INDEX
A
activities, strategic vs. tactical, 17
administrators, 27
Allen, David, 18
appreciative inquiry, 222, 224
B
blog project: business objectives, 39; constraints, 83–84
project tracking spreadsheet, 146–47; risk assessments, 73–76
risk mitigation plans, 81; risks, 67; risk scenarios, 77; scope diagrams, 56
SMART project objectives, 55; stakeholders, 36, 51–52; time estimates, 133; vision statements, 97–98
business cases, 4, 33, 35, 207
C
collaboration: advantages of, 114; alliances in, 91; conflicts and, 91, 177, 179–80; lack of, 89, 91; landmines, 114–15; skipping, 114; stakeholders and, 92, 177, 179–80; for success, 4, 7–8, 10; teams and, 93–94; time for, 92
communication: conflicts and, 91, 113–14; of ending, 7, 9, 11, 209–10; listening and, 193–94; managers and, 172–74; plans, adjusting, 10; sample project update email, 160–64; schedules and, 119–20, 147; sponsors and, 42, 85–86, 172–74; stakeholders and, 41–42, 58–61, 85–86, 147, 228; for success, 4, 7–8; tasks and, 126; of vision statements, 98–99
Compliance (DISC dimension), 101, 103–6
conflicts: collaboration and, 91, 177, 179–80; communication and, 91, 113–14; landmines, 195; management of, 182–84; reactive behaviors in, 104, 189–93; skipping, 194
constraints: documentation, 204; identifying, 81–85; of projects, 3–4, 8, 71–72
critical path diagrams, 135–43, 158
D
Dare Model, 12–13, 28–29; see also individual phases
Define (Dare Model phase): in business cases, 207; in collaboration, 92; in communication, 193; definition, 12, 28–29; in deliverables, 197; in risk management, 67–68; in schedules, 149, 151, 153–54
deliverables, 197, 199–200, 210
Dominance (DISC dimension), 101, 103, 105–6
E
escalating, 25
F
feedback, negative, 179–80, 184–87, 195–96
financial management, 4, 6, 33–34
flexible structure, 5, 7–9, 119, 147
G
granularity, 57
H
I
Influence (DISC dimension), 101, 103, 105–6
K
Kawasaki, Guy, 91
L
M
Manage (Dare Model phase): in business cases, 207; definition, 13, 28–29; in risk management, 80; in schedules, 119, 131, 150, 154–57
management: benefits, 21–22; Edward Hoffman and, 2–3; success, 13–14; tasks and, 126
managers: assessment of leadership abilities, 93–94; communication and, 172–74; owners vs., 23–24; questions for, 92–93, 121, 157–59, 166; return-on-investment and, 35; role of, 23, 28, 107–13; sponsors vs., 24–25, 171–72; stakeholders vs., 25–26; teams, defining, 27, 30
Marston, William Moulton, 101
N
National Society of Professional Engineers, 1–2
negative feedback, 179–80, 184–87, 195–96
nominal group technique, 225, 227–28
O
objectives, 38–40, 42–43, 53–54, 63, 204
P
Plan (Dare Model phase): in business cases, 207; in communication, 193; definition, 12, 28–29; in deliverables, 197; in schedules, 117, 129
plans: benefits, 21–22; building, 5, 7–8; clarifying, 31; creating, 10
see also schedules
post-project reviews: approaches to, 218–19; communication and, 228; to increase competency, 9, 11; landmines, 228–29; questions and, 216–18; sample, 219; skipping, 228; stakeholders and, 216; techniques for, 220–28; time for, 216, 219–20; value of, 213, 215–16
processes, projects vs., 20–21
Project Management Body of Knowledge, 19–20
projects: adjustment of, 169–71; benefits, 34; costs, 34–35; defining worksheet, 19; definition, 19–20; ending, 197, 199–200, 205–12; processes vs., 20–21; success, defining, 40, 43, 197, 199–200; tasks vs., 15, 18–19, 21, 30
project tracking spreadsheet, 144–47, 158, 160–64
Q
questions: in coaching, 110–11; for managers, 92–93, 121, 157–59, 166, 216; for sponsors, 37–38, 120–21, 217; for stakeholders, 49–51, 70–71, 81–82, 99, 120–21, 181, 202, 216–18; for teams, 217–18; vision, 96
quick-and-dirty risk assessments, 154–55
R
Review (Dare Model phase), 13, 29
reviews, post-project: approaches, 218–19; communication and, 228; to increase competency, 9, 11; landmines, 228–29; questions, 216–18; sample, 219; skipping, 228; stakeholders and, 216; techniques for, 220–28; time for, 216, 219–20; value of, 213, 215–16
risk management, 67–69, 72, 80, 86–87; see also risk scenarios risk mitigation, 5–6
risks: definition, 67; documentation, 204; forecasting, 65, 67; issues vs., 164–65; mitigation, 9–10; quick-and-dirty risk assessment, 72–76, 154–55; stakeholders and, 70
S
schedules: adjustment of, 151, 153–54; advantages, 149; components, 121; documentation, 207; elements, 117; landmines, 148–49, 174–75; skipping, 147–48, 174; see also plans
scope creep, 7–9, 45, 47–49, 61–62
scope diagram: advantages, 60; as communication tool, 58, 60–61; definition, 55; documentation, 204; examples, 56; purpose, 54; template, 59; tips, 57–58; work breakdown structure, 125
scopes, 126
SMART project objectives, 54, 108 sponsors: communication and, 42, 85–86, 172–74; engaging, 26, 30; managers vs., 24–25, 171–72; questions for, 37–38, 120–21; return-on-investment and, 35; scope creep and, 47–48
stakeholders: business cases and, 35; collaboration and, 92, 177, 179–80; communication and, 41–42, 58–61, 85–86, 147, 228; communication and project tracking spreadsheet, 147; consensus, gaining, 49–51; defining, 36, 43; identifying, 55–57; managers vs., 25–26; post-project reviews and, 216; questions for, 49–51, 70–71, 81–82, 99, 120–21, 181, 202, 216–18; risks, identifying, 70; sample project update email, 160–64; schedules and, 119–20, 156–57; scope creep and, 48–49; scope diagram and, 57–58; success, defining, 200–202; visions and, 98; vision statements and, 98–99
Steadiness (DISC dimension), 101, 103, 105–6
strategic activities, tactical activities vs., 17
structure, flexible, 5, 7–9, 119, 147
success: collaboration, 4, 7–8, 10; communication, 4, 7–8; defining, 200–202; killer, 45; projects, 40, 43, 197, 199–200
T
tactical activities, strategic activities vs., 17
tasks: assigning, 127–29; brainstorming, 125–26; critical path diagrams, 158; critical path method, 135–42; defining, 124; defining worksheet, 19; estimating, 129–35; Gantt charts, 142–44, 158; projects vs., 15, 18–19, 21, 30; project tracking spreadsheet, 144–47, 158, 160–64; work breakdown structure, 122–27
teams: collaboration and, 93–94; creation of, 128–29; members of, 27, 30; questions for, 217, 218
technique, nominal group, 225, 227–28
“The Three Little Pigs”: adjusting schedules, 152; collaboration, 178; collaboration, lack of, 90; Edward Hoffman and, 2–3; objectives, 41; planning, 32; post-project review, 214; project end, 198; risks, defining, 66; running away from home, 16; schedule, creating, 118; scope creep, 46; stakeholders, 37
time: for business cases, 35; collaboration, 92; for post-project reviews, 216, 219–20; for risk management, 69; for schedule adjustment, 154–56; for schedules, 119; for scope creep management, 48; for stakeholders, 180
toolkit: business objectives, 38–40; collaboration, 93–94; conflicts, 182–84; documentation, 203–4, 207–9; handling risks and constraints, 72; negative feedback, 184–87; negotiation, 187–89; objectives and scope diagram, 53–58; post-project reviews, 217–19; schedules, 121–22, 158–60
V
W