Defined vs. Empirical Process Control

How many would admit to facilitating that "perfect" phased-gate resource-leveled MS Project plan only to face a massive re-plan caused some new cross-functional dependency? How long did it take to institute the change? The following every-day examples are more likely:
  • Your plan is hereby obsolete - due to critical new feedback from the voice of the customer
  • Your progress reports are inaccurate - "actuals" materially deviate from "planned"
  • Your functional requirements need to change- caused by vendor performance issues early in the "execution phase"
In those types of projects, manufacturing process control* theory argues for empirical process control, such as the Scrum agile process
  1. "It is typical to adopt the defined (theoretical) modeling approach when the underlying mechanisms by which a process operates are reasonably well understood.
  2. When the process is too complicated for the defined approach, the empirical approach is the appropriate choice."

 

  • In the first case, the Project Plan creates the cost and schedule estimates - it's a plan driven (command-and-control "waterfall") type of project.
  • In the second case, the Product or Services Vision creates the feature estimates - it's a value and vision driven (agile) project.
Learn to recognize the difference between the two, formalizing your type of project early in the inception phase, before any commitments are made!

* Process Dynamics, Modeling, and Control

Ogunnaike and Ray, Oxford University Press, 1992

If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds

Post Defined vs. Empirical Process Control to digg. Post Defined vs. Empirical Process Control to Reddit add to stumbleupon Google Bookmark myweb bookmark on del.cio.us newsvine Tailrank magnolia Furl co.mments shadows simpy blinklist

6 Comments

  1. Posted July 15, 2009 at 9:50 am | Permalink

    Your news is a cool stuff man, keep it going.

  2. Posted July 31, 2009 at 9:57 am | Permalink

    That's good man, keep it going.

  3. Posted August 5, 2009 at 3:21 pm | Permalink

    Good story for me but please more details.

  4. Posted August 6, 2009 at 3:22 pm | Permalink

    Good information to me.

  5. Posted September 19, 2009 at 1:30 pm | Permalink

    Stunning blog and good article. High 5 for u man !

  6. Posted January 6, 2010 at 11:37 am | Permalink

    This is a very good stuff man. But you can be more specific next time. See ya !

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *

*
*