Project

OK, one more rant before I stop for the day. mythologies and superstition seem to be rampant in the project management world both in terms of consumption and creation. And a lot of the PM blogs use big or marketing type words - primarily the ones with books to sell. I'm gonna have to think up something catchy to match up with things like "lean", "agile", "TOC" and the like. Either that or learn enough about them to write a boatload of nasty comments. I think I'll tackle TOC first...

You can look here for some of the fun that is being had:
projectified: Glen is on a Roll!
I've posted about MS Project haters in the past. They are quite common beasts after all. On the other hand, those that "Love" Microsoft project are as rare as unicorns. Brian sticks up for it just because he is righteous and works for Microsoft :-). I think part of the problem is that it has a complex soul. It is hard to get close to it without accepting it on its own terms. It also carries a lot of baggage and thus is not as streamlined, simple and shiny as it could be. Bloat is not a pretty word so I'll refrain from using it.

Excel and Word get new ribbons for their hair in their upcoming version 12, but Project for the most part has to be content sweeping out the fireplaces of enterprise while the others are at the ball. One almost wishes that one could wave a wand and convert the resource substitution wizard into a golden full fledged resource leveling engine with a team of dalmations running along behind or that the tired old gui could be cleaned of soot. But I fear it is not likely, and even if by some miracle Project were cleaned and polished at the end of the evening someone will shut down the program without saving leaving only a spool file blinking in the task tray.

No, dreams are not practical. The best approach is to jump into the swamp with project anyway. You can kiss it if you want, but it won't turn into a princess. Not that you would want it too. It is a pretty useful as a frog as it is.

It's all about helium these days. First my 9 year-old asks me if Helium-5 burns, then the Russians are reportedly planning to mine the moon for Helium-3 for reactors. Then Oil-man Bush gets all hot about alternative energy research, Richard Branson commissions Philippe Starck to design a multi-million$ space port in New Mexico (Hm... the logo is a blue eye?) and of course part of the US mission to Mars involves an extensive layover on the moon with a lot of time for exploration and other activities, so maybe we are all thinking the same thing.

Don't believe me? Well maybe we can read some of the documentation and see what is up.

Take a look at the Level 0 Exploration requirements for the mars mission. The basic idea is that development of the capabilities proceeds in a spiral fashion, each loop providing a foundation for the next. The moon plays a big part in this as it is a testing ground and staging point. There are 3 main phases of the project:

1. Crew Exploration Development and Test - The goal here is to build a crew exploration vehicle (CEV) and Crew Launch Vehicle (CLV) along with supporting infrastructure to put humans into Low Earth Orbit. This step is underway. Test flights expected in 2010 with the systems fully operational by 2014.
2. Global Lunar Access for Human Exploration - Establishes the capability to conduct human exploration missions to any location on the surface of the Moon. This includes robotic systems, a Lunar Surface Access Module (LSAM) and a Cargo Delivery System. The robotic part of this is supposed to commence by 2008.
3. Lunar Base and Mars Testbed - Estabishes the capability to conduct long term (several month) lunar surface exploration. This includes development of "surface power systems".

The thing that is a bit odd is that it stops there. Having guys living on and driving around on the moon is the end state of the currently published plans. But it is not inconsistant with the mission statement which is:

"NASA shall advance U.S. scientific, technological, security, and economic interests through a robust human and robotic space exploration program."

"(1.3) NASA shall explore Jupiter's moons, asteroids, and other bodies to search for evidence of life, to understand the history of the solar system, and to search for resources"

So what is it about Helium-3 which is so attractive? The Helium-3 isotope has a nucleus with two protons and one neutron. A nuclear reactor based on the fusion of helium 3 and deuterium, which has a single nuclear proton and neutron, would produce very few neutrons -- about 1 percent of the number generated by the deuterium-tritium reaction. This means both greater safety for humans and elimination of much of the radioactive shielding which is necessary for other reactions. Unfortunately He-3 is very rare on earth, but much less so on the moon where it is deposited by the solar wind. Uranus and Saturn are presumed to be rich in He-3, so the stop on the moon is just a stepping stone.

Reportedly, just 25 tons of He-3 could supply the current energy needs of the US for an entire year. The moon is estimated to have a million tons of the stuff. Seems to me that the space race is back on. Or at least I hope so. If it all works out it would be a good thing for our planet.

At the very least I hope this post explains why Martians speak in high squeaky voices.

I've started working at Pcubed in their San Francisco office. You can now officially put me in the category of Project Management Consultant. With almost a whole two weeks under my belt I'm noticing a few differences between being an internal or "captive" consultant in a staff position and being an external consultant. Very briefly they are:

• Introductions are more frequent and elaborate.
• You are surrounded by people who understand the same things you do.
• The client businesses are diverse, their problems are strangely familiar...
• I spend more time on the telephone.

So far I'm really enjoying meeting clients and potential clients. They offer an endless stream of things to think about.

If you are in need of any help getting project management practices under control feel free to email me at: jack AT zo-d.com and we will see what can be done.

"Project Life Cycle" is a misnomer as far as I am concerned, but digging around the origins of that term brings up some interesting ideas. Why is it that "Life Cycle" was chosen? There are plenty of other things which are cyclical which do not bear the first name of "Life". Motorcycles, Bicycles, Kreb cycle, Stirling Cycle, Ring Cycle ... you can keep rolling on from here endlessly.

But Project Life Cycle is different from other cycles. It insists on LIFE. What is LIFE? Stripping out the concept of the individual, after all individual drones are alive in one sense of the word (even cubicle drones ... I think), Life on earth can be stripped down to birth, reproduction and eventually death. Does a project conform to that model?

If projects are actually a life form, what is their means of reproduction? This isn't to say that some projects don't create life. Many do. Every major project I've worked on has had it's own mini baby boom tied to some significant project event, but those are human lives, not the life of the project. Do project create new projects? Or are projects just a cycle of some sort which enable an organization to continue on with its life?

It seems a project may be a closer fit to the process of obtaining sustenance by hunting and gathering and in some case cooking and serving. In consumption they come to an end. Well - I leave out digestion and beyond. Ashes to ashes... Perhaps there is no exact analog in life for them.

The point that it raises is the bigger one, Not what is the correct term for a project cycle (I'm convincing myself that they do not have a LIFE cycle), but what is the way that an ORGANIZATION lives? Does it just experience birth and death or does it reproduce and how does it sustain life? What nourishes an organization? Is "maturity" in a biological sense something that an organization passes through? There has to be some insight in there somewhere.

It being Friday, it seems a good time to add to the store of project management humor. The following is from William Duncan:

Top Ten Mistakes Made by a New PMO Manager (with tongue mostly in cheek):

• 10. Selling his/her house to be closer to the new job.
• 9. Buying stock in her/his new employer's company to demonstrate commitment.
• 8. Failing to understand that PMO stands for "Project Managers are Opposed."
• 7. Believing what was said about senior management commitment during the interview process.
• 6. Believing what was said about the skills of the PMO staff during the interview process.
• 5. Thinking: "how hard can it be to get this organization to support something that is clearly in its best interests."
• 4. Thinking: "how hard can it be to get the project managers to support something that is clearly in their best interests."
• 3. Planning to hire an outside organization to develop all new procedures.
• 2. Deciding that better project management training is all that's really needed.

And the Number One mistake ...

• 1. Taking the job.

Source: Posted by William Duncan, the Newgrange Mailing List.