After answering project management questions on LinkedIn and other sites for years, I’m happy to be able to field questions directly off the Vertabase blog.

Questions I’ve answered in the past include:

• Who defines the project objectives?
• What should I do if a client doesn’t want to hear about problems?
• What are alternatives to MS Project?
• Is a task list enough to manage a project?

Use the button on the right to submit a project management question.

I look forward to answering your questions.

While reading about information science in Ambient Findability by Peter Morville I came across the concept that gossip is an important source of information and that gossiping is an important mechanism of finding information.

One aspect of gossip is that, while it may not be 100% accurate, it can provide advance knowledge on an upcoming event or help the attuned listener prepare for what’s coming in the future.

This type of information can be incredibly valuable when managing projects. The more advanced knowledge you have on the status of tasks, projects, budgets, etc. the better prepared you can be, the better you can manage the project/plan for changes and the better you can communicate to stakeholders about it.

So I was thinking, what are the informal/gossipy type cues or communication channels that one can build into a project management process that will give managers advanced knowledge?

A mid-level manager I know expressed concern that adopting project management software would give him less control of projects. He thought that if there were a plan everyone could see and update themselves, they wouldn’t need to contact him for instructions.  And thus, he would have less control.

I explained to him that, on an objective level, he would actually

1. Have more control
2. Identify people who aren’t performing more easily and
3. Could get more done.

He would have more control since he could objectively measure progress against the plan.  He could point to specific deliverables and deadlines.  Sure, their would be less politics -and fewer meetings, but he would still be able to direct people’s actions. Only this time, instead of it seeming like the random instructions of a manager, the directions would be part of a coherent plan to accomplish specific goals. In fact, politics could be further removed from the process by having upper management sign-off on the plan before it goes into execution.

Those same objective measures can help identify where people aren’t performing and make it easier to document.  If a manager continuously needs to harp on someone for them to get anything done, it might not be a good fit. Fingers could be pointed at either the manager or the team member. But if you can consistently show that someone is not meeting the stated objectives, the finger pointing becomes much less.

His team could get more done since less time would be reporting on what they were doing or waiting to find out what they should be doing.  Updates can be made and populated automatically in the software. There will be less time in meetings. More time would be available for people to get things done.

MANAGEMENT STYLE

Of course, their may be other factors at play within the organization that make this manager reluctant to put a plan on paper or in a collaborative tool. This is totally legitimate.  A huge percentage of managers still rely on a direct and personal authoritarian approach. It can be very effective.

The vision for a good implementation of project management software is a well-oiled machine. People doing their work and following a plan, following a process that sets-up a constructive feedback loop between management and team members.  While there will always be hiccups, project management practices and project management software can help overcome them quickly and efficiently.

Regardless of management style, collaborative project management software like Vertabase gives a level of visibility, control and accountability without the administrative overhead of having meetings to find out who is doing what.