toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
Thanks Patrick, its that transition from project to program that I'm most interested in!...murray
From: Patrick Lambe <plambe@...>
Sent: Wed, Jul 8, 2020 1:23 am
Subject: Re: [SIKM] KM Project Management
Just another twist on this: there comes a stage in KM when it transitions from project management to programme management. There are similarities but also important differences (orchestration and partnering, governance, long cycle learning start to come to the fore - also covered in The Knowledge Manager’s Handbook - as distinct from plan management, coordination, rapid cycle learning) - this is also where alignment with strategic objectives comes more to the fore.
Patrick Lambe and I covered many of the aspects of project-managing a KM implementation in “The Knowledge Managers Handbook” (published 2016, second edition 2019)
This includes items such as definition of objectives, selection of team and leader, budget and timescale, partners, audit of current state, implementation planning, trials and pilots, metrics and reporting.
The converse – KM in PM – I covered in my 2005 book “knowledge management for teams and projects”
Thanks Pavel, good article! There is a lot of research on putting KM into PM and PMI has embedded KM into their process standards so they do embrace the idea. What I'm looking at is putting PM into KM and there is much, much less on this and I find that concerning. Any insights into embedding PM into KM programs/initiatives?...murray
From: Pavel Kraus <p.kraus@...>
Sent: Tue, Jul 7, 2020 3:19 am
Subject: Re: [SIKM] KM Project Management
in my role as Knowledge Networking Officer at Roche Diagnostics
(1998-2001), I had the task to improve project management through
knowledge management. The focus was on new product development and
Together with University of St. Gallen we developed a range of
workshops, tools and techniques all belonging to both disciplines. The
result was acceleration of the project pace to a degree that astonished
even our long time experienced project managers. Today, I still use all
of them to the benefit my projects.
As I got my certification in project management (IPMA) recently, I was
surprised that IPMA does not even mention knowledge management as a key
prerequisite of successful projects. In my opinion they have still a
great potential for development in this direction.
Each project requires expertise to deal with information (KM level 1)
and knowledge (KM level 2). So there is a huge overlap between both
disciplines. Some more thoughts I wrote in this article:
> The relationship between project management and knowledge management is an interesting one so thanks for bringing it up. I'm not really clear on your "KM PMO" - is it a separate PMO for KM projects? (if so are you proposing a PMO for each type of project - e.g. KM, Finance, IT? that seems to go against the idea of a PMO in the first place) Or is it about applying KM to PPM activities? Or is it just about applying good PPM practices to KM projects? Or something else?
> Here are some comments about the state of project management (which are from my experience - which may be different to others).
> Project management is in a healthier state than knowledge management. Tho that isn't saying much. In my experience, most organisations are bad at managing projects overall (altho there is some data that implies that they have gotten better over the last 20 years). They are generally competent at their core operations - because that's what they do. Projects are always in competition in BAU activities and generally come off worse. There may be a PMO - altho in my experience, most PMOs neither have a remit across all an organisation's projects nor do they always wield any authority over projects (their role may simply be to provide project managers or to provide templates or advice).
> Another point of issue is funding and staffing. Projects are generally staffed by contractors who exit at the end of the project - which has obvious knowledge transfer issues for moving to BAU. Many organisations try to mitigate this by involving BAU staff in the project - but this doesn't always work (because BAU is always more important than the project).
> Overall, most organisations could definitely manage their projects better. We know how to manage projects well (or at least better than we do currently). We just don't do what we should do. A PMO can help as a part of a systematic approach to improving project delivery but by itself it will be ineffective.
> The exceptions to all this are: 1. organisations that do projects as their core business (consulting, construction) - altho there the tension is between external and internal projects and 2. projects that are existential for an organisation (typically these get sufficient executive attention to succeed).
> There is also the "wars of religion" that go on in project management (which can confuse outsiders). The US has PMI/PMP/PMBOK and the UK/Europe has Prince2 (here in Australia we see both). And then there is "agile" (scrum! kanban!) vs "waterfall". The decision on how to structure a project often seems to be defined by either the background of the project manager or the budget cycle of the organisation rather than the best approach for the project.
> The relationship between the PMO and KM is interesting. In my experience, a good PMO will do some kind of KM activity - although they may not call it that (lessons learned, retrospectives, etc). Some project-oriented organisations may even employee a KM person across their projects running these. However not all PMOs are "good".
> My overall takeaways would be:
> - KM practitioners benefit from having exposure to and experience in a variety of PPM approaches, frameworks and tools. Project management is both an important personal skill and organisational capability. Also - there are also more jobs in PPM than KM (at least here in Australia).
> - Understanding how your KM projects are interdependent with each other - AND ALSO with other (non-KM) projects in the organisation - is important. A well-run PMO makes this easier to do. A well-run PMO will benefit an organisation more generally (a badly-run one probably won't).
> - If there is already a PMO, having a separate KM PMO doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Ensuring that KM works with the PMO to both further the KM agenda and embed good KM practices in PPM is a good idea. If there is no PMO, I guess having a "KM PMO" might make sense if you are running A LOT of KM projects.
> In my experience, more KM folks (and indeed outside KM as well) have PPM skills than have Security skills.