Wrapping Up Timeboxes
In my last post I addressed our decision to use DSDM Atern for the projects generated by an SLR engagement. Now comes the decision on what I call the “engagement architecture”. What this phrase means is what are the tools we will use and how will we use them to actually execute projects. No one tool does everything needed to execute projects in an environment of empowered, collaborative teams executing an iterative methodology. Trust me, I’ve extensively looked for the “silver bullet” application that does it all and could only find several lead bullets and a couple of bronze ones.
We need to remember that we’re also talking about doing projects as consultants working with both our resources and the client’s. That means that the chosen approach must have negligible impact to the client’s IT infrastructure and not commit the client to additional long term recurring costs. When we leave the engagement, we must be able to fold up our tent and take our working environment with us. That certainly isn’t always true but our planning must be based on the most conservative scenarios. The only materials that must be left behind are sufficient documents to support SOX requirements and audits. For any client, the answer is one of three modes.
Mode 1 (primary)
The primary collaborative environment is Microsoft Groove 2007 (soon to be Microsoft SharePoint Workspace 2010). In this mode the client provides a copy of Groove to each team member. Groove functions primarily in a peer to peer architecture but has a server-based architecture available when/if needed. For small teams peer to peer is appropriate and convenient. That approach can definitely scale to larger sizes but at some point a server option may be more appropriate. I know many readers will start to groan at the mention of peer to peer. I have discussed the value of this approach before. A link to that post is here. It fulfills the requirement of leaving no lasting footprint on the client’s IT infrastructure (only user PCs), does not inflict a recurring cost on their business (there is a minimal onetime cost) and definitely provides a flexible collaborative environment for the project team. I will not elaborate on how Groove is used because I don’t want this post to turn into a pitch (it’s already more pitchy than I would like).
The brainstorming and creative component uses MindManager from Mindjet. I have found it to be very useful and its integration to Microsoft’s Office Suite is very beneficial. The use of the Microsoft Office Suite (Word, Excel, PowerPoint, etc.) is assumed. For project schedule management we use the venerable Microsoft Project tool. For the methodology and document control we use Project in a box. We use the client’s storage/portal for archiving project information or we can archive it on our own SharePoint server. The use of all of these tools can be adjusted based on the client’s preferences or the client can just use our default engagement architecture.
Mode 2 (cloud)
Here the primary collaborative environment is one of several cloud-based project management tools. There is a wide assortment of them available and we have a few preferences. But the client’s preferences are what count so we’ll review the options with them and go from there. The reason this is not our primary approach is that I’m not satisfied that all the security “rude surprises” are all know yet for that approach (see this link) and it can inflict a recurring cost on the client. However, it’s all the rage now, very popular and growing. It will mature in time to address all of my concerns. We acknowledge that and will be happy to not fuss too much with the client about it if that’s what they want. The bottom line is that it can work for this requirement.
Mode 3 (whatever)
This is simply the case when the client is a larger, more IT-mature organization and wants to do it their way. If this is their preference we say “yes, sir”, salute and do it their way. This is true of any consultant in the world. We will do the best to adapt the core parts of our approach to that environment to assure of project success. We won’t let the client shoot themselves in the foot (or at least not contribute to it) but we will be adaptable.
In conclusion
We’ve covered a number of tools at a very high level. Each of you has to find the combination that works for you. I believe these approaches work for us and our clients to deliver professional and successful results for each project. If anyone from the DSDM Consortium reads this please harass the Project in a box people to expand their tool from just a document repository to include some of the functionality described above. If anyone from Project in a box reads this please consider yourself harassed.
Thanks for stopping by. See you next time…
