WARNING:
JavaScript is turned OFF. None of the links on this concept map will
work until it is reactivated.
If you need help turning JavaScript On, click here.
This Concept Map, created with IHMC CmapTools, has information related to: PM 1.0 vs PM 2.0, Small teams of high level experts and large teams of less skilled persons execute plan issues - Are plan realistic ? - Do team members feel committed ?, PM 1.0 enriched by -Being more strategic -Being more agile & dynamic -Aligning to organization structure, culture & strategy, Agile project organizations that Achieve shared global awareness at the edge, PM 2.0 Essence Agile project organizations, PM 1.0 Essence Centralized Planning, Achieve shared global awareness at the edge and Self Synchronize actions, Operational, not strategic and Disciplined, but not agile, Self Synchronize actions by Delivering resources on-demand autonomously, PM 1.0 Essence Decentralized Execution, - Report Status periodically - Explain reasons for variances - Describe actions to be taken issues - Does team understand high level goals ? - Do planners understand operational realities and constraints ?, PM 1.0 Essence Top-Down Tracking & Control, PM 1.0 ???? Operational, not strategic, Large teams & First line managers ???? Execute detailed baseline plans, Achieve shared global awareness at the edge by -Timely collaboration -Using publish & subscribe to avoid information overload, Centralized Planning comprised by Small teams of high level experts and large teams of less skilled persons execute plan, PM (Project Management) ???? PM 2.0, Top-Down Tracking & Control ???? Control Project against approved baseline plan, PM (Project Management) ???? PM 1.0, Decentralized Execution comprised by Large teams & First line managers, - Progress Monitoring - Stamp out variances - Reward achievement - Punish Failure implicit assumptions -Plan is and will remain a good plan. -Report problems accurately and timely up hierarchy. -Alternative assessments by top management.