Peces de la Cueva
Sin ojos. O para mayor precisión, sin vista, pues lo que una vez fueron ventanas al mundo son ahora inútiles atavíos, un par de inservibles y gelatinosos esferoides a ambos lados de sus aplanadas cabezas muy cerca de las branquias. No solo eso: habían perdido además su coloración, siendo ahora de un tono blancuzco, casi translúcido algunos.
“Una sorpresa en medio de aquellas eternas tinieblas”, dijo el espeleólogo. “Una prueba incontrovertible del poder de la evolución”, dijo el biólogo. “Una hermosa adición a la rama de los troglobios de cuevas”, dijo el taxónomo. “Todo eso, sí, pero es una poderosa advertencia además”, dijo alguno por ahí. “Estos a un tiempo acuáticos y cavernícolas seres son fehaciente comprobación de un principio: lo que no se usa, se atrofia. Ellos perdieron ojos y pigmentación ante la inutilidad y por ende, desuso de los mismos en ese su mundo subterráneo de tinieblas. Generación a generación, tales capacidades se fueron poco a poco debilitando, sutilmente degradando, lentamente abatiendo. Esta pausada marcha evolutiva los llevó a a ser lo que ahora son: sombras de otro tiempo, inútiles vestigios de otrora útiles sentidos…”
“Escuchadme: somos ahora nosotros quienes nadamos en las oscuras aguas de las redes sociales. Poco a poco, la oscuridad del.odio, las tinieblas de la postverdad y la lobreguez de la sobreinformación nos están cambiando también. Cada día perdemos un poco más los ojos de la conciencia, la luz de la razón, el color de la empatía. Nos estamos acostumbrando a que otros nos alimenten de basura en la comodidad de la caverna a costas de experimentar la luz del sol y la frescura de la corriente. Peces de cueva somos. Quizá no perdamos la vista pues la necesitamos para consumir con lo que nos atiborran, pero vamos a perder algo aún más importante: nuestra capacidad de razonar, de distinguir hechos de mentiras y ante todo, de tolerarnos y ayudarnos. Abramos bien los ojos, pero los ojos del Alma… antes que, como los peces de la cueva, los perdamos para siempre”.
Fernando
Foto: Paloma, Actitud y Altitud / Photo: Pigeon, Attitude and Altitude
Sin comentarios, solo atisbos… / No comments, just glimpses….
PPP: Politics, Projects, and Pitfalls
Allow me to start with a metaphor: it utterly amazes me how little is mentioned in PM trainings & courses about the political storm in which projects (nearly) always sail across the vast and unknown business oceans. Our navigation charts are flawed. (Alas, how poetic! Careful Lord Tennyson, I´m coming for you… LOL). I mean, the focus of the preparation material for a certification – including textbooks, bodies of knowledge, frameworks, professional summits, etc. – most typically hinge around theoretical & technical aspects of the profession. Business politics, in the sense of power dynamics, concealed interests, diplomacy and related are seldom discussed. Let us talk about it.
In my experience, rookie PMs tend to ignore altogether the circumstances that surround the project and assume that everyone is driving against the project charter and its objectives. The premise is that the project operates in a vacuum. Moreover, if there actually some level of situational awareness it tends to focus on external circumstances only and not so much about the internal organizational dynamics. The problem is that, in real life, we know that is not the case. Therefore, and quoting R. Feynman, “The first principle is not to fool yourself – and you are the easiest person to fool”. We end self-tripping in a cycle of masochistic addiction to a partial, fallacy-driven perspective. Let me explain: human beings love to over-simplify and assume without facts nor data, and even worse, stick to conclusions despite new evidence and arguments proving us wrong. One of the biggest traps is to assume that all the project stakeholders are neatly chasing single common goals as stated in the project manifesto. Many times, this is not the case. Professional jealousy, concealed interests, personal agendas, different sets of priorities, conflicting personalities and cultural differences – particularly at high levels of the organization – may put the project at stakes. I´ll give you an example: say there is a big Program, and two major departments are driving two components to it: Department A drives Project 1, Department B drives Project 2. The Projects are intertwined with each other. Now, if Department B is not making as much progress as expected, it may be of its best interest to slow down Department´s A pace so they (Department B) don’t appear as the sole culprit to Executive Leads. The logic is perverse but worth the shot: the Program delay´s blame will be shared, and if things get rough there is at least the possibility of a finger pointing exercise to dilute the mess. Another example: the Directors of Area X and Area Y have a history of recurrent friction. Not only their personalities don’t mix but they are continuously dragged into F2F conflicts as per their specific roles within the corporation. When an issue arises within the project and it escalates to this level, a political game – and an egos match – triggers. Results are predictable. A third hypothetical yet not very uncommon scenario Business Division Z is facing issues spending the annual R&D budget. They began (as usual) late with their key endeavors, and they will lose the funding for secondary and tertiary priorities if not at least triggered during this year. Therefore, Business Leads for Division Z artificially elevate the priority of their projects, interfering with resource allocation and general Portfolio Management for the entire organization. The result is a management crisis in which well-stewarded & higher priority Projects are derailed when their internal team members are “hijacked” and assigned to less important ones through a political stratagem. The fact that PMs nowadays operate nearly all the time in matrix organizations make the situation even more convoluted for them. Begging for team members time becomes the norm.
“POLITICS, n. A strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles. The conduit of public affairs for private advantage.”
Ambrose Pierce
Those are solely three examples, but I think that by now my point is clear. It is a big mistake to assume that a group of people under a single title – call it Enterprise, Department, Geography, Business Line, Hierarchical Level, Project, etc. act as a monolithic, single-minded unit. There are always internal frictions, concealed purposes, and different perspectives. I strongly believe that senior PMs should raise the awareness of newer ranks about these facts as per the subtleties of each organization, and perhaps even more importantly, training courses and materials should have a chapter devoted to plant these concepts in the mind of new PMs, Admins, and similar roles. I have concluded this is an omission in most syllabuses. Time devoted to the topic would be eye-opener to the world of work in general & to the PM practice in particular to aspiring professionals. Betting it all on the future and gradual construction of experience is naïve and puts the entire burden on the apprentice, making the learning curve longer, steeper and painful; not to mention that increases the chance of project failure along the path. Newcomers deserve at least a word of caution about corporate politics and the subtle Game of Thrones occurring in many places, don’t they?
I rest my case now. Do you concur with me? Let me hear your thoughts.
Fernando
Photo by Kristina Flour on Unsplash
Recordando a mi Abuela (mi segunda mamá)
Uno de los primeros recuerdos que tengo de mi abuela– para mi ella era “Mamá Elida” y punto – es la desagradable extrañeza que me causaba el escuchar cuando sus otros nietos le decían precisamente “abuela”. Presumo que algo parecido le sucede a mis hermanos, honestamente nunca les he preguntado. Mi mente de niño, poco dispuesta a acomodarse a otras perspectivas, rechazaba con mal disimulado disgusto el que apelaran a mamá de cualquier otra manera. Aun hoy, tantos años después y ya a meses de su partida definitiva puedo sentir ese mal sabor de boca cuando alguien más en la familia le dice “Liro”, “Abuela”, “Doña”, “Señora” y tantos otros epítetos aplicados a ella. En mi mente, como una instantánea eterna, ella es simplemente “mamá”. Una segunda madre, un privilegio que muy pocos han tenido, una cómplice incondicional y valiente.
Recuerdo también de esa primera etapa cuando me amparaba por las noches, acurrucándome cuando me acechaban mis múltiples miedos de infante. Extraño esas deliciosas tortillas palmeadas por sus cariñosas manos, cocinadas en un comal de hierro negro casi tan añoso como ella misma. Evoco sus malteadas, preparadas con un molinillo en donde magistralmente agitaba la leche con un poco de esencia de vainilla y azúcar. Puedo aún degustar sus tamales, sus pasteles de pollo, su famoso pie de piña. Arroz con leche, cajetas, mieles. Porque como tantas otras abuelas (bueno, mamás en mi caso), ella proyectaba su amor a través de su comida. Para ella cocinar y ver a los suyos disfrutar su comida era un verdadero gozo. Sus ojos se llenaban de satisfacción al servir la mesa y su discreta sonrisa iluminaba la habitación cuando los convidados comían hasta el atracón. “Pero mi´jito coma, sírvase que hay más”, seguía insistiendo una y otra vez.
Me persiguen sus frases e historias. Ella era una ventana a una época que ya no volverá, a un mundo sin redes ni urgencias y a una Costa Rica rural, campesina y bucólica. Ella, sinónimo de sabiduría popular y experiencia. Mamá Elida era poseedora de un humor negro y directo. Socarrona y mordaz a la vez que tierna y consentidora, no me cansaba de escucharle. Frases como “patas de yuré”, “más sencillo que un calzoncillo de manta”, “tonto hermoso”, “malaya el Patas”, “como un buey muco”, “malaya el Cuica”, “le pasó el diablillo el rabo por los ojos”. Decía: “con rango” (con ganas, póngale empeño), también “o es gallo o es gallina”, “Ave María Purísima dijo el Ángel cuando le pusieron calzoncillo”, “o es que está culeca o es que no ha punido”, “hmmm, vení vos”… inolvidables expresiones que repican en mis oídos con el timbre de su burlona voz. Me sonrío todavía recordando las historias de su natal San Ramón: el mítico “Joaquín Loco” y su pobre madre, incapaz de llenar jamás al voraz muchacho. También la “tatarra” de aquel otro músico frustrado del cual ahora se me escapa el nombre; los complejos de “Chureca”, siempre peleando por todo y por nada; la increíble historia de “Moncho de Hule”, absurdo superviviente sin un rasguño de una caída desde lo alto del templo. Rememoro sus anécdotas sobre la Guerra del 48, cuando los “muchachos” tenían que salir huyendo del enemigo. Retengo sus historias sobre el denodado trabajo cogiendo café y empeñada en la industria de los puros. Luego, el relato sobre como improvisó una pensión para estudiantes universitarios, trabajo en donde ejerció una positiva influencia sobre decenas de jóvenes. Destaca en mi memoria la impresión que me causó cuando contaba como llegó en un par de ocasiones “el tigre” hasta la casita de la finca y los hombres tuvieron que salir a espantarlo. Embelesado, me transportaba la pobreza y sencillez del vivir en aquellos lejanos tiempos. Atesoro sus narraciones sobre la ausencia de hierro y metales allá por la década de 1940… pues le contaban que había muy, muy lejos una gran Guerra que no dejaba metal disponible ni para fabricar un perol. Recuerdo sus frases de aliento cuando los estudios o mis condiciones de salud me desanimaban. De nuevo, directa, motivando sin muchas contemplaciones: “yeso mi´jito, sí puede, sí puede – ¿qué es eso? ¿Usted? A ver, déjese de chocheras, con rango, no afloje”. Toda una “coach” o un “mentor”, dirían en la jerga de negocios actual.
Era un personaje contradictorio. A un tiempo golosa y austera, cariñosa pero punzante, religiosa más inquisitiva. Se transportaba con Gardel, con Pirela y con Los Panchos. Degustaba la flor de itabo, los caldos y los panes. Le encantaban las novelas – novelas históricas, detestaba los culebrones y todo lo que oliera a cursi, a mojigatería o a afectación.
Los ojos de Mamá Elida merecen un párrafo aparte. Para realmente apreciarlos era necesario que se quitara los anteojos, cosa que nunca hacía, como tampoco gustaba de salir en fotografías y mucho menos de sonreír en ellas. Recuerdo como de niño mis hermanos y yo se los quitábamos para jugar con la profunda distorsión causada en nuestras miradas: “¡en el piso hay hoyos, ohhh!” y caminábamos así hasta marearnos… o hasta que ella nos diera a un tiempo alcance y una buena regañada por la travesura. Eran, son y serán ojos indescifrables, enigmáticos, remotos. Supongo que podría decirse que eran de color gris, pero no sería esa descripción fiel: no hace justicia para nada a aquella forma de mirar. Tenían sus ojos matices azulados y verduzcos y proyectaban una extrañísima mezcla de serenidad y tristeza. No sé cómo explicarlo. Su mirada era así: un misterio, un hecho por sí mismo casi ajeno al gesto del rostro, un óleo incólume ante eventos y circunstancias. Ojos como incienso, como hortensias, como jades; mirada estoica forjada a través de casi una centuria de dolores, tragedias, partos, logros e incontables cambios ante los cuales supo siempre adaptarse y salir avante. Resiliencia serena, experiencia suprema, profundas aguas pasadas bajo antiguos y mohosos puentes.
Bueno, mamá. Me ha costado meses el juntar valor y atreverme a escribir estas muy mal logradas líneas. Me ha dolido el hacerlo, pero es algo que siento que, llanamente, te debía. Gracias por tu ejemplo de entrega, el ejemplo de una vida vivida únicamente por y para los demás: para tus hijos, tus nietos, tus bisnietos y hasta tus tataranietos, algunos de los cuales llegaste a conocer. Quedan los recuerdos que me persiguen, así como me persigue tu mirada a través de esos tus hermosos bifocales de los cuales tengo el regio honor de conservar.
Te quiero, mamá.
Fer
The project is (S/M/L/XL/XXL/XXXL). So WHAT?
Every PM suffers now and then a slight attack of anxiety when notified about the assignment of a new project. It´s just natural: he/she will have a close relationship with this “entity” for weeks, months or years, and he/she knows nothing about it. Thus, he/she jumps to the Business Case, Charter, Launch Gate document or any other available source to understand what the effort is about. Again, all good here. The part that puzzles me is how little organizations prepare to deal with the project. Let me cut to the chase: most organizations limit to a generic characterization of the effort, mainly by size; sometimes also by complexity. In a few cases there are further categorizations as per the scope, geo, nature of the effort. But the consequences of this analysis are quite limited, if any.
In my experience, for most organizations, most of the time, the sole actual result to the initial analysis (categorization) of the projects limits to allotting a predefined range of hours to the effort, in rare cases a budget. The best I´ve seen is an actual prioritization, which is not a bad thing at all, but these are scarce cases and the impact is constrained. This limited output makes me wonder if the initial set of parameters with which projects are analyzed is insufficient. Or perhaps the actual process to act upon those results is utterly flawed, if not entirely absent. Candidly, I think it’s a mix of both, but I also think that the biggest proportion of the issue relies on the latter.
I think that we need to take this topic more seriously in our organizations. It doesn’t make sense to waste time on the analysis of our projects to do it incorrectly and then to basically ignore it: this is a Portfolio Management “chronic disease”, if I may be allowed to use the analogy. I am not certain about the cure to this problem, still, I have already a couple prompt points. Let me say that a broader range of parameters to select upon (size, complexity, risk, urgency, stakeholders’ profiles, expected duration, budget) would help a lot. Then perhaps an algorithm, a formula could be used to produce a conclusion, an actual project comprehensive characterization as per the values of each one of the numbers. Finally – and more importantly – there must be a process to act upon it: there must be consequences. For example, if the project is urgent and risky, assign this type of PM, if the project is long and complex, request for a bigger management budgetary reserve. If these stakeholders are engaged, it is mandatory to inform them every two days of the status. You get the idea: the characterization of the project through pre-defined parameters derives into actual actions, guidelines, rules, strategies. I also think that using Lessons Learned and a Focus Group with the most experienced PMs would greatly benefit the creation of the mentioned algorithm (formula). I also foresee interesting opportunities for PMOs to this analytical, semiautomatic approach.
Imagine that: you would be receiving your projects with guidance, structure and “warnings”: now that would be a sight, isn´t it? Of course, these “automated” guidelines would have to be tuned & tweaked as per the project subtleties by the PM and his Team, but nothing like actually receiving insight from the shared pool of experience and knowledge of the organization – as a standard input right from the beginning. Not only that, the organization would be nudging projects toward success: better staffing, resource allocation, wisdom injection right from the launch. COOL, isn’t it?
And now… what do you think? Do you know any examples of this idea? How would you improve it? Let us hear your thoughts.
Best regards,
Fernando
Receta para Curar la Soledad
Hola. ¿Acaso sientes soledad? Por tu gesto, diría que es así. Sospecho que en estos tiempos que pasan hay algo que no cuadra, que no cierra, algo que no parece hacer sentido. Sospecho que de cuando en cuando sientes como si estuvieras inmerso en una pésima película, como si todo alrededor tuyo fuera una extraña ficción, un cruel pero real teatro de lo absurdo. Creo que aún más seguido de lo ya dicho te sientes abandonado, cercado, quizá incluso cautivo en una jaula invisible. Y pienso que casi siempre te sientes solitario, atrapado, a veces como un genuino ermitaño, como un náufrago aislado en medio de multitudes que habitan junglas de concreto y asfalto.
Sabes que… tienes razón. Tienes toda la razón de sentirte así, porque es así como estás viviendo. Estás viviendo en una película, eres un prisionero, estás solo en medio de la muchedumbre. ¿Cómo lo sé? Es sencillo. Lo sé porque eres un ser tridimensional de carne y hueso intentando vivir la mayor parte de tu vida consciente inmerso en una pantalla de 5 pulgadas. Es un despropósito, un absurdo, un desatino. Por supuesto que te sientes atormentado. Es lógico que sientas ahogo. Es evidente que terminaras sofocado, claustrofóbico, aislado. Pero puedo asegurarte de que eres mucho más grande que “eso”. Hay una solución. Solamente debes deponer el teléfono. Es más, déjalo en el cuarto en ocasiones. Incluso apágalo. Alza la mirada. Asómate a la ventana. Fíjate en los árboles al moverse con la brisa. Observa el tiempo (¿llueve acaso?). En tu ropa. Deja que venga el aburrimiento. No va a pasar nada, te lo aseguro. Sin fotos, sin redes, sin “likes” y sin memes. Y luego, déjate salir a la calle o al campo. Déjate sentir como el tiempo pasa. Déjate sentir esa brisa que antes miraste jugando entre las ramas. Siente el sol o la lluvia o lo que fuese. Tómate un café. Mira a las personas. Mira que bizarro espectáculo hacen al dislocarse, al desarticularse y retorcerse cual serpientes encantadas por cibernéticos encantadores mientras intentan escabullirse dentro de sus diminutas cuevas-pantallas. Gesticulan sofocados. Muchos están ya decaídos, fofos y cansados cual peces atrapados en las redes. Recuerda aquella profética película sobre un pequeño robot (“Wall-E”) ¿Qué piensas ahora?
El tiempo no se detiene. Anda, dale, usa el mal-llamado teléfono como un tele-fono y llama usando tu viva voz a un amigo o amiga y coordinen los detalles del caso. Luego siéntense frente a frente sin los dichosos aparatos. Y con una copa de vino o un refresco, que se haga la magia. La magia de mostrarnos personas integrales, la magia de conversar, de pensar de debatir. Sí, la magia de ser seres sociales que sí socializan: no se puede socializar por Whatsapp, eso es una droga. Vamos, adelante, anímate. Eso es, mirándose a los ojos, sonriendo, llorando, gesticulando, acercándose, abrazando. Sea pues, acercate: mamíferos felices intercambiando toda nuestra carnal, grata, tangible y corpórea esencia; sin pantallas ni trucos digitales de por medio. Cuanta razón tiene Milán Kundera, cuán insoportable es la levedad. Pesados y sólidos nos necesitamos. Lo que padecemos es una ya crónica deficiencia de abrazos sinceros.
Agreguen a lo anterior un poco de ejercicio físico diario y me cuentas cómo te va.
Con todo mi aprecio,
Fernando
Divide and Conquer: A different PM per phase?
Introduction
In a prior article I publicly confessed my affaire with the Rolling-Wave project management methodology (you can take a deep-dive into my romance right here). In short, I find this framework realistic and pragmatic; a “stoic” management philosophy pivoting around a focus-on-what-you-can-control strategy. Expanding from this paper, my mind kept wondering about ways to improve how organizations – particularly big ones – can improve projects´ efficiency and governance. The exercise proved fruitful, here is an idea that has been enticing me lately. It may be contended as counterintuitive and perhaps even as controversial and naïve. Despite the plausible opposition, it´s an exercise in out-of-the-box rational and a challenge to canons and conventions. I hold that those are sufficient-enough reasons to share it: new ideas, asking and challenging are only different faces to that sometimes elusive, ethereal conquest called thinking.
Divisions and Phases
Let me start the journey with a disclaimer: this proposal applies exclusively to waterfall and rolling-wave approaches and perhaps even solely the former. These methodologies “cut” projects in logical parts, namely phases. In the case of waterfall approaches, the PMI states that those are Initiating, Planning, Executing, Monitoring & Controlling (which runs along the entire duration of the effort) and Closing. Variations of this theory exist, of course, eg: SDLC´s Requirements Gathering, Designing, Coding, Testing, Maintenance. A third example is PRINCE2, which goes by Starting up a project, Directing a project, Initiating a project, Controlling a project, Managing product delivery, Managing stage boundaries, Closing a project. You name it, there´s “more than one way to skin a cat”: at the end it is all about dividing the endeavor into more manageable and cohesive chunks that accomplish for governance and reporting purposes. Still, to my understanding, there is a common denominator, a big underlying assumption across them all: a single PM runs the effort across its entire timeline. I want to discuss this assumption now.
A monster prone to mutation
Bottomline, my argument is simple. We divide projects in phases because it makes sense to do so. Its ultimately an application of the “Divide & Conquer” adage. The created pieces have a natural affinity among its components derived from the maturity of the effort at each stage: a project is kind of a monster that utterly mutates along its life. If that is the case, shouldn’t large organizations have their PMs (and perhaps other roles) also specialized & be assigned according to the project phases? There would be an Initiation PM, a Planning PM, an Execution PM, a Closure PM and a M&C PM (or committee) – or similar figures according to the way the project was “cut”. I suppose (quite frankly, I have not heard of any organizations doing this) that this would have remarkable pros: specialization expedites learning and mastership of specific roles and tasks. Let me put it into other terms: we all know that there is a cognitive toll to be paid when we jump from project to project, from task to task. I am advocating here for sort of a Taylorism applied to the project’s world. An even deeper specialization should increase efficiency and efficacy. A baton race to large organizational endeavors is born, with runners specialized in each part of the track.
“Defeat them in detail: the Divide and Conquer Strategy. Look at the parts and determine how to control the individual parts, create dissension and leverage it”
Robert Greene
There is no such thing as a free lunch
I know, you know, we know – there are cons to this idea. First-off, so much for comprehensive Project Integration work. The very nature of the approach changes this to a per-phase range. Line of sight may also decrease, and specialization creates specialists: individuals who superbly perform in a very specific area – and that´s it. Also, durations of phases are varied, with a powerful tendency to overextend during the Execution phase (padding, Parkinson´s Law, Peter´s principle, bad multitasking, resources stretched too thin, etc.) and to a minor degree, Closure (90% Syndrome, Student Syndrome, etc.) or to fail during earlier phases (Lakein Principle, Fitzgerald´s Law, Constantine´s Law and other). That said, we can counter these problems with some subordinate ideas. For example, the PM pool of resources could be rotated from phase to phase to avoid burnout and keep knowledge afresh. The number of resources allocated per phase should be balanced to the average duration of the phases. PMOs could lead internal bootcamps to transfer knowledge, lessons learned and feedback from phase to phase. Also, an overarching Monitoring & Controlling organization could serve as a cross-phase steward.
There is one more argument against this idea: the divided accountability of the project as a whole, associated to several PMs leading it. Moreover, hand-offs across phases can be messy. I believe this is actually its major forte. It may be counterintuitive, still, if a solid inter-phase procedure is established, the very fact that a new person receives the outputs of the phase creates an implicit audit to the quality of those products. I mean, if you are going to lead the Execution Phase, it is for of your best interest to thoroughly examine the Plan. This could have the additional benefit of solving the “relaxed” approach to mid-project Gates and Phases (in my experience, Launch and Close checks are much more solid). Furthermore, even demi-gates could be established for the biggest projects, so to ensure that partial checks are enabled before actual hand-off attempts. It’s a matter of creativity and will – a baton-race implies that you run your part of the track well, and perhaps even more importantly, that you hand-off the baton perfectly. On the lack-of-integral-accountability point aforementioned, I believe it can be solved by transferring it to the SteerCo or to the Sponsor: why not? A project is a temporary organization and a shared effort, isn´t it? Why not transferring the overarching accountability to the overarching figures?
Conclusion
In conclusion, I think that organizations could benefit from a further level of specialization for their projects. Project “Launchers”, “Closers”, “Planners”, “Boundary Masters”, “SWAT Teams” and similar figures could derive into increased efficiency and efficacy: staff mindset would be affixed to a particular maturity status of the efforts. Templates would become more and more familiar. Processes would become more routinary. True experts to their field and role. I think this could be a good thing for large organizations undergoing performance issues with their Portfolios.
All this said, this is still a mental exercise, sort of a hypothesis in search of experimentation, testing and evidence. Thus, do you know any organizations that work like this? Do you have your own opinions or ideas as of how to run projects? I would love to hear your voice.
All the best – saludos cordiales!
Fernando
A veces pienso que…
[Un (intento) de poema original]
A veces pienso que yo pienso
Que los vivos no están vivos
Que los muertos no están muertos
Que en este, el único instante
No hay de estos ni de aquellos
Que mis hijos te redimen
Que tus hijos son mis verbos
Que solo soy porque tú eres
Que no hay horas, ni desiertos
Que la vida es antesala
Que somos solo los recuerdos
Que lo único que importa…
es que otros gocen, de la sombra…
…de los árboles, que siembro.
Fernando
Agosto 2022
Foto: Café con Nostalgia / Photo: Coffee with Sigh
ENGLISH: one last coffee plant standing. The plantation house falling apart. A postcard from a time gone by…
Not Agile, not Waterfall, not Hybrid: my FAVORITE approach is…
I recently was asked a question that put me to ponder for a good while. This person reached out to me and asked “Hey, do you have a favorite Project Management methodology?” Nowadays, the en-vogue (oh la là), default answer would be to reply “Agile” in any – or all – of its different tastes. Still, for me, this is not the case. As efficient and trendy as Agile methodologies are, they come with cons. Our human nature drives us more toward entropy – a fancy way to say that we make are biased towards making a mess of it all – rather than organization & order and Agile could become a vehicle for havoc. The ulterior development of Disciplined Agile and similar variations are an admission to this point. Agile is not for every org nor every character. Furthermore, Agile is not the best approach for certain type of projects (the more “physical” the effort, the least space for maneuver & flexibility). Finally, I still have my reservations about beginning a project without a charter and a mature scope (we will talk more about this on a separate post).
A more academic, “can´t fail” answer to the question would be “my favorite is the one that applies to each project, as it is deemed appropriate”. I am not fond of this smarty sort of a riposte. As valid as it is, it´s more of a generic statement that sidetracks the conversation. It diverts the point from an actual exercise of selection & preference to a “rather don´t say” creative option. In more mundane terms, kind of a “beauty pageant” answer, if you know what I mean.
This takes us into the territory of actual methodologies. As shared upfront, Agile is not my preferred one. So, what about the “ancient” and mature Waterfall approach? Well, as we know, there are issues with it. Waterfall´s fortes are simultaneously its weaknesses: it requires lots of upfront planning. Also, and to put it in economic terms, it assumes a “ceteris-paribus” context to the effort (else, planning would be futile). Finally, it makes changes and adaptation cumbersome, expensive and slow (the more mature the project, the more valid this is). Alas! Then, what about a Hybrid method? It´s It’s another “nope” for me. We are still learning how to satisfactorily mix Waterfall and Agile approaches. Also, bringing these two approaches brings the good of both… and the worst of both.
By now I hope you are wondering what is left to be chosen: I can be picky, I admit it. So, drum-roll, please… After some reflection, my current favorite Project Management methodology is the… Rolling-Wave approach! (Applause, please). Why? Well, because from my perspective, it brings the benefits of a long-term aim of control (Waterfall) but the adaptability features of an Agile approach. This approach runs on a divide-and-conquer basis, severing the endeavor into logical, manageable chunks and focusing planning & control into the “next” one. Its like aiming to cross a vast jungle: you know the particular compass direction to follow, but you plan your path according to what the line-of-sight offers you. It´s worthy to mention that a decent level of phase/chunk overlap is also compatible with this approach. To me, this approach offers a healthy compromise between scope driven and time driven methods. I like it – I like it a lot.
So there you go, the Rolling-Wave method is my favorite PM approach. Of course, this is my personal palate: individual, subjective and particular: there´s no accounting for taste. I would love to hear your own opinion.
Regards,
Fernando
