Abstract | Background | Introduction | Our Approach
Findings | Recommended First Stage Improvements | Second Stage Improvements
Other Research | Conclusions | Glossary of Terms Used in this Paper

Recommended First Stage Improvements

As a result of the foregoing, the 2004 Edition should be improved in two stages. First stage improvements should focus on correction of lesser deficiencies, e.g., correction of several figures. This stage should not deal with any conceptual or textual modification, which should be tackled from a systems view in the second stage.

• The 2004 Edition contains several figures that should be modified on the following basis:
7. Figures should present only necessary information and nothing more. For example, Figure 3-4 contains an excessive number of relationships that should be deleted to make this figure useful.[14] If we study process relationships at the output/input level, we can find out that this figure should not contain feed back relationships from the Planning Process Group to the Initiating Process Group. This is because there is no output from the Planning Process Group to feed back as an input to the Initiating Process Group.[15] There are other relationships in this and other figures that can be deleted.
8. The figures should be more reliable. For example, Figure 3-7 shows that Process 6.5 (Schedule Development) does not have an output that feed as an input to other processes within the Planning Process Group.[16] However, if we analyze relationships at the output/input level we find that Output 6.5.3.1 (Project schedule) goes as an input to Process 7.2 (Cost Budgeting).[17] There are other relationships in this and other figures that are substantial and have to be shown.
9. Figures should be simpler. For example, Figure 4-2 is loaded with lists of outputs/inputs that are related to the Project Integration Management knowledge area.[18] As those lists do not help explain this figure, they should be deleted, or better, reduced to a list of outputs that make direct relationships to succeeding processes. If we look at outputs from Process 4.4 (Direct and Manage Project Execution), we could get the impression that relationships between processes 4.4 (Direct and Manage Project Execution) and 4.5 (Monitor and Control Project Work) have been established throughout the listed outputs. However, if we study those processes at the output/input level, we find that relationship between processes 4.4 and 4.5 has been achieved only through Output 4.4.3.7 (Work performance information) and eventually through outputs 4.4.3.2 (Requested changes) and 4.4.3.1 (Deliverables). Other outputs from the list, from 4.4.3.3 (Implemented change requests) to 4.4.3.6 (Implemented defect repair), relate as inputs to Process 8.2 (Perform Quality Assurance).[19] There are other relationships in this and other figures that share similar characteristics.
    
• The 2004 Edition contains figures where many entries can be included, or excluded because they show a very narrow difference between incidental and usual application. There are some important reasons to do this:
10. Figure illustrations should be reduced to only substantial relationships that can be supported by text or can be proved at the output/input level. For example, let us have a look at Figure 3-8.[20] The Executing Process Group shown in this figure contains relationships to all other process groups. If we study process relationships at the output/input level, we cannot find any direct relationships from the Executing Process Group to the Planning Process Group.[21] This is because feed back information from the Executing Process Group to the Planning Process Group has been directed throughout the Monitoring and Controlling Process Group, i.e., "updated and revised through the Integrated Change Control process".[22] There are other relationships in this and other figures that should contain distinctive and provable relationships only.
11. There should also be more consistency between figures. For example, Figure 3-6 and Figure 4-2.[23] If we look at the Initiating Process Group we can see that this process group has feed back relationships with the Executing Process Group. However, if we look at the Project Integration Management Process Flow Diagram, we do not see a drawn or a textual specification at the output/input level that feeds back from the Executing Process Group to the Initiating Process Group. There are other relationships in those and other figures that should be modified to achieve consistency between figures.

Findings

Second Stage Improvements

Home | Issacons | PM Glossary | Papers & Books | Max's Musings
Guest Articles | Contact Info | Search My Site | Site Map | Top of Page