One of the most misunderstood topics in Project Management seems to be the one of planning, and this probably because everyone has a good idea of what it means to plan an activity – we do it daily and most of the times (hopefully) we hit a bull’s-eye (or we have the impression we did that). You must do this and that, you have that dependency, you must coordinate with a few people, you must first reach that milestone before going further, you do one step at a time, and so on. It’s pretty easy, isn’t it?
From a bird’s eyes view project planning is like planning every other activity though there are several important differences. The most important one is of scale – the number of activities and resources involved, the level of coordination and communication, as well the quality with which occur, the level of uncertainty and control, respectively manageability. All these create a complexity that is hardly manageable by just one person.
Another difference is the detail needed for the planning and targets’ reachability. Some believe that the plan needs to be done down to the lowest level of detail, which even if possible can prove to be an impediment to planning. Projects’ environment share some important characteristics with a battle field in terms of complexity of interactions, their dynamics and logistical requirements. Within an army’s structure there are levels of organization that require different mindsets and levels of planning. A general thinks primarily at strategic level in which troops and actions are seen as aggregations at the needed level of abstraction that makes their organization and planning manageable. The strategy is done however in collaboration with other generals and upper structures, while having defined the strategic goals the general must devise together with the immediate subalterns the tactics. In theory the project manager must regard the project from the same perspective. Results thus three levels of planning – strategic, done with the upper management, tactical done with the team members, respectively logistical, done within the team. That’s a way of breaking the complexity and dividing the responsibilities within the project.
Projects’ final destination seem to have the character of a wish list more or less anchored in reality. From a technical point the target can be achievable though in big projects the most important challenges are of organizational nature – of being able to allocate and coordinate effectively the resources as needed by the project. The wish-like character is reflected also by the cost, scope, time triangle in respect to the expected quality – to some point in time one is forced to choose between two of them. On the other side, there’s the tendency to see the targets and milestones as fixed, with little room for deviation. One can easily forget that a strategic plan’s purpose is to set the objectives, identify the challenges and the possible lines of action, while a tactical plan’s objective is to devise the means to reach the objectives. Bringing everything together can easily obscure the view and, in extremis, the plan loses its actuality as soon was created (and approved).
The most confusing aspect is probably the adherence of a plan to a given methodology, one dicing a project and thus a plan to fit a methodology by following blindly the rules and principles imposed by it instead of fitting the methodology to a project. Besides the fact that the methodologies are best practices but not necessarily good practices, what fits for an organization, they tend to be either too general, by specifying the what and not the how, or too restrictive (interpreted).
No comments:
Post a Comment