Project Management 01

Tathagat Varma

Tathagat Varma Session 1/12: 13-May-2010

  There are no WRONG questions, no WRONG answers - I expect you to interact, question and disagree

  Don’t assume anything blindly!   Pedagogy:

  25% teaching (slides and references will be shared)   25% classroom and online discussion (no slides for this !)   25% self-study (your individual effort !)

o  Expect you to read 2-3 general books and articles   25% seminar / project / article (working as a team)

o  Expect you to read 1-2 advanced books and relevant articles

  I don’t know everything Let’s learn together !

Key  Knowledge  Areas   Topics  

Strategic  Management   Introduc1on,  Linking  Strategic  Planning  to  new  product  development  

New  Product  Development   New  Product  Development  /  New  Service  Development,  selec1ng  the  right  project,  Cost-­‐Benefit  Analysis,  Financial  Ra1os  (CF,  DCF,  NAV,  IRR),  Project  Lifecycle  

Project  Ini1a1on   Charter,  Contract,  Preparing  a  Business  Case  

Project  Planning   Scoping,  SoW,  WBS,  Es1ma1on,  Iden1fy  Stakeholders,  Risk  Management,  Organiza1on  Structure  (including  people  issues,  repor1ng  rela1onships,  etc.),  Staffing,  Budge1ng,  Scheduling,  PERT,  CPM,  GanT  Chart,  Quality  Project  Communica1ons  (Mee1ng,  Repor1ng),  Sobcotractor  Management  

Project  Execu1on   Project  Execu1on,  Managing  Stakeholders  and  influencing  key  stakeholders,  Communica1on  Strategies  (including  using  modern  tools  like  Social  networking,  Video  conf,  TwiTer,  web  based  PM  tools,  Online  query  of  project  status  etc),  Overcoming  Poli1cal  Resistance  

Project  Control   Project  Control:  EVM,  Metrics,  Project  Reviews,  Change  Management,  Project  Survival  Strategies  

Project  Closure   Closure,  Evalua1on,  Post-­‐closure  

Misc.  Topics   Project  Manager  Competencies,  Project  Success  Factors,  Managing  Troubled  Projects  

Introduc1on  to  addi1onal  topics  (1me  &  interest  willing)  

PMBOK,  So]ware  Development  Lifecycles,  Agile  /  Scrum,  Megaprojects,  TOC,  PRINCE2  

4/17/11 Yahoo! Presentation, Confidential 4

4/17/11

4/17/11 6

4/17/11 7

4/17/11 8

4/17/11 9

4/17/11 10

4/17/11 11

4/17/11 12

4/17/11 13

4/17/11 14

  Civil engineering problem?   Poor execution?   Wrong requirements?   Inadequate validation?   Just one worker’s mistake?   Bad design?   Late requirement changes?   Very minor issue?   Your judgment ____________________

4/17/11 15

Name Year Probable cause of failure Hubble Space Telescope 1990 Lack of total system test Ariane 5 missile 1996 Incorrect reuse of software, Faulty scaling up SuperConducting SuperCollider 1995 Cost overruns, Failure to maintain public support

GE rotary compressor refrigerator 1986 Inadequate testing of new technology

Motorola, Iridium 1999 Misjudged competition and mispredicted technology

PCjr 1983 Failure to discover customer needs Space Shuttle Challenger 1986 Bureaucratic mismanagement Edsel automobile 1958 Failure to discover customer needs Titanic 1912 Poor quality control Apollo-13 1970 Poor configuration management New Coke 1988 Arrogance A-12 airplane 1980s Mismanagement Nuclear Power Plant 1986 Bad design, Bad risk management, Cost cutting Lewis Spacecraft 1997 Design mistakes Mars Climate Orbiter 1999 Use of different units Mars Polar Lander 2000 Failure of middle management

4/17/11 16

  Infamous for being late, buggy and costly   Holy Grail of Software Development:

“Faster, Better, Cheaper”   Software development is typically considered

 A ‘creative process’  A ‘wicked problem’

  The ‘predictable’ Waterfall model has been blamed for poor project performance  New thought is about using ‘adaptive’

processes

4/17/11 17

  Scope: fixed, changing, feature creep, “Featuritis”   Size: size of software, development cost, number of people   Schedule: length of schedule, fixed schedule, variable schedule   Complexity: Volume Complexity, Innovation, NPD   Development Paradigm: Waterfall, Agile, Kanban,…   Location of teams: collocated, distributed, virtual   Quality requirements: 6δ, Mil-Standards, FDA, 99.999,

Enterprise Class, Web, HA, Mission-critical   Technology: existing, brand new, evolving,   Team Structure: Command & Control, Democratic, etc.   People: Skills, Experience, Domain Knowledge   Tasks/activities: partitionable vs. division of labor, expertise vs.

fungibility, task dependencies, uncertainties, risks, estimates,

18

  On-time   On-cost   On-quality   On-specs   User Experience   Performance / NFRs   Deliver Business Benefits   …any many more !!!

4/17/11 19

Success Category Measurable Success Criteria

Internal Project  Objectives (Pre-completion)

• Meeting schedule • Within budget • Other resource constraints met

Benefit to Customer (Short term)

• Meeting functional performance • Meeting technical specifications & standards • Favorable impact on customer, customer's gain • Fulfilling customer's needs • Solving a customer's problem • Customer is using product • Customer expresses satisfaction

Direct Contribution (Medium term)

• Immediate business and/or commercial success • Immediate revenue and profits enhanced • Larger market share generated

Future Opportunity (Long term)

• Will create new opportunities for future • Will position customer competitively • Will create new market • Will assist in developing new technology • Has, or will, add capabilites and competencies

Project Focus

Full Benefits

Realization

Disaster Business Focus

4/17/11 22

Com

ple

ted

On

-tim

e

/on

- bu

dge

t

Delivered Expected Benefits

4/17/11 23

4/17/11 24

4/17/11 25

4/17/11 Yahoo! Presentation, Confidential 26

4/17/11 27

  “Adding manpower to a late software project makes it later”, The Mythical Man-Month, 1975

  “The number of months of a project depends upon its sequential constraints.”

  “The maximum number of men depends upon the number of independent subtasks.”

  “From these two quantities one can derive schedules using fewer men and more months. One cannot, however, get workable schedules using more men and fewer months. More software projects have gone awry for lack of calendar time than for all other causes combined.”

4/17/11 29

4/17/11 30

4/17/11 Yahoo! Presentation, Confidential 31

4/17/11 32

4/17/11 33

4/17/11 34

4/17/11 35

4/17/11 36

4/17/11 37

4/17/11 38

4/17/11 39

4/17/11 40

4/17/11 41

How does a project get late by a

month ???

  The most authoritative and comprehensive survey on IT project performance since last 15+ years

  "This year's results show a marked decrease in project success rates, with 32% of all projects succeeding which are delivered on time, on budget, with required features and functions" says Jim Johnson, chairman of The Standish Group, "44% were challenged which are late, over budget, and/or with less than the required features and functions and 24% failed which are cancelled prior to completion or delivered and never used." "These numbers represent a downtick in the success rates from the previous study, as well as a significant increase in the number of failures", says Jim Crear, Standish Group CIO, "They are low point in the last five study periods. This year's results represent the highest failure rate in over a decade"

4/17/11 42

  Successful: deliver on-time, on-budget, with required features and functions

  Challenged: late, overbudget, and/or with less then the required features and functions

  Failed: cancelled prior to completion or delivered and never used

4/17/11 43

2009 2006 2004 2002 2000 1998 1996 1994

Successful 32% 35% 29% 34% 28% 26% 27% 16%

Challenged 44% 19% 53% 15% 23% 28% 40% 31%

Failed 24% 46% 18% 51% 49% 46% 33% 53%

  No Silver Bullet (NSB): there is no single development, in either technology or management technique, which by itself promises even one order-of-magnitude improvement within a decade in productivity, in reliability, in simplicity – Fred Brookes, 1986

  High-level languages ?   4GL?   OOP?   Reuse?   Offshoring?   Rapid Prototyping?   What next ?

4/17/11 44

  Many projects 25 years behind time   Key Trends from 937 big projects (20+ Cr):

  Schedule Overrun on projects has come down from 62% to 51% (considered insignificant) in the past 18 years

  Cost Overrun has seen a huge dip. In May 1991, the cost overrun was more than 62%. By September 2009, it came down to 12%

  Schedule Performance:   486 time overrun,   258 projects on schedule,   only 17 are ahead of schedule   delay ranges between 1 month and 324 months   Worst-hit is the road transport and highways ministries - 162 out of 184

projects under these ministries are running behind schedule   Cost Performance:

  300+ projects account for a cost overrun of Rs 77,518 cr, 54%.   Ministries-wise, the railways' cost overrun on projects is pegged at 82%

above original   Report attributed the time and cost overruns to factors including

inadequate funding, geological surprises and changes in the scope of projects

1.  Enthusiasm 2.  Disillusionment 3.  Panic 4.  Search for the

Guilty 5.  Punishment of

the Innocent 6.  Praise and

Honors for the Non-Participants