Author: George Pitagorsky

From PMI Network to blogs all over the web there is a continuing debate over Agile project management. I find it interesting, if not distressing, that the debate still rages. While there are distinct attributes of Agile methods, overall the basic tenets of formal PM are certainly there. Planning exists, there is a clear point of responsibility and accountability, there is monitoring and control (often a lot tighter and more useful than in more traditionally managed projects) as well as a closing. The predominant differences are in the way these are accomplished and the “weight” of the PM activities. The Agile Manifesto values some things over others, for example “individuals and interactions over processes and tools”. This does not mean it seeks to eliminate processes and tools. Valuing the ability of “responding to change over following a plan” does not mean never following a plan. The Manifesto’s writers were not fundamentalists, “black and white” thinkers.

In general, the most effective approach for anyone in any project is to apply sound PM principles in a way that makes the most sense given the situation. It is just as important for individual performers to understand and accept the needs of their managers and clients as it is for them to simplistically expect their management to just tell them what they want and stand back.

Clearly, there are some situations that call for an Agile approach like Scrum while others (large, complex, critical and regulated projects) call for a relatively “heavy” approach. Many projects can be managed with a hybrid approach. For example, an Agile software development project can be embedded into a waterfall-like product development, or process change project or program. No project in a business setting can really justify a ‘seat of the pants’ approach that leaves out planning and control and puts the project reins in the hands of performers who may not have the big picture in mind, or may be too immature to warrant the trust required for a truly Agile approach.

“Black and white thinking” is a terrible waste of time and talent. It leads to solutions that are sub-optimal and that invariably dissatisfy a significant number of people, often including many of the adherents of the “winning” side. On the global scale it is the thing that has caused most of history’s horrific events. Let’s eliminate black and white thinking and engage in dialogue that seeks to educate and inform practitioners regarding the best way to manage. Then leave it to them and their management to choose the right approach for the projects at hand.

George Pitagorsky, PMP, integrates core disciplines and applies people centric systems and process thinking to achieve sustainable optimal performance. George authored The Zen Approach to Project Management and PM Basics^TM. He teaches meditation and is on the Board of Directors of the NY Insight Meditation Center.

A big issue in and around project management circles these days is how to manage effectively in the face of tight budgets and fewer human resources.  Do you cut back on PM activity to save resource time and money?  Do you have project managers wearing performer hats while managing?  Is this an opportunity to make the PM process Lean?

The goal is to find the right balance between thoroughness and efficiency.  Think of a musical instrument.  If the strings are too loose then the music is distorted; if the strings are too tight they will break.  Too much effort is wasteful.  Too little PM effort increases the risk of failure and decreases optimal performance.

What is the right level of PM effort?    As consultants have learned to say, “It depends.”   It depends on the size, complexity, significance and regulatory requirements of the project, as well as on the degree of PM automation and other factors.  Rough estimates range from 10% – 20% of overall project effort.   

Who applies the effort?  Project management is a shared competency.  Project managers, team leaders, individual performers, suppliers, functional managers and their resources all do it.  PM automation and PM process (methodology, standards, procedures, templates, archived examples, etc.) significantly affect the level of effort.  When the PM work is effectively distributed among the team members less effort is required of professional project managers and there is more likely to be better information and control, leading to better performance.

Let’s test the 10 – 20% estimate.  Across the team, that equates to from 4 – 8 hours per 40 hour week per person.  That’s between half a day and a full day per five day work week, spread across the week and integrated with performance work.   Not a small amount of effort.  Do we need that much? 

Individual performers estimate and schedule work, post hours and completions to track time and accomplishments (perhaps 10 – 15 minutes per day), write up change requests and issues and provide progress and projections.  There may be team meetings (in some projects a 10 – 15 minute daily meeting and maybe a longer (30 minutes -1 hour weekly meeting) and reviews.  Roughly, meetings alone can amount to about 2 ½ – 3 hours a week.   The project manager effort can be full time for an individual or team, depending on project size and criticality.   Project administrators, coaches, auditors and others may play a PM related role, expending more PM effort.

Are you including the right level of PM effort in your projects?  Are you maximizing the leverage of automation, centralized PM coaching services, clear and scalable standards and procedures, and PM knowledge management?

What are your standards for estimating the PM effort on your projects? 

How can you reduce the cost of PM without increasing the risk of project performance shortfalls?