March Survey – Remote Project Management

If you’ve been reading my articles for any length of time you’ll know that I’m somewhat passionate about remote project management and green or sustainable project management practices.  And I believe that one supports the other.

For my March survey – or at least March survey #1 (there may be more) – I’d like to get an indication on where our readership stands on remote project management.  How many of you out there are independent or involved in an organization that supports the management of projects in a primarily remote situation.

And for those of you who are, or have been, involved in the remote management of projects, I’d like to hear what you liked best or least about them.  The capabilities of my website right now still limit my surveying options, but I’ve put up what I think are common pluses and minuses with remote or virtual project management in a team environment.

Please take the survey – it’s completely anonymous and it’s brief … only five questions.  But I think the results could be very interesting.  I’ll close this survey down in 10-15 days and then do a follow-up article on PM Tips analyzing the results.

Please go to this address to complete the survey…

http://www.bradegeland.com/march-survey.html

If any of you survey takers have feedback or something you’d like to add after taking the survey, please feel free to comment on this article or email me at Brad.Egeland@pmtips.net.

Thank you in advance for taking this survey.  Your participation is greatly appreciated by me and everyone at PM Tips and Seavus – the creators of Project Planner and Project Viewer.

Data Security and the Cloud it Rode in on….

A couple of days ago my inbox filled me with intrigue when I saw the email from InformationWeek containing a link to one of their latest articles. The title: “7 Cloud Computing Myths Busted” by Serdar Yegulalp.

Since I’ve written a few articles on cloud computing and I’ve been interviewed for a couple others, I considered this “must” reading. Indeed, it is a very good article. Here, I particularly wanted to talk about Serdar’s myth #2 – Cloud computing is the end of privacy as we know it. This is something we all should be concerned with and – from the looks of data security concerns articles and discussions going around – we are…even if we are often not doing anything more than talking about it.

Cloud Computing and Data Privacy

So, is cloud computing really the end of privacy? Storing data and running apps in the cloud – meaning the apps are being run off of someone else’s server somewhere and your data is being stored somewhere that you likely will never see – doesn’t sound very secure on the surface, does it? Does that make you feel comfortable? No? It shouldn’t. But it isn’t the end of the world and the same prudence with data security that we take when handling data and apps within our own environment should be in place to secure your data outside our environment – it just requires some extra attention and policy adjustments on our part and possibly some extra verbiage in a contract that with the cloud provider of choice.

Mr. Yegulalp states: “What makes cloud computing such a fierce target for privacy advocates is not only the newness of the technology, since every freshly minted technology is a possible privacy suspect. It’s also the fact that cloud computing, on the face of it, can cause a huge degree of aggregation across multiple IT spheres. When you have many disparate things suddenly all under one roof, it translates into “single point of failure” and “all your eggs in one basket.” It’s not your data anymore, either; it’s someone else’s, and whatever happens will happen on his watch. There’s a chance that provisions about your data security aren’t even in the contract you signed.”

He is dead on with that insight. Afterall, most data leaks and theft happen within organizations as inside jobs, so the paranoia we’re all feeling is somewhat justified. And when you start storing your data on someone else’s system, you might not have the law on your side if expectations of privacy become a legal issue.

Our providers of cloud services must be proactive about their handling of data security, it must be built into the contracts you sign and you should be able to expect them to go above and beyond the call of data to make you feel comfortable about the safety of your data. And if you don’t have that comfort level, then move on to the next provider. But it’s up to you to see to it that the cloud services provider you are using is looking after your data. It’s not impossible to ensure this, it’s not impossible for them to maintain the safety of your data…it just takes prudent IT practices and forward-thinking policies.

One example – Mozy, the online backup service provider – addresses security/privacy concerns by allowing customers to provide their own high-grade encryption keys. The backed up data then cannot be read by anyone else – including Mozy. If you leave the service, the key goes with you rendering your left behind data useless to anyone else.

Summary

Cloud computing doesn’t mean the end of solid data security and privacy. It just means – as is the case with just about any new technology – that we will all need to be more aware of what we’re doing, adjust our practices and expectations accordingly and implement new policies that will help to secure our data in these cloud environments and help our cloud service providers to do the same.

IT Leaders Struggle with Bringing Social Networking into Formalized PM Processes

The July 20, 2009 issue of InformationWeek brings us an article by John Soat on how IT leaders are wrestling to bring informal collaboration into rigorous processes such as global project management and product development. I’ve included a portion of that article – including a discussion on how one company is using IWMS vendor Skire’s Unifier product to managing their project, collaboration and communication needs.

I’ve personally worked with several people at Skire during an evaluation of their product and found this article very interesting. Please read on….

The Right Place for Social Networking?

Nevsun Resources is a mining company with headquarters in Vancouver, Canada, and its biggest project is developing mines in Eritrea, a small country on the east coast of Africa. Using a browser-based, software-as-a-service project management tool, logistics clerks, engineers, and project managers are sharing documents, cost outlines, and project schedules across continents, giving CFO Peter Hardie in North America what he calls a “real-time review” of the project in a fairly remote area of Africa. “The spectrum of people using it is broad, and that’s what we were hoping we would get out of the system,” Hardie says.

The system – called Unifier, from the vendor Skire – lets Hardie “bridge the time and distance gaps that exist between the project principals in Vancouver, Eritrea, and South Africa,” he says. It helps Nevsun control costs and track expenditures down to the invoice level.

Social networking norms increasingly are creeping into formal project planning and product development tools and processes. And at many companies, the rules both formal and informal for how to use those social computing tools often aren’t written down. Nevsun’s system let’s people comment and ask questions about a record or specific aspect of the project. But there’s always a way to opt out of the collaboration flow. Asked if he uses the ad hoc communication capability in the Unifier system, Hardie says: “Me, personally? No.” Instead, if he’s reviewing specific costs and has a question, he’ll simply pick up the phone and call somebody.

As almost all business becomes global in nature and business processes increasingly are managed online, companies continue to push the limits of technology created to manage projects and teams across time zones and geographies. The goal is to communicate more effectively, work more closely with partners, leverage ephemeral information sources, and ultimately get as close as possible to the feel of what’s really going on.

Nevsun’s experience with Skire is just one cross-continent example. In product development, vendors such as Dassault Systemes, Siemens, and others are plowing Web 2.0 capabilities into their product life-cycle management platforms, adding collaboration and complexity.

Running alongside these formal platforms is the aggressive use of Internet-centric social networking platforms and tools – wikis, blogs, instant messaging, presence awareness, peer reviews, search – to foster internal teamwork and tap into wider communities of knowledge. Yet IT teams are wrestling with how these tools function in concert with collaboration technology, such as document management, project management, and product development systems. Are they adjuncts, integral parts, or even replacements for tried-and-true software?

Plenty of CIOs also are wary of the data integration, security, and productivity issues raised by the introduction of social networking technology in the enterprise, especially when tied to a process as critical as developing a new product or completing a project. Yet some of embraced the dynamic nature of social computing and turned it to their advantage.

Four Challenges to Ad Hoc Collaboration

Creating Norms. When you have a wiki and formal project or product development software, what conversations happen where? One idea: If it’s tied to a process step, keep it in the formal tool. If it’s about improving that process, go to the wiki.

Breaking Convention. Product development is a high-stakes process. Injecting social networking conventions adds risks. Yet it could be vital to global teams that innovate ideas as well as execute.

Finding Insights. Done wrong, wikis can create islands of insights that the right people will never find.

Conquering Fear. Subject experts might be wary of sharing hard-earned insights, since they see that as their value.

More Discussion on Twitter and Facebook as Collaborative Tools

I already touched on this in my earlier article entitled “Twitter and Facebook as Project Management Tools?” In that article, I came to the conclusion that there is no real viable use in PM for either Twitter or Facebook. I explained that I see Facebook as a good connector for family and friends with no real business application at all. And Twitter is, at best, a networking or promotion tool, but isn’t of any real value to the world of a Project Manager.

Facebook Still a No-Go

The original article garnered quite a few comments. I expected this given the high usage of each site. Nearly everyone agreed that there really isn’t a good application in the PM world for Facebook. If one were to setup a group just for a specific project, then possibly I could see some value. On going comments could be seen by all team members subscribed to the group and files could be shared.

However, this just seems to be a case of introducing something “just to use it” when tried and true communications still work and do not need replaced. The frustrating thing about using a new method like this when it’s not needed is that you end up using both, taking twice as much time to do what you were already doing and then never being certain who’s using which tool so there’s always a question mark. As the PM, I never want to be uncertain whether my team received the information I sent over. But if I have to post send it 2 ways (email and Facebook) to accommodate both types of users, then I’ve doubled the chance (not halved it) that information could be missed.

Twitter – Minor Pluses

After receiving comments and rethinking, I will now admit that I can see some minor good that can come from Twitter usage in the business world beyond just networking and self-promotion. One individual commented that a Twitter message sent out to the general community got a critical question answered and rescued a project.

I can see that happening very easily because with Twitter, you’re sending it out to the world. Anyone can find it even though they may not be following you – you just have to make sure you put relevant search words in the message. The 140-character limit is frustrating, but you can link to something longer, if necessary. Since getting that feedback comment, I’ve used it to reach out to others on information I needed for software and issue resolution.

However, I still contend that Twitter is really not a useful tool for collaboration and project management. It may get you an answer you need – not very quickly though…the best you can probably hope for is 24 hours. But someone will eventually reach out to you most likely. But in terms of disseminating critical information on a project to team members and customers… I still don’t see it as having any viable application in the PM world. It still remains to me, just a tool for networking with other like-minded individuals, a means of promoting your thoughts or work or whatever it is you’re doing, or possibly a way to get some questions answered. For true collaboration as a team, stick with email, phone and other devices to share knowledge like sharepoints and wikis.

A Vision for an Engagement Management Services Organization

I’ve talked about this one before as well as re-iterated my discomfort with having an organization that separates project management completely from the sales or project initiation portion of an engagement. In my opinion it is wrong and it puts not only the PM but the company as a whole behind the 8 ball from the beginning in trying to deliver the right solution to the customer and keep them happy.

Any startup, small or even well established company that is proceeding down the path to a more structured and standardized organization could benefit from this mentality. Project Management needs to be first and foremost in their minds as they work to engage a new project or customer. Nothing bad will come from this early injection of PM, only good will be realized.  PMs or a PMO can provide an organization with proven leadership and defined processes that will help fill the gaps as an organization works to not only acquire new customers  but to really excel in performing for all customers.  The right processes will take an organization from a $50 million company to a $500 million company.  Product excellence and retention of customers is key, and you get there by engaging the right experience early in the process.

What I am really proposing here as an ideal solution is an internal organization that oversees not just Project Management, but the entire delivery process and what that means to various parts of the organization (Sales, Accounting, Legal, IT, etc.).  It would eliminate the surprises that an organization is hit with on a weekly basis because they are still lacking particular structures and defined processes within the Sales to Delivery functionality.

I’ve included below a basic high-level definition of what I see the Engagement Management Services organization to be in a typical company.

Engagement Management Services

Engagement Management is a systematic approach that initiates with the sales process and ends with the engagement closing.  This typically has an accounting component associated with it – overseeing the profitability of project engagements within the organization.

Engagement Management would provide direct oversight of Project Management within the company.  Additionally, it would have touch points with Sales, Legal, Technical Professionals (developers, business analysts, network administrators, etc.), Accounting, and others as necessary.  The processes that Engagement Management follows would support the organization as a whole in delivering products and business capabilities, not just the individual groups.

Project Management is a more narrow focus of providing management of an organization’s projects.  Engagement Management would include Project Management, but would also focus on providing an organization’s enterprise-wide capabilities and services to outside customers and partners in an attempt to increase revenue and profitability while overseeing much of the Sales and other related areas that interact with the project and project teams as well as the customer.

Engagement Management would provide the tie between Sales and the actual technical solution.  It would be the glue that holds the delivery process together with the intent of avoiding many of the disconnects faced by organizations when Sales, IT and PM are all working under their own assumptions and priorities.  Currently, many organizations experience frustrating disconnects between Sales and Delivery.  I’ve been a part of organizations that experience these frustrations on a weekly basis.  An Engagement Management structure would help “standardize” the sales process and how that “sold” solution translates into a “delivery” solution.

A Proposed Organizational Structure

• CEO
  • Sales
  • CIO
    • Technical Staff
  • Engagement Management
    • Project Management Office
  • Operations
  • Etc.

Benefits of an Engagement Management organization:

• Customers see a standardized and professional engagement process across all implementations
• Brings all of PM together and allows for future growth
• Allows for the ability to standardize the PM approach and reporting
• Ability to define standardized PM templates and processes
• Not hindered or biased by a reporting relationship through Operations or IT
• Ability to define a change management process and change order/scope management process
• Engagement Management provides general oversight to all inputs and deliverables in the delivery process
  • Business Requirements Docuement (BRD) delivery and signoff
  • Statement of Work (SOW) delivery and signoff
  • Project Plan/timeframe definition
  • Solution or product implementation
  • Post-implementation reviews
  • Customer satisfaction

In my solution there would still be a PMO led by a PMO Director or at least a structure of PMs leading projects and reporting to a centralized leadership. The Engagement Management Services organization must be led by a very senior individual – preferably a VP.  All PM support personnel would report up through this person’s organization.

Summary

Some organizations are probably doing this now and doing it right. What I’m trying to say here is, if your organization is floundering because of the disconnect between PM and other support organizations, then incorporating an Engagement Management Services type structure to ensure that the proper oversight is given to mission critical engagements may be an answer. It’s frustrating for the customer and for the PMO to continue to deliver projects that are not what the customer wants and not in either organization’s best interests and and to continue to experience issues that could have been avoided had project management been brought into the process at the beginning.