My work on several previous posts, where I tried to dig into the nature and highlight the key differentiators of Project Management 2.0, pushed me to create a fresh updated version of the definition for this new phenomenon. Project Management 2.0 is an approach to managing projects that is brought to life by the use of Web-based, emergent, collaborative project management software and that focuses on collective intelligence, productivity and project leadership as the basic factors of project success.
Here’s what I mean by some of the specific words in this definition.
“Emergent” means that the software contains mechanisms to let all people involved in a project contribute to project plans and knowledge, so that the plans become more realistic and true-to-life, and project knowledge evolves over time.
“Collaborative” means that the software is designed for groups of people or whole organizations to work together in an intersection of common goals by sharing knowledge, learning and building consensus. “Collaborative” also does not mean “excluding leadership.”
“Project management software” covers many types of software, including programs for scheduling, cost control and budget management, resource allocation, collaboration, communication, quality management and documentation or administration systems, which are used to organize processes and operations on a project.
“Collective intelligence” refers to the joint capacities of a group of people to reason, to plan, to solve problems, to think abstractly, to comprehend ideas, to use language and to learn. You are welcome to compare this to the Wikipedia definition.
Examples of Project Management 2.0:
• Use of Web-based project management and collaboration platforms by Capgemini, Chicago Transit Authority, Australia's Defense Force and millions of other organizations.
• Fedora Project Wiki -- a place for end users and developers of the Linux-based operating system called Fedora to collaborate.
• What a Project! blog, which serves as a home to many projects at once. Use of other project blogs (Plogs). A project blog is a blog that is customized to record a project, or a deliverable task, with its goal, procedures and status changes. It includes a "completed" status, which puts an intended end to the blog when a project is completed.
Not Examples of Project Management 2.0:
• Use of personal blogs written by people involved in the project. These are for individuals, and although these blogs may contain opinions and information on project management, collaboration and the nature of projects, blogs like these do not imply teamwork and the achievement of common goals.
• Use of most traditional software systems, like Microsoft Project. As discussed earlier, they’re not emergent and are not focused on collaboration.
• Use of email and “classic” instant messaging for communications on a project. These applications do not allow interactions between people to be visible to the whole project team.
You may, of course, argue that this definition is too tool-centric. Well, when trying to elaborate on my old definition of Project Management 2.0, I was thinking about the role of technologies in this emerging trend, and I came to the conclusion that we should not underestimate the influence of technological innovations on the way we do business, communicate and live.
Following Manuel Castells, who wrote many scientific works on the IT Revolution, I’d say that “information technology is not the cause of the changes we are living through. But without new information and communication technologies, none of what is changing our lives would be possible.” This, in turn, brings me to the idea of a balanced project triangle: “people- processes-tools.” Tools are only a part of this chain, and this part is neither most important, nor insignificant. In order for a project to run smoothly, all three parts should be in balance.
Now I’d like to find out what you think about this updated definition. I’m looking forward to reading your comments.
First, let me say that say that after your previous posts and the comments generated I think I have a better understanding of how you're viewing PM 2.0 -
That being said, I still think there's a problem with how it's positioned, and now defined.
Anything termed "2.0" generally implies that it's new and brings to the table things that were missing (web 2.0 brought cloud/browser-based applications.) Your inclusion of Project Leadership in the definition implies that this hasn't been a focus until PM 2.0. To those of us that have been doing this for awhile (PM 1.0) that's slightly offensive.
Also, as has been mentioned before, PM 2.0 is limited in it's applicable areas - it doesn't translate to all project types. So claiming it's "PM" 2.0 as opposed to Agile 2.0 or Software Development PM 2.0 is a problem. It may be Collaborative Communication 2.0, but that's about as far as it goes.
In a comment on Glen's blog you were very clear as to how you differentiate between Web and Enterprise 2.0 and why you feel it's important, but you're not making that distinction here.
Just as you see an importance in being clear as to how technology 2.0 tools are termed, it's equally important to be as clear about what you're doing here.
Your idea of a balanced triangle further reinforces the limited application of PM 2.0 - the more important the tools are in the approach, the less applicable domains you will find.
Just the fact that your new definition starts by focusing on the tools and not the people or processes tells me that you're still trying to force your PM 2.0 into areas it will never fit.
How would you compare you offering to MSFT EPM solutions, or maybe eProjects, or possibly PieMatrix.
As a collaboration tool, yours and others provide a central location for parking project related information, no doubt.
How do these tools support the planning, executing, and project performance measurement processes needed to actually "manage" the project. For example where would a PM 2.0 tool capture measures of physical percent complete against the plan needed to forecast the future performance of cost and schedule?
"Project Management 2.0 is an approach to managing projects that is brought to life by the use of Web-based."
The rest should be valid for any technology and not just for Web 2.0
So MSFT SharePoint MOSS running forProject or similar web based front ends is PM 2.0?
Or SAP Dassian (browser based cost management) is PM 2.0?
Or Daptive (another browser based product) is PM 2.0?
What I am trying to say is that "PM 2.0" that people are talking about is just an improved Project Management methodology that has added collaboration. Suddenly people realized that the Old PM is missing this collaboration part. It is inappropriate to name this New PM as "PM 2.0".
PM 2.0 is just a term used by those developers that have generated such Web 2.0 products to claim that they have a better tool that stands up to the new market requirements. This is not true. Perhaps there are tools that offer collaboration but are not web-based. Does this make them less "PM 2.0" compatible? No.
I would agree to some definitions like:
1. PMS 2.0 - Project Management Software developed using Web 2.0 technology
2. PM 2.0 - a new Project Management approach to managing projects that adds collaboration by the use of collaborative project management software
I can atest that collaboration and communication can be enhanced with better tools. What I still confused about is that web based project management tools have been around for 2 to 3 years.
At this point in the project life cycles, web based interfaces are the norm not the exception for most every enterprise application from SAP down to small market PM server.
So I'm still wondering what distinguishes your definition from those products already in the market place for managing projects. I emphasize the "managing projects," since you've used the term Project Management 2.0 in place of Web 2.0.
Hence the questions about collaboration, since even the PM 1.0 processes and "some" of the tools rely heavily on collaboration. The old eProjects now Daptive for example came on the market 4 or so years ago as "the" collaborative PM tool for the enterprise. CA's Clarity is heavily collaborative in the enterprise IT environment.
So are you saying there is a new approach to collaboration based on something else other than a browser interface and its customization by the end user? Those kinds of capabilities are found even in such giant products as SAP.
It seems to me, and I my experience is limited to enterprise SW development, heavy construction, aerospace and defense, that many of the definition used here are "self referencing" PM 2.0 is Web 2.0 based. PM 2.0 is collaborative. Which of course is stated in PMBOK has a critical success factor for all projects. That concept has been there since Bill Duncan's 1996 version.
So when you say Project Management 2.0, what parts of Project Management at 2.0 versus all the previous incantations of project management. Because collaboration, communication, and the other enables of human to human processes have been there for a really long time.
Maybe as Tiberiu says PM 2.0 uses Web 2.0 tools. If that's the case, well maybe I understand. But as I've said in numerous conference proceedings, guest speaking venues, and practice daily in my Program Manager role, the tools have very little with project success in the absence of the people and the process.
So I'm a bit perplexed why a technology Web 2.0 is the "next best thing" when it comes to managing (and managing as a verb) projects?
What am I missing here? As a PM what can I do with PM 2.0 that I can't do with my current PM 1.0 paradigm? We use MSFT Project Server, SharePoint and all its Web 2.0 add ons, Safran, SAP, wInsight (a really nice web based data warehouse), web based time cards systems, web based cost accounting systems. Each if these is configurable for our needs, HIGHLY collaborative - at bit too much at times - and shared across the global by our project teams.
"Suddenly people realized that the Old PM is missing this collaboration part."
Really, I'm surprised it took this long. gee I guess back in the olde PM 1.0 days we never realized we had to collaborate with the other members of the project.
I guess another colleague Steve Garfein failed to understand to understand that when he was a major contributor to EDI and distributed team collaboration at Hughes Aircraft as a manager on the AH-64, using the ancient HP-9000.
http://www.rpmteam.com/Download%20Files/Presentations/PM%20in%20Howards%20Hobby%20Shop%20-%20PMI%2011-08-04.pdf
Maybe suddenly needs a unit of measure along with PM 2.0 and "long tail."
My mistake. It should have been written as:
"Suddenly" people realized that the Old PM is missing this collaboration part.
That "suddenly" was meant for the developers of PM tools and not for the real users. I agree with you that real users felt the need for collaboration way back. But some developers either only now realize this or they are using this "collaboration thing" to emphasize their products like being better only because they are using Web 2.0 and are naming it PM 2.0 which is not better than PM 1.0 (if you like to call it like that) according to Andrew definition.
PM 2.0 or PM 1.0 has nothing to do with the products/tools or technology. It is not the product that creates a new PM methodology (2.0, 3.0 ....) but rather the product embrace that methodology.
This may be the case. However, knowing personnaly product managers at several PM product vendors, it's never as clear as that. The drive for collaboration has always been present since the Egyptians were managing projects. Collaboration is a fundamental aspects of all successful projects.
One approach of the PM 2.0 proponents is the asusme PM 1.0 is lacking certain attributes, starting with a "moral motivation." Which of course is complete nonsense. Poorly implemented PM methods are the source of poor PM performance. The research has shown this for many decades.
What PM 2.0 brings to the table is the intergrated use of some of the Web 2.0 facilities on the desktop. But those Web 2.0 pieces are just the tip of the iceberg of all the critical success factors for a project. None and I mean none of the suggested PM 2.0 attributes address the core success factors of PM.
These are simple
1. Do you know what done looks in terms of testable and verifiable outcomes?
2. Do you know what this will cost in the end?
3. Do you know on or about you'll be done for that cost?
4. Can you tell me the impediments to getting done and what you're going to do about them along the way, and how much that'll cost?
PM 2.0 does not answer these questions in the least. It may facilitiate the communication to discover the answers. The embracing of new technologies to implement proven PM methods, as you suggest, does not change the fundamentals of those methods.
Glen B. Alleman
Program Planning and Controls
Aerospace and Defense
http://herdingcats.typepad.com/my_weblog/
So if PM 2.0 is aligned with Web 2.0, what are the physical connections between PM process and Web 2.0 that make it PM 2.0?
Also, it would be helpful if your blog had a threading mechanism, you responses could be connected to the OP.
I like your definition. I think it is accurate and represents what project management 2.0 is. However, having recently read Enterprise 2.0 from Andrew McAffee and other books on the subject, I think the definition could benefit from a minor adjustments.
Thus, I suggest the following :
" Project Management 2.0 is an approach to managing projects that is brought to life by the use of Emergent Social Software Plaforms (ESSP) and that focuses on collective intelligence, collaboration, and openess of the team structure as the basis of project success."
The rationall for my proposals are the following :
- [...] by the use of Emergent Social Software Plaforms (ESSPs) : It is my opnion that a true PM2.0 approach needs to include all web2.0 tools, i.e. blogs, wikis, SNS. Only then do we maximise the probability of seing all the benefits materialize
- [...] collaboration : I think that the enhanced productivity that you are reffering to actually comes from a better collaboration between team members.
- [...] openess of the team structure : I think that one of the biggest, if not the biggest benefit, of PM2.0 and Ent2.0 approach is the fact that you allow a true horizontal and "cross-departmental" collaboration and visibility. The use of ESSP allows the project organization to open up to the rest of the organization. It allows the project team not only to "manage" the stakeholders, but to integrate them and make them part of the team. This, ultimately, decreases the risks of missed requirements and process integration issues.
Hopefully this contributes...
This is a great comment and a good update that deserves a follow-up post on my end.
I would probably get rid of "Platforms" and the acronym (ESSP) as I don't feel them adding much to the discussion. More importantly, in my view of the world while collective intelligence is very important, leadership still is a critical component, so I wouldn't put it on the back shelf.
Many thanks!
the SDLC is not the PLC. The sexy stuff is in the SDLC. They PLC is where any "PM 2.0" would apply (and yes, the SDLC can be within the PLC).
Just waiting for the test, PMI 2.0, and CMMI for PM 2.0 to come out now.
Josh
In the end, successfully managing a project is not about the tools you user (web 2.0, emails, pen and paper or even M$ project), it's about managing people, budget, scope and tasks..
I mean, you got all the buzzwords in place, and you'll make money with this, but it won't help you managing your projects.
Fred.
At some point, the exploitation of the workforce becomes transparent and more is lost than gained - even in regard to knowledge.
J