Comments on: Top-down and Bottom-up Project Management: Leveraging the Advantages of the Two Approaches http://www.projectshrink.com/top-down-and-bottom-up-1936.html Welcome To Shrinkonia. Sun, 20 May 2012 21:13:21 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Ally S.Ally http://www.projectshrink.com/top-down-and-bottom-up-1936.html#comment-3862 Ally S.Ally Sat, 14 Apr 2012 20:10:54 +0000 http://blog.softwareprojects.org/?p=1936#comment-3862 I have been understand your explanation concern the Bottom-up aproach.Thanks alot. I have been understand your explanation concern the Bottom-up aproach.Thanks alot.

]]> By: apamaku daniel http://www.projectshrink.com/top-down-and-bottom-up-1936.html#comment-1570 apamaku daniel Mon, 09 May 2011 09:18:54 +0000 http://blog.softwareprojects.org/?p=1936#comment-1570 thank you for clarifying some of mis conceptions about project management thank you for clarifying some of mis conceptions about project management

]]> By: [Tutorial] – Project Management Top-Down or Bottoms Up « Boeingaircraft's Blog http://www.projectshrink.com/top-down-and-bottom-up-1936.html#comment-1569 [Tutorial] – Project Management Top-Down or Bottoms Up « Boeingaircraft's Blog Sun, 02 May 2010 14:06:10 +0000 http://blog.softwareprojects.org/?p=1936#comment-1569 [...] http://www.basdebaar.com/top-down-and-bottom-up-1936.html [...] [...] http://www.basdebaar.com/top-down-and-bottom-up-1936.html [...]

]]> By: Bas de Baar http://www.projectshrink.com/top-down-and-bottom-up-1936.html#comment-1568 Bas de Baar Wed, 07 Oct 2009 11:17:10 +0000 http://blog.softwareprojects.org/?p=1936#comment-1568 For everyone interested, Andy posted an additional explanation on his own blog: What Project Management 2.0 IS and what it IS NOT http://www.wrike.com/projectmanagement/10/06/2009/What-Project-Management-2-0-IS-and-what-it-IS-NOT-Part-1 http://www.wrike.com/projectmanagement/10/07/2009/What-Project-Management-2-0-IS-and-What-it-IS-NOT-Part-2 For everyone interested, Andy posted an additional explanation on his own blog:

What Project Management 2.0 IS and what it IS NOT
http://www.wrike.com/projectmanagement/10/06/2009/What-Project-Management-2-0-IS-and-what-it-IS-NOT-Part-1
http://www.wrike.com/projectmanagement/10/07/2009/What-Project-Management-2-0-IS-and-What-it-IS-NOT-Part-2

]]> By: Andrew http://www.projectshrink.com/top-down-and-bottom-up-1936.html#comment-1567 Andrew Mon, 28 Sep 2009 03:44:36 +0000 http://blog.softwareprojects.org/?p=1936#comment-1567 Thanks everybody for great feedback! I'm glad that most readers liked the post. It was also interesting to analyze critical comments: I'll come up with a follow-up post soon to address some misconceptions. Answering some questions: -I've seen the ideas that I highlighted in the post applied across different industries ranging from construction to marketing as the core elements of this approach are facilitating team collaboration and gaining transparency of project operations. That said, running a creative marketing campaign and decommissioning nuclear power plant is not quite the same. There're areas where the focus is on creativity and productivity, and there are areas where other factors are more important. -Location of employees plays a role in selecting tools and processes, but it's not the most critical factor. Blogs, wikis, twitter will never replace face-to-face meetings, but they make it easier for people to share and store information, and they certainly become critical piece in cases where people don't have a luxury of daily personal communications. I also recommend to all the commenters to take a look at Gary Hamel’s article called Management 2.0: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gary-hamel/management-20_b_75676.html . It addresses many of raised issues. It's also a good reminder from a person who studies and consults many organizations and has been doing so for quite a while, that it's not all been said, done and learnt by everybody 20 years ago as some commenters say. I also would like to highlight the fact that I'm not claiming all the good work done by many successful project managers lately as something that I invented or own. Call it good management, if you find PM2.0 term offensive. I'm a board member or advisor in 5 companies, CEO of one of them, and throughout the year I share experience with peers and customers from hundreds of companies. Besides I love digging through a lot of management cases from all over the world, which I also try to map on what I write about. Some readers find my perspective interesting, so I'm sharing what I see working. If it's all common sense to you, it's great! It means more work is being done in this world in a more effective way. By the way, in my management career there have been times when an idea was common sense one day, and then sometime later revisiting the same idea and applying it to an area which was out of radar before was an "a-ha" moment. Best regards to all who took time to comment! Thanks everybody for great feedback!
I’m glad that most readers liked the post. It was also interesting to analyze critical comments: I’ll come up with a follow-up post soon to address some misconceptions.

Answering some questions:
-I’ve seen the ideas that I highlighted in the post applied across different industries ranging from construction to marketing as the core elements of this approach are facilitating team collaboration and gaining transparency of project operations. That said, running a creative marketing campaign and decommissioning nuclear power plant is not quite the same. There’re areas where the focus is on creativity and productivity, and there are areas where other factors are more important.
-Location of employees plays a role in selecting tools and processes, but it’s not the most critical factor. Blogs, wikis, twitter will never replace face-to-face meetings, but they make it easier for people to share and store information, and they certainly become critical piece in cases where people don’t have a luxury of daily personal communications.

I also recommend to all the commenters to take a look at Gary Hamel’s article called Management 2.0: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gary-hamel/management-20_b_75676.html . It addresses many of raised issues. It’s also a good reminder from a person who studies and consults many organizations and has been doing so for quite a while, that it’s not all been said, done and learnt by everybody 20 years ago as some commenters say.

I also would like to highlight the fact that I’m not claiming all the good work done by many successful project managers lately as something that I invented or own. Call it good management, if you find PM2.0 term offensive.

I’m a board member or advisor in 5 companies, CEO of one of them, and throughout the year I share experience with peers and customers from hundreds of companies. Besides I love digging through a lot of management cases from all over the world, which I also try to map on what I write about. Some readers find my perspective interesting, so I’m sharing what I see working. If it’s all common sense to you, it’s great! It means more work is being done in this world in a more effective way.

By the way, in my management career there have been times when an idea was common sense one day, and then sometime later revisiting the same idea and applying it to an area which was out of radar before was an “a-ha” moment.

Best regards to all who took time to comment!

]]> By: Bas de Baar http://www.projectshrink.com/top-down-and-bottom-up-1936.html#comment-1566 Bas de Baar Sun, 27 Sep 2009 08:55:33 +0000 http://blog.softwareprojects.org/?p=1936#comment-1566 @Ray: I am the kind of person that loves face to face communication. In a co-located setting I wouldn't think of using the digital channels. However, I have/had developers in my projects (20somethings mostly) that put on headphones for music and messengers for chats with their colleagues on the other end of the world. They preferred my communication also over messenger, because it's the same flow. So I was chatting digitally with people 2 meters away :) @Ray: I am the kind of person that loves face to face communication. In a co-located setting I wouldn’t think of using the digital channels. However, I have/had developers in my projects (20somethings mostly) that put on headphones for music and messengers for chats with their colleagues on the other end of the world.

They preferred my communication also over messenger, because it’s the same flow. So I was chatting digitally with people 2 meters away :)

]]> By: Bas de Baar http://www.projectshrink.com/top-down-and-bottom-up-1936.html#comment-1565 Bas de Baar Sun, 27 Sep 2009 08:49:48 +0000 http://blog.softwareprojects.org/?p=1936#comment-1565 Perhaps the diagram could have included "Strategic alignment", "Goal setting", "Leadership". What I love about the article that it tries to combine both worlds (top and bottom) and makes the link with tech (something needed for running projects in a virtual and global environment). Perhaps the diagram could have included “Strategic alignment”, “Goal setting”, “Leadership”.

What I love about the article that it tries to combine both worlds (top and bottom) and makes the link with tech (something needed for running projects in a virtual and global environment).

]]> By: Eric Gear http://www.projectshrink.com/top-down-and-bottom-up-1936.html#comment-1564 Eric Gear Fri, 25 Sep 2009 06:44:11 +0000 http://blog.softwareprojects.org/?p=1936#comment-1564 As far as I can tell from Andrew's post, he does not want everybody to forget about top-down and control altogether. He offers to take the best from top-down and bottom-up and some how unite control and collaboration. I guess some of the readers really miss this point. As far as I can tell from Andrew’s post, he does not want everybody to forget about top-down and control altogether. He offers to take the best from top-down and bottom-up and some how unite control and collaboration. I guess some of the readers really miss this point.

]]> By: Ron http://www.projectshrink.com/top-down-and-bottom-up-1936.html#comment-1563 Ron Fri, 25 Sep 2009 06:38:26 +0000 http://blog.softwareprojects.org/?p=1936#comment-1563 Brian, I have to object here: "How the items called tasks get into the application and how the estimates and dependencies between tasks get into the schedule are up to the PM. If they want to invent them out of their own head then they are a bad PM. Good PMs speak to their teams." I'm currently managing a team of 10 that is distributed over 5 timezones. We do have web-meetings daily, but most of the time our working hours do not overlap, meaning I cannot talk to them all the time. Very often, it's just easier for me when we discuss the stuff to be done and they create their own tasks in the system (and yes we are using a the web-based one. I'm working with a great people, who know what they are doing, why don't give them the freedom to create their tasks? After all, they have more field data on these tasks. I'm always in control anyway, as I see the whole schedule in real time and can always change it, if I see any conflicts. Brian, I have to object here:
“How the items called tasks get into the application and how the estimates and dependencies between tasks get into the schedule are up to the PM. If they want to invent them out of their own head then they are a bad PM. Good PMs speak to their teams.”
I’m currently managing a team of 10 that is distributed over 5 timezones. We do have web-meetings daily, but most of the time our working hours do not overlap, meaning I cannot talk to them all the time. Very often, it’s just easier for me when we discuss the stuff to be done and they create their own tasks in the system (and yes we are using a the web-based one. I’m working with a great people, who know what they are doing, why don’t give them the freedom to create their tasks? After all, they have more field data on these tasks. I’m always in control anyway, as I see the whole schedule in real time and can always change it, if I see any conflicts.

]]> By: Oliver Raduner http://www.projectshrink.com/top-down-and-bottom-up-1936.html#comment-1562 Oliver Raduner Thu, 24 Sep 2009 10:58:00 +0000 http://blog.softwareprojects.org/?p=1936#comment-1562 <blockquote>Traditional project management software, like Microsoft Project [...] Team members very often have read-only access to the project plan and cannot make any contributions or changes. The employees send their updates to the project manager in disconnected files via e-mail.</blockquote> In combination with Microsoft's Project Server 2007 (based on SharePoint Services) this is no longer an issue - it's a huge improvement to collaborate with your project team and to give them the possibility to contribute to the project. (Plus it provides tons of other improvements to lead projects) <blockquote>Bottom-up style allows managers to communicate goals and value, e.g. through milestone planning. Then team members are encouraged to develop personal to-do lists with the steps necessary to reach the milestones on their own. The choice of methods and ways to perform their tasks is up to the team. </blockquote> As based on my expereience, you cannot count on everybody in your project team to "be good" in planning for themselves. Up to some point, it may be possible for single individuals or teams to do it how they think it should be done. But where I work, you simply need to control the stuff the people do - it's even better to provide them all the "templates" (to-do lists, etc.), because if not, they won't be in time and not bring the quality you probably expected. Don't understand me wrong, I am not a control freak. I would be stunned if I had a few people to work with, that know what and how to do it right - and even keep it in time. But here this is simply not reality. So, what's the cause of that? In our projects we work with serveral IT technicians- who do an excellent job in their areas (network, support, etc.) - but who have barely an idea of project management or structured planning. They are too much into "doing" than "planning" (which is good for their daily job, but not for the projects). Please correct me, but in such circumstances I think you should stick to the top-down approach to get the best results for your project. Best regards, Oliver

Traditional project management software, like Microsoft Project [...] Team members very often have read-only access to the project plan and cannot make any contributions or changes. The employees send their updates to the project manager in disconnected files via e-mail.

In combination with Microsoft’s Project Server 2007 (based on SharePoint Services) this is no longer an issue – it’s a huge improvement to collaborate with your project team and to give them the possibility to contribute to the project. (Plus it provides tons of other improvements to lead projects)

Bottom-up style allows managers to communicate goals and value, e.g. through milestone planning. Then team members are encouraged to develop personal to-do lists with the steps necessary to reach the milestones on their own. The choice of methods and ways to perform their tasks is up to the team.

As based on my expereience, you cannot count on everybody in your project team to “be good” in planning for themselves. Up to some point, it may be possible for single individuals or teams to do it how they think it should be done. But where I work, you simply need to control the stuff the people do – it’s even better to provide them all the “templates” (to-do lists, etc.), because if not, they won’t be in time and not bring the quality you probably expected.

Don’t understand me wrong, I am not a control freak. I would be stunned if I had a few people to work with, that know what and how to do it right – and even keep it in time. But here this is simply not reality.

So, what’s the cause of that? In our projects we work with serveral IT technicians- who do an excellent job in their areas (network, support, etc.) – but who have barely an idea of project management or structured planning. They are too much into “doing” than “planning” (which is good for their daily job, but not for the projects). Please correct me, but in such circumstances I think you should stick to the top-down approach to get the best results for your project.

Best regards,
Oliver

]]>