SIGIA-L Mail Archives: RE: SIGIA-L: How to defend timeline of I
RE: SIGIA-L: How to defend timeline of IA to Project Managers
From: Adam Polansky (Adam.Polansky_at_raremedium.com)
Date: Thu Aug 10 2000 - 11:20:37 EDT
I run into this a lot.
The building analogy is a good one.
A different approach that might play better to a PM is to point out the
nature of a PERT chart critical path (Undergrad Operations Mgt). The reason
it is a critical path is because each step HAS to happen in succession. If
you try to accomplish step D before step C is complete, you WILL have to
reaccomplish step C. That means wasted cost that affects the P&L (Profit &
Loss) for the project.
In my corner of the world, the PM owns, lives by and dies by the P&L
statement. If he or she is pushing an aggressive timeline remind them that
if you don't have time to do it right you'll have time to do it over...and
all that it implies: lost face, lost time, lost money and possibly lost
A D A M A. P O L A N S K Y | information architect
vox: 214.742.RARE x255 | fax: 214.742.7274 | cel: 214.868.4157
From: Whiteley, Anita [mailto:Anita.Whiteley_at_xpedior.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2000 3:43 PM
Subject: SIGIA-L: How to defend timeline of IA to Project Managers
I need help.
My technical project manager is asking why I can't
determine the schematic page layout while I am completing
the workflow diagrams. He is worried about time and wants
me to give the layout to the designers so they can begin
designing sooner than scheduled.
Theoretically it could be done, but I think
it would increase the risk that if anything major changed,
all that design time would have been wasted.
Can anyone give me an articulate reason why this is not a good idea?
I would be grateful.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2
: Sun Nov 23 2003 - 22:54:21 EST