Sirve el Project Management para cubrir las ineficiencias de las organizaciones modernas o hay otras razones?
Voy a citar algunos comentarios que encontre navegando en internet...
...there should be some one in the role of PM who will be driving the project to its success. Communication is the key for any project and we cann't expect technical member be doing this role, so it needs some one who can communicate with all the stake holders for early resolution of any issues/risks.
- comparto la opinión de que los tecnicos no siempre son capace de ejercer la funcion de team leader, motivador o bien gestionar conflitctos en equipos humanos.
- aqui viene una buena explicación
Internally you can sometimes deal without PM. If your team is very small or pretty experienced, work is broken down to easy-to-understand chunks or team is genuinely committed to drive the product chances are good you won't have to label anyone as a PM. To some point Scrum employs this approach.
However when you hit the outside world, namely a client PM becomes necessary evil. That's because it is a whole different story to run a project from client's perspective and from team's perspective. And in vast majority of cases it is crucial to filter and/or translate communication between a client and development teams. And that's where PM kicks in.
"a necessary evil until the industry truly matures?" - It is generally accepted that 'modern' project management has its roots in the deisgn of the first nuclear submarine. Now, by the time the US Navy built the Nautilus I would say we can pretty well argue they were a very mature industry. They'd been building steel hull vessels since before the turn of the century. In the four years between 1941 and 1945 more than 2700 Liberty Ships were constructed. That's 1.88 ships (14,000 tons each) per day!
The Navy establised Project Management because the scope of the project was so great, functional managers could no longer track everything. So many teams and moving parts, they needed people who were dedicated to tracking the project, not doing the work.
"poor team and corporate communication"
The PMBOK states a Project Manager spends 90% of their job communicating. Some people have even argued that it is closer to 100% as so many of the non direct communication task lead to communication.
A functional manager, with direct reports and some direct 'goal' responsiblity in the project, isn't going to get any of their regular work done, if they are doing all their time communicating across the team, the organization and the company.
"insufficient team management"
Let's go back to the functional manager. I'm a proponent of Manager Tools (www.manager-tools.com) and believe functional managers are needed and vital to manager their teams and help to make them more effective and to grow. But to flip this over that functional manager should be focused on his directs. A team is rarely all from one department. So who manages the team? The Dev Manager, the QA Manager, the Marketing Manager?
However when you hit the outside world, namely a client PM becomes necessary evil. That's because it is a whole different story to run a project from client's perspective and from team's perspective. And in vast majority of cases it is crucial to filter and/or translate communication between a client and development teams. And that's where PM kicks in.
- a mi personalmente me ha convencido la siguiente oración:
"a necessary evil until the industry truly matures?" - It is generally accepted that 'modern' project management has its roots in the deisgn of the first nuclear submarine. Now, by the time the US Navy built the Nautilus I would say we can pretty well argue they were a very mature industry. They'd been building steel hull vessels since before the turn of the century. In the four years between 1941 and 1945 more than 2700 Liberty Ships were constructed. That's 1.88 ships (14,000 tons each) per day!
The Navy establised Project Management because the scope of the project was so great, functional managers could no longer track everything. So many teams and moving parts, they needed people who were dedicated to tracking the project, not doing the work.
"poor team and corporate communication"
The PMBOK states a Project Manager spends 90% of their job communicating. Some people have even argued that it is closer to 100% as so many of the non direct communication task lead to communication.
A functional manager, with direct reports and some direct 'goal' responsiblity in the project, isn't going to get any of their regular work done, if they are doing all their time communicating across the team, the organization and the company.
"insufficient team management"
Let's go back to the functional manager. I'm a proponent of Manager Tools (www.manager-tools.com) and believe functional managers are needed and vital to manager their teams and help to make them more effective and to grow. But to flip this over that functional manager should be focused on his directs. A team is rarely all from one department. So who manages the team? The Dev Manager, the QA Manager, the Marketing Manager?
