Complexity & PLM

As one might imagine, this is a difficult philosophical question. According to Hayenga (2008), there is a significant lexical difference between what is ‘complex’ and what is ‘complicated.’ He posits that complex systems are not merely those with many moving parts but rather complexity is inherent in systems and scenarios that are dynamic in nature or difficult to predict. This is a reasonable and pragmatic way of viewing the terminology and thus also tends to imply that systems which are highly dependent upon human interactions are necessarily more complex in nature. Humans, being the irrational creatures that we are, often interject a high level of subjectivity into the mix.

There is no better illustration of the dynamic interaction of many subjective individuals than a typical PMO. This of course becomes even more fascinating if their scope of interaction is elevated to the enterprise level. This becomes somewhat ironic when one considers that the PMOs have been created and chartered to correct perceived issues of system complexity which must be better managed. The reality is that much of what we consider to be “IT” problems are not technical in nature at all.

Recognizing a problem or a challenge is not enough. Many folks have hit the nail on the head in being able to identify the PMO or its associated management processes as the likely culprit of much of the related failures of IT projects / programs; however to date, no one has presented a comprehensive solution for this seemingly obvious problem area. There is recognition now though that such problems are solvable using new enterprise integration technology and techniques.

Complexity is implicit within each element of PLM (the other mini-PLMs or Ps). Over the years, the notion of “Portfolio Management” migrated over from the financial world to IT and has now become a new process discipline. As noted previously, Project Portfolio Management (PPM) popped up about ten years ago to address the obvious need to consolidate PMO processes. Product Lifecycle Management emerged over the last decade as an IT practice to address the very tactical aspects of design and innovation. Process management has been interpreted many ways – some schools of thought have advocated fairly sophisticated methodologies such as CMMi , others are adopting an “Agile” more flexible approach.

Copyright 2008, Semantech Inc.

Linkedin.com Response: PMbok Error ?

Error in Glossary of PMBOK 3rd Edition? - I have observed that the definitions of Verification and Validation are vice-versa at Pages 328 & 329 in PMBOK, 3rd Edition. I know and I have learned that Verification is been done with the requirements in each phase of the project life cycle and validation is been done to validate the project execution in the user environment after implementing the project.

I hate to sound like I'm quoting quantuum theory here but the reality is that neither one of these groups have presented a definitive basis for their terminology. CMMi and PMBOK are merely efforts by professionals in similar fields to characterize aspects of information technology related methodologies.

There are many more methodologies beyond these two and I'm quite certain that you'll find further variation in the terms. You've run across the one truly great unsolved dilemma of IT - semantics.

One easy way to conceptually bypass PMBOK's confusion here is to consider that validation is actually "acceptance" if viewed from the end user or functional advocate's perspective.

Copyright 2008, Semantech Inc.

Process Management & Process Fusion

Since the late 1990’s, there has been a certain level of obsessive focus on process management as a cure to the ills of program management. The basic premise is that any process paradigm is better than none at all. A variety of organizations including the Software Engineering Institute (SEI) and International Standards Organization (ISO) have produced massive quantities of literature on the subject along with a variety of process management guidelines design to help PMOs develop new processes or improve existing ones.

One of the more notable examples of this is CMMi. In the federal government, CMMi certification is often used as a criterion for awarding IT contracts (i.e. a contract must demonstrate that they have achieved a certain CMMi level of competence through a formal accredited certification). The problem that many have found when relying on process management and / or such certifications is that they are not accurate indicators of the organizations performance in specific project scenarios. So, while the fact that an organization does have some repeatable or mature processes it doesn’t necessarily prepare them to solve problems any better than before. This may sound counterintuitive but it is has been proven by a rather larger backlash in the software industry where complex process paradigms are now being replaced by new ‘Agile’ methodologies.

The most basic premise of the Agile movement is that trying to over-regulate processes subverts the core goals of innovative and rapid development, thus the process becomes a bureaucracy or ideology more than a facilitation medium. PLM views process management as it views all other elements of PMO business – all are aspects within a larger whole and cannot be easily separated from one another without losing the relationships and contexts necessary to make the larger organism work. Product Lifecycle Management is becoming especially dependent upon the successful implementation of Agile processes, given the ever-decreasing sales and product development lifecycles.

Process Fusion
Process Fusion is a realization that processes do not occur in exclusion to one another - all of the processes inherent within a typical PMO serve the same overall set of goals & objectives...

Copyright 2008, Semantech Inc.