SPONSORS

SPONSORS

Adding Value to Earned Value:

The PISA P (PI) Chart[1] for Monitoring Project Implementation

 

ADVISORY ARTICLE

By Dr Kenneth Smith

Hawaii, USA

 


 

This article is a companion-piece to a previous Journal article on Earned Value,[2] and introduces a new graphic for monitoring & reporting integrated project schedule and cost performance status.

Every pedestrian Project Manager knows there are nine (9) different combinations in which a project can be during implementation with respect to its work schedule and budget, four of which are good, four mixed (good & bad) and one bad; as depicted in the following chart:

But Project Management Professionals (PMP)® of PMI[3] and other organizations familiar with the Earned Value Methodology (EVM) know better!  Actually, thirteen (13) Schedule & Budget status combinations are possible.  Unless recognized the additional four can result in invalid cost performance assessments, reports, inappropriate recommendations, and executive management decisions which in turn trigger detrimental ‘vicious cycle’ actions that exacerbate the current situation.

These four (4) additional combination conditions are often unrecognized because rather than monitoring the budget and actual cost for the work performed – i.e. whether completed ahead or behind schedule — traditional financial management focuses its attention on the time-phased budget for accomplishing work.

If the project stays ‘on schedule’ during implementation, Figure 1 accurately depicts the situation.  However, in most other instances, the possibility of ‘False Positives’ or ‘False Negatives’ exists.  For instance, if project work is completed ahead of schedule, even if ‘on budget’ it will entail utilizing its budget earlier than scheduled.  Similarly, if project work is delayed, the likelihood is that the project should not yet have incurred the cost budgeted for its accomplishment.  These possibilities are depicted in Figure 2, below.

More…

To read entire article, click here

 

How to cite this article: Smith, K. (2019). Adding Value to Earned Value: The PISA P (PI) Chart for Monitoring Project Implementation, PM World Journal, Vol. VIII, Issue XI, December. Available online at https://pmworldlibrary.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/pmwj88-Dec2019-Smith-adding-value-to-earned-value.pdf

 


 

About the Author


Dr. Kenneth Smith

Honolulu, Hawaii

 

 

 

Dr. Kenneth F. Smith has been a project management consultant for ADB, the World Bank, and USAID for decades. He earned his DPA (Doctor of Public Administration) from the George Mason University (GMU) in Virginia and his MS from Massachusetts Institute of Technology/MIT (Systems Analysis Fellow, Center for Advanced Engineering Study). A long-time member of the Project Management Institute (PMI) and IPMA-USA, Dr. Smith is a Certified Project Management Professional (PMP®) and a member of the PMI®-Honolulu Chapter.

Ken is the author of Project Management PRAXIS: A Treasure Trove of Practical Innovations to Classic Tools and Techniques for Planning, Monitoring & Evaluating Projects, Programs and Portfolios for “Quick and Easy” application by Project Management Practitioners.  (Available from Amazon)

Dr. Smith can be contacted at kenfsmith@aol.com

 

[1] PISA PI: Project Implementation Status Altimeter   Performance Indicator Chart

[2] Smith, K. F. (2019). Understanding & Applying Earned Value: A ‘Quick & Easy’ Approach for Monitoring Project Implementation, PM World Journal, Vol. VIII, Issue V, June.

[3] The international Project Management Institute (PMI)®

 

 

The importance of adopting a loving attitude

towards stakeholders

 

ADVISORY ARTICLE

By Dr. Bruno Roque Cignacco

United Kingdom

 


 

In the business environment, love is commonly seen as a feeling totally alien to the cultures of most organisations. Some renowned authors have even observed that love could undermine important business variables or Key Performance Indicators (e.g., productivity, quality levels, competitiveness, efficiency, etc.). Most companies focus on improving these indicators, instead of centring on love. It is important to pinpoint that these indicators are always the result of the interactions of an organisation and its internal and external stakeholders.

Therefore, when a company adopts a loving attitude toward its stakeholders, these indicators tend to improve naturally. An organisation with a loving attitude develops continuous goodwill and mutually beneficial relationships with all its relevant stakeholders; this company is more likely to succeed in the business arena.

Stakeholders are individuals and organisations with an interest in the company; they can be external (e.g., suppliers, intermediaries, competitors, communities, media, government, etc.) or internal (management and the rest of the employees). All stakeholders have their distinctive objectives and agendas. A company which develops beneficial relationships with its stakeholders is more likely to be supported by them when needed. When a company acts in a considerate manner with stakeholders, they tend to respond in a reciprocal manner.

In order to strengthen its bonds with its stakeholders, an organisation should identify their distinct needs and expectations in order to cater for them in the most effective way. Some specific tools (e.g., meetings, open telephone lines, emails, surveys, focus groups, etc.) can be used to discover stakeholders’ specific interests. A company should always take into account stakeholders’ unique needs when it develops its strategies and makes relevant business decisions. When a company continually cares for its stakeholders, its public image tends to improve significantly.

When a company adopts a loving attitude, all its activities (e.g., buying, selling, developing, and launching new products, etc.) are based on the development of mutually beneficial relationships with internal and external stakeholders. Strong relationships with stakeholders are always a relevant source of power, which gives an organisation an edge in the marketplace.

More…

To read entire article, click here

 

How to cite this article: Cignacco, B.R. (2019).  The importance of adopting a loving attitude towards stakeholders, PM World Journal, Vol. VIII, Issue X, November. Available online at https://pmworldlibrary.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/pmwj87-Nov2019-Cignacco-importance-of-loving-attitude-toward-stakeholders.pdf

 


 

About the Author


Bruno Roque Cignacco, PhD

United Kingdom

 

 

 

Dr Bruno Roque Cignacco, PhD is an international business consultant, international speaker and business coach. For over 20 years, he has advised and trained hundreds of companies on international trade activities and international marketing. He is a university lecturer. He is a Senior Fellow of the Higher Education Academy (HEA – UK). He is also the author of business and personal development books published in different languages. His websites  are www.humanorientedenterprise.com and www.brunocignacco.com

 

 

Risk Management

A critical link in Project Success

 

ADVISORY ARTICLE

By Hareshchandra M. Thakur, PMP

Associate Vice President
Project Management, Energy Business
Wärtsilä India Pvt. Ltd.

Mumbai, India

 


 

ABSTRACT

Today, the global boundaries are fast diffusing and one cannot operate in isolation. Fast-paced changes brought about by the disruptive technologies have also contributed to the risks. The dynamic environment clubbed with the uncertainty in the global economy has forced us to look beyond the conventional methods to stay in control and prevent risks from adversely impacting the projects. We all need to accept the fact that the business activities today are no longer mutually exclusive but intertwined and interdependent. Above all, the activities and the tasks, we perform, are associated with higher risks than ever before.

The paper is based on the observations and discussions with the Project Managers (PMs) and other Stakeholders. It attempts to highlight the risks associated with the projects and aims to help the Project Management Fraternity to relate with these factors, generate higher awareness and enhance their success rate.  To promote better understanding by co-relating with the risks associated with the construction projects, the paper dwells with the major risks one encounters while setting up a Power Project. The basic objective of the paper is to help Project teams in staying focused and initiate timely corrective steps to prevent an adverse impact on the project.

Key Words:  Risks, Project Success, Stakeholders, Owners, Contractors, Project Teams

BACKGROUND

Organizations often have strong and high performing project teams delivering results and achieving project objectives. Such organizations have a success rate of over 95% and yet, failure of the one-off project completely sets-off these margins. This is intriguing and forces us to probe as to WHY the project failed and HOW do we prevent such project failure which not only nullifies the efforts by the other project teams but also erodes the profitability of the entire organization.

Most of the studies have pointed out that often, the project failure is not attributed to lack of competences and skills but relates to a lack of application of the Risk Management. We may have the best processes and plans in place, but at times, even the most experienced project team members tend to underrate the prudence of Risk Management. To add to the foes, the fast-paced technological innovations have created higher awareness and resulted in higher expectations and ever-changing taste of the stakeholders.

Accept the RISKS and be ready for the Rewards!!!

OBJECTIVE

Normal mindset associated with the word “Risk” is that we tend to look at the downside and 99% of the time, we usually perceive Risk as something dreadful, something bad is going to happen, dangerous etc. We need to remember that at times, the opportunities come disguised in the form of the risks.  Moreover, Storms are known to produce good sailors, here too risky projects are known to mold and shape the Project Managers as good professionals.

The Project teams are often driven by project pressures to complete the projects within the triple constraints of Cost, Quality & Time and the team members tend to overlook the associated risks during the project phases. Most pertinent questions which help us to reach the root cause of the project failure are enlisted below.

Based on our experience, although, we may have covered key Risks in the article below, the Risks highlighted below should serve as food for thought and is not a checklist. Also, as mentioned above, the overall aim is to help project teams to clearly identify the key factors and/or combination of the factors that lead to project failure. The factors can be broadly categorized into five areas –

More…

To read entire article, click here

 

How to cite this article: Thakur, H.M. (2019).  Risk Management – A critical link in Project Success, PM World Journal, Vol. VIII, Issue X, November. Available online at https://pmworldlibrary.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/pmwj87-Nov2019-Thakur-risk-management-a-critical-link-in-project-success.pdf

 


 

About the Author


Hareshchandra M Thakur

Mumbai, India

 

 

 

Hareshchandra M Thakur is a professional in the Power Sector with over 35 years’ experience in setting up of multiple Power Plants in Nuclear, Oil & Gas sectors in India and abroad. Presently, he is working as Associate Vice President, Project Management, Energy Business with Wartsila India Pvt. Ltd. Hareshchandra has held various positions in Financial Management and Project Management with Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd., Wartsila Finland Oy and Wartsila India Pvt. Ltd.

He has closely worked with cross functional and cross cultural teams and has vast international exposure in key areas – Project Management, Strategic Financial Management, Contract Management and Resource Management, Competence building, Formulation of Business Strategies and Establishing way of working for Indian & global projects. He is a Certified NLP Practitioner and has been visiting various Engineering and Management institutions as a guest lecturer. He has made presentations at IPMA World Congress at Helsinki, Istanbul & Crete and Global Symposiums on Project Management in New Delhi.

He holds a Bachelor’s degree in Electrical Engineering from College of Engineering, University of Poona and a Master’s degree in Financial Management from Jamnalal Bajaj Institute of Management, University of Mumbai. He obtained PMP Certification in April 2002. He lives in Mumbai, India and can be contacted at hareshthakur@yahoo.com.

 

 

Common Misconceptions about Agile

 

ADVISORY ARTICLE

By Ajay Shenoy

Bangalore, India

 


 

Summary

Most software companies claim to have implemented agile methodologies. However, there are some common pitfalls and myths about agile. Many Software development teams think they are agile. They would have been working in small iterations and would have ranked a backlog with product teams to build a workable solution at end of the iteration. Many teams believe implementing Scrum is agile or implementing Scrum Ceremonies/Agile Artifacts is being Agile

Here are some common myths about agile below which I have seen about agile.

People think Scrum is agile

People often think scrum and agile are the same thing as scrum is around continuous development, which is one of the core principle of agile. Scrum is a framework and whereas agile is a mindset. Agile software development refers to group of software development methodologies based on iterative development where requirements and solutions are progressively evolved through collaboration between self-organizing cross-functional teams. Agile development refers to any development process, which is aligned with the concepts of the Agile Manifesto. The Agile manifesto was written in 2001 by seventeen independent-minded software practinoners.

Being Agile Doesn’t Mean there is No Plan

Being agile is a goal toward every day. Too many waterfall projects failed because they did too much planning and likewise agile projects failed because they had less planning.

Yes, Agile Projects fail when they don’t plan. And yes, Agile Projects need a plan.

Now by planning, I do not mean a spreadsheet document with 500 rows with tasks and dependencies, baselines and status of each with start and end dates. Agile projects start with lesser upfront planning and we progressively plan as we uncover more information. However, we would start with ballpark solutions with plan and estimates. However, none of the plan will be a refined plan like what we would have in waterfall project. This means we stay flexible when we are confronted with challenges, and we embrace and adapt to the change and we are open to new ideas and solutions. We are flexible, but this does not mean we do not have a plan.

Reporting Agile projects through waterfall mechanism

Agile expects senior leaders and sponsors to spend more time on the project than off it. This means to spend time in sprint planning sessions, to ensure the requirements are understood, attending them tells to ensure what is being delivered to meet expectations and regular touch base with the team to provide continuous feedback.

More…

To read entire article, click here

 

How to cite this article: Shenoy, A. (2019).  Common Misconceptions about Agile, PM World Journal, Vol. VIII, Issue X, November.  Available online at https://pmworldlibrary.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/pmwj87-Nov2019-Shenoy-common-misconceptions-about-agile.pdf

 


 

About the Author


Ajay Shenoy

Bangalore, India

 

 

 

Ajay Shenoy, a certified Scrum Professional and Agile Coach, has been involved in Technology Solutioning since 2007. He started working as a Solution Engineer and slowly incorporated into a technical program manager. He is a Certified Scrum Professional and has good knowledge on Prince2, Agile, Lean, Scrum, Kanban and SAFe frameworks. Along with expertise in Project management, he has deep interest in Technology side. With these skills, Ajay can help people understand process as well as Agile. Ajay has a perfect blend of project management with technical skills and business acumen.

Ajay started his Agile journey in 2012, as part of engineering teams. He practiced scrum and other agile frameworks in delivering successful products within limited time frames. Ajay is proficient in Engineering practices such as Scrum, Lean Software development, and Kanban and has designed several solutions and market rollouts working with product/services companies. He believes in following key agile practices like Just In Time, Value Stream mapping, Refactoring, Improving lead and cycle time.

He single handedly built a group comprised of 700 employees with different skills/roles. He indulges in several meets/ conferences and sharing knowledge on public platforms like linkedIn with reference to Agile. Ajay has coached/trained several teams in different organizations; he was part of an agile team to improve an existing framework.

He has a Master’s degree in IT & Finance and is currently based out of Bangalore.

You can reach him on his email @ shenoyajay82@yahoo.com.

 

Estimating Realistic Activity Times

A Critical Pseudoscience Problem and Workaround Solution

 

ADVISORY ARTICLE

By Dr. Kenneth F. Smith

Hawaii, USA

 


 

ABSTRACT

This article highlights a flaw underlying the traditional “PERT” approach for estimating project activity durations and proposes a workaround solution.

THE PROBLEM

Estimating activity durations and scheduling project delivery and completion dates is particularly critical for both Contractors with Firm Fixed Price (FFP) contracts, as well as Clients/Donors awarding Cost Plus Fixed or Incentive Fee (CPFF & CPIF) -type contracts.

However, the difficulty of developing realistic time estimates has been pinpointed by participants in my project management seminars as one of their major concerns.   Experienced project managers unanimously acknowledge that — for one, or more, reasons – planned schedules were typically under-estimated.  Even those using the standard “PERT” formulas to estimate activity & project duration said that in practice both the “Most Likely” and the subsequently-calculated “Earliest Expected” times were unrealistic; being significantly over-optimistic!

As a bit of background, the Program Evaluation & Review Technique (PERT) is a statistical probability-based time-estimating technique of the Critical Path Method (CPM) — introduced in the late 1950’s — with which I became acquainted in the early 1960’s when I was a management intern on the U.S. Navy’s Polaris Project.  Today, PERT is a standard tool, incorporated into some scheduling software for use when there is uncertainty with individual activity time duration estimates.  [Not incidentally, when visiting Pearl Harbor with some of my grandkids a few years ago, I was shocked to see a Polaris Missile on exhibit as a museum piece near the entrance to the visitors’ center!]

The PERT formula for estimating an activity duration is: te = ( Opt + 4M + Pess ) / 6

Where: 

te     = earliest expected time estimate, i.e. a weighted average or “mean” of the range of possibilities

Opt    = optimistic time estimate

M      = most likely time estimate

Pess   = pessimistic time estimate

4        = a constant weight

6        = a constant divisor

For example, where:        Opt = 3;   M= 7 and    Pess = 23:

 te   =  [3 + 4(7) + 23] / 6    =  [(3 + 28 + 23)] / 6    =  54 / 6    =    9

Although seemingly more statistically sophisticated than a simple 3 point ‘average’ estimate – i.e. an arithmetic mean — the fundamental flaw in using this formula to estimate an Activity (or activities, and the overall project schedule) duration is that — by definition — the resultant te is merely a weighted average.  Hence the probability for completing the Activity (activities, and/or project schedule) by the expected time is still only 50%.  In other words, if/when applied to project activity scheduling, the calculated Project Activity te duration is under-estimated at least half of the time. Consequently, from the outset, the odds of the resultant activity milestones – and, indeed, the overall project – being completed as planned are just 50 / 50 — a very high risk that the estimated schedule will be overrun.  In essence — despite giving more weight to the Most Likely estimate — this pseudoscientific approach to take probability into account in estimating activity durations is still no better than tossing a coin!

More…

To read entire article, click here

 

How to cite this article: Smith, K.F. (2019).  Estimating Realistic Activity Times: A Critical Pseudoscience Problem and Workaround Solution, PM World Journal, Vol. VIII, Issue IX, October. Available online at https://pmworldlibrary.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/pmwj86-Oct2019-Smith-estimating-realistic-activity-times.pdf

 


 

About the Author


Dr. Kenneth Smith

Honolulu, Hawaii

 

 

 Dr. Kenneth F. Smith has been a project management consultant for ADB, the World Bank, and USAID for decades. He earned his DPA (Doctor of Public Administration) from the George Mason University (GMU) in Virginia and his MS from Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT Systems Analysis Fellow, Center for Advanced Engineering Study). A long-time member of the Project Management Institute (PMI) and IPMA-USA, Dr. Smith is a Certified Project Management Professional (PMP®) and a member of the PMI®-Honolulu Chapter.

NOTE: Ken’s book — Project Management PRAXIS (available from Amazon) — includes many other innovative project management tools & techniques; and describes a “Toolkit” of related templates available directly from him at kenfsmith@aol.com.

 

 

How to enhance role and responsibilities of managers

in Head Office despite their projects being offshored to the Offshore Center

 

ADVISORY ARTICLE

By Vimal Kumar Khanna

New Delhi, India

 


 

A large number of global companies are running Offshore Centers in distant countries. These companies have augmented their project teams in their global Head Office (HO) with the Offshore Center teams. The projects are distributed across the Offshore Center and HO, with the Offshore Center managers and HO managers leading the project teams to deliver on the project objectives.

In the absence of an Offshore Center, the managers in HO manage large projects with large directly reporting team sizes in the HO. However, as the company starts its Offshore Center, it offshores some of these projects. As time progresses, more projects with larger team sizes are offshored because of the advantage of lower cost of executing projects in the Offshore Center.

Initially, the managers in HO directly control the Offshore Center project teams working on their globally distributed projects. As the project size and project team size increases, the Offshore Center components of these distributed projects are managed by local managers in the Offshore Center. Over a period of time, the Offshore Center teams and managers gain in expertise and experience in executing projects. The company then decides that some of its projects will be executed totally within the Offshore Center and will be independently managed by local managers in the Offshore Center.

However, giving more responsibilities to the Offshore Center managers may possibly dilute the authority and responsibilities of the HO managers. The HO managers end up managing much smaller teams in the HO. These HO managers feel that their authority and span of control over the teams has been significantly reduced. They start feeling insecure about slowly losing all their projects and all their authority to the Offshore Center management.

We suggest that these insecurities of the HO managers should be addressed by assigning them new and additional offshoring-related role and responsibilities. The suggested techniques can not only prevent dilution of the authority and responsibilities of the HO managers but can also make their role more critical to the company and can significantly enhance their contributions, even compared to the earlier role being played by them in the absence of the projects being offshored to the Offshore Center.

Let us consider the case of a global product development company with an Offshore Center. The product features are decided by the company’s Product Management team. The product management team interfaces with the key customers of the company to understand their pain-points and requirements, to decide the right set of features for the product. Since most of the key customers of the product are typically based in the country of the HO, the product management team is also based in the HO of the company.

Some components of the product are developed by executing independent projects in the Offshore Center that are managed totally by local managers. Although the Offshore Center manager of an independent project will have the management expertise and experience to deliver on it, it should be noted that the company’s product management team and key customers are still based in the HO.

More…

 

To read entire article, click here

 

How to cite this article: Khanna, V.K. (2019).  How to enhance role and responsibilities of managers in Head Office despite their projects being offshored to the Offshore Center, PM World Journal, Vol. VIII, Issue IX, October. Available online at https://pmworldlibrary.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/pmwj86-Oct2019-Khanna-how-to-enhance-role-and-responsibilities-of-head-office.pdf

 


 

About the Author


Vimal Kumar Khanna

New Delhi, India

 

 

 

Vimal Kumar Khanna is the Founder and Managing Director of mCalibre Technologies. He has more than 34 years of industry experience. He has won multiple international honors for his contributions to the management and technology domains – being listed in Marquis Who’s Who in the World and being Honorary Editor of IEEE Communications. He is the author of Amazon #1 Best Seller Book “Leading and Motivating Global Teams: Integrating Offshore Centers and the Head Office” published by CRC Press – USA (Taylor & Francis group). His sole-authored papers have been published in leading global refereed journals, magazines, and conferences. He is a frequent speaker at Project Management Institute (PMI) Global Congresses―North America, EMEA, and APAC. He is a frequent contributor to multiple PMI official global publications – PM Network and PMI E-Link.

 

 

The Digital PMO: Shifting Organizations

from Project base to product base organization

 

Article two in a three-part series

ADVISORY ARTICLE

By By Waffa Karkukly, PhD and Ian Laliberte, MBA

Ontario, Canada

 


 

Abstract

In the first article of this series, we focused on the need for PMOs to become digital to stay valuable for their organization and continue to improve and adopt industry trends; and to be more equipped to support their organizations’ digital transformations. We explored the PMOs landscape today and what is expected of them to do and not do to transition to digital and how the internal readiness and external readiness preparation play an essential role in ensuring success in digitalize themselves, and be ready for their organizations’ digital shift.  In this second article, we will explore what it means to be a product based and differentiate the areas of focus for a product based vs. a project-based organization.  We will step through the required elements for a successful transformation and explain the details for each of these elements. Further, leverage a specific organization transformation to share the challenges and benefits from a product-based model, and explore what changes the new model will make to ensure success, and what are the expected outcomes and measures.  Finally, the success of the new model relies on the orchestration of the various functions namely the EPMOs/PMOs and explain the reason they need to be re-invented, as well as the for a new oversight function to be setup to support the product-based organization in the digital landscape.

Key Words:  DPMO, DMO, Journey, Platform, Product-based, Project-based, Agile.

Introduction

Nearly two-thirds of CEOs and senior business executives already have a digital business transformation initiative underway at their organization. Some 90% of corporate leaders view digital business initiatives as a top priority, but 83% are not making any meaningful progress (5).

Organization differentiate themselves based on their business model, PMO is a business model that some organizations created to seek differentiation in the way they deliver products and services, or in the way they optimize on their strategic investments while maintaining the lights on for their operation.  The main problem that many organizations face today in the digital transformation is the operating model which impacts the PMO regardless of the PMO digital to gain the anticipated benefits.

In Deloitte’s most recent industry 4.0 reports, 48% of executives indicated that introducing new business models was one of the top five topics discussed most frequently within their organization, yet only half of those leaders consider themselves ready for new business model. The business model has become the basis of competitive differentiation in creating, delivering, and capturing value in the digital realm (2). According to the 2019 Gartner CIO Survey, enterprises are changing their business models and requesting help from the IT function to do so.  Forty-nine percent of the organizations surveyed reveal they experienced business model change, with 13% reporting they have already changed and 36% in the process of changing (5).

One of the most popular models that are on the rise is the product-based organization.   Businesses are making a model shift in becoming a product focus organization rather than a project focus organization for many reasons; one of the primary reasons is the digital disruption and what it means in delivery expectations. What does it mean to be a product-based organization?

More…

 

To read entire article, click here

 

How to cite this article: Karkukly, W. and Laliberte, I. (2019).  The Digital PMO: Shifting Organizations from Project base to product base organization, PM World Journal, Vol. VIII, Issue IX, October. Available online at https://pmworldlibrary.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/pmwj86-Oct2019-Karkukly-Laliberte-the-digital-pmo-part2.pdf

 


 

About the Authors


Dr. Waffa Karkukly

Ontario, Canada

 

 

 

Dr. Waffa Karkukly, PhD, MIT, PMP, ACP, CMP has over 20 years’ experience in IT, and Project Management. Waffa has helped fortune 100, midsize, and small sized organizations improve their project management practices and PMO establishments through building scalable standards and proven solutions that improved their delivery process. She held many positions ranging from big 5 to small startups where she held the responsibility of managing IT strategy and operation; in her career progression she became head of PMO with titles ranging from director to VP, responsibilities ranging from $50 million to $1billion in Enterprise assets for global and international organizations.

Waffa is a strategist and change agent who had many organizations’ transformations in building agile organization culture and building CoE for IT organizations. Waffa teaches various beginners and advance project management and IT courses at various Ontario universities and colleges. She is a program and curriculum lead developer for variety of topics aligning education certificates with practical industry needs and trends.

Waffa holds a BSC in Information Systems from DePaul University, an MIT from Northwestern University, and a PhD from SKEMA School of Business. She is a Project Management Professional (PMP), Agile Certified Professional (ACP), and Change Management Practitioner (CMP) who is dedicated to improving the understanding and standards of project management practices especially in the Value proposition of Strategy execution via Portfolio Management and PMO.

Waffa is an active PMI member who has held various positions of Director of Communication for the PMO CoP and Regional communication coordinator for the PMOLIG. Waffa was one of the committee members that built the standards for PMI-OPM3. She is a volunteer and an Academic Reviewer for PMI’s academic paper proposals selection. She contributes often in project management publications and is a frequent speaker in project management chapters and forums.

Dr Karkukly can be contacted at karkuklyw@yahoo.com

 

 


Ian Laliberte

Ontario, Canada

 

 

Ian Laliberte, MBA, PMP, PRINCE2, is Vice President of Delivery Transformation, responsible for the TD’s strategy and transformation to ‘Agile Ways of working’. Ian joined TD in January 2014 as Vice President, Canadian Banking, Auto Finance and Wealth Management PMO and led the transformation of the project execution framework. In this role, he was responsible for managing the end-to-end delivery of the change portfolio for both business and technology initiatives.  From there, Ian then took on the role of Vice President of Delivery, Shared Services, where he was responsible for strategy, operating model and overall operations of IT for Canadian Banking and Wealth.

In over 20 years he has held senior positions leading business and IT transformation through turnaround, realignment and revitalization within international distribution, manufacturing, insurance (Life and GI) and banking industries.  Before joining TD, Ian held diverse Information technology, Project Management, and leadership roles at Canadian Bearings.  He has also held executive technology roles with Aviva Insurance, which included Change and IT Strategy, EPMO, Management Information & Analytics, and he has led Commercial Lines business transformation and the implementation of a business and operating model for Aviva’s Digital business.

Ian graduated from New York Institute of Technology with an MBA in Global Management. Ian’s leadership thinking has also been recognized as part of the top 50 thought-leaders in change excellence, and he has been published in 2014 Project Management Best Practices: Achieving Global Excellence – 3rd Ed (by Dr. Kerzner), collaborated in 2012 Managing the PMO Lifecycle, by Dr. Karkukly, and many other recent PMI article and publications on standards.

Ian can be contacted at ian.laliberte@sympatico.ca

 

 

 

Comparative Analysis of Project Management Frameworks

and Proposition for Project Driven Organizations

 

ADVISORY ARTICLE

By Tarun Mohindra and Madhur Srivastava

DRDO – Institute of Technology Management

Mussoorie, India

 


 

ABSTRACT

Risk and uncertainty are inherently associated with every novel developmental effort. Project Management integrates a variety of activities undertaken to successfully achieve project objectives. Various organizations across the globe have developed frameworks for guidance in these activities focused on different facet and elements in projects. In this paper based on open source literature review information about various project management frameworks is obtained, and a brief description of various frameworks for project management, their evolution, global utilization, their comparative analysis and tradeoff is presented. The mandate of Defence Research and Development Organization to indigenously develop defense technology and systems and become self-reliant is dependent on technological innovations and development which is managed using Procedures for Project Formulation and Management in DRDO (PPFM) guidelines. To attain the project objectives within time, budget and scope (QRs) constraints, over the years a systematic framework is devised. The intent of this research is to obtain best project management practices from available frameworks, assess their applicability and to enrich DRDO PPFM 2016 framework by augmenting it with the available best practices.

Keywords: Project Management, Global Project Management Frameworks, Comparative Analysis.

 

  1. PREAMBLE

Technology development efforts are best managed by implementing project management strategies. The utilization of these strategies facilitates mitigation of risks and uncertainty associated with developmental efforts of a novel product or process. All projects are unique endeavors, and one size does not fit all [1]. A diamond shaped framework presented by Shenhar & Dvir[2] assists in demarcating projects based on 4 dimensions namely, Novelty addressing the uncertainty of goals, Technology describing the level of technological capability required, Complexity referring to system engineering approach of product complexity and Pace taking time as dimension stating urgency of project.

To attain project objectives within time and budget constraints, the framework encompassing project activities must adjust with the environment, the task, and the goal, rather than stick to one set of rules. Projects have existed, and have been managed, since medieval period; however project management, in its modern form, its language, tools, techniques and concepts, first appeared in the early 1960s. IPMA (formerly known as INTERNET) traces its history back to 1964[3], and rests at present with development of GAPPS (Global Alliance for Project Performance Standard) in 2012. Applicability of various frameworks in varying degrees to meet the need projects is dependent on quality standards; customer satisfaction and benefit realization and hence no individual framework includes entire spectrum of knowledge required to successfully terminate a project. Various industries, global regions have their own preferences in choice of framework.

Defence Research & Development Organization (DRDO) Govt. of India has also developed its restricted framework called PPFM (Procedures for Project Formulation and Management) [4] which encompasses the timeframe from pre-project activity to the post-induction life cycle support. The general tenets of project management were brought out in PPFM 2006 and were updated in PPFM 2014 & 2016. PPFM 2016 has brought out a common and standardized management framework for planning, sanctioning, reviews and accomplishing projects for seven different technology clusters of DRDO [4]. DRDO being an organization undertaking projects across spectrum of readiness levels from ab-initio research to proven system for induction into service can provide a roadmap to undertake projects in Indian context, using a structured framework.

A framework by definition is a basic structure underlying a system, or concept. Various Project Management frameworks intend to increase the project success rate by putting emphasis on different prospective. The frameworks are classified into [5]:

  • Standards – A standard is a document established by an authority, custom, or general consent as a model.
  • Methodology – A methodology is a system of practices, techniques, procedures, used by those who work in a discipline.
  • Guides – A Guide is a foundation upon which organizations can build methodologies, policies, procedures, rules, tools and techniques, and life cycle phases needed to practice a discipline (project management)
  • Manuals – A manual is a book giving instructions or information to be adhered to.

More…

To read entire article, click here

 

How to cite this article: Mohindra, T. and Srivastava, M. (2019).  Comparative Analysis of Project Management Frameworks and Proposition for Project Driven Organizations, PM World Journal, Vol. VIII, Issue VIII, September. Available online at https://pmworldlibrary.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/pmwj85-Sep2019-Mohindra-Srivastava-comparative-analysis-of-project-management-frameworks.pdf

 


 

About the Authors


Sh. Tarun Mohindra

Mussoorie, Uttarakhand State, India

 

 

 Sh. Tarun Mohindra has received his B.Tech. in Mechanical Engineering and MBA in Operations Research. He is serving Institute of Technology Management, Mussoorie as Sc. ‘G’ and has experience of over 25 years in Technology Management. His research interests include Technology Management, Project Management and Science Diplomacy

 


Madhur Srivastava

Mussoorie, Uttarakhand State, India

 

 

 

Madhur Srivastava has received his B.Tech (Mechanical Engineering) from Dr. APJ Abdul Kalam Technical University, Lucknow and M.Tech. from Defence Institute of Advanced Technology, Pune in Aerospace Engineering. He is presently working as Junior Research Fellow at Institute of Technology Management Mussoorie with research focus on Project Management and Technology Management from October 2018. Madhur Srivastava can be contacted at msrivastava.itm@gmail.com

 

The Digital PMO

How PMOs need to Digitalize themselves and evolve to support their organization Digital transformation

 

ADVISORY ARTICLE

By By Waffa Karkukly, PhD and Ian Laliberte, MBA

Ontario, Canada

 


 

Abstract

Congratulations! Your executives are ready to go Digital. Is your PMO ready to become Digital?

PMOs have proven their success and their worth in the industry; we do not need to re-prove this fact.  This series of three articles will explore the need for PMOs to digitalize themselves and evolve towards their organizations’ needs in order to support their organization digital transformation. In the first article, the authors will shed light on PMOs today and explore, what it means for PMOs to digitalize themselves and the areas of focus to achieve a DTPMO (Digital PMO).  In the second article, we will explore how DTPMOs can shift the current thinking to forward thinking and facilitate their organization digital transformation to move from a project base focus to a product base focus. In the last article, the authors will focus on the ultimate future destination for the digital office to become the core unit in their organizations to connect all CoE’s (Center of Excellence) and sustain a product/platform-based organization.  Furthermore, we will share a case study that explores the digitalization journey, and how one organization was successful in their transformation.

Key Words: Digital PMO, DTPMO, DTMO, EPMO, SPO, SRO, CGO,

Introduction

(Gartner 2019) Nearly two-thirds of CEOs and senior business executives already have a digital business transformation initiative underway at their organization. Some 90% of corporate leaders view digital business initiatives as a top priority, but 83% are not making any meaningful progress. In addition, 60% of EPMOs are not aligned to the strategic direction, or ready to enable their organization digital transformation.  PMOs need to become digital themselves before they are able to support their organization’s digital transformation. The industry is predicting that by 2021 which is less than two years from this article date, a 50% of large organizations will have hubs to enable digital transformation (e.g. Digital COEs, Transformation COEs, Agile COEs, etc.).  For who is leading the way?

Elements for Digital Transformation

“Future proofing your business as Digital is woven into everything we do” (Deloitte, 2019). This statement speaks to how digital is shaping our everyday life at the individual level and as consumers of products and services, soon will demand services if organizations are not embracing and moving forward faster than their competition, they might be left behind. First, what does it mean to be digital? Organizations today are struggling with a consistent definition to what “digitalization” means, to some it is automating the business including client experience via mobile, social media, etc. For others, it is instituting the myriad of practices PPM, Agile, Platforms, PMO, COEs, etc. and trying to make sense of which way will help them compete in the future. Second, what are the main digital transformations elements that drove transformations? They can be summarized into: Automation, Connectivity, Real-time information, Change management, and Risk management. Digital business transformation is changing the PMO/EPMO operating context. Before we explore how we foresee this happens, let’s explore today’s PMO landscape successes and challenges.

More…

To read entire article, click here

 

How to cite this article: Vanderjack, B. (2019).  What is the Difference Between DevOps and Scrum? PM World Journal, Vol. VIII, Issue VIII, September. Available online at https://pmworldlibrary.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/pmwj85-Sep2019-Karkukly-Laliberte-the-digital-pmo-part1.pdf

 


 

About the Authors


Dr. Waffa Karkukly

Ontario, Canada

 

 

 

Dr. Waffa Karkukly, PhD, MIT, PMP, ACP, CMP has over 20 years’ experience in IT, and Project Management. Waffa has helped fortune 100, midsize, and small sized organizations improve their project management practices and PMO establishments through building scalable standards and proven solutions that improved their delivery process. She held many positions ranging from big 5 to small startups where she held the responsibility of managing IT strategy and operation; in her career progression she became head of PMO with titles ranging from director to VP, responsibilities ranging from $50 million to $1billion in Enterprise assets for global and international organizations.

Waffa is a strategist and change agent who had many organizations’ transformations in building agile organization culture and building CoE for IT organizations. Waffa teaches various beginners and advance project management and IT courses at various Ontario universities and colleges. She is a program and curriculum lead developer for variety of topics aligning education certificates with practical industry needs and trends.

Waffa holds a BSC in Information Systems from DePaul University, an MIT from Northwestern University, and a PhD from SKEMA School of Business. She is a Project Management Professional (PMP), Agile Certified Professional (ACP), and Change Management Practitioner (CMP) who is dedicated to improving the understanding and standards of project management practices especially in the Value proposition of Strategy execution via Portfolio Management and PMO.

Waffa is an active PMI member who has held various positions of Director of Communication for the PMO CoP and Regional communication coordinator for the PMOLIG. Waffa was one of the committee members that built the standards for PMI-OPM3. She is a volunteer and an Academic Reviewer for PMI’s academic paper proposals selection. She contributes often in project management publications and is a frequent speaker in project management chapters and forums.

Dr Karkukly can be contacted at karkuklyw@yahoo.com

 


Ian Laliberte

Ontario, Canada

 

 

 

Ian Laliberte, MBA, PMP, PRINCE2, is Vice President of Delivery Transformation, responsible for the TD’s strategy and transformation to ‘Agile Ways of working’. Ian joined TD in January 2014 as Vice President, Canadian Banking, Auto Finance and Wealth Management PMO and led the transformation of the project execution framework. In this role, he was responsible for managing the end-to-end delivery of the change portfolio for both business and technology initiatives.  From there, Ian then took on the role of Vice President of Delivery, Shared Services, where he was responsible for strategy, operating model and overall operations of IT for Canadian Banking and Wealth.

In over 20 years he has held senior positions leading business and IT transformation through turnaround, realignment and revitalization within international distribution, manufacturing, insurance (Life and GI) and banking industries.  Before joining TD, Ian held diverse Information technology, Project Management, and leadership roles at Canadian Bearings.  He has also held executive technology roles with Aviva Insurance, which included Change and IT Strategy, EPMO, Management Information & Analytics, and he has led Commercial Lines business transformation and the implementation of a business and operating model for Aviva’s Digital business.

Ian graduated from New York Institute of Technology with an MBA in Global Management. Ian’s leadership thinking has also been recognized as part of the top 50 thought-leaders in change excellence, and he has been published in 2014 Project Management Best Practices: Achieving Global Excellence – 3rd Ed (by Dr. Kerzner), collaborated in 2012 Managing the PMO Lifecycle, by Dr. Karkukly, and many other recent PMI article and publications on standards.

Ian can be contacted at ian.laliberte@sympatico.ca

 

 

 

Continuous Process Improvement

as a Function of Program Management

 

ADVISORY

By Steve Ford

Colorado, USA

 


 

Continuous Process Improvement (CPI) is the process of improving processes. While a somewhat esoteric definition, the reality is that CPI is ubiquitous throughout industry and is necessary to improve the manner in which a company develops and implements processes (Eaton, 2013; Carleton, 2016). A robust CPI program can result in overall improvements in the efficiency and effectiveness of both existing and emerging processes, thereby helping to streamline the overall production process, to include the critical path (Eaton, 2013; Carleton, 2016).

Continuous Process Improvement (CPI) also refers to the management effort of improving organizations via a focus on customer satisfaction as a function of organizational effectiveness and efficiency (Eaton, 2013; Carleton, 2016). CPI is not difficult to reconcile within existing practices of program management, as it is now considered mainstream and is therefore commonly accepted as a facet of program management. Indeed, the Project Management Institute (PMI) lists it as a process within the discipline of program management (PMI, 2013). Six Sigma, Lean, Total Quality Management (TQM), International Organization for Standardization (ISO), and Agile techniques all have their established places in program management (Sanchez & Blanco, 2014).

Paradoxically, CPI is both hundreds, if not thousands, of years old and also an emergent trend in program management (Eaton, 2013). CPI includes a philosophy of continually improving one’s processes for production, which is apparent in ancient weapon and pottery production processes (Eaton, 2013). It is also evident in the more recent example of the commonly accepted birth of Lean, the Venetian galley production process in the 16th century. By utilizing Lean concepts such as “standardized processes and interchangeable parts” (Eaton, 2013, p. 4), the Venetians could produce a high-quality, low-cost galley in as little as an hour (Eaton, 2013). In the last 50 years, the Toyota Production System and Motorola’s manufacturing arm showed similar results regarding cost and quality (Carleton, 2016).

As well as being an ancient philosophy, CPI is an emerging trend in program management, only receiving broad acclaim in the last 50 years (Vanwersch et al., 2016). Modern CPI can trace its roots to the work of Shewhart in the 1920’s and his work regarding controls and statistical analysis of systems (Eaton, 2013). However, it was not until Deming and his work with Japanese industry in the 1950s that CPI gained notoriety following the Japanese industrial explosion centered around lower costs and higher quality (Carleton, 2016). Even more recently, CPI techniques such as Just-in-Time (1970s), International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 9000 (1980s), Six Sigma (1980s), Total Quality Management (TQM) (1980s), Lean (1990s), and Agile (1990s) are still currently being adopted and adapted by program managers across all industries (Eaton, 2013; Carleton, 2016; Sanchez & Blanco, 2014).

CPI’s Emergence, Relevance, and Importance

The major CPI initiatives include Just-in-Time (JIT), Six Sigma, Total Quality Management (TQM), Lean, ISO, and Agile (Sanchez & Blanco, 2014). All six of these methodologies existed for some time before being thoroughly vetted and defined. As previously discussed, the Venetians instituted Lean methods in the 16th century. Six Sigma practices can be traced to Shewhart’s work with control charts in the 1920s. In short, all six of these now mainstream methods can be traced back decades, which is why the more recent emergence of formal methodologies in the last 30 years is paradoxical.

Even if the methods existed previously, it was not until the late 1970s that these systems were codified and instituted at a global level. Along with a substantial shift towards efficiency and quality in the manufacturing industry, CPI as a philosophy hit its stride in the 1980s (Sanchez & Blanco, 2014). Since then, CPI has been included in every major program and project management instructional course (Vanwersch et al., 2016). It is now a part of health care initiatives, the service industry, and mainstream to the point that the Environmental Protection Agency recently stood up an office of continuous improvement (Environmental Protection Agency, 2018).

In any case, CPI’s emergence and relevance is, like the methodology itself, a continually evolving mechanism. New methods are introduced continuously, such as Lean Six Sigma being introduced as late as 2001. Tweaks to the Agile process were released in 2011 (Vanwersch et al., 2016). All six primary methods of CPI are undergoing the CPI process, enabling more specific and effective practices, in addition to a near-constant emergence cycle.

More…

To read entire paper, click here

 

How to cite this paper: Ford, S. (2019). Continuous Process Improvement as a Function of Program Management; PM World Journal, Vol. VIII, Issue VII, August.  Available online at https://pmworldlibrary.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/pmwj84-Aug2019-Ford-continuous-process-improvement-as-function-of-program-management.pdf

 


 

About the Author


Steve Ford

Colorado, USA

 

 

 

Steve Ford holds a BS from the US Air Force Academy (2004), an MS in Space Studies from the University of North Dakota (2009), and is currently in the Doctorate of Management- Project Management program at Colorado Technical University (2021). Steve is currently the managing member of Advanced Applied Project Management Solutions (LLC), a project management consultant firm. He holds numerous project management-related qualifications, including Project Management Professional (PMP), Lean Six Sigma Black Belt Professional, Project Management- Lean Process Certified, Lean Supply Chain Management Certified, and Lean Culture Certified. He has more than 18 years of aerospace and construction experience in project management.  He can be contacted at steven.w.ford.jr@gmail.com.

 

 

%d bloggers like this: