Recently I have had the opportunity to speak to more than 2,000 Project Management Professionals (PMP’s).
During those sessions I conducted non-scientific polls to determine the depth and breadth of the application of the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK®) standards to which this group had been tested for this prestigious professional certification.
Frankly, I was shocked with the results of my simple survey. Fundamentally, I sought two pieces of input:
1. How many of the PMPs were consistently utilising the Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) on their projects as described in the PMBOK® Guide?
2. How many were implementing the Precedence Diagramming Method (PDM) using the WBS Work Packages to determine logic relationships/work flow?
When asked to simply raise their hand if their response to my verbal query was affirmative, the data distribution among the 2,000 plus respondents was as follows:
1. WBS: a total of 31 (less than 2%) PMPs raised their hands
2. PDM: a total of 19 (less than 1%) PMPs raised their hands
In my last posting I covered the interpretation of the WBS statistics. Now I will interpret the PDM statistics.
About the Precedence Diagramming Method
Now, let’s examine the benefits associated with the appropriate use of the PDM concept.
The only way to reliably determine the duration of any project is to develop a realistic work flow built upon the WBS work package output. The PDM allows the project manager to articulate the output-input relationships of all work content. Once the basic logic of the work flow is established, estimated durations are assigned to each work package (based on the resources assigned or the best resource assignment assumptions), thus enabling a forward pass/backward pass to be completed. PDM is not a bar chart. Bar charts are created as an output of a well developed PDM!
After the foundational logic network is created, it’s much easier to optimise work flow relationships and assess the impacts of resource “bait and switch” decisions. Also, the modification of logic relationships–such as overlapping or fast-tracking–is obvious.
Additionally, the impacts of the work package’s actual status as a project evolves and can be taken into consideration. Then, a meaningful cause and effect analysis can be accomplished to determine the need for further optimisation or corrective action to assure the project’s schedule remains achievable. These actions include decisions regarding the determination of float utilisation and the assessment of the potential for any given float path to become a new critical path.
Additionally, the Enterprise advantage of being able to significantly improve the ability to manage a fixed resource base in a multi-project, shared-resource and/or constrained resource environment that results from the “merging” of individual project PDM information into an Enterprise-wide resource utilisation data base.
Summary
Using the WBS and PDM tools of our trade is not an option! If we are to provide the perceived (expected) benefits associated with the earning of the PMP® designation, then we must practice what we preach. We must become proactive in proving the value of using the tools of the trade—not just talking about them.
PMPs must lead the way in transforming great training into even greater action on their projects. The PMP® must make a concerted effort to educate up the organisation to assure the critical decision makers are aware of the substantial benefits to be realised from using the fundamental tools of the profession – the WBS and PDM.