« September 2006 | Main | November 2006 »
October 26, 2006
Project Scheduling with Excel
For the "I Hate Microsoft Project" crowd some new hope glittered today with a couple of posts on making Project schedules and charts in Excel. The secret is using an xy chart with error bars (my version uses formulas and conditional formatting and can do resource profiling but doesn't look nearly as clean. The post and example files are at Process Trends
Then Dick Kusleika chimed in and added progress lines. His example is here Daily Dose of Excel. A couple other approaches are referenced in his comments as well.
Excel is immensely useful... but it isn't a substitute for a real scheduling tool. Sorry Project haters.
Posted by Jack at 02:57 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Going Square
Presentation Zen is slowly dropping the rounded corners on all the images. Now it is safe for me to read again! You should give it a try too if you have any sort of presentation to make... ever. Garr Reynold's most recent post is about how there is more to presentation than logic, reason and facts. I have to agree. Project is mostly fact, reason and logic free, but you still come here to read it don't you?
Now what sort of appeal do I need to make to get you to tell your friends to come here too? Laughter?
Posted by Jack at 12:43 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
October 25, 2006
Project Management by Microsoft
At the 2006 PMI Global Conference a few days ago, Microsoft announced three new Microsoft Project 2007 Certifications. The details are a bit hazy as Project 2007 won't be released until next year, but the basic idea is that:
Three new certifications will be introduced to address the needs of people using the Microsoft Office Project 2007 desktop and the EPM solution. The credentials are designed to be incorporated into training programs that provide a progressive career path and promote high standards. These certifications also align with Microsoft’s support for the People-Ready business, the company’s commitment to prepare users with critical skills and competencies that lead to successful project outcomes and greater efficiencies. Microsoft’s Certified Partners for Learning Solutions can now participate in the opportunity of preparing users to migrate to the advanced functionality of Office Project 2007 EPM.
According to the press release (read it here) PMI's PMBOK was used as a foundation on which this certification was built. I can understand that. It is always nice to have something already existing to build upon, but a few quotes from Microsoft Learning GM Lutz Ziob leave me worrying a bit about the whole thing. This quote for example:
"The complexity of project management is driving the need for a more educated practitioner," says Ziob. "Microsoft is committed to advancing the project management profession. This is especially important as project management evolves from a desktop application to an increasingly strategic enterprise level business solution."
UPDATE: An un-named mole assures me that I'm the one who is misunderstanding this quote and the intentions of Microsoft. This is good to hear... I think.
Since when has project management been a desktop application? Don't get me wrong. Project Information Systems such as Microsoft's EPM solution are very good and useful, but they are just tools, tools which help you achieve SOME of the goals of Project Managers. I can't remember who was giving the talk, but I've heard project scheduling and tracking described as being closer to accounting functions rather than management functions. I agree with that to a certain degree. Just as a financial system gives managers information to manage their projects, a schedule/resource/tracking system gives managers information to manage their projects. Most managers don't run the financial systems though, and they aren't expected to understand many of the tools used. Why should Project Information Systems (PIS's) be any different? Shouldn't a group of project analysts or project "accountants" handle that part? If not, why not? I'm just worried that someone, somewhere is confusing information with management.
Of course, I have no idea what the certification will look like. It may be completely different than I expect, but if it focuses on teaching managers the ins and outs of Project Server then I think that the resulting "Certified Managers" are not really managers at all.
Posted by Jack at 03:01 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Project Managing the World
In someways it appears that the US administration is starting to treat the situation in Iraq as a "PROJECT". They are talking about setting up mutually agreed upon milestones for achieving "security" (forgive me for the "quotes". I just use them when way a word is being used by someone else doesn't match the way I would use it)
But it is curious to me that it has taken this long to get to the point where scope is being defined. As far as I can tell from comments made this morning, there is not agreement on what the milestones will be and there is still work to be done to flesh them out. Assuming that the US is taking the role of Project Manager/Owner's Representative, there will be some negotiation following that. To me this is the birth of the plan. From there, evaluating tactics and available resources to craft some set of workable assignments and sub-goals would be next. These of course would have some idea of the time required. Time can not be dismissed as it is a critical resource.
Then everybody would start to work the plan.
This approach sounds reasonable... and in this light it is reasonable to wait until the milestones are clear before committing to a schedule. I just wonder why it has taken a few years and more than a few lives just to get to the starting point.
PS: Note to W. When you state that not having (or at least not discussing) a Plan B is what "positive people do" you start to worry me greatly. Successful Project Management is all about mitigating risk. You don't get there by ignoring it.
Posted by Jack at 11:11 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
And now for something completely different
Dr. Nakamats "Inventor of the Floppy Disk":
http://www.pingmag.jp/2006/10/20/twilight-zone-dr-nakamats-inventions/
What I find most interesting is the concept that being 0.5 seconds away from death is the trigger for creativity. He achieves this through submersion in a tank of water.
I find the claim that lack of oxygen in the brain triggers some activity to be somewhat plausible. It fits with my belief that a portion of creativity is synthesis - the joining of two different themes or thoughts - and with the idea that sparking this sort of activity may be facilitated when the brain is operating out of its normal mode. But what really has me wondering is how he knows he is 0.5 seconds from death. What if you are off by a few tenths or linger just a bit too long getting the spark to ignite the tinder? Could it just be hyperbole?
Posted by Jack at 11:00 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
October 19, 2006
Microsoft Project VBA the Rod Gill way
Rod Gill has put out a new book which covers most of what you need for Microsoft Project VBA programming. As far as I know it is the only book about VBA that I know of. The last edition of Tim Pyron's "Using Microsoft Project" was so full that the VBA chapters were moved to an addendum on the web so it is great to see a book dedicated to just VBA. The book moves from the most basic concepts through creating some useful macros and userforms. It even offers an updated version of something very similar to my "Trace" macro. At the end of each chapter there are some example questions/problems which would make this book very useful if you are teaching VBA in a class. In the US the book was localized by Gary Chefetz and Dale Howard of MSProjectExperts and if you are familiar with their Project Server books you will be happy to see that the same high quality is embodied here. Highly recommended for anyone who wants a solid grounding in Microsoft Project VBA. Here is a link to the book at Amazon.
While you are at it check out Gary and Dale's Project Server Books:
Disclaimer: I know these guys and have had dinner with them at least once.
Posted by Jack at 05:41 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
October 11, 2006
Swimming to Cambozola
I swam a bit more than a mile today. Swimming in a pool is among the most boring of activities as the scenery never changes and there is no talking with your head underwater. A mile is about 70 laps of the pool. In a way it is similar to a long project. Of course with every project people develop ways of coping.
Most swimmers I know dream up one scheme or another. For longer sets I calculate the fraction complete to keep my mind occupied. Other people count strokes to build a rhythm, but perhaps the most common strategy is to break the session into various sets. If for example you were going to swim 2000 yards you might start with a 200 yd warm-up, then a set of 5 x100yd freestyle, then a set of 10x100yd im then a couple sprints and a warmdown. Going beyond this, you can add permutations of what time interval the set is on and also have the items in the set progress as you go along (ie: 50, 100, 150, 200 and then back down).
Back to the comparison with a project... each phase of the workout is kept under control by some agreed bundle of effort to be completed. The advantage is that unlike being told to just jump in the pool and swim, a set has a beginning and an end. It is actually something that you can finish before you go insane from monotony, and it is something you get a breather after. You get a chance to lift your head from the water and perhaps talk to the other swimmers. A project can benefit from a similar strategy. Setting milestones and taking some time to celebrate them is one way to do this. Having clear goals for each phase can help remove that feeling of "are we there yet?" which is discouraging when the answer is not really known.
Another lesson from swimming is that streamlining is key. I'm perhaps not much stronger or more fit than other swimmers I see in the pool, but I can gain several yards on them at every turn just by pushing off the wall with my arms stretched over my head and my toes pointed. Avoid the unessential and you will be yards ahead as well. Make every movement count.
Posted by Jack at 01:11 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
October 10, 2006
Spinning on the axis
Thinking deeply is difficult because, well, it requires thinking deeply. So sometimes it is more expedient to just throw thoughts out into the air as seeds for further thought to crystalize around. This is what I will attempt today as the topic is one which the amount of thought to get it correct is astounding.
Warning: For those looking for thoughts on Agile, or Theory of Constraints or Project 2007 you might as well hit the back button right now. I'm straying from the usual project management topics.
North Korea has stated they have tested a nuclear device. Iran has stated that they are proceeding to develop their nuclear capabilities. In a way these are "All-American" sorts of initiatives. They smell of the former brashness and pluck that characterized the pre-worldpower version of the US. From a North Korean perspective, the argument is little different from that of an NRA member who believes that they need a handgun for self-defense in their home and car. I'd venture that Iran sees things in a similar light. The motivations for developing weapons are very similar to those which motivated the US to pursue development in these technologies throughout the 20th century. The motivation appears to be fear, coupled with a desire for self-determination and national pride. It is hard to be more righteous than that. (Note: this is where the lack of deep thought is invoked, there may be financial motivation for North Korea to develop such weapons as they aspire to the retail weapons trade currently dominated by the US and China - but let us leave that alone for now)
Now, I think we can all agree, and in fact most of the world HAS agreed that more nuclear weapons are generally a bad thing. We have signed treaties to limit nuclear proliferation. This is relatively easy to do once the basic motivations have been fulfilled. The US for example already has nuclear weapons. The US already has a powerful position in the world and has enough self-determination and national pride to go around. The US is relatively free of fear as well. I say relatively because fear is never entirely absent, but it looks to me that fear has been on the upswing this century. I'm not sure I see that going away soon. But overall, I think it is great that a large portion of the world's governments agree to this basic principle.
So what would be the best way to deal with the issue of those who do not agree with this principle? I would think that at a minimum, any approach should address the motivations of the countries pursuing this approach. If fear is a factor, then reducing fear would appear to be a productive step. Unfortunately, the US has not pursued reducing fear. Or if they have, it has not been public. In the famous "Axis of Evil" speech, George Bush painted a big red and white target on the upper half of the Korean Peninsula and around the countries of Iran and Iraq. It then unilaterally attacked Iraq. If I were Iranian, I'd wonder "are we next?" and indeed many Iranians I've talked to in this country have wondered the same thing. To them, having nuclear weapons is a matter of self-defense, just as the US development of nuclear weapons was a matter of self-defense.
Now, there is the issue of appeasement. I'm not sure how to address it, probably because it is so free of clear definitions. To some it is being "soft" or accomodating the desires of another country. It got a bad name because a country which was on ann expansionist tear was dealt with in this way and was allowed to continue their trajectory of annexation and conquest. One can see that appeasement is probably a bad way to deal with cancers or other growing things. Indeed, it seems that at least at one point in time, Iraq was expansionist and appeasement would have been a poor way to deal with that. But are Iraq and North Korea pursuing expansionist policies? Is there any realistic chance that North Korea will attempt to annex parts of China, Russia or Japan? Would nuclear weapons help them along this path? What about Iran? Iran seems content to stay within their own borders and build alliances with surrounding countries rather than invading and occupying. Indeed, one can see that the approach of occupation is a difficult one at best.
Given this state of affairs, is an approach of escalation and vilification one that will reduce the motivations of Iran and North Korea? To me it seems quite the opposite. There are many who would deem South Korea's "Sunshine" policy to be a failure in light of current events, but I think that if it is, it is because the approach is coming from the wrong party. The root of fear in North Korea is fear of the US, not fear of South Korea.
Now a disclaimer. North Korea is guilty of terrible abuses of its people perpetuated by a series of leaders of questionable sanity. The suffering of people in North Korea is immensely sad. I can't say that I know anything good about the current leadership in Iran either. But, cornering a paranoid, vicious anxious dog is more likely to provoke a bite than treating its anxieties in a productive manner would ever be. It is not a time to fight fear with fear.
Posted by Jack at 11:30 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
