Rethinking Lessons Learned in the PMBoK Process Groups: A Model based on People, Processes and Technologies
•Als PPTX, PDF herunterladen•
1 gefällt mir•3,745 views
The Ballistic 2.0 model Intends to fill a gap in literature regarding LL Based on consolidated literature Expands the use of the knowledge creation model Is in tune with PM 2.0 (agile, flexible, dynamic) Provides theoretical foundation for future researches.
Empfohlen
Empfohlen
Weitere ähnliche Inhalte
Was ist angesagt?
Was ist angesagt? (20)
Andere mochten auch
Andere mochten auch (20)
Ähnlich wie Rethinking Lessons Learned in the PMBoK Process Groups: A Model based on People, Processes and Technologies
Ähnlich wie Rethinking Lessons Learned in the PMBoK Process Groups: A Model based on People, Processes and Technologies (20)
Mehr von Marcirio Chaves
Mehr von Marcirio Chaves (14)
Kürzlich hochgeladen
Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)
Rethinking Lessons Learned in the PMBoK Process Groups: A Model based on People, Processes and Technologies
- 1. Rethinking Lessons Learned in the PMBoK Process Groups: A Model based on People, Processes and Technologies Prof. Dr. Marcirio Silveira Chaves - mschaves@gmail.com Cíntia Araújo – cintyaraujo@gmail.com Laura Ribeiro Teixeira - laura.ribeiro@gmail.com Irapuan Glória Júnior - ijunior@ndsgn.com.br Débora Virginio Rosa - deborenhas@gmail.com Cláudia Dias Nogueira - claudia.dnogueira@uol.com.br
- 2. AGENDA Introduction Research Goals Theoretical Foundations – Lesssons Learned in Literature – Knowledge Management: Shared Context – Web 2.0 & Service Models The Ballistic 2.0 Model Discussion Conclusion 1
- 3. PROBLEMS o 47.9% of practitioners believe PMMs offer little or any help (Wells, 2012) o Regarding LL: little focus on this subject on the main PMM’s (Bentley, 2009) o PMBoK: mechanistic & rigid ≠ LL: organic & fluid (Jugdev, 2012) o Lack of researches on LL in conference proceedings (Jugdev, 2012) o Organizations face little incentive or lack of structure for organizational learning (Hobday, 2000) o Project Management 1.0 vs. Project Management 2.0 2
- 4. CONTRIBUTION: BALLISTIC 2.0 MODEL PMBOK PROCESS GROUPS STORAGE CAPTURE DISSEMINATION VERIFICATION AND PURIFICATION 3
- 5. OVERALL PERSPECTIVE OF LL IN LITERATURE LL = knowledge acquired by both positive & negative experience in order to improve performance (Lientz & Rea, 2003; PMI, 2013) LL system helps individuals who go through similar situations (Weber et al., 2001) 4
- 6. LESSONS LEARNED PROCESS COLLECT REUSE VERIFY STORE Figure 1: A generic lessons learned process Source: Weber et al. (2001, p. 21) DISSEMINATE ORGANIZATIONAL MEMBERS LL CENTER DOMAIN EXPERTS LL REPOSITORY ORGANIZATIONAL PROCESSES 5
- 7. LESSONS LEARNED METHODS IN LITERATURE Methods Authors Project Review Schindler and Eppler (2003) Postcontrol or Post-Project Review Schindler and Eppler (2003) After Action Review Schindler and Eppler (2003) Post-Project Appraisal (two years after Gulliver (1987) project completion) Journaling Loo (2002) Learning Histories Roth and Kleiner (1998) Micro article Willke (1998) Project history day Collier, DeMarco, and Fearey (1996) Appreciative Lessons Learned Method (4ALL) Baaz, Holmberg, Nilsson, Olsson, & Sandberg (2010) Exhibit 1: Main lessons learned methods in the literature. Source: The authors 6
- 8. KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT: SHARED CONTEXT Figure 2: Four types of ba Source: Adapted from Nonoka et al. (2000, p. 16)
- 9. WEB 2.0 SERVICE MODELS Exhibit 2: Description of the four Web 2.0 service models Source: Adapted from (Shang et al., 2011) Service Model Description Web 2.0 applications Exchanger • Enables socialization and externalization with low control mechanism • The content is not organized nor systematized. • VOIP calls • Chat • E-mails Aggregator • Enables from socialization to externalization • Control mechanism is low • Users can share/aggregate information in many ways • Blogs • Bookmarking • RSS • Social networks Collaborator • Enables the full cycle of knowledge creation • Users can recreate content and applications • Contains processes for feedback • Wikis • Bookmarking • Games • Progr. Languages Liberator • Enables the full cycle of knowledge creation. • Source code is open to users for continuous improvement • OS’s • Web 2.0 tools • Games • Progr. Languages 8
- 10. THE MAIN COMPONENTS OF BALLISTIC 2.0 MODEL LESSONS LEARNED PROCESSES • Capture • Storage • Verification & Purification • Dissemination LESSONS LEARNED METHODS • Project Review • After-Action Review PEOPLE, KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT & SHARED CONTEXT Figure 3: The main components of the Ballistic 2.0 Model Source: The authors • SECI • Ba WEB 2.0 SERVICE MODELS • Exchanger • Aggregator • Collaborator PMBOK PROCESS GROUPS 9
- 11. THE MAIN COMPONENTS OF BALLISTIC 2.0 MODEL • EXCHANGER • AGGREGATOR • COLLABORATOR • COLLABORATOR • EXCHANGER • AGGREGATOR • COLLABORATOR • AGGREGATOR • COLLABORATOR ORIGINATING ba DIALOGUING ba EXERCISING ba SYSTEMISING ba Figure 4: Ba 2.0 – Extending ba with Web 2.0 Service Models Source: The authors 10
- 12. THE BALLISTIC 2.0 MODEL TO MANAGE LL IN PMBoK PMBOK PROCESS GROUPS STORAGE CAPTURE DISSEMINATION VERIFICATION AND PURIFICATION 11
- 13. DISCUSSION o “Ba is fluid and can be changed quickly as the participants set it.” (Nonaka et 12 al., 2000) o Inter-project knowledge sharing is complicated (Swan et al., 2010) o The Ballistic 2.0 addresses important aspects in LL o Fosters changes on organizational culture o Encourages people to use new technology o Addresses 4 main challenges in LL: Time, Motivation, Discipline, Skills “All technical and organizational knowledge unable to be found via Google in less than two minutes should be documented” (Stocker et al., 2012, p. 334)
- 14. CONCLUSION o The Ballistic 2.0 model o Intends to fill a gap in literature regarding LL o Based on consolidated literature o Expands the use of the knowledge creation model (Nonaka et al., 2000) o Is in tune with PM 2.0 (agile, flexible, dynamic) o Provides theoretical foundation for future researches For more studies on LL, visit the research group: Managing Web 2.0 Technologies in Projects - TiP http://tip20.wikidot.com 13
Hinweis der Redaktion
- Only 42 citations on LL on IPMA (2006); 47 citations on Prince2 (Bentley, 2009) 44 in 4th edition of PMBoK; 71 citations on the 5th edition Project Management 1.0 (PM 1.0) lacks agility and a strategic view, OPERATIONAL, NO available knowledge, INFLEXIBLE philosophy, heavy, ineffective. Focus on PLANNING, CONTROL (Levitt, 2011) Project Management 2.0 (PM 2.0) AUTONOMY, AGILITY that REALLY meets team members and project managers (Levitt, 2011)
- Web 2.0 techonologies: microblogs, wikis, collaborative edition tools Web 2.0 PM 2.0 & Knowledge Management (Grace, 2009; Parker & Chao, 2007) echnologies = wikis, blogs, collaborative tools
- The purpose of a lessons learned system is to collect and supply lessons that can benefit those who encounter situations where the lesson can be applied (Weber et al., 2001) PMI says about LL “the knowledge gained during a project which shows how project events were addressed or should be addressed in the future with the purpose of improving future performance.” lessons learned knowledge base “store of historical information and lessons learned about both the outcomes of previous project selection decisions and previous project performance.”
- Collect: Passive collection, individuals submit their own lesson using a form. Reactive collection means lessons learned are collected by interviewing the members of the organization. Ex: military organizations collect after missions Proactive collection, the lessons are extracted while problems are solved. Active collection is an approach in which lessons are collected from within the organization. Interactive collection uses an intelligent system to solve ambiguities by interacting with the authors of the lessons and relevant sources. Verify: This sub-process is executed by a team of experts who are responsible for validating lessons according to redundancy, consistency and relevance. Store: This sub-process refers to the representation, indexing, format, and storage of lessons learned. Disseminate: this is the most important sub-process regarding promoting the reuse of lessons learned. 5 methods: passive dissemination in which users access lessons in a standalone retrieval tool. active casting, lessons are broadcast to the members of an organization by a dedicated list server. Broadcasting is a form of disseminating lessons learned by sending bulletin of lessons learned to all members of the organization. Proactive dissemination is a method that uses a system to predict users’ need for lessons learned by analyzing their recent events and sends lessons learned to individuals proactively based on this analysis. Reactive dissemination is a method in which users can invoke a system to browse lessons. Reuse: As a rule, users are responsible for choosing to reuse lessons. Weber et al. (2001) identified three categories of this sub-process: browsable recommendation in which the system displays the retrieved lessons; executable recommendation is a method in which the users choose to execute a specific lesson; and outcome reuse in which the lessons learned system retrieves the results of using a specific lesson, allowing users to know if the lessons are helpful or not.
- Project Review After project completion or in the course of the project during individual phases Moderators/auditor or external people Who participates: project team and 3rd parties that are involved into the project Purpose: status classification, early recognition of possible hazards, team internal focus Benefits: improvement of team discipline, prevention of weak points and validation of stategies Type of interaction: face to face meetings Codification: party in reports, usually no predefined circulation with knowledge transfer as a primary goal After action review During work process Carried out by a facilitator Who participates: project team Purpose: Learning from mistakes, knowledge transfer inside the team Benefits: Immediate reflection Type of interaction: cooperative team meeting Codification: flip charts
- Knowledge needs a place to be created SECI is a well-known model proposed by Nonaka (1994) explicit and tacit knowledge interact with each other in a continuous process. Ba means “place” = shared context in which knowledge is shared, created and used. In knowledge creation, generation and regeneration is key Knowledge creation is not STATIC and INHUMAN. It is dynamic In ba participants share time and space. It is a living place Originating ba is defined by individual face-to-face interactions. It’s where people share experiences, feelings, mental models Dialoguing ba is defined by the colective face-to-face interactions. Tacit knowledge is shared by participants Systemising ba is defined by collective virtual interactions. Context of combination of existing explicit knowledge that can transmitted by a larger number of people Exercising ba is defined by individual and virtual interactions. Context of internalisation. People receive explicit knowledge that is communicated through virtual media. Ex. Manual, simulations programs
- 4 modes of knowledge creation Socialization: from tacit to tacit Combination: from explicit to explicit Externatization: from tacit to explicit Internalization: from explicit to tacit Nonaka (1994)
- ORIGINATING BA – FACE-TO-FACE FERRAMENTA WEB 2.0 BLOG, GOOGLE DOCS, GRAVAÇÃO CELULAR, EVERNOTE PARA CADA QUADRANTE MOSTRAR EXEMPLOS
- Initiating Originating ba and dialoguing ba should be encouraged if project members share the same physical place. systemizing ba and exercising ba can complement the search for lessons learned in this kind of project. global projects should use systemizing ba and exercising ba due to the difficulty to make face-to-face meetings. Using these types of ba, project members are able to capture explicit and tacit knowledge in both types of projects. Planning 4 types of ba supported by the exchanger, aggregator and collaborator Web 2.0 service models are encouraged in this phase These Web 2.0 service models will support a clear communication with stakeholders, mainly with the project team For example, a wiki or a blog should be configured to facilitate the communication with stakeholders Executing The executing phase enables application of LL and capture of new LL The 4 types of ba can also be applied in this process group supported by the Web 2.0 service models. For example, when project team members consult solutions in a wiki, they are applying the reuse process. The processes of Capture, Verification and Purification are also applied in this phase. When project members face a difficulty or a new experience in the project opportunity to consult the corporate Wiki and verify if other projects have already passed through similar situations during the delivery of their activities. A project team member or project manager can do the purification of the items. Monitoring & Controlling project managers can use the Ballistic 2.0 model to create more assertive control processes in projects. Adjustments to budget, timeline, or the desired end-product are often necessary to address unforeseen circumstances. Capturing lessons learned in these moments is a challenge for project teams. 4 types of ba support the task of capturing lessons learned. Closing last moment to capture lessons learned. Ballistic 2.0 model supports project managers by integrating lessons learned processes with the shared context by team members and the Web 2.0 service models. It is time to create an environment to perform the four types of ba using both individual and collective interactions. Closing is also the moment of including the last lessons learned in the project to make them available to new projects
- changes in the org. culture. using the same wiki in different projects encourages knowledge sharing Changes are common in project settings Time: Web 2.0 technologies are user friendly, dynamic and facilitate knowledge sharing between users (Murugesan, 2007). Therefore, using such Web 2.0 tools as Wikis can be an appropriate alternative to save time in lessons learned management. Motivation: Since the advent of Web 2.0 is recent and is well disseminated in daily activities, the implementation of the proposed model can motivate members of the organization to share their knowledge with others and to reuse existing lessons. Nevertheless, we admit that tactics and methods to motivate lessons learned in project management need to be addressed in greater depth in future research. Regarding motivation for participation of people in collaborative projects, Roberts, Hann, and Slaughter (2006), and Schroer and Hertel (2009) highlight that the main drivers are enjoyment, learning new skills, social pressure, and personal benefits. Discipline: Our proposal covered all five groups of PMBoK, allowing continuous management of lessons learned. Therefore, its implementation can help project managers to establish knowledge sharing through the entire project life cycle. Skills: Project members need to understand all components of Ballistic 2.0 in order to get satisfactory results regarding lessons learned. It will be necessary to create training programs to teach team members to use these tools in order to share and access lessons. Issues as how to use Web 2.0 tools and the use the lessons learned methods embedded with the four types of ba need to be clear in the beginning of the project.
- LIMITATION: The Ballistic 2.0 model proposed still needs to be matured and refined through implementation in organizations FALAR SOBRE O GRUPO ESTUDO DA FACULDADE Project Management 2.0 Knowledge Management 2.0 in Projects Lessons Learned in Projects Project Management Guides Agile Methodologies Information Technology/Information Systems Projects