projectified

Budget Envy...

The guys over at Cutting Through are talking about what I call “Budget Macho” among project managers.

They talk about how recruiters in particular are obsessed with how big the budgets were for a PMs projects or in some cases how big the team was for a project as a measure of the value or talent of the PM.

I agree with these guys in their assertion that some of the smallest projects (budget and\or team) have taught them the most. In theory a PM that successfully managed lots of $1000 projects should be able to apply the same principles to a $1,000,000 project. But I have to say that I think this theory breaks down to some degree. I think that big, high stakes projects carry with them different kinds of pressure than small ones. Also in many cases large budget often equates to large scope. If that is the case then I would want to know that the PM I’m looking at for a position has managed BIG projects if I’m hiring them to manage a big project.

Lastly, if you have not checked out their stuff I recommend stopping by there and browsing through. They have some excellent things to say.

Budget Macho...Size is Relative!

Cutting Through posted this reply to my Budget Macho post and I agree completely. In part they said:

But absolute measures of budget are meaningless unless you’ve got the context in which to put the figures - going back to the example I cited, the budget amounted to 10% of their annual turnover, and their entire reserves. Screwing that up by going 10% over-budget would have resulted in holing them below the waterline. If I’d screwed up the biggest project I’ve managed to date - well, missing the numbers by 10% would have resulted in some penalty clauses being invoked and some harsh words exchanged, but ultimately the organisation would have survived.

Working on a $1,000,000 project at Boeing or Lockheed or Merck or Haliburton is no big deal. $1 million is a fraction of a cost overrun for one of their projects. Companies like this have a special word for the project managers they get to handle projects this size: Junior! But work on a $1 million project at a company that has only ever done $250,000 projects before and suddenly you are a rock star and one false move and the company ceases to exist!

They also make a good point about what recruiters should be asking:

What recruiters should be asking is “which project did you learn the most from, and what did you learn?” But that’s not a question you’ll be asked often until you’re talking to a recruiting manager rather than an intermediary.

I have never been asked that by any recruiter. I’ve been asked it twice but both times it was a project manager asking! :-)

Sure the Triangle is Bent...But it is Still a Triangle!

Michael Harmer over at Nerdherding for Beginners talked here about what he sees as a problem with the traditional “Iron Triangle” of Project Management.

Basically, he says that the Resources | Scope | Duration triad is invalid for software because of quality. He says that writing higher quality code will actually decrease the duration of the project because it shortens testing and reduces surprises. He says:

Consider a project with a high degree of code quality. This project will proceed more smoothly since fewer difficult to identify or isolate problems will occur. What about a project with high process quality? Again the project will be smoother since the process will be well suited to the task (and people) at hand.

But higher quality code takes longer to write. Sure it takes less time to test but can we be sure that the reduced time in testing is enough to make up for the increased time in coding?

I'm not saying that the triangle is the be all end all and the sides might get bent on any given project to where it becomes some other slightly misshapen geometric shape but the sides stay connected. There IS a relationship!