tools in-house ask people you know and trust. If this is not possible, go to the methodology vendors that offer pick and choose methodologies; run away from vendors that try to sell you a fully formed monolithic methodology.
At this point you should have the minimum package you need; this is your initial methodology. It will not be pretty and consistent in its looks but that is not important because you will need to change, delete, and add things to your methodology as you go. Some tools may replace procedures, some new problems may crop up, and some adjustments may become necessary based on your collective experience. The important thing is that your methodology will be alive and used instead of filling multiple shelves in your bookcase.
I’ll leave you by paraphrasing Cesar Millan; "May you get the methodology you need, not the methodology you want."
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.
