I'm working two programs in parallel - a really bad idea by the way. One is a DOE R&D project. The other is a DoD integrated battle management system.
Working in these domains produces a bias towards what is means when someone says "project management." This is an ongoing discussion for several reasons, not the least of which is how these projects answer the questions:
- Where are we going?
- How do we get there?
- Do we have enough time, resources, and money to get there?
- What impediments will we encounter along the way?
- How do we know we're making progress?
In my domain these questions are answered through the Performance Measurement Baseline and several work processes used to execute the project with that PMB.
The PM 2.0 Examples of Projects
If I look at examples of processes used for PM 2.0, they are primarily "list management" tools. There are many examples of these. Ranging from email parsers, the task dashboards, to Share Point addins.
So here are some questions:
- What types of projects can be managed with "list management" processes? These include assignments, due dates, narratives of the work on the list. All the stuff that the list management tools provide.
- What are the limits of the communication channel using email, IM, and other Web 2.0 tools?
- What is the evidence that the 5 questions above are being answered in sufficient fidelity to determine the project is moving toward success?
Looking at the users of BaseCamp for example, are they managing "operations" or are they managing "projects." When you look at their statements, many of the examples are "operational" in nature - ad agencies, and the like. Check list style projects.
I'm starting to see the target for PM 2.0 tools - projects without formal cost, schedule, and technical performance attributes.
