Talk:Project management/Archive 2

Double down?!??!

What exactly is this sentence supposed to mean:

"Project Managers will often make a call to double down to prevent a project from breaking deadlines in the final stages of the implementation phase."

Link to the article about Blackjack doesn't explain anything - in fact makes it even more obscure. I don't understand it - please re-phrase it so that it is generally understood, not only by avid Blackjack players. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyBrandt (talk • contribs) 01:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Paragraph removed from main article

I have removed the following paragraph from the article, because it's an editorial comment about the article rather than encyclopaedic content. If anyone would like to revise the article to take account of the points made, they're most welcome. Tom Harris (talk) 23:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• The diagram shown here, often a project management triangle focuses on the trade-off between time, cost, and quality (see also Project triangle where these aspects are called fast, cheap, and good). The deviation claimed to be traditional (without citation) bears the significant difference that quality as a combination of other aspects is at best something like "process quality", and certainly not product quality. Thus this diagram represents a biased (and often inappropriate) view of what quality is, from the perspective of self-assessment of project managers, who are in many company cultures often perceived as pursuing more their own career than actual product or project qualities. For this reason this section should be generally revised by an unbiased expert.

CMMI

CMMI - Absolutely should not be included in this area. CMMI is a methodology associated to software development - NOT project management —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.219.237.167 (talk) 23:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying that software development can't be considered a project, or that CMMI can only be applied to software? Oicumayberight (talk) 00:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm saying that people mistakeningly believe that CMMI which is a maturity model methodology - is how you should execute the art and science of project management - which is WRONG. I know of several organizations that claim to be CMMI level 5 and who don't do project management. They check the boxes that say they follow CMMI though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.225.130.230 (talk) 14:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

==Commisioning==Surely a section on commissioning is needed before Closing? In particular the inter-relationships between the project constructors and the operations group, who will 'own' and run the completed project. Or if you prefer is a third part of closing, but a project is not complete before commissioning and even then commonly may go into a post-commissioning modification phase. Jagra (talk) 07:28, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

First line of the article is not a sentence! (as of me view on 2008-08-29)

Pardon the barging in... The first sentence is NOT a sentence! A reference to PERT is there and seems to have come from another edit or another sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gloucks (talk • contribs) 16:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Old missed vandalism. Should be restored now. Thanks for the heads up. Kuru ^talk 22:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Article changes

You need to be more specific about what it is you dont like about my changes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tobryant (talk • contribs) 15:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I will -- this article needs no more unreferenced content, it is bad enough as it is. Doug Weller (talk) 15:38, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, as I mentioned on your talk page, please do not remove legitimate appendix sections or valid interwiki links. Each set of your edits involved the removal of one or more of the appendix sections (such as your repeated removal of the "references" section, your removal of the "see also" section in its entirety, and repeated removal of the interwiki links). While some of those sections may need cleanup now and then, you should provide reasons for removal of entries from those sections so that others understand the reasons for it. For more on article structure, please review WP:MOS and WP:LAYOUT. Also, WP:EL, WP:RS, and WP:V have some relevant information that you may find of value in future editing activities. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:50, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Question about Engineering vs Management

I know from experience that project managers are usually peers of engineers if not superiors. However, the way that software engineering is being redefined on wikipedia by user Mdd, it would sound as if a project manager would be a subordinate of an engineer in software development. Is this an accepted norm in software project management or other project management related fields? Oicumayberight (talk) 03:19, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

In my experience software engineers report to project manager never the other way around. The balance of power and influence however does not necessary reflect the hierarchy mainly due to expert knowledge not necessarily available to the PM.

Ghaag (talk) 04:54, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

New opening removed

I removed the following new opening:

Project Management is the business process of creating a unique product, service or result. A project is a finite endeavor having specific start and completion dates undertaken to create a quantifiable deliverable. Projects undergo progressive elaboration by developing in steps and predictable increments that are tied to benchmarks, milestones and completion dates. This finite characteristic of projects stands in sharp contrast to processes, or operations, which are permanent or semi-permanent functional work to repetitively produce the same product or service. In practice, the management of these two systems is often found to be quite different, and as such requires the development of distinct technical skills and the adoption of a separate management philosophy.
The primary challenge of Project Management is to achieve all of the goals of the project charter while adhering to three out of the four classic project constraints sometimes referred to as the "triple constraints." The four constraints are defined as scope, time, cost and quality.
The more ambitious goal of Project Management is to carry the project through the entire Project Management life cycle. The Project Management lifecycle consists of five phases called Project Management Process Groups: Project Initiation, Project Planning, Project Execution, Project Monitoring and Control and Project Closeout.
Each Project Management Process Group utilizes nine Knowledge Areas which are: integration management, scope management, time management, cost management, quality management, human resource management, communications management, risk management and procurement management.

This seems to be added here by Tobryant on 23 Oct 2008. In the article he als added the following "hidden" comments:

I didnt erase the previous paragraph I just put it in a hidden comment in case we want to revert back to it. Here is the new opening paragraph I am proposing. Let me know what you think. These are some of the reasons why i made the changes that I did.

Notes:

# Project management is considering a ‘business processes by ISO not an academic discipline.

# project don’t have to be successful

# Planning, organizing, and managing resources to bring about the completion of specific project goals and objectives. Planning, organizing and managing are subsets of project management policies.

# It would be nice if all project where under taken to add value but some are undertaken to prove failures. On purpose.

# You forgot about progressive elaboration very important when discussing something that is finite. This shows that although the project is finite it is not rigid or agnostic.

# Forgot quality in the constraints and cost and budget are different things.

# we for got the process group and that they serve the purpose of proper monitoring and controlling so that the project comes in with in the classic project management constraints.

Now, as I just said, I removed the opening. The whole article is in a very bad shape and this new introduction made it far worse. I agree with Tobryant that something has to be done here, but his solution is really unacceptable. An introduction of an article like this should be kept as simple as possible, well referenced, with a propper lay out, an atractive image, and with out any "red link". The older intro that I now restored is much better, than Tobryant's alterantive. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 02:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Much of this I agree with, especially that the article needs work. However, to the point that not all projects add value: proving a failure is definitely adding value -- the failure is proved to avoid a later catastrophic failure. All projects are, in fact, undertaken ONLY if they are expected to generate more value than their expected cost. In that sense, all projects are investments in work, and the greater the value they generate per invested dollar (euro), the more successful they are, as with any investment.--Nuggetkiwi (talk) 01:33, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

When I stated, that the article needs work, I was refering to the article in a previous state just before 1 december 2008, see here. In the mean time I restructured the complete article and five other articles as well, see next talk item. So if you now agree "the article needs work", I guess you are refering to the "current new article". Now I guess this article could be improved also, like all other Wikipedia articles, but this is an other story. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 10:05, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

In published research as part of my PhD Dissertation- Is project management a profession? And if not, what is it?" http://proquest.umi.com/pqdlink?Ver=1&Exp=04-14-2014&FMT=7&DID=1574146471&RQT=309&attempt=1&cfc=1 some 400 respondents to a global survey clearly indicated that project management is a "process, method or system". This is also consistent with Kerzner's "A Systems Approach to Project Management" and the approach taken by the Systems Engineering societies. www.incose.org. Of the 8 possible choices from the survey: Process, Method, System, Procedure, Discipline, Profession, Occupation and Vocation, Discipline ranked 5 out of 8. Based on this credible and respected survey, I am urging us to reword the opening to read "Project Management is the process, method or system of creating a unique product or service..... Dr. PDG, Jakarta Dr PDG (talk) 06:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Therefore, I have made the change as suggested above.

Article rearranged

I rearranged the article, and moved a lot of the articles content to several other articles (which I partly already improved):

1. The "Definitions" section is (back) moved Glossary of project management
2. Two sections moved to the project manager article
   1. The "Job description" section
   2. The "Project Management training" section
3. The "The traditional triple constraints" section is moved to the new Project management triangle article
4. The "Project objectives" section is moved to the project article.
5. Three listings to the List of project management topics
   1. The "Project management activities" section
   2. The "Project management artifacts" section
   3. The "Project Management tools" section
6. The "see also"section is trimmed
7. The whole literature section has been removed, because it has hardly any added value here. Any google book search for "Project management" will give a similar result.

And the remains of the article are restructed. I think this will improve online reading of all this information, now spread over multiple articles. I will try to restructure this article some more, but this seems like a good set of first steps.

-- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 23:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Further changes

I removed the "Temporary organization sequencing concepts" section, which only mentioned.

1. Action-based entrepreneurship
2. Fragmentation for commitment-building
3. Planned isolation
4. Institutionalised termination

This section was unreferenced, it doensn't linked to any existing wikipedia article, and has no explaination.

-- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 23:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

The "Project development stages" chapter

I would like to propose to move the "Project development stages" chapter to a separate article. I think this chapter is to specialized for this introduction article. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 23:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Added Henry Fayol and Deleted Photo of Greg Balestrero

I added Henry Fayol [1]in addition to Henry Gantt. While Gantt unquestionably forms the basis for a key element of project management, if we look at Fayol, his "5 Management Functions" or areas of responsibility match very favorably with the "body of knowledge" that I believe should be associated with project and program management. One of my long standing "issues" with PMI in particular, is because they are IT centric, they have largely ignored the role safety, health and the environment play in project management, where Fayol specifically identifies "Safety" as one of the areas we should be concerned with.

Also, I removed the photo of Greg Balestrero, PMI's "CEO". This is nothing personal against Greg (who is a decent guy!!) but because it stands as a rather crass form of advertising. If we post Greg's photo, then how about the photos of the Chair of the other professional organizations listed? AACE, AIPM, IPMA........ Posting a photo such as that is IMPO, inappropriate and adds little or no value to the the content.....

Dr PDG (talk) 10:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Readded Image of Gregory Balestrero. This is just an example of a notable contemporary person in PM. No more, no less. I have no problem if images of CEO's of other professional organizations get listed as well. I oppose the Dr PDG suggestions.

There is no doubt Gregory Balestrero is a notable person in contemporay Project Management. And this article wants to illustrate this. No more no less. I have a big problem illustrating Wikipedia articles with people death over 70 years... this is what gives a wrong suggestion.

-- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 15:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Also I removed the three links you added, which seems hardly related. For example a link to the Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering in Wikipedia is added at it's own page and to Cost Engineering, but not to only related articles, see Wikipedia:External links.

Pictures of individuals

P.P.S. Now I have added an extra image of the new generation of project managers. Also this is just an example. If you have an other image to share, or any body else, please let me know. We can rotate images like this on the article. The problem at the moment however is, that there are hardly any images about project management available on Wikipedia and wikicommons to use.

I reinstated the two pictures after they were removed again. As far a I know there is no Wikipedia rules agains using image contemporary persons in overview articles. The images are merely there to illustrate that Project Management is about project managers, as well as the technical stuff. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 01:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Pictures of individuals as examples of people who practice the subject of the article is NOT approriate - notability, NOT a soapbox, advertising and personal promotion are policies that cover this. Where would we stop: personal photos of every plumber on the planet on the Plumber article? I have left the pics in for the time being with the hope you will see how inappropriate they are for Wikipedia, and remove them yourself. Kilmer-san (talk) 03:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The charts help the article, but I don't think the portraits do. That's so 20th century. I don't think it serves the spirit of openness of the user-generated-solutions-oriented world that we live in today. Links to the individual persons suffice. Users can click on those links if they care what the person looks like. Oicumayberight (talk) 04:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Given the recent events, I realize now these images of living people in this article will be considered advertising and/or personal promotion, even if it is not intended. So I recreated the initial proposal of Dr PDG and replaced the two images with an image of Fayol.

-- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 01:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

P.S. @Oicumayberight, I following the example of the featured Electrical engineering article, that also shows two founders of the field in the history section.

I understand. Your intent was very reasonable. The electrical engineering portraits are older, which says more for how long the profession has been around. Edison and Tesla are much more recognizable and notable for their accomplishment. Plus, waiting till people are long dead before giving props is much more politically correct. Oicumayberight (talk) 01:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Thanks. Kilmer-san (talk) 15:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Removed introduction of new term in the overview section

I removed the following sentence in the overview section by Padraig1888:

Most project managers fall into the arena and as a result the term “Accidental Profession” was coined and best describes the strengths associated with successfully undertaking a career in this field.<ref>Pinto, J.K. & Kharbanda, O.P. (1995) Lessons for an Accidental Profession. Business Horizons. Mar/Apr. pp 41-50</ref>

The sentense in essence introduces the term “Accidental Profession”, a term which isn't considered notable, otherwise there would have been an article written about it. Even if it was a notable term with an article, then I maybe could have been added to the see also section. This article and especially the overview section in meant as a first introduction to the field. It should be limited to the most important subjects.

I think the presents of these relatively unknown terms in an introduction article are only confusing. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 19:23, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Primary sources

This article is an overview article, introducing over 30 concepts with all Wikipedia articles. With all these articles notability is established.

Now there is a need for more primary sources. This could be tagged in the reference section. If there is really a place that needs a reference, a tag can be places on the site.

There are thousands of people looking at this article evry day. We don't have to confuse them with a tag on top. There have to be serious considerations, adding a tag like there. This should be the last resort. \

So if you want more primary sources, please add a fact tag on every place. I will add references there within the week, and if not you can readd the tag on top of the article. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 15:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Putting a banner on top of an article has nothing to do with assume good faith or not. It is about putting things in perspective here.

The {{Primarysources}} banner is an article level warning and therefore should be at the top of the article regardless of the page traffic. There are specific section warning according to WP:PROVEIT.

Now I would argue that the more people visit the page, the more important it is to make the limitation of the article understood by the reader. I believe high visibility would also help to speed up the process of providing references.

Ghaag (talk) 16:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The Burden of evidence starts if there actually are quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged. The first step here is determining if this is the matter, and add a fact tag so editors can react. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 17:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Where did you get the idea that these templates "should be at the top of the article regardless of the page traffic"?

I didn't put the banner there. I'm not arguing whether or not it should be there in the first place. As a matter of fact it state that it has been there since october 08. I looked at the history and it has been added by Dougweller on the 17th. I personally think the article's great.

Now the fact remains that the {{Primarysources}} banner is an article warning not a section warning. I dispute the fact that readers are not warned about the article before reading it. Change the banner if it seems inappropriate to you.

Ghaag (talk) 00:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Let us keep in mind I only referted your "Move up warning banner". The banner is still in place. What you seem to forget is, that this banner can be used for two purposes.

1. as a warning on top of the article, see for example this article Oct 2008
2. as a reminder on teh bottum of the article, see for example the current article

Now 4 months ago this article was in a rather terrible shape, and I think a warning was in place. But I rearranged this article with some help, and now even you personally think the article's great.

Now if there are no (new) quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged, there is no need to turn the reminder into a warning. You have to give a very good reasons, and even then you could start with adding fact tags. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 01:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

You say that {{Primarysources}} can be used for 2 purposes but I can not see that statement on the banner Template page nor on WP:PROVEIT.

In this case you are not addressing the points I raised :

• article-wide rather than section-wide warning
• reduced reader awareness.

I would love you to bring external examples or link to best practice discussion. So far I see no reasoned argument other than your personal perception for me to improve my imperfect editing habits.

Ghaag (talk) 06:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. There is not a single editor that agrees with you. So please find some consensus first, if not here, anywhere else. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 08:02, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I question whether this tag should be used at all. I think it should be replaced by a reference/reimproved tag, and be kept in the reference section. I have put a question on both templates talkpages, see here and here. I suggest we first get some more clearance here first. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 08:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

And please add a fact tag first on the places you think need a reference badly.

So I am offering you three alternatives here. Please don't keep repeating putting the tag back up. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 08:32, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

And a forth option: add some references yourself. Good luck. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 09:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Please, I am not arguing about the legitimacy of the tag. I didn't add it in the first place. If you feel like removing it please be my guest.

My point is: since the tag is there it should be at the top of the article. I am glad that you brought the question to the template talk page. I can't fail to notice that Flash176 clearly state there that the correct position for this tag is at the top which clearly tip the balance of consensus in favour of my recent edit which I made only after leaving some time for other editors to agree with you. None was forthcoming.

Concerning your options:

1. replacing the tag
2. add {{fact}} in specific places
3. wait for guidance from the template talk page (the other discussion relate to the tag legitimacy which I not contesting either way)
4. Add references to the article

I believe I followed the 3rd and the other are all related to the tag legitimacy rather than its position.

Ghaag (talk) 09:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

One way or an other adding a primary sources tag is no longer an option, allready two parts of the article are well referenced -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 10:20, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you assessment about the relevance of the tag now (BTW good work) and have removed the tag altogether. I persist to say that the rightful position of the tag can only be at the top of the article but since it is now a purely abstract question it has no place on this page anymore. Please indulge me in contributing to that argument further on the template talk page.

Ghaag (talk) 11:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

You should read the template documentation that say otherwise. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 12:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

It would be fair enough if you referred to the right template however you seem to confuse {{Primarysource}} and {{Refimprove}}. In fairness following your link I was confused as well. Furthermore the incorrect template does not indicate any position as correct or incorrect but rather state that "There is currently no consensus on where to place this template". I would hope that consensus can still be reached on the correct template page.

Ghaag (talk) 14:29, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

From what I learned at Template talk:Primary sources#When should this article be used the primary source tag shouldn't have been here from the beginning. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 00:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Removing of content whenever one feels like it

If somebody wants to remove a mayor part of an article, for example the first image, it would be courtesy to discuss this first, and wait untill some kind of concensus is reached. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 01:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

P.S. The argument given for the removal has been: SimulTrain's image looks like taken strait from a marketing brochure - Looks like a good ad though. Which reads like "it looks bad, it look good". Please discuss first.

P.S.S. I am all open discussion here, and for better alternatives.

In this case 64.41.179.238 has clearly stated that the image constituted advertising. In accordance with WP:ADS, he/she immediately removed the material. To be honest, I had been wondering about removing it for a while but took no action as I didn't want to take unilateral action without being fully convince and therefore was relieved to see my view shared by someone else. As you speedily reverted it I restored it stating again that it appeared to be marketing material and advertising. I maintain that it is good advertising but the quality of the commercial performance is irrelevant to the acceptability as illustration in wikipedia.

PS.I agree this article needs illustration and I confess that I have no alternative. This is why I'm glad that there are visually minded people like you involved.

Ghaag (talk) 07:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

That user claimed two things:

1. ... Kind of seems like blatant advertising.
2. ... Related, but not specifically targeted to the subject of the page.

I don't deny it has some elements of advertising. But is it really blatant? And it is not a perfect match of the subject. Which image will ever be? This is no perfect world. I think the image has an important visualization of some of the main characteristics of project management. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 08:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I have considered creating a collage similar to the one in the systems engineering article. But I am open for other suggestions.

I think it is blatant indeed. To the point that it cast suspicion about its original article. I agree with you that it displays many realities of project management albeit in a very artificial and improbable setting. Would it be possible to remove the logo? I would be infinitely more comfortable with a collage ( Gnusbiz did a really neat job there).

P.S. Do you have a sticky keyboard as I noticed you tend to be overgenerous with the letter L?

Ghaag (talk) 08:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

It seems rather clear that the whole image is a "Project Management Simulator" simulation. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 09:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I will check if we can get the logo removed.

There are at least four alternatives here:

1. Find an other image,
2. Construct an other image
3. Remove the logo
4. Find an other alternative

I propose you try this first. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 09:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)