Call +44 (0)20 7193 7093 
.
Recently the kind people at SmartDraw asked me whether I’d like to review their software – and since it’s one of the things we do here, the answer is “yes please”. I haven’t done it yet, but their tool looks to have elements that support project managers and project leaders in producing compelling communications – core stuff! I’ll be posting my thoughts on it here shortly.
They also informed me of a tips page on their website that you might be interested in:
Recently the kind people at SmartDraw asked me whether I’d like to review their software – and since it’s one of the things we do here, the answer is “yes please”. I haven’t done it yet, but their tool looks to have elements that support project managers and project leaders in producing compelling communications – core stuff! I’ll be posting my thoughts on it here shortly.
They also informed me of a tips page on their website that you might be interested in:
Recently the kind people at SmartDraw asked me whether I’d like to review their software – and since it’s one of the things we do here, the answer is “yes please”. I haven’t done it yet, but their tool looks to have elements that support project managers and project leaders in producing compelling communications – core stuff! I’ll be posting my thoughts on it here shortly.
They also informed me of a tips page on their website that you might be interested in:
Is the idea of using different strategies for different levels of complexity new to you? On reflection, I've had remarkably few conversations with clients about complexity-based approaches to projects over the last 20 years. The idea itself is not new. I've come to the conclusion that there is a widespread phenomenon we might call "simplicity bias" - the desire to see a situation as simpler than it is. I'd like to suggest some evidence for this assertion:
(I admit that you could, alternatively, level the accusation that consultants have "complexity bias" - the desire to make a situation appear more complex than it is, but since I am also arguing that experts are not better at changing organisational systems when they are complex and chaotic, where is the pay-off?)
If we habitually understate complexity, then we must be overstating the effectiveness of competence and expertise. We must be overstating our ability to plan project activities. We must also be taking a much bigger risk with large development projects than we might anticipate. This is the illusion of control.
Is the idea of using different strategies for different levels of complexity new to you? On reflection, I've had remarkably few conversations with clients about complexity-based approaches to projects over the last 20 years. The idea itself is not new. I've come to the conclusion that there is a widespread phenomenon we might call "simplicity bias" - the desire to see a situation as simpler than it is. I'd like to suggest some evidence for this assertion:
(I admit that you could, alternatively, level the accusation that consultants have "complexity bias" - the desire to make a situation appear more complex than it is, but since I am also arguing that experts are not better at changing organisational systems when they are complex and chaotic, where is the pay-off?)
If we habitually understate complexity, then we must be overstating the effectiveness of competence and expertise. We must be overstating our ability to plan project activities. We must also be taking a much bigger risk with large development projects than we might anticipate. This is the illusion of control.
We've had an initial look at how we typically understate risks, but there's another question: Are you implementing into a stable organisation?
It's a bit of a trick question, isn't it? You'd love to say "yes", but you know the more accurate answer is "no". You know you live and work in an evolving and changing organisation in which any structure that you can clearly perceive is already the past, and what instead matters most may be the "perturbations" on the edge of the current structure, which have the potential to manifest a substantive change. But will that change your implementation plan? The temptation to make the assumptions that the organisation is simple, linear, equilibrium-seeking and isolated is extraordinarily strong, because it gives you the feeling of control. But it is illusory.
For the sake of this discussion, let's define a scale of complexity to describe the organisation as a system (in the engineering sense):
If the organisation was a Simple system, changes would be easy - you would simply categorise the problem and apply a best practise that addressed the issue. Experience tells me that this works occasionally, usually on a very small scale. On the other hand, I've seen many implementations of ERP systems trying to apply "best practises". Typically the organisation finds its own approach once the consultants leave. So once the implementation group exceeds about a dozen, then it is no longer appropriate to describe the organisational behaviour as Simple.
Some organisations can be categorised as Complicated systems. Such organisations respond well to expert intervention; examples of these organisations are certain kinds of industrial operations. In these organisations toolkits such as Six Sigma and the Theory of Constraints (Lean) work well. If the organisation can be disassembled into components, optimized, and then reassembled to create a better functioning whole, then this is the domain you are in, and you should follow the Six Sigma mantra of "DMAIC" - Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve, Control. But remember that manufacturing and distribution is only a component of what the organisation does, and these tools may not be appropriate elsewhere in the organisation. And how can you tell in advance whether your industrial operation is suitable for intellectual disassembly?
I hate to think of organisations as Chaotic, because it's possible I'm being led by fashion, however in my opinion most sizable organisations are certainly Complex, and possibly Chaotic in their behaviour. They respond to changes in ways that aren't obvious. And when you change a component of the organisation defined by the scope of the project, it has interfaces into the rest of the organisation: The scope is not the change!
We often hear quoted the idea that "insanity is doing the same thing again and again and expecting different results" - variously attributed to Albert Einstein and Benjamin Franklin. However, for organisation systems with high degrees of complexity, insanity may well be doing the same thing twice and expecting the same results - because you make the changes at different times, the system you are changing is different! Because you've already made a change to a part of the system, then the system you are changing is different! This is the domain for which the famous "butterfly effect" is a metaphor. Tiny changes in initial conditions may (or may not) yield substantially different end results.
In such complex organisational systems, the expert is powerless, and you are left with testing, piloting, rolling-out and correcting - an organic, evolutionary approach to change, in which you attempt to learn as you go along, but should not be surprised that you fail!
We've had an initial look at how we typically understate risks, but there's another question: Are you implementing into a stable organisation?
It's a bit of a trick question, isn't it? You'd love to say "yes", but you know the more accurate answer is "no". You know you live and work in an evolving and changing organisation in which any structure that you can clearly perceive is already the past, and what instead matters most may be the "perturbations" on the edge of the current structure, which have the potential to manifest a substantive change. But will that change your implementation plan? The temptation to make the assumptions that the organisation is simple, linear, equilibrium-seeking and isolated is extraordinarily strong, because it gives you the feeling of control. But it is illusory.
For the sake of this discussion, let's define a scale of complexity to describe the organisation as a system (in the engineering sense):
If the organisation was a Simple system, changes would be easy - you would simply categorise the problem and apply a best practise that addressed the issue. Experience tells me that this works occasionally, usually on a very small scale. On the other hand, I've seen many implementations of ERP systems trying to apply "best practises". Typically the organisation finds its own approach once the consultants leave. So once the implementation group exceeds about a dozen, then it is no longer appropriate to describe the organisational behaviour as Simple.
Some organisations can be categorised as Complicated systems. Such organisations respond well to expert intervention; examples of these organisations are certain kinds of industrial operations. In these organisations toolkits such as Six Sigma and the Theory of Constraints (Lean) work well. If the organisation can be disassembled into components, optimized, and then reassembled to create a better functioning whole, then this is the domain you are in, and you should follow the Six Sigma mantra of "DMAIC" - Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve, Control. But remember that manufacturing and distribution is only a component of what the organisation does, and these tools may not be appropriate elsewhere in the organisation. And how can you tell in advance whether your industrial operation is suitable for intellectual disassembly?
I hate to think of organisations as Chaotic, because it's possible I'm being led by fashion, however in my opinion most sizable organisations are certainly Complex, and possibly Chaotic in their behaviour. They respond to changes in ways that aren't obvious. And when you change a component of the organisation defined by the scope of the project, it has interfaces into the rest of the organisation: The scope is not the change!
We often hear quoted the idea that "insanity is doing the same thing again and again and expecting different results" - variously attributed to Albert Einstein and Benjamin Franklin. However, for organisation systems with high degrees of complexity, insanity may well be doing the same thing twice and expecting the same results - because you make the changes at different times, the system you are changing is different! Because you've already made a change to a part of the system, then the system you are changing is different! This is the domain for which the famous "butterfly effect" is a metaphor. Tiny changes in initial conditions may (or may not) yield substantially different end results.
In such complex organisational systems, the expert is powerless, and you are left with testing, piloting, rolling-out and correcting - an organic, evolutionary approach to change, in which you attempt to learn as you go along, but should not be surprised that you fail!
Breaking from the topic of Project Leadership for a moment, I was intrigued to receive this message on Facebook from a friend in London at 5:15 this morning:
http://www.facebook.com.profile.php.id.371233.cnlol i cant believe these pics got posted....its going to be BADDDD when her boyfriend sees these-
If it wasn’t from someone I trust and like to share the odd joke with, I wouldn’t have gone anywhere near it. But I did. The link takes you to a page that requests you to log-in to Facebook – and when you do, you go to your home page. Hmmm….peculiar. So what’s it all about?
Unless you’re a regular reader of this blog, you’ve probably already tried the link; I think it’s best to change your Facebook password. This appears to be a spurious log-in page, and it’s possible that it is being used to capture log-ins and passwords – a technique known as known as Phishing.
When I changed my password, I was reminded that Facebook is willing to store credit card details – so there might be financial implications to this Phishing attempt.
If you receive this message from me now, please accept my apologies. A new year, and a new form of web abuse. Happy 2008!
Breaking from the topic of Project Leadership for a moment, I was intrigued to receive this message on Facebook from a friend in London at 5:15 this morning:
http://www.facebook.com.profile.php.id.371233.cnlol i cant believe these pics got posted....its going to be BADDDD when her boyfriend sees these-
If it wasn’t from someone I trust and like to share the odd joke with, I wouldn’t have gone anywhere near it. But I did. The link takes you to a page that requests you to log-in to Facebook – and when you do, you go to your home page. Hmmm….peculiar. So what’s it all about?
Unless you’re a regular reader of this blog, you’ve probably already tried the link; I think it’s best to change your Facebook password. This appears to be a spurious log-in page, and it’s possible that it is being used to capture log-ins and passwords – a technique known as known as Phishing.
When I changed my password, I was reminded that Facebook is willing to store credit card details – so there might be financial implications to this Phishing attempt.
If you receive this message from me now, please accept my apologies. A new year, and a new form of web abuse. Happy 2008!
Once the scope of the project has been challenged, socialised and agreed upon, it's time to start estimating the scale of the project. Clearly, producing a project schedule that significantly underestimates the work and duration of the team will be a suppressive activity. In fact, due to the aforementioned importance of control in our psyches, a unilateral planning and scheduling activity will be detrimental whether regardless of its quality. So planning and scheduling must be an activity based on team engagement.
Once again we find ourselves on shaky ground! If projects can be placed on a scale of certainty - with "concrete" on the one end, where the majority of the project tasks are repetitive and known, and "abstract" on the other, where the project resembles an exploration, it is clear that the frequently proposed technique of "unpacking" the tasks is not universally applicable.
Even for the concrete projects, there is a cognitive tendency called the "Planning Fallacy", which indicates that people underestimate the time taken to complete tasks - people formulating plans typically eliminate factors that they perceive to lie outside of the project, and also tend to discount multiple improbable high-impact risks (since each one is unlikely to happen). These elements may include things like sickness, vacations, meetings, finishing off old projects, annual review processes, public holidays, departure of key personnel, sudden emergency client needs...
…not to mention the Lake Wobegone Effect: The tendency to think that our own, current, project team is better than other project teams that have done similar work before - so even with benchmark information for similar tasks, we are prone to make estimating errors with regard to our own teams expected performance.
Clearly it's important to use all the available information to benchmark the activities of the project, but it is also just as important to understand the likely inaccuracy of the schedule, given the risks and certainty level of the project. Inaccurate estimates of delivery timing make distant resource planning difficult - it's much easier to schedule a vacation than to estimate the implementation date for a complex project - which can often lead to delays in the implementation and further uncertainty.
Again, this is an issue that needs to be raised, carefully communicated, and understood within the team, stakeholders and extended stakeholder groups.
Once the scope of the project has been challenged, socialised and agreed upon, it's time to start estimating the scale of the project. Clearly, producing a project schedule that significantly underestimates the work and duration of the team will be a suppressive activity. In fact, due to the aforementioned importance of control in our psyches, a unilateral planning and scheduling activity will be detrimental whether regardless of its quality. So planning and scheduling must be an activity based on team engagement.
Once again we find ourselves on shaky ground! If projects can be placed on a scale of certainty - with "concrete" on the one end, where the majority of the project tasks are repetitive and known, and "abstract" on the other, where the project resembles an exploration, it is clear that the frequently proposed technique of "unpacking" the tasks is not universally applicable.
Even for the concrete projects, there is a cognitive tendency called the "Planning Fallacy", which indicates that people underestimate the time taken to complete tasks - people formulating plans typically eliminate factors that they perceive to lie outside of the project, and also tend to discount multiple improbable high-impact risks (since each one is unlikely to happen). These elements may include things like sickness, vacations, meetings, finishing off old projects, annual review processes, public holidays, departure of key personnel, sudden emergency client needs...
…not to mention the Lake Wobegone Effect: The tendency to think that our own, current, project team is better than other project teams that have done similar work before - so even with benchmark information for similar tasks, we are prone to make estimating errors with regard to our own teams expected performance.
Clearly it's important to use all the available information to benchmark the activities of the project, but it is also just as important to understand the likely inaccuracy of the schedule, given the risks and certainty level of the project. Inaccurate estimates of delivery timing make distant resource planning difficult - it's much easier to schedule a vacation than to estimate the implementation date for a complex project - which can often lead to delays in the implementation and further uncertainty.
Again, this is an issue that needs to be raised, carefully communicated, and understood within the team, stakeholders and extended stakeholder groups.
A while ago I published a blog piece on the use of sound in the office environment to enhance productivity - and a link to a Pandora radio station I created called Flo Radio. I know quite a few people now listen to the station, and I’ll keep on refining it because…I like it 
. But I’m an interested amateur where environmental sound is involved…
Yesterday at the London Ecademy BlackStars networking day, Julian Treasure gave me a review copy of his book “Sound Business”. I first met Julian last week; he’s the chairman of The Sound Agency, and we had a long discussion about obscure ‘80s and ‘90s music. I read his book overnight last night, and Julian is the real deal.
The book is packed with insights about how we perceive sound, how we relate to sound and how we can use it effectively to enhance performance, revenues, quality and workplace mood.
The book comes with a CD with examples – including a set of loop tracks for working and relaxation. Try them in your home office – try them with your work teams. Put them on low in your meetings – notice how the mood changes.
P.S. The CD content is for personal use only – you’ll need to contact the Sound Agency to discuss commercial applications.
A while ago I published a blog piece on the use of sound in the office environment to enhance productivity - and a link to a Pandora radio station I created called Flo Radio. I know quite a few people now listen to the station, and I’ll keep on refining it because…I like it . But I’m an interested amateur where environmental sound is involved…
Yesterday at the London Ecademy BlackStars networking day, Julian Treasure gave me a review copy of his book “Sound Business”. I first met Julian last week; he’s the chairman of The Sound Agency, and we had a long discussion about obscure ‘80s and ‘90s music. I read his book overnight last night, and Julian is the real deal.
The book is packed with insights about how we perceive sound, how we relate to sound and how we can use it effectively to enhance performance, revenues, quality and workplace mood.
The book comes with a CD with examples – including a set of loop tracks for working and relaxation. Try them in your home office – try them with your work teams. Put them on low in your meetings – notice how the mood changes.
P.S. The CD content is for personal use only – you’ll need to contact the Sound Agency to discuss commercial applications.
I recently started a question on LinkedIn:
On-line project management tools - what is the state of the industry?
There's been a recent serge in the on-line project management tools available, and web 2.0 seems to be making them more user friendly. I'd like to evaluate industry awareness, so without doing research, which on-line platforms do you know of?
Also, if you've experienced using them in earnest, which ones, and what was your experience?
I’d appreciate your responses posted on the LinkedIn site (though posting here will do fine too).
If you’re not a member of LinkedIn, why not join? It’s free – and I will accept your link to get you going.
P.S. Beaufortes (www.beaufortes.com) is NOT affiliated or sponsored by any supplier organisation. Please note your affiliations (if any) in your response.
I recently started a question on LinkedIn:
On-line project management tools - what is the state of the industry?
There's been a recent serge in the on-line project management tools available, and web 2.0 seems to be making them more user friendly. I'd like to evaluate industry awareness, so without doing research, which on-line platforms do you know of?
Also, if you've experienced using them in earnest, which ones, and what was your experience?
I’d appreciate your responses posted on the LinkedIn site (though posting here will do fine too).
If you’re not a member of LinkedIn, why not join? It’s free – and I will accept your link to get you going.
P.S. Beaufortes (www.beaufortes.com) is NOT affiliated or sponsored by any supplier organisation. Please note your affiliations (if any) in your response.
It strikes me that a ‘Killer App’ (short for ‘Killer application’) is a lot like a keystone in a traditional stone arch.
The term is generally used in Information Technology circles to refer to :-
“…any computer program that is so necessary or desirable that it provides the core value of some larger technology”
It’s only a small part of what’s going on (like the keystone), but it makes the larger system work, it generates disproportionate value, and it becomes indispensable.
So here’s the hook, there are ‘Killer Projects’ out there too - small perfectly formed projects that are capable of delivering hugely disproportionate value to your organization.
(Actually when I’m talking to new clients, this is actually what I’m probing for)
So what is the key to finding and making these killer projects work?
I’m not sure if the editors of Gantthead.com read this blog, but they seem to have gone all out today with four short articles on leadership in the project management space. (registration is necessary to read the articles)
Leadership-Powered Project Management – 5 good tips for leading projects, provides a subjective, and somewhat random view of tips about project leadership.
Now, a word from your sponsor - This article suggests that project leadership is specifically the role of the project sponsor with project management handled by the ….errh… well… project manager. It’s an interesting perspective, akin to the President / Chief of Staff model. But definitely underplays the value of “project leadership” skills in significantly enhancing the effectiveness of standard project management processes.
The importance of followship – A philosophical piece discussing ‘followship’, and the importance of the ‘vision’ over the ‘leader as a charismatic individual’. I’d definitely agree!
The Yin and Yang of Adaptive Leadership – Probably the best article of the bunch. Although I think that the term “adaptive” is superfluous, and somewhat proprietary. Michael Wood does a good job listing the symptoms of a project lacking leadership, and the behaviours associated with good project leadership.
It’s nice to see a group of articles addressing ‘project leadership’, even if there is a general fragmentation and confusion over what ‘leadership’ is or represents. Maybe the project management world is coming around to the idea that successful ‘project leadership’ really does represent the next evolution of how projects should be considered!
-Jason Bates
Can I get away with that title? Probably not, but Nina Platt can, and does. Let it be known I read some pretty diverse content.
I loved the fact that Nina is commenting on Change Management – it’s one of the keys to building a learning culture. I particularly liked the fact she took a moment to remind us that the term means different things to different people.
Yesterday a senior exec. told me that the predominant cognitive style for his organization was ISTJ. (If those letters mean nothing to you, check out this quick explanation of the Myers Briggs Type Indicator)
It reminded me of this text file I’ve had floating around my PC for years. Instant advice for particular cognitive styles. I think that you’ll find this interesting if you know your predominant cognitive style, or that of your organization…
This question has been playing on my mind: If stories are the most effective tool of influence, but are an inefficient way to communicate facts, what kind of communication style is most effective in today’s “attention deficit” business world? So for an experiment, let me try out a communication style: The “reduced” story line.
Looking at Jason’s posting on Cognitive Bias, I find myself inspired to write about team decision making processes. Why? It seems to me that the people who are cerebral enough to internalize the implications of this list are also unlikely to be the talkative or assertive ones in meetings.
Here’s a summary of the categories of team decision processes:
Continue reading "Team Decision Making: There's No Good System!" »
Looking at Jason’s posting on Cognitive Bias, I find myself inspired to write about team decision making processes. Why? It seems to me that the people who are cerebral enough to internalize the implications of this list are also unlikely to be the talkative or assertive ones in meetings.
Here’s a summary of the categories of team decision processes:
Continue reading "Team Decision Making: There's No Good System!" »
The good people at MindJet have allowed me early access to their MindManager Project Management JetPack. As I read that sentence I realize that many readers won’t have a clue what I’m talking about, so let me explain:
MindJet is the company that produces the MindManager application.
MindManager is, at its heart, a brainstorming and mind mapping software tool.
Mind mapping is a knowledge management technique for generating, organizing and communicating ideas or concepts. (Go here for more info)
Continue reading "MindJet Project Management JetPack for MindManager 7" »
A few years ago I worked on a project with a client (global, ~140,000 people) that had an in-house change management methodology. I expected that this would make the job easier – after all, they must recognise the value of change management and know how to use it, surely.
I was astounded to discover that very few people in the company knew how to apply the methodology – I found nobody who even knew where to start! After hours of studying the methodology I figured out why: There was no starting point. I was just a cluster of loosely connected tools.
Avoid Powerpoint…
The Gettysburg Powerpoint Presentation.
I particularly liked the inclusion of the speaker notes on the last page.
My thanks to David Gurteen for pointing this out.
“Quality is only 2nd to Honesty.”
For the full visual effect, click here.
“Quality is only 2nd to Honesty.”
For the full visual effect, click here.
Many valuable project team behaviours have, at their core, a requirement to accept ambiguity for extended periods. For instance, a project leader must simultaneously reconcile an unshakable confidence that the project will succeed with the recognition that their team, being only human, are flawed in their beliefs, research techniques and decision making processes.
Yesterday I was asked this question by a member of the Project Leadership Network – it’s such a good question I wanted to share it with everyone:
“When you work for a software consultancy SOMETIMES there isn't much choice over which project you take-up. Sometime we get so-called 'doomed' projects wherein the customer has tried his level best and when the deadline was right in his face, decided to cry for help to a software vendor. In such situations, what are the things we need to do to safeguard against failure of the Project?”
Here are my thoughts – I’m sure that there are many other prespectives too, so please feel free to comment:
Project Leaders need to commuicate influentially… Here’s a recent study from the American Psychological Association that shows how the opinion of a single person, communicated repetitively, becomes accepted as a common belief.
Synopsis: http://www.apa.org/releases/popularopinion.html
Full Paper: http://www.apa.org/journals/releases/psp925821.pdf
—Philip Greenwood
From wikipedia:
“Rat-holing is a term used to describe a conversation or process that has deviated from its original productive purpose into a generally unproductive but long and winding detour that eventually comes to a dead end.”
“The original discussion purpose may be to agree on a course of action. However, if one or more people rat-hole into a specific point of the discussion then the discussion stalls with no actionable outcome.”
Back from a trip to Belgrade, I was catching up with my reading last night, and saw a reference to rat-holing on 43folders. I’m sure that like me, you recognize this behaviour as a regular occurrence in meetings that lack a coherent and engaging goal.
When people aren’t engaged around a shared purpose – in a meeting, a project, or a programme – they lose their way and find their own purposes, they rat-hole to issues they care about.
Rat-holing is a warning signal, look out for it!
— Jason Bates
I stood at the petrol pump, gently squeezing the handle, watching the amount readout slowly increase £24.91… £24.93…. £24.97… £25.05… dang!
Since I learnt to drive, (many years ago) I’ve always had the same ritual at the petrol pump – I buy petrol in round amounts. £15, £20, £25. – No nasty change to find, no walking away with 97 pence in 2’s and 1’s.
But you know this day was different. As I watched the petrol pump hit £25.05 I realized that getting to round figures didn’t really matter to me anymore. I now normally pay for my petrol with my visa card!… there is no change to worry about!
Whether in a high pressure project environment, or at the petrol pump. People rarely question the rituals they’ve spent years practising. Conditions change, and yet we continue to use the same traditions and rituals.
Now I was only losing seconds a week at the petrol pump, but there are companies and projects (Yours?) losing hundreds of thousands of pounds daily because of their adherence to traditional ways of doing things.
So, could some of the bedrock processes that your company undertakes be overdue for a review… you betcha!
You might be surprised, you may find some simple solutions that lead to major results that really get you noticed!
**Did you ever hear that story of someone saving their company millions by moving to envelopes with little plastic windows instead of printing the address on the envelope?
£25.05 …. works for me!
—Jason Bates
I saw an interesting quote on Alexander Kjerul’s great blog: Chief Happiness Officer…
“One of the most thoroughly replicated findings in the field of social psychology states, the more you reward people for doing something, the more they tend to lose interest in whatever they had to do to get the reward.” - Alfie Kohn
An animal trainer friend told me that when she works with dogs that annoy their owners with random barking, she trains those dogs to bark on cue (using rewards)… and then never gives the cue to bark.
Pow!… No more barking!…. think about that for a moment.
What does that say about incentivisation of the work environment. Let’s say that you have a new knowledge management system that you want your department to use. You decide to incentivise its use with some great rewards, and for a time it works really well! Congratulations! Now… what happens when you stop the initial reward scheme?
No more barking ;o)
— Jason Bates
Have you ever made the head of a programme manager spin around? I recently told a client that his team didn’t need anymore ‘creativity training’, and that what was holding them back was too much project management...Woah!
Aghast, (well I had just killed a sacred cow in his office)… he wanted to know more. Could the way he was brandishing PMBOK and PRINCE2 across his programme really be preventing his team from performing at their creative best?
Calming him down, I told him that his beloved methodologies were of course important in making sure this large and complex programme was well co-ordinated, managed, and monitored... but there were 6 changes he would have to make if he wanted the team to be creative as well!
Continue reading "6 ways to stop project management from killing creativity" »
Whatever your specialist skills, I’d recommend spending a little time researching on-line search terms…I’ve found it very enlightening. The numbers below are relative, based on Yahoo searches per month:
The top search terms are currently “myspace” and “google” with 19 and 18 million searches respectively, while the old web perennials “porn” and “free porn” receive only 3 million and 1.4 million.
With 98,018 searches in February, the term “project voyeur” was twice as popular as the term “project” on its own. Project Voyeur is, inevitably, a porn site. But who searches for just the word “project”? It’s such a vague search term, surely nobody finds what they want.
If you searched for “project management”, you would have created one of 29,235 searches for that term – being about 1/3 less popular than “playlist project”, which is social music tool for creating playlists for web 2.0 sites like MySpace, hi5 and Blogger.
More popular than either of them were the search terms “science project” and “science fair project”. I think this is a fairly clear indication of the internet demographic.
Coming back on-topic, “project leadership” gets 1.7% of the number of searches of “project management”…but why? Time for a revolution, I think.
And here’s a new interesting topic I found: “Essence of Decision” – which is a term borrowed from the title of a book on the Cuban missile crisis. It documents how decisions are influenced by organizational process as well as organizational politics – how decisions in large organizations are rarely rational. Based on my own experience, I concur.
Philip Greenwood
Subscribe to Insights
Welcome to the Beaufortes Insights page. A collection of the best news, views, and insights into the world of practical project leadership; gathered and brought to you by our own practitioners.