Chris Anderson builds an interesting case around the concept of the long tail of retail (The Long Tail: Why the Future of Business is Selling Less of More
Demos, a British think tank, described this in a 2004 report as a key moment in the arrival of a "Pro-Am" era, a time when professionals and amateurs work side by side: "Astronomy used to be done in 'big science' research institutes. Now it is also done in Pro-Am collaboratives.” Today, amateurs and professionals are working together successfully, thanks to the enabling technologies of this “Pro-Am movement,” and perhaps the most important of them is the arrival of the Internet as a mechanism for sharing information.
This example from contemporary astrophysics shows that classic disciplines can be democratized, i.e. brought into a broader context. Chris points to the astronomy example, while I, in this blog, try to prove that it is also true for project management. Now let’s get back to the subject of this post and take a look at the “long tail” concept applied to project management.
Construction and industrial projects are the backbone of traditional project management as we know it. Numerous great projects were built, thanks to the project management methodologies and techniques that today have become classics of the discipline. Project Apollo, the England-France Channel, the recent CERN project that generates so much buzz nowadays — all these projects represent the tremendous achievements of traditional project management science. These projects involved sky-high budgets, gigantic teams, multiple vendors, long lifecycles and other attributes of a so-called megaproject. These projects and thousands of other megaprojects rolled out today also imply astronomic risks and therefore require the use of a complex project management methodology with the right processes in place and management by experienced, certified PMPs.
But what are the chances that you’ll get to manage a giant project like that? Recent statistics prove that your chances are not that big. In my previous post, I already referred to the fact that, according to the U.S. Small Business Administration, over 50% of U.S. workers are employed by SMBs, which do not have colossal budgets, but still need to run dozens of projects. These projects are smaller in size, budget, the number of people involved andthe lifecycle duration. I mean projects like creating aWeb site, arranging a successful office relocation or developing a local coffee shop marketing campaign. These projects do not involve million-dollar risks, but these are projects, nevertheless, as they are unique and have a goal that should be achieved within budget, according to specification and by a certain time. These projects are normally managed by people who have never heard of PMI, PMBOK, waterfall or agile, but even so, these projects represent the absolute majority of all the projects undertaken these days.
When people ask me about the primary area of Project Management 2.0 application, I say that it is in the projects that drop into this second category. It does not mean, however, that Project Management 2.0 is limited to SMBs. Nowadays, there’s a tendency to break large projects into smaller ones to ensure the large project’s success. Statistics prove that large projects are inherently risky and more likely to fail than smaller projects. From a study of over 23,000 projects performed recently, Standish Group found that the success rate dropped as the project duration increased. I recommend you have a look at this article by Mike Griffiths to get more details on this survey. Mike is one of the proponents of scaling large projects into smaller ones, an approach that is frequently used these days to reduce project risks (see this example from IBM’s Rational Software Process Business Unit). It is in these smaller parts of a larger project where Project Management 2.0 can also be very successfully applied.
Let me illustrate the areas of Project Management 2.0 application with a graph that reflects a concept borrowed from retail – the long tail.
The vertical axis represents the size of the projects, and the horizontal axis stands for the project quantity. In this particular chart, I’ve decided not to choose a single differentiator for project size (i.e. people, budget, resources, calendar time, efforts, etc.). The picture is illustrating the general concept, so it will apply to many of these scales to some extent. By the smallest projects, I mean personal assignments that are often managed ad hoc or with the help of personal productivity methodologies like “Getting Things Done.” The opposite extreme represents megaprojects, like building a new city hospital or constructing a bridge that will unite two islands. These projects usually involve traditional project management techniques or even more complex program management and project portfolio management methods.
Now, when we slice this chart, we see the gradation of applications of project management approaches.
Slice 1 is long because there are numerous personal projects. It’s mostly blue because it’s the area where personal productivity methodologies are usually applied.
Slice 2 is higher on the vertical axis and represents the team space. Here, personal productivity is still very important, but team collaboration and project leadership are imperative and begin to play a more significant role. Therefore, this area is major in terms of Project Management 2.0 application.
When we move higher along the vertical axis, the size of projects, delivery risks and budgets, the number of people involved, and other factors grow. Slice 3 is rather short because there are not many megaprojects executed in comparison with small projects, as the SMB stats that I mentioned above show. Here’s where traditional project management comes into play. When the complexity of projects rises, more sophisticated methods, like program management and portfolio management, are needed.
Still, when the project complexity grows from personal to small projects and then from small to large industrial projects, the methods that were used for a simple project also will be used in the background. That is, on the industrial project level, there is a need for extensive coordination and governance, scheduling and resource allocation, etc. However, elements of a large project also will include Project Management 2.0 with its focus on productivity, collective intelligence and leadership. At the same time, in the Project Management 2.0 world, on the lower level, there are personal tasks of individual team members to which personal productivity will be applied.
So, to summarize, I don’t see it as black and white, i.e. that certain methods must be applied to certain projects. Rather, I see it as a gradient. The more complexity a project involves, the more risks are connected with it and the more formal the processes and methods undertaken for its completion will be. The less complex the project is, the more informal the processes and methodologies applied to the project will be.
This is just a concept, of course, and it does not claim to be exhaustive. I’d like to know what you think about it. Please let me know in the comments.
In conclusion, I’d like to note that Chris Anderson also says that, of course, democratization of astronomy has its limits. Pro-Ams are largely collecting data, not creating new theories of astrophysics. Nevertheless, their place in the field seems assured. The same can be said about the project management field: Project Management 2.0 will not replace traditional project management methods (as they still will be needed on the industrial project level), but it can be the most productive way to manage day-to-day projects for many of us.
Update: It turned out that the concept of the long tail was used once already to describe the difference between “simple” and “complex” projects by my fellow-blogger, Bas de Baar. Each of us utilized the model in his own way, though.
SN1987 was discovered by Ian Shelton and Oscar Duhalde at the Las Campanas Observatory in Chile on February 24 1987, and within the same 24 hours independently by Albert Jones in New Zealand. On March 4-12, 1987 it was observed from space by Astron, the largest ultraviolet space telescope of that time.
As a graduate student at UC Irvine, Fred Reines postulated that a Neutrino pulse would arrive and this was confirmed by the Irvine-Michigan-Brookhaven Collaboration.
Second is a question - what are the units of measure on the axis in your graph.
Finally, care must be taken with the Standish numbers. Their definition of "failure" is very unscientific. Off budget, off schedule by any amount = troubled. This is counter to any real world project experience, where any changes to scope, funding, or productivity (all natural variances on projects especially IT) will result in a Standish "unfavorable."
But everyone know that the longer a project runs, the higher the probability something will go wrong - this is the Poisson Distribution. Works for projects, work for light bulbs. Even mega DoD programs (where I live) mandate spirals and incremental assessment of maturity of the products.
There's a good Mega Project assessment at The Rand Corporation that's worth a read in light of the current trend for such spectacular difficulties like Joint Strike Fighter and Future Combat System.
You beat my too it. Stay away from any conclusions from Standish. It has high school grade statistics.
Keep up the good job!
Nice to see your blog. It’s very interesting. Keep up your good job!
Any extreme curve like at should be backed with data. Otherwise I could just draw a chicken and say it represents PM 3.0
In fact, I think you do your case injustice by implying accuracy and precision about the data when in fact there is none.
At first glance, this smells like hype to me. That is probably not the impression you meant, but that is how it comes across.
My friend Jack is sometimes a bit forward, but he has a point. Notional charts are just that notional. Not the basis of decision making.
Also Jack is a very seasoned project manager, and like me the premise that a technology (Web 2.0) is the basis of something new in the project management space is, how can I say this, not credible. Having been in the IT and related technology business since the late 70's I've seen a dozen or so "next next things," ranging, ranging from the first structured programming languages, the SNA, to the introduction of mini-computers, to the demise of COBOL, to time sharing, to the Lisa - I acutully wrote code for that beast.
So like Jack and others, I'm skeptical of "new news" to what is essentially an ancient problem - managing projects.
I draw my skepticism from a solid business book - Beyond The Hype: Rediscovering the Essence of Management, Eccles and Nohria, Harvard Business School Press, 1992.
Yes 1992, the same approaches to "new idea" introduction were being written about then are reappearing now. The issue for Jack and those like him - including me - is that the term Project Management has been relabeled to mean the technology of a small portion of manging project management - the interpersonal communications and people collaboration part.
Once that relabeling has been introduced the Essence of Project Management, like Eccles's "essence of management," is lost and the pitch becomes "look at my shinny new idea." Which is not a idea or process per se but a product that has been labeled as Project Management, PM 2.0.
The selling of PM 2.0 is a product solution to what is essentially a people and process problem. It's a one legged stool in a four legged table world.
Glen, if you're so skeptical and if you saw so many of these "new things" before, why are you so worried about PM 2.0? :)
Love reading your comments by the way, very entertaining.
I'd wouldn't call my position "worried" about PM 2.0.
But suggestions that we're in the "next big thing," have yet to be substantiated by any field evidence that PM 2.0 does anything to increase the probability of project success of projects that have cost, schedule, and technical performance measures while spending other peoples money.
As a practicing program manager, that's what I'm waiting to see.
Glen B. Alleman
- whether we'll be able to pass the upcoming DCMA audit of the IMS
- if the customer will ever stabilize the requirements for this round of development and test
- if our Control Account Managers will be able to finish their basis of estimate numbers before the Christmas break
- if the SAP interface for our performance measurement baseline will take the modified WBS from the prime without having to redo all the mapping between WBS and Control Account - you only find this out when you load them, there is no test bench assigned to this program
Things like that. As far as PM 2.0 goes, I have no worries, the market place will do the testing here.
What I am "concerned" about as a practitioner is that PM 2.0 has no units of measure, has no connection to the unassailable beneficial outcomes that are needed here in the field, and that PM 2.0 simply confuses the hell out of everyone working on programs where "increasing the probability of success" is our daily mission.
Glen Alleman
Nice to see your blog. It’s very interesting. Keep up your good job!
http://www.pmtrainingonline.com/