Cross check your project management templates with PMI's

[JeffTylerPMP]

Your project templates are good but they need to be cross checked with what
the Project Management Institute (International governing body of project
management) sets as the standard.

----------------
This post is a suggestion for Microsoft, and Microsoft responds to the
suggestions with the most votes. To vote for this suggestion, click the "I
Agree" button in the message pane. If you do not see the button, follow this
link to open the suggestion in the Microsoft Web-based Newsreader and then
click "I Agree" in the message pane.

http://www.microsoft.com/office/com...b0ad-7db72875014c&dg=microsoft.public.project

 

[davegb]

Whose templates? Where are they?

 

[Jim Aksel]

Micorosft Templates for MS Project can be found be clicking File/New...
In the window that opens, you may choose "New from Template"

There are templates for Engineering, New Product, Home Move, and plenty of
others. If none of those fit your fancy, there's the ability to go online
for additional templates.

Jeff was saying that Project Management Institute (www.pmi.org) is
establishing the defacto standards via American National Standards Institure
(ANSI) for scheduling and that Microsoft should make their templates "PMI
compliant" It's a great idea. (In my opinion)

 

[davegb]

I'm curious. Do people believe that MS makes decisions based on what
goes on in this NG? If so, on what basis?

 

[Rod Gill]

Personally I do not find PMI particularly good so see little or no value in
a PMI standard for schedules. That's not to say the default templates are
particularly good because I don't think they are.

 

[davegb]

Having been a long-time member of PMI, I have great respect for most of
what they've done. Standardizing PM terms, coming up with a
certification procedure, have been major contributions to our field. I
applaud them.

That said, I think they're going down some erroneous paths lately. In
reviewing the Certification materials, preparing to teach PMP
Certification prep classes, I found serious errors and don't understand
a lot of their thinking.

For example, the PMIBODK clearly states, in the section on Time (which
I teach at AIMS Community College), that CPM can't be done on an AON
(Activity on Node) diagram, and must be done on an AOA (Activity on
Arrow) diagram. Yet no major scheduling software package that I know of
uses AOA anymore. They all do AON and do CPM. (At one time, P3 did AOA
diagrams, but I don't know if it still does) In fact, back when I did
CPM by hand on paper, before PCs and such, I did them exclusively on a
conventional PERT Diagram, now called a Network Diagram. These are AON
diagrams. So why does the PMIBOK make this obviously erroneous
statement?

My other major concern is the attempt to reduce all of Project
Management to a list. PMI is trying to make being a PM a very
mechanical, linear process. It is not! Especially when done well. There
are just too many variables in PM, too many types of projects and
situations in which the PM might find him/herself for any simplistic
formula to apply in all scenarios.

As far as standardizing to PMI's standard, I'd have to know more about
it before I agreed that this is a good idea. PMI is just a group of
well-meaning, experienced PMs, not a group of infallible Gods.

 

[St Dilbert]

Having been a long-time member of PMI, I have great respect for most of
what they've done. Standardizing PM terms, coming up with a
certification procedure, have been major contributions to our field. I
applaud them.

That said, I think they're going down some erroneous paths lately. In
reviewing the Certification materials, preparing to teach PMP
Certification prep classes, I found serious errors and don't understand
a lot of their thinking.

For example, the PMIBODK clearly states, in the section on Time (which
I teach at AIMS Community College), that CPM can't be done on an AON
(Activity on Node) diagram, and must be done on an AOA (Activity on
Arrow) diagram. Yet no major scheduling software package that I know of
uses AOA anymore. They all do AON and do CPM. (At one time, P3 did AOA
diagrams, but I don't know if it still does) In fact, back when I did
CPM by hand on paper, before PCs and such, I did them exclusively on a
conventional PERT Diagram, now called a Network Diagram. These are AON
diagrams. So why does the PMIBOK make this obviously erroneous
statement?

My other major concern is the attempt to reduce all of Project
Management to a list. PMI is trying to make being a PM a very
mechanical, linear process. It is not! Especially when done well. There
are just too many variables in PM, too many types of projects and
situations in which the PM might find him/herself for any simplistic
formula to apply in all scenarios.

As far as standardizing to PMI's standard, I'd have to know more about
it before I agreed that this is a good idea. PMI is just a group of
well-meaning, experienced PMs, not a group of infallible Gods.

 

[St Dilbert]

Hi davegb,

I tried to look up the "clear statement that CPM can't be done on AON".
I couldn't find it at least in PMBoK 3rd ed. (2004).
Basically it says in chapter 6.2.2. "activity sequencing: tools and
techniques" that AON is more prevalent than AOA and used by most
software packages - which seems to square with your opinion. Later on
in chapter 6.5.2. "schedule development: tools and techniques" in the
paragraph about CPM there is no mentioning as to the activity
sequencing AOA or AON necessary. Can you give me a more detailed
pointer what statement in the PMBoK you're referring to?

With regard to "PMI is trying to reduce all PM to lists and linear
process" I do have a different impression. Most of PMI's sponsored
research, congress papers and seminars is brimming with "soft skill
stuff" beyond the well publicized dry and technical standards. Granted,
the PMBoK Guide and PMP certification are probably the only "products"
with some attention outside PMI and all of the other stuff combined
will not compete with the buzz Tom DeMarco's next book will receive
alone - but that's not the same as having a strategy to take the "life"
out of project management.

As you said, PMI is basically just a community of PMs generating some
documentation while exchanging experiences - and that's why I still
enjoy being a member. Though I wouldn't mind being an infallible god
every now and then ;-)...

(Sorry for the empty posting before - got confused with browser
navigation and handling several open documents in between...)

 

[davegb]

Hi davegb,

I tried to look up the "clear statement that CPM can't be done on AON".
I couldn't find it at least in PMBoK 3rd ed. (2004).
Basically it says in chapter 6.2.2. "activity sequencing: tools and
techniques" that AON is more prevalent than AOA and used by most
software packages - which seems to square with your opinion. Later on
in chapter 6.5.2. "schedule development: tools and techniques" in the
paragraph about CPM there is no mentioning as to the activity
sequencing AOA or AON necessary. Can you give me a more detailed
pointer what statement in the PMBoK you're referring to?

I must confess, I haven't looked at the latest revision. If you can't
find it, you must be looking at the new one. I'm assuming that they're
realized the error and taken corrected it. And glad to hear that!

 

[davegb]

Hi davegb,

I tried to look up the "clear statement that CPM can't be done on AON".
I couldn't find it at least in PMBoK 3rd ed. (2004).
Basically it says in chapter 6.2.2. "activity sequencing: tools and
techniques" that AON is more prevalent than AOA and used by most
software packages - which seems to square with your opinion. Later on
in chapter 6.5.2. "schedule development: tools and techniques" in the
paragraph about CPM there is no mentioning as to the activity
sequencing AOA or AON necessary. Can you give me a more detailed
pointer what statement in the PMBoK you're referring to?

You must be looking at the latest revision if you can't find it. I
haven't seen it yet. But it sounds as if they corrected it, which is
good news!

With regard to "PMI is trying to reduce all PM to lists and linear
process" I do have a different impression. Most of PMI's sponsored
research, congress papers and seminars is brimming with "soft skill
stuff" beyond the well publicized dry and technical standards. Granted,
the PMBoK Guide and PMP certification are probably the only "products"
with some attention outside PMI and all of the other stuff combined
will not compete with the buzz Tom DeMarco's next book will receive
alone - but that's not the same as having a strategy to take the "life"
out of project management.

As you said, PMI is basically just a community of PMs generating some
documentation while exchanging experiences - and that's why I still
enjoy being a member. Though I wouldn't mind being an infallible god
every now and then ;-)...

I don't recall saying they're trying to "take the life" out of PM. I do
think that the PMIBOK tries to reduce it to a series of steps. That may
be the same thing to you, but that's not what I meant.

I guess I see this as two distinct groups of people, with very
different traits. The people you talk about doing research on the "soft
side" and the people updating the PMIBOK and the exam. The "soft-side"
people are oriented the "soft-side" way, and probably are big picture,
conceptual type thinkers. Meyers-Briggs NFs. The people updating the
PMIBOK would be, by nature, detail oriented,
reduce-everything-to-a-checklist kind of thinkers. Meyers-Briggs SJs. I
admire their tenacity and their ability to attend to every detail. I
lack those traits. At the same time, the re-write of the PMIBOK should
probably be overseen by someone with a conceptual mind to avoid the
"checklist" kind of thinking that prevails in that atmosphere. And
again, not having seen the latest revision, it's possible that they've
done some of that this time around.

While I have some disagreements about the new PM terminology and with
specific items in the PMIBOK, I admire the people who have the time and
the patience and the people skills to spend long hours in committee
meetings arguing over the definition of "Crash" or "PERT". So I go
along with their decisions, even though I may disagree.

I was a PMI member for many years, and enjoyed the meetings and the
people. The quality of speakers was excellent. Eventually, I realized I
was definitely preaching to the choir there, and that my time might be
better spent going to meetings where I might actually generate some
business. I still hold PMI, and in particular, their forsightedness in
creating and promoting a certification process long before anyone else
even thought of it.

 

[St Dilbert]

You're right: in the 2000 edition there is some bias towards AOA vs.
AON. Following from the fact that AOA only has finish to start
relationships and AON has the four FS,SS,FF,and SF they claim: "Using
start-to-start, finish-to-finish, or start-to-finish relationships with
project management software can produce unexpected results since these
types of relationships have not been consistently implemented".
Frankly I wouldn't know which issues (e.g. im MSP) this was alluding
to. I'm sure it can (and probably is) be implemented thoroughly.

I haven't been anywhere near a long-time member of PMI, so I can't tell
whether the PMBoK Guide has been deteriorating from a quite
comprehensive collection of project management wisdom into one
dominated by lists, linear process and long glossaries defining terms.
I made aqcuiantance with it in that state and never had a further
reaching expectation for that book "PMBoK" - this is in contrast from
what I expect from the organization PMI and these expectations are met.
That's the point I was trying to make.

I fully agree with the different personality types and some are better
served with the detailed standards publications where others profit
from the exchange of conceptual ideas.

As far as templates for project go, I'd be very pleased if they are
cross checked with standards because standardization helps a bundle
especially in distibuted and multinational teams. The PMBoK would be
one reference, but I for one couldn't derive a statement "this planning
template is PMBoK compliant" from the short descriptions covering
schedule development. On the other hand there is an expansion "Practice
standard for scheduling" that is still in draft (you can access the
exposure draft for a couple more days on www.pmi.org). This practice
standard is very directive in defining terms and making recommendations
on what to do and it contains a section explainin which attributes a
schedule must have in order to be called "best practice compliant". So
certainly one could cross check templates or MS Project as an
application against this standard. Being a first edition and still in
draft this Standard is probably quite prone to contain some errors.
Have you seen it? If yes, did that contribute to your statement of "PMI
going down an erroneous part lately"? I would be very interested to
hear your critique on that proposal - I'm sure in my world there will
be questions whether our schedules are "up to standard"

 

[davegb]

You're right: in the 2000 edition there is some bias towards AOA vs.
AON. Following from the fact that AOA only has finish to start
relationships and AON has the four FS,SS,FF,and SF they claim: "Using
start-to-start, finish-to-finish, or start-to-finish relationships with
project management software can produce unexpected results since these
types of relationships have not been consistently implemented".
Frankly I wouldn't know which issues (e.g. im MSP) this was alluding
to. I'm sure it can (and probably is) be implemented thoroughly.

I haven't been anywhere near a long-time member of PMI, so I can't tell
whether the PMBoK Guide has been deteriorating from a quite
comprehensive collection of project management wisdom into one
dominated by lists, linear process and long glossaries defining terms.
I made aqcuiantance with it in that state and never had a further
reaching expectation for that book "PMBoK" - this is in contrast from
what I expect from the organization PMI and these expectations are met.
That's the point I was trying to make.

I fully agree with the different personality types and some are better
served with the detailed standards publications where others profit
from the exchange of conceptual ideas.

As far as templates for project go, I'd be very pleased if they are
cross checked with standards because standardization helps a bundle
especially in distibuted and multinational teams. The PMBoK would be
one reference, but I for one couldn't derive a statement "this planning
template is PMBoK compliant" from the short descriptions covering
schedule development. On the other hand there is an expansion "Practice
standard for scheduling" that is still in draft (you can access the
exposure draft for a couple more days on www.pmi.org). This practice
standard is very directive in defining terms and making recommendations
on what to do and it contains a section explainin which attributes a
schedule must have in order to be called "best practice compliant". So
certainly one could cross check templates or MS Project as an
application against this standard. Being a first edition and still in
draft this Standard is probably quite prone to contain some errors.
Have you seen it? If yes, did that contribute to your statement of "PMI
going down an erroneous part lately"? I would be very interested to
hear your critique on that proposal - I'm sure in my world there will
be questions whether our schedules are "up to standard"

I hadn't heard about the schedule guideline. I went to the site and
looked at it briefly, enough to know I probably couldn't sit still long
enough to read through it all! If a client ever asks me about it, I'll
check it out. Hopefully by then it will be downloadable so I can read
it offline. The notice said it's only going to be up a few more days,
and I have a very busy week planned.

Many years ago, I was taught the PM is an "art and science". I think
PMI is trying to remove the art and make it a pure analytical process.
It's hard to define and standardize art, not something an organization
like PMI can do. In so doing, they're lost the art. And the art is what
makes it, for me at least, interesting and challenging.

When I teach my PM classes, I teach both. But of all the war stories I
tell my students to illustrate my points, my favorite is not a story
where I properly applied the principles of CPM or EV, but the time I
followed a hunch and flew a thousand miles to verify what a critical
vendor told me because I had a hunch he was lying, and I was right.
That's the art of PM. There was no analytical process that could have
told me to get on that plane and take a day away during a very tight
schedule. In fact, my analytical left brain was screaming at me that I
had better things to do with my time, and why was I on a wild-goose
chase to check out something a normally reliable vendor had told me!
That trip saved the project.

This is just a very big example of hundreds of little things that
happened, most of which I probably am not concious of even today.
Decisions, big and small, made not solely on analytical tecnique, but
also on just knowing what was needed at that moment, occasionally even
in conflict with the hard data. You can't teach that, other than to say
it's there, if you are aware of it, and you trust your gut. My advice
to my three sons, when they were going off to do something challenging
and/or dangerous, has always been, "Use your head and trust your gut".
This is what's missing in the PMIBOK. You can't get that kind of
thinking through analytical SJ manned committees.

I salute that PMI is doing, but I also recognize the limits.

I also feel that they are missing some critical elements to project
success, particularly in the scheduling, HR and quality realms, without
which even the most concientiously applied analytical tools will fail.
But that's another story!