What is important when starting a project?

    Project management in its various versions is described in a large amount of literature, and all authors have their own original outlook on this process. Having read more than one Talmud and leading a single project, I want to present my own view of this process, in terms of project design, which, in my opinion, is little described (everyone is keen on describing the process directly, and he and his quality not least depend on how everything was designed).

    All management can be presented as well as the TCP / IP protocol stack, decomposing it about the levels of interaction of subjects and objects involved in the process.

    So you can highlight
    • ideological
    • communicative
    • and design levels

    Everything that is the essence of the project (what we want to achieve and what its properties are) is ideological. It is difficult to imagine this level in a structured way, but this is, first of all, communication at the stage “Listen here is a cool idea ...” or “Here, we need here ...”. Here the most important thing is the experience of the RM itself, which will allow us to differentiate between the necessary and unreasonable dubious desires (these are further characteristics) of the project. To understand and explain the reality of the embodiment of certain ideas, it is possible that it will already become clear here, why. Communication, communication, and again communication, with all specialists and amateurs who can be involved in the project and who can participate in it. Amateurs will describe the essence in a nutshell - they themselves do not know more, but they told the essence one way or another. Specialists - will dedicate in subtleties and nuances.
    Of course, the RM should be specialized in some area, I assure you - the RM Internet startups will look sorry for the production of concrete products.

    At the communicative level, questions are being solved how and how this whole mess of the previous level, and of the subsequent ones, will be managed in the sense of people and their interactions. There are obligatory, in my opinion, subjects for participation. Namely: the responsible subject on the part of the customer, the responsible subject on the part of the contractor and the ideologist of the project. How and to what extent these three entities will be transformed into specific personalities is up to you, but try to avoid combining the responsible subject on the part of the executor and the ideologist of the project in one person - otherwise in the case of a failure of work by an ideologist (because people are either creative or VERY busy ) you will not have the opportunity to influence it through the responsible customer.

    From early practice:
    A project with an ever-changing TK. The project had dubious in terms of the side of the contractor tasks for working with the source data. At the same time, the need for solving these problems was realized by all project participants. We will think that there is no need to explain the participation of the customer in the implementation of the tasks of the project. So the contractor was not opposed to take on the solution of these tasks, for a fee, respectively. The customer took a long time to make a decision on this matter, changing the decision, simultaneously trying to do something himself. As a result, without initial formalized data, further work was impossible, and things are still there. The project stalled by itself ...


    Try to immediately determine the degree of bureaucracy, namely what decisions and how they will be recorded and confirmed by acts, protocols, etc. It will not be possible to avoid paper confirmation at all (there should be at least roles and responsibility), and turning the project into a bureaucratic apparatus also makes no sense. But if the project has a chance of delays from constantly changing data on the part of the customer, and the project deadlines are tight and the customer each time brings something new and the opposite of the previous one ¬ you can’t do without fixing these stages, indicating the offset of the project. And if you don’t immediately agree to sign the protocols and other documents, you can get a very conflict situation by deciding to sign the customer’s decision in the middle of the project.

    The working level relates directly to the work when the moment comes "fig and fig"  All modern project management models, waterfall, edge, etc. work at this level. The choice is yours.

    Instead of a conclusion:

    In practice, everything takes on a very transformed form with respect to theory.
    I deduced for myself some points without which the project is a thankless task:
    • 1) Understanding of the circle of people involved in the project and measures of responsibility with a paper-confirmed version;
    • 2) Understanding the circle of tasks and the side of the performer of these tasks also with confirmation of this on paper;
    • 3) Understanding the degree of formalization of the process and the model of interaction;
    • 4) The fixation of the control dates and the dependence on the presence or absence of the source data and, accordingly, the shift of the end point from are given the signing of the final version or its change after.

    Also popular now: