New technologies, concepts, and Web 2.0 tools are popping up everywhere. How can you use them to help your project team collaborate, communicate - or just give your project an extra boost? [Contact Dave]
Situation: Team members keep stumbling over simple, common sense, standard practices.
A Team Operating Agreement seems like overkill for a lot of us. I've personally seen dozens of these over the last several years and many are just a fluffy box-checking exercise. The whole this seems a bit much until you've been through the painful process of constantly reminding people how they should be working together. At some point you have to ask yourself - what's the least ridiculous option? Do you keep telling people what you think is just common sense or do you work with them to spell out a set of rules that make sense to everyone?
Yesterday we went through the process of updating the TOA template we have here on gantthead (usually available only to premium plus members, but freely available to all registered members through 1/15/2012) and we added a few items that you see listed in bold below.
Ownership of project outcomes
Ownership of specific outcomes
What we value
How we make decisions
How we communicate
How we work through problems
How we express our commitments
In my opinion all of these things are important, but as it is with so many other things, the more important part is not the document - but the process of having built it collaboratively. It's that collaborative process that gets you real buy-in to the principles you lay out in the agreement. The signature is just a formality.
What do you think should be in a Team Operating Agreement? What's a waste of time? How do you make the collaborative process of building the document work?
Situation: You think it might be time to focus on collaboration again.
In a few weeks I'll be attending the Gartner Portals, Content, and Collaboration Summit - which is an obvious thing to do for someone in my position. This year, fellow collaborator, I think it's something you should consider doing as well. I think we have arrived at a unique point in time where collaboration needs not be something you force people to do. It's just something you set the stage for and nurture over time. The forces I see making this a good time to focus on collaboration are:
Niche Communities Every time I attend these things, I'm struck by how useful the event is to people who are responsible for enterprise collaboration - especially those who deal with niche communities. Presenters used to point out modest internal successes and relate them to far more successful consumer-based ones. These days, when we talk about collaboration, I hear more about internal successes that create immediate value far beyond what's happening more broadly online. These efforts are often more effective because they address smaller, more tightly focused, and interconnected communities. Tight knit communities are motivated by shared needs that people on the outside simply don't share. I know that tools matter, but to be honest they often feel as inconsequential as the brand of golf club you use. It's mostly about the people and how much sharing between them "matters". The more people share in common, the more they can help each other and the more they care.
It's not "weird and wasteful" anymore People's willingness to share has changed a lot based a larger cultural shift. Society is just more attuned to social networking in general - more open to online interaction. Ten (or maybe even just a few) years ago, it was near impossible to get people to participate in knowledge sharing of any sort online because they just didn't understand it. Now so many people provide their "friends" with highlight reels of their lives through facebook, that it's just second nature to share.
People are seeing the value of it - personally
In Stephen Covey's book "The Speed of Trust", he talks about the importance of Social Trust and what he calls "The Principal of Contribution". It's sort of an extension of "you get from life what you put into it." Essentially, there is an increasing need for individuals to display their contribution to society online. Here on gantthead, I talk about your profile being an central hub for your Project Management "body of work". Facebook gives you a place to "let people know what you are up to" and Linkedin is pretty much a place for people to see what you've accomplished. Again, it's all about the "personal show", not so much about the details of each transaction.
One of Gartner's Keynote speakers Clay Chirky wrote a book entitled, "Here Comes Everybody". In this book, he explores how the content "balance of power" has changed over the years to where users are more in control. More recently, he wrote "Cognitive Surplus," where he reveals how new technology is changing us from consumers to collaborators, increasing creativity in many ways.
So I guess my point is that we're getting to the point where techniques, and perhaps where we are in our socio-technical evolution matters more than tools. Attending conferences like the Gartner event can help you understand what's working.
Do you think it's gotten any easier to get people within your enterprise to collaborate online? What's working well for you?
Note: If you would like to join me at the Gartner Conference, they are a sponsor of ours and will give you $300 off, if you use the promotion code "GANTT".
Situation: Your collaboration tools just aren't cutting it.
The range of SaaS tools out there has expanded way beyond BaseCamp knock-offs to tools that approach projects from a variety of angles. Each tool has its own heritage that’s reflective of what the vendor believes is important. One interesting tool that I’ve looked at recently is PBworks, formerly known as PBwiki. Their approach is very collaborative in nature and less structured than most. By providing easy ways for you to define your own structure, they hope to provide tools you can make fit your work style, versus having to adapt your work to rules imposed by the tool.
We recently spoke with Chris Yeh of PBworks, who told us a bit about their approach to collaboration and managing knowledge. Here’s what he said.
Q. You guys firmly believe that wikis provide a better collaboration platform than folder-based file sharing or email. Can you tell us a bit about why that is? (provide examples if possible)
Wiki-based collaboration provides several major benefits that file sharing and email simply can’t.
First, let’s deal with file sharing. The issue with file sharing is that it’s difficult to understand how a document has evolved over time. At best, you might be able to view different versions of the file from some archive. With a wiki, revision and change management are an integral part of how you work; all revisions are stored, you can see the history of changes with a single click, you can compare any two revisions, and you can always revert back to a prior version.
This kind of flexibility gives people the freedom to be more creative; you can take more risks because the revision history is there as a safety net.
Wikis also allow true co-authoring, rather than simply passing redlines back and forth. When a group of people works on a document, the asynchronous edits are notoriously difficult to re-integrate. Usually, whoever is responsible ends up having to read through several different drafts and manually integrate comments and suggestions.
With a wiki page, everyone is always working on a current version that reflects everyone else’s edits. This decentralized approach saves a ton of time. One of our customers is Deloitte Digital, which uses us for creating new business plans. Their CEO, Peter Williams, reports that using PBworks lets them cut down the time they spent on editing final reports by 90%.
With email, the issues are slightly different. The problem with email is that it’s so easy to lose the context of the conversation. Most emails are not self-contained; to understand them, you have to read the entire conversation to pull out the nuggets of information that are actually relevant.
A wiki page provides a centralized, authoritative record; it is largely self-contained, and once you read it, you can make a decision or draw a conclusion.
Another PBworks customer is Capgemini, the consulting firm. They were able to use PBworks to cut down project-related emails by 90% on one of their marketing projects.
Q. You seem to specialize in certain industries, like creative, legal and financial services. Is there something special about the ways that people work and collaborate in those industries that make your approach a fit?
We focus on use cases where individual users have to deal with multiple projects and initiatives, and where communications need to cross geographic or corporate boundaries. We’ve designed our product so that not only can you use hosted wiki pages to collaborate, you can also get a personalized dashboard of activity, tasks, and milestones across all of your different projects.
For example, while designers and lawyers may seem very different, the challenges they face at work are very similar: They are staffed on multiple projects for multiple clients, and they have to keep track of a lot of tasks and information. Both lawyers and agencies end up using PBworks in a very similar way to manage their client projects: They create new workspaces for each new project or case (using our workspace templates), they collaborate with a project team to get things done, and they track their progress using a personalized dashboard. Whether you’re building informercial websites like Livemercial, or prosecuting a personal injury case like McConnell & Sneed, the collaboration process is very similar.
Q. Every toolset has implementation challenges. What are yours and what approaches do you use to get around them?
One of the big challenges with adopting a broad collaboration platform like PBworks is that there are so many possibilities. Even I don’t know all of the capabilities of the product, and with our engineering team adding new functionality all the time, sometimes people aren’t sure where to begin.
That’s why we put such a heavy emphasis on certain specific solution-focused product editions, like Project Edition for project leaders or Legal Edition for lawyers. This allows us to do things like build usage-specific templates, instructional videos, and case studies.
We also back up our product with some of the best service in the business. You can contact our support team via email, and get a response from a real human being in hours, sometimes even in minutes. And if you need help getting started, we offer a $100 custom trial package which gets you professional services to customize our product and provide a one-on-one training session.
Q. A big part of project management is having a high-level view of what’s going on. There’s no gantt chart view, task dependencies, etc. in PBworks. Is that intentional or are those features to be added later?
It’s intentional. We’re big fans of rapid iteration and innovation, so our general approach is to launch a simple, usable product, and build up from there based on feedback from real users. For example, PBworks started off as PBwiki, a bare-bones hosted wiki. It didn’t even offer user accounts. But over time, it’s evolved into a full hosted collaboration suite, complete with document management, basic project management, and even a mobile edition for iPhones and Blackberries.
After we launched Project Edition, we immediately began hearing feedback on issues like task dependencies and measuring resource load. We’re working on such features, and many more.
It’s also the case that we heard from a number of project managers who thought that the level of detail and customization was just right. Let’s face it; many projects are not complex enough to warrant a full project management solution, yet are more complicated than a simple to-do list can handle. PBworks is great for those ad hoc projects that make up most of our work lives.
Q. What do you feel the biggest challenge in collaboration today (beyond what you’ve addressed in PBworks) and what is your organization doing to address it going forward?
The biggest challenge in collaboration today is encouraging the end user to make online collaboration an integral part of their daily work. Tools that require users to abandon old but comfortable ways of working, or that require double entry, aren’t going to work out in the long run. I think that collaboration has a lot to learn from the bottom-up usability of social media tools like Twitter. These informal and unstructured tools are a great way to handle the initial phases of brainstorming, when you don’t even know the objective of your proto-project. We’re looking very closely at these tools and how our customers use them so that we can integrate their lessons into our products. Ultimately, collaboration is about bringing together, people, processes, and production. Collaboration vendors won’t be successful unless their products can bring together all three of those elements.
Situation: You are still trying to figure out what Twitter is good for.
Much has been made of how Twitter has been used to circumvent Government censorship in Iran - letting us know what's really going on in places where journalists have no access. A lot of that is because:
1. Twitter can be completely anonymous and untraceable. 2. Twitter is so immediate and easy to use.
So, even under extreme pressure, anyone can feel comfortable commenting and reporting issues on Twitter.
Think about that for a second. How many times have you found out about project issues too late because of office politics or fear of reprisals? Wouldn't it have been great to have a suggestion box that people could trust because it resides outside of the organization?
What would happen if you set up a Twitter account and asked people to "direct (private) message" you with suggestions, comments, difficult issues, and just "things you should know about". Perhaps you could push people to do it at every status meeting. The comments would be completely anonymous and you could even have a longer private conversation through direct messages if required. You would have to make sure they didn't openly "Tweet" any private company info, but that shouldn't be a problem.
If Iranian dissidents feel comfortable risking jail by Tweeting, why wouldn't your team feel comfortable using it to make things more successful?
Situation: Your IT shop bleeds MS Blue, but those SaaS tools sure look inviting.
Desktop vs. SaaS Schedulers Here's a phrase I'm sure many of you have heard - "Every real project manager knows how to use MS Project". Throw that up against "Everyone is buying PM SaaS tools because they just include the functions you need" and you've got two sides to a very important argument. Truth be told, MS Project probably does have some functions not everyone uses and many basic SaaS PM apps don't do much beyond providing online to do lists without any sense of heirarchy or relationship between tasks and resources.
Desktop vs. SaaS PPM Tools Providing PPM or just a view of all projects in some form of dashboard is becoming increasingly popular in the SaaS world. However, in looking at enterprise-level SaaS tools, we often run into issues similar to theones we see with schedulers. That's not to say that truly enterprise-grade PPM sftware does not exist. It's just that much of what's out there is just a simple view of all projects that doesn't provide you with enough actionable information.
Is a Hybrid Approach a Good Thing? (typically large) Organizations committed to MS Project have the resources necessary for a completely custom Project Server install that's tailored for that company's needs. Many small to mid-size companies that are committed to MS Project need something that is easier to implement. Something pre-configured or easily configured to meet most company's needs.
Today, Microsoft rolled out a new section of "Easier with Project", called Project For WorkGroups. This section highlights their partners who have SaaS (and semi-custom in-house) solutions that deliver a comprehensive view of all of your projects being managed in MS Project. So your familar desktop app can tie in with a dashboard that is relatively easy to implement. This is pretty interesting to me as it seems to create a best of both worlds option for a lot of companies.
What do you think?
(publishers note: Microsoft is one of our advertisers, but then again there are not many PM software vendors that aren't. Given that, you may want to take everything I say here with a grain of salt - or just understand that I think its important to talk about these things)
You can do this!
Earn your master's degree in project management without putting your life on hold at GoUWP.com! Apply today at GoUWP.comfor 100% online courses, 45 PDUs each. No entrance exam. University of Wisconsin- Platteville’s MS in Project Management is globally accredited by PMI. Combine academics and real-world scenarios for a 360-degree education.
If you have a distributed team, what are you trying to achieve with Agile approaches? Isn't Agile more for co-located teams? There are eight key benefits to working in a distributed Agile environment. A new report from ProjectsAtWork looks at each of those benefits – and how you can achieve them.
Most business and IT executives agree that any company able to rapidly deliver software of high and predictable quality with minimum budgets enjoys a significant advantage. However, practical experience shows that the challenges associated with software quality remain largely unsolved. Download the white paper Uplift Quality with Requirements Driven Testing to learn fundamental principles of Requirements Driven Testing.
We are ready for any unforeseen event that may or may not occur.