Ad Hoc versus Systematic Project Categorization
One approach to continued development of the discipline of PM is simply to
allow this ad hoc segmentation or categorization to continue as it has for the
past several decades. Some will argue that this actually has been going on since
the inception of the age of modern project management in the 1960s. This ad hoc
approach will no doubt continue to produce some beneficial results, but these
results can be predicted to be somewhat uneven, perhaps wasteful of duplicate
effort, and certainly un-systematic.
A systematic approach to this question is believed to be more desirable, since
this will accelerate the progress and related improvements in the PM discipline,
avoid duplicate efforts, and help to assure that all pertinent factors have been
considered.
Research to date (see Crawford et al 2002, 2004, 2005 and others; see Figure 2)
shows that there are many characteristics and attributes of projects that can
be used, and in fact are being used, to categorize and/or classify projects. There
are also many purposes and uses of the various categorizations. Crawford et al
also make the point that it is not practical to categorize projects without considering
the purpose of such categorization. A systematic approach to this problem requires
that the purposes and the methods of project categorization/classification be
interrelated.
|
Application area or product
|
Stage of life-cycle
|
Grouped or single
|
|
Strategic importance
|
Strategic driver
|
Geography
|
|
Scope
|
Timing
|
Uncertainty
|
|
Risk
|
Complexity
|
Customer
|
|
Ownership
|
Contractual
|
|
Figure 2: Attributes of projects used in various classification systems.
Source: Crawford et al 2002, 2004
Crawford et al (2004) list these common and specific uses and needs:
Common uses/needs
- A language for naming and discussing
- Facilitating communication
- Storage and retrieval of knowledge
Specific uses/needs
- Research
- Ontological definition
- Comparability
- Building on previous results
- Professional organizations
- Development of BoKs
- Internal organization (SIG structure)
- Market positioning
- Practitioner organizations?
|
Different
Strokes for Different Folks
