Have you ever been asked “how long does the task list need to be?” If so, has this struck you as code for something else?
When I’ve been asked this question, I’ve sometimes thought it was genuine, but just as often, I’ve sensed that the questionner is wondering when the other shoe is going to drop. In other words, he or she was actually wondering: how heavy will the burden of project management have to be? S/he sees someone calling themselves a “project manager” and s/he thinks the person is poised to impose a bunch of unnecessary and heavy-handed layers of red-tape.
I am sympathetic to this perspective. Maybe the reason is that I spent some formative years of my career studying how people actually do their work. Most of us don’t like busy work, and we don’t like having to submit reports or fill out forms just for someone else’s benefit.
The antidote to this situation is twofold. First, start from the ground up. That is to say, allow the project and program tracking artifacts and mechanisms to emerge from the team that is using them. This is the approach that Jennifer Vinopal described to me on my recent trip to New York University’s Bobst Library. Vinopal is the Librarian for Digital Scholarship Initiatives and Project Manager for NYU’s Digital Library Technology Services. She is gradually introducing a basic project management office capability a little bit at a time, as staff can see the benefit of putting in the time to submit the data. This shows a real understanding of how to introduce lasting change.
A second thought along these lines is my answer to the question with which I started this post: how long does the task list need to be? In my view, the task list, or even it’s big brother, the work breakdown schedule (WBS), needs to be only as long or as detailed as required to understand the status of the project. This is the main–and most important–purpose of the task list, and the WBS: progress monitoring.
This means that there is no one level that is right for every project, nor is the level necessarily going to be the same throughout the life of the project. It helps to ask some questions: how are the team members finding out when and how work is getting done? Often, they are waiting for certain tasks to be completed before they can start or finish certain other tasks, so this is important information. How do they want to find this out? At what point in their workflow? Can you adjust meeting schedules and select project tools so that when you meet your information gathering needs you also meet their information gathering needs? It may not be completely possible, but it’s worth trying for, and you may be able to improve on practices that are not taking team workflows into account.

I’m trying to solve a work flow problem. In theory what you say is all great, introduce documentation needs for management as-needed and slowly. If this makes for lasting change then terrific, but can you or Jennifer be more specific? There are some basics my teams understand the need for, scope, user requirements, schedule, and budget mostly, but for the life of me I cannot get our tech leads to buy into any kind of planning documentation prior to the actual work. They are fighting to keep it very loose to allow for change and creativity and because they say they do not know in advance what they will do. (!!) I’m spending the morning looking for proven examples in University Libraries or Museums–template docs is the goal.
Thanks,
Tim
April 28, 2010 @ 8:58 am
Tim, I understand your frustration. If you have user requirements, though, I would think you would be able to start with those as a basis for iterative discussions with the technical team about how they are planning to approach the components. The key is *iterative.* You probably won’t be able to get something drawn up that will stay static for the life of the project, but you may be able to get a general idea that gradually gets more specific as your tech partners learn more.
I am happy to talk with you further offline if you’d like.
–Joan
April 28, 2010 @ 9:14 am
Hi Joan,
Sure, we always start with requirements, but what I’d like to know is how what, others use to have that first conversation and other, iterative talks after that. Some of this is for better reporting up to management, but I also need the tech group to better plan and manage themselves.
April 28, 2010 @ 9:45 am
Tim, to get more specific, I would need to know a little more about your situation. For example, are you working with a Tech Lead? If so, it makes sense to talk about the tech group planning and managing themselves. If not, you *may* need to step up in that capacity, simply to move the project along.
So, whether you are working with a Tech Lead who is doing the detailed tracking, or whether you are having to do that, is a basic question. I think you are also asking about how you get to that stage. If you are without a Tech Lead, then this happens in a series of conversations with developers.
As far as better reporting up to management, I’d use the (high-level) plan and status reports for that purpose. This gives you lots of flexibility in how you manage things with the tech team.
April 28, 2010 @ 10:05 am