Experience at PMI Congress 2014

I just returned from the Project Management Institute's North America Congress in Phoenix this week. This was my first time attending this conference so I thought I would share a few observations about the congress and about the project management profession.

The conference was a large event that took place across the stunningly beautiful Phoenix Convention Center. The three days of the conference were filled with presentations but there was still plenty of time to network with other project managers or visit with the vendors in the exhibit hall. Most of the presentations provided excellent perspectives into current project management issues and practices. Although some of the presenters could have been more engaging (especially after a full day of listening to presentations) all of the presenters understood their audience and focused their presentations on a set of outcomes. Since the project management field covers so many areas (leadership, communications, risk, strategy, scheduling, etc) there were many topics to choose from throughout the event.

Attending the conference presentations and speaking with many project managers from around the world I gained additional insight into the project management profession. Project managers from all industries and all regions of the world share common issues and are looking for solutions or ways to improve their project management practice. I noticed many project managers are interested in learning more about designing and building effective project teams, becoming better leaders, improving stakeholder communications, developing better project plans, and dealing with challenges (risk) that occur during the project. In addition to these operational interests I also found many project managers interested in program management, portfolio management, and agile approaches to project management.

During two of the mornings I led discussions in project management career paths and founds some common concerns and observations from the attendees. I'll share these findings in my next blog post. My experience at PMI's North America Congress was a good one. I may not attend the PMI Congress every year but I certainly see this as a valuable event for project managers and encourage others to attend a congress in the near future.

The Solution to Automation

I just finished reading Nicolas Carr's The Glass Cage. This is Carr's most recent book in his series of books dealing with the influence of technology on society. In this book, Carr discusses automation with a thesis that automation removes us from the processes, dulls our skills and knowledge, and reduces our role in our work. Carr argues that, through automation, humans are relegating to monitoring processes and stepping in to handle exceptions; both of which we are not very good at doing.

Throughout the book Carr makes compelling argument for the need to understand the downside of automation. While we often focus on the benefits of efficiency, accuracy, and cost savings of automation, we tend to ignore or downplay the role automation has on changing the nature of work and our role in work. He offers plenty of examples of automation changing the nature of work and makes a particularly strong case for airline pilots.

Carr provided many insightful reflections on automation but offered little in terms of specific solutions. The approach of human-centered automation rather than technology-centered automation was suggested and the author pointed to video games as a better model for automation. In this approach, technology is used to enhance our skills and help us accomplish our goals rather than taking over the process and having us step aside and monitor the work.

In a brief section of the book Carr described his experience with the game Red Dead Redemption and how he, as the user, was coached by the software to perform a task, provided with feedback (death of his video game character) and allowed to reattempt the task until it was mastered. This example helped illuminate the human-centered design but I would have liked to see him apply this concept to examples of automation of work. Although I appreciate this example (and Carr's admission of playing Red Dead Redemption which helps me justify my affinity for Assassins Creed) I would have liked to see more of the book dedicated to applying this human-centered model.

If human-centered design is the solution to better apply automation to our work, we must develop a better vision of what this looks like and strategies for how we can apply this to our work. This is not an easy task since technology-centered automation promotes efficiency, accuracy, and cost savings while human cannot make these same claims. Do we offer enough value to work for organizations to abandon the benefits of technology-centered automation? We must first answer this value proposition before we can hope for change.

A New Role for the IT Department

I'm preparing to teach an IT management course for our MBA program next term and I want to begin the course by showing what the modern IT organization looks like. When I was reviewing articles on IT organizations I came across a great article explaining how some IT organizations are becoming sources of revenue for the firm. This is quite different than the typical cost center role the IT department played in the past.

Thanks to the Internet and the emergence of cloud computing as a viable option for enterprise applications, distribution of centralized software and hardware services has never been easier. IT departments are now able to partition their data to sell extra capacity and their proprietary software to other firms. This means that an IT department in a small insurance firm is now able to create new sources of revenue for the organization by selling access to in-house developed software. In some cases, organizations are able to sell access to purchased software as well.

Over the past few decades, in-house developed applications have taken a backseat to purchased "off the shelf" applications from software vendors. Perhaps, as more entrepreneurial IT departments continue to find profit in selling their own software, we will see more organizations move to developing their own software again. This will result in more software options and software more closely integrated with specific industries.

It will be exciting to see the trend of renting out in-house developed applications and services continue. However, I have concerns over these organizations' ability to provide adequate support and the willingness to offer ongoing enhancements or customizations.

MVP Process in Knowledge Management Systems

Today I read David Weinberger's article on the MVP process in this month's issue of KM World. In the article Mr. Weinberger described the use of minimum viable product (MVP) and how this approach is applied today (think Apple products) and early on (Ford Model T). The point of the article was that both of these companies developed simple products for a small set of early adopters and then allowed the product to mature as the desired features for the product emerged. This allowed the product to be produced while limiting the unwanted features and using the market to determine future features.

I enjoyed the article but found the MVP concept was not applied to the context of knowledge management systems. This was a knowledge management magazine so I was looking for insight into the application to the KM field. Since this application was not included in the article I thought I would build on Mr. Weinberger's article by applying MVP to the KM field.

The MVP concept can be applied to knowledge management systems but, if applied incorrectly, it may result failure. If the product, in this case a KM system, is designed with a minimum set of features or a minimum set of content, the early adopters of this information system will be frustrated by the lack of ability to locate and add knowledge or by the quality or quantity of content available in the system. We can't build a KM system based on a small set of content and functionality and then simply allow it to mature over time as we see the needs emerge. This initial offering must provide value in order for it to attract users and for users to continue to rely on the system.

The MVP approach to KM systems can still be used but this initial system offering must be focused on specific value. Perhaps it is the scope of the value proposition that can be minimized for the initial offering. Beginning with a specific scope for the KM system and then providing all functionality and content needed to achieve the goals within the scope should be the objective.

Viewing the MVP approach for KM systems only makes sense if we shift the perspective of product functions to product scope. Offering a minimal viable product scope (MVPS) allows an organization to produce a valuable KM system to satisfy a narrow purpose and then, over time, this scope can grow along with the functions and content needed to fulfill the growing scope. So, lets apply the MVPS approach to KM systems rather than the MVP approach.