OT: Use of "Stages" in the Project Life Span
Two illustrations, Figures 5 and 6, show the same set of "product" activities and how they might be displayed normally and under the "management stages" concepts.[10]
Figure 5: Product activities crossing stage boundaries
|
Figure 6: Products broken down to fit project management stages
|
To us the latter seems to be something of a "force fit" and we think the result is still unconvincing. Indeed, we think that the project management control points, or gates representing phase ends, should be properly aligned with the major milestones of the natural project life span for the type of project. Thus, for a properly aligned methodology this added complication would be unnecessary.
Colin:
I think that you're getting hold of the wrong end of the stick here. There is no 'force-fit' in the use of stages. If the stages match the major technical/specialist deliverables, there will be an exact match. The concept of stages moving away from this is where, for example, a specialist phase such as building a warship may be considered far too long for one stage (commitment of resources and no formal 'Yes, we agree to continue' point.) Where you have a very large phase, you may wish to break it up (a) to make planning easier (b) to break up the commitment. Similarly in small projects it may be sensible to combine a number of specialist phases into one management stage.
Max:
Perhaps it would be worth making this point clear in the document.
10. Ibid, p248
|
OT:
Development of the Business Case: 2
