Since 2007, we in SUKAD has been advocating the necessity for organizations to develop or adopt a project management methodological approach. A project management methodology that is an essential component of the organizational project management system. Further, we often hear about predictive versus adaptive project management methods. We read the debates on Waterfall versus Agile. Some practitioners debate these topics, and Agilists promote that Agile is better than waterfall. However, these professionals do not recognize that neither Agile nor Waterfall are project management methodologies. Therefore, a set of relevant questions we often here isContinue reading
The text in this blog post is from a seven-volume e-book series that we are working on. It is Chapter 7 from Volume 2.
The Customizable and Adaptable Methodology for Managing Projects™ is a three-dimensional methodological approach. In other words, to manage projects effectively and at
What are these three dimensions?
The First Dimension
The first dimension is the project life cycle (the horizontal dimension), which helps practitioners follow a project from idea to closure (and beyond). Figure 5 (the first figure) is repeated from an earlier chapter, and it presents the first dimension. Keep in mind, this image represents the standard model without any customization, adaptation, or other tailoring steps.
The project life cycle consists of phases, stages, stage deliverables, and stage gates. What CAMMP™ offers is a standard model that can be tailored; tailoring is covered in more details in Volume 6 of this series.
The intent of assigning “the first dimension” to the project life cycle is to emphasize that a project life cycle is the most basic form of a methodology and must be the starting point. In other words, whether we are dealing with a micro project or a mega project, organizations should follow a project life cycle, or what is also known as a stage-gate process. The project life cycles will vary from one industry to another or project type. Hence the need to start with a standard model, then customize to an industry and organization, adapt to an organizational function, and modify to fit a given project class accounting for size and complexity. The ultimate purpose is to start with a standardized methodological approach to develop tailored methods that are fit for purpose[i].
Volume 3 will provide a detailed explanation of every stage, and its components.
The Second Dimension
The first dimension can be good enough to manage micro or basic projects without the use of the second dimension. It helps organizations manage a project C2C, concept to closure. Therefore, this dimension is a must for all projects regardless of type, domain, size or complexity. However, once again we must emphasize that as project grow in size or complexity, there is a need for the second dimension.
The second dimension is the vertical dimension of the project life cycle. It is about the application of the project management processes along the project life cycle in every stage or phase. In other words, the PLC help us manage C2C but to manage each phase or stage, we need the second dimension.
Before we show the big picture, let us emphasize a vital point. For the effective management of every phase of the project, we need a set of processes. PMI and ISO offer us the concept of process groups, which we modified and expanded it for the CAMMP™ methodological approach. Figure 6 (this second image) presents the set of processes to manage a stage or a phase, as modified by SUKAD.
Now, it is time to integrate the first two dimensions, which is the focus of Figure 7 (this third image).
What this image shows, is that in every phase, these set of processes repeat. Keep in mind that CAMMP™ use the term process to represent a set of process steps that are necessary to accomplish a process deliverable, such as a stage authorization document or a stage management plan[ii].
Volume 4 will provide more coverage of the second dimension.
The Third Dimension
A quick refresher first.
- We stated that the first dimension can be used on its own (without the second dimension) for basic or small projects.
- We also stated that as project grow in size, complexity, or number of resources and people required, we need the second dimension.
- Integrating the two dimensions, the PLC help the project management team manage the project concept to closure, across the stages, whereas the processes help the PMT in managing each phase (or stage) of the project.
Wonderful, then what is the third dimension for?
The essential view of the third dimension
Unfortunately, we do not have a graphical representation for this since it is not like the first two dimensions; not a specific step or a stage or a process. The third dimension consists of layers, layers that organizations could implement along (and on top of) the project life cycle and the processes. These layers are what help organizations move from a fundamental methodological approach and transform it into a highly sophisticated and robust system that will enable and empower them to seek excellence.
In other words, whether you are managing a small or a mega project, a technology or a marketing project, in for-profit or not-for-profit organization, we need to apply some, if not all of the topics of the third dimension. This would be necessary, if organizations and teams want to elevate their projects and organizational performance to outstanding levels.
More on the third dimension
Organizations must ensure the competence of those working on projects. The competence would have to be appropriate to the type, domain, or class of the project. Competence is one of the advanced topics of the third dimension.
Along with competence, organizations cannot elevate performance without assessing the success of the projects they complete. We do have a project success model that we incorporate with CAMMP™ but it can also be used for other methodological approaches.
In addition to competence and project success, we address sustainability and best practices as the other two advanced topics to help organizations reach higher level of project management maturity.
Volume 4 will provide more coverage of the third dimension and its advanced topics.
[i] Volume 6 of this series will provide more details about tailoring the steps for developing tailored methods. In the meantime, this video playlist is a good starting point: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLiXup1lJ-_TNEkPCJXBy9eKUBJV8FmlDS.
[ii] The image shown is the SUKAD model for medium-moderate complexity projects.
How does CAMMP™ compare to global resources, frameworks, or methods? How does CAMMP™ compare to the PMBOK® Guide, ISO 21500, or PRINCE2? Continue reading
In this post, we will minimize the words and go with images from our upcoming book on CAMMP™ Continue reading
This blog post is extracted from Chapter 6 of our upcoming book, Project Management beyond Waterfall and Agile.
Summary of Previous Chapters
To summarize the relevant information from the earlier chapters, the current practice is:
- PMI and ISO are clear that they are not offering the community a method or methodology. They are providing a set of processes, project management process groups, and subject/knowledge areas. ISO 21500 mentions the need for product and support processes but does not address them.
- IPMA is also clear that it does not offer “how-to’s”; rather, it advocates the competence elements for managing projects. Here again, there is no method.
- GPM offers a method, but although its dependence on the process groups as a project life cycle is a weakness, its sustainability elements are of great value,
- It is important to state that PRINCE2® is a method, which is good; but for some reason, it is mostly known in the UK and other countries with organizations that have a UK influence. Th e author does not offer a dedicated chapter to PRINCE2, because CAMMP™ is an alternate solution that is more flexible and wider in scope.
Transition, Understanding the Challenges
The hypothesis of this book is that, despite the high value each professional association offers, there are still gaps in project management practice. Practitioners still struggle to apply what they learn in the real world, on real projects, and on different types and classes of projects.
In the world of projects and project management, certain fixed concepts apply regardless of industry or domain. Many variables are highly unique to the context of a given project.
Yes, organizations can use the IPMA’s ICB® and develop their methods using the competence elements.
Yes, organizations can use the process groups and subject groups from PMI/ISO to develop an internal methodological approach.
Some are doing so, but not enough!
In large organizations with abundant resources, their staff could explore the world of project management and choose what is best for their organizations from the available “menu” of options. Even in such organizations, one can find that they stick to one menu item, or one resource, for one reason or another.
While large organizations may limit their choices, small and medium organizations may not even have the luxury of selection. Consequently, they constrain their project management system—assuming they have one—and depend on the common sense of their accidental project managers. These organizations manage projects, or, more accurately, “execute” projects through accidental project managers, then wonder why the failure rate is so high. It is also possible
that these organizations think that they are delivering the project successfully; this might be so, but are they using clear criteria for measuring project success?
These practice gaps exist because organizations tend to box themselves into limited options. The gaps present us with opportunities to provide workable solutions. The fundamental principle of the offered solution revolves around integrating the best of what exists and offering it in a practical approach that can work for small or mega projects, regardless of domain, type, or class of project. Th is is a modest attempt to save organizations much research and development work.
What do you think?
Hello Friends in the project management community.
I was hoping that my last blog this year will be to share with you my recent e-books on the PMBOK Guide but unfortunately these books are delayed a few days. Therefore, I am closing the year with some statistics about our blog. Continue reading
Over the last twenty years, the PMBOK® Guide has been evolving with the growth of project management. The guide grew from nine knowledge areas to ten, from thirty-seven processes to forty-seven and from less than 200 pages to more than 600 pages.
If you have been following this blog site, you would have noticed that many of our articles are around CAM2P™ (The Customizable and Adaptable Methodology for Managing Projects™). This is the project management methodological approach that SUKAD developed in 2007.
This article (actually a presentation) is a follow up to the last post on OPM.
At the end of September 2014, we had the pleasure and opportunity to support the Dubai International Project Management Forum (DIPMF.ae) where we led a 3-hour workshop on how to build the organizational project management system. The workshop slides were in the previous post.
In addition to the workshop, we had a short presentation on how to transform from PMO (project management office) to OPM (organizational project management).