Great news: the British Chiropractic Association has finally seen sense and dropped its unwarranted libel action against Simon Singh.

Labels: Libel

There's been a (little) bit of publicity about the Karmic Koala in the UK this week, so I thought that I'd see what all the fuss was about. I first installed Ubuntu on my trusty DELL Dimension 8400 in September last year after trashing the hard drive. I thought that the project would prove to be no more than an interesting experiment or, at worst, an amusing diversion, but I was wrong: over the last twelve months, Ubuntu has become my primary OS (giving my seven year old DELL (and my 40+ year old brain) a new lease of life), so it was not without some trepidation that I decided to explore my first major Ubuntu upgrade.

My original distro was the 8.04 LTS (Hardy Heron) and, with the exception of security and stability updates, I have not found it necessary to upgrade since that first install. This is not an ideal starting point as the recommended upgrade process is incremental, meaning that I faced either the prospect of three significant upgrades to get to the 9.10 version released on 29th October (thus preserving my files and settings) or performing a clean install (resulting in the loss of all files and settings stored on the hard drive) of the new OS. A third option could have been a dual-boot arrangement, but that seemed a bit messy to me. After some thought, I decided to follow the incremental route and downloaded the files for 8.10 (around 800MB). This was a seamless upgrade and, after some minor tweaking, the OS functioned as if nothing (much) had happened. So far, so good! On to the next version, the Jaunty Jackalope (9.04): it was here that I hit my first problem. The pre-installation validation sequence indicated that my graphics card was not supported and that I could have problems with the upgrade. At this point I got decidedly nervous and thought it best to abandon my project before bricking my PC, until I remembered Ubuntu's brilliant Live CD. Live CD is a sort of try before you buy (except of course, Ubuntu is free!) feature that runs the OS on your PC from the CD rather than installing it to your hard drive (you can also achieve this using a USB pen drive). That's not the only advantage: downloading the complete version rather than the upgrade is significantly quicker (about eight times faster in my case) and, if you download the files in Ubuntu, there's no checksum process or specialist CD burning software to worry about (as there is in Windows). So, I downloaded 9.10 and burned my disk. After half an hour running the new distro on the PC, I could find no problems with the graphics card or any other hardware, so I decide on a clean install.

It's here that I hit my second problem! You'll remember that I initially decided to follow the incremental upgrade route because in so doing, I'd preserve my files and settings: well, I changed my approach mid-project without giving sufficient thought to the consequences. Sure, a clean install is faster, more efficient and easier (a clear opportunity) but, after all is said and done, it is a clean install and formatting the hard drive is part of the process (a clear risk). Fortunately, the upgrade was painless and, so far at least, I like the new OS. Moreover, I'm bright enough to have copied all of my files (Documents, Pictures, Music, etc) before installing the upgrade, so all of my important stuff was protected and accessible. However, my software and settings have all disappeared during the upgrade as you would expect.

Clearly, I can re-install my software easily (it's freely available and free of charge after all), but rebuilding my Favourite websites and email accounts manually in Opera is a pain! Moreover, remembering to change the permissions on the raw1394 file (for my digital camera) and allowing access to the network drive and network printer through the firewall has severely tested my patience over the last two days. I've also experienced a small but irritating problem with Tellico (a library application), that I think will require manually rebuilding a database of more than five hundred entries. The lesson is clear – BACKUP everything and do it often!

Notwithstanding these minor inconveniences, Ubuntu 9.10 (all 4GB including swap) is running contentedly on my PC and upgrading has cost me nothing in additional capital. Indeed, so far my “experiment” costs have yet to exceed my original outlay of a replacement hard drive and some cheap speakers (if you don't count Ubuntu Unleashed) and I have a state of the art system that boots faster and is more secure than anything that Microsoft has to offer. Compare these advantages to the upgrade price of Windows 7 (Home Premium) of £149.99 and the astonishing 16GB of disk space required to run it!

The rrp for Microsoft Office Professional 2007 is £449.99 (OpenOffice, the open source equivalent is free) and the rrp of Microsoft Project standard 2007 is £479.97 (OpenProj is free): isn't it time to consider Linux as a credible alternative in small business environments?

Labels: Computers, Project, Software

Ben Goldacre is the author of "bad science", a treatise on alternative medicine, pseudoscience and our (generally) credulous attitude to unsubstantiated scientific claims. He also blogs extensively on the same subjects over at BadScience.net. One of Goldacre's persistent themes is the current standard (should that be "substandard"?) of scientific journalism and its contribution to the public "misunderstanding of science". His central complaint is that most science journalists are guilty of Churnalism (generating copy by uncritically incorporating press releases into news stories (attributed to Nick Davies)) and, not unreasonably, points out that this is neither informative nor enlightened reporting, it is simply "promotional activity masquerading as news" (Goldacre 2008 p.211).

By now, I expect you're wondering why any of this is relevant to a project management blog: well, it appears that sloppy journalism and uncritical reproduction of press releases is not confined to matters of science!

The July (2009) edition of Project Magazine (vol. 21 Issue 9) carries the following headline in its News section (p.6):


The "best practice model" in question is PRINCE2 and the poll is an amalgam of two surveys conducted by the Aston Business School's (ABS) Centre for Project Management Practice (CPMP) for the "PRINCE2 or not to PRINCE2" debate (June 2009). The article claims:

"[M]ore than almost [sic] one third of those attending (the to PRINCE2 or not to PRINCE2 debate) believed that it (PRINCE2) had little effect or was actually harmful to the projects undertaken"

The ABS's own website goes a little further, suggesting:

"Organisations across the private and public sectors were stunned to realise that the leading Project Management model for global business used by hundreds of thousands of companies world-wide may not be as valuable or as cost effective as previously thought."

We can be confident that the Project article is Churnalism because the grammatical howler ("more than almost one third") is replicated on the ABS website and is obviously a cut and paste error by Project's editorial staff!

Of course, none of this would matter if we could substantiate the claims in the headline, but the truth is perhaps a little more mundane (and less stunning) than we are led to believe. The poll presented respondents with four questions:

1. PRINCE2 has been/would be invaluable in making project more effective in my organisation
2. PRINCE2 has been/would have some role in improving project performance in my organisation
3. PRINCE2 has been/would have very little effect on improving projects in my organisation
4. PRINCE2 has been/would be harmful to projects in my organisation

The first poll (slide 10) appears to be a pre-debate ballot and suggests that something over 70% of respondents chose either option 1 or option 2. One might be forgiven for wondering how exactly this poll calls into question the effectiveness of PRINCE2: after all, nearly three in four of the respondents believe that PRINCE2 would improve their project performance and, if we include respondents who selected option 3 (a neutral position, although I suspect that this is merely poor phrasing), the number of respondents who believe that PRINCE2 does no harm to an organisation rises to over 90%!

The post-debate poll (slide 14) suggests that over 65% of respondents still believed that PRINCE2 would help organisational project management and over 80% that PRINCE2 is at worse neutral.

I don't have access to the raw data and acknowledge that I have based my interpretation on information available from the ABS website. Nonetheless, this data does little to support the conclusion that PRINCE2 is not "as valuable or as cost effective as previously thought" and the rather emotive language of the headline is at best unhelpful or even potentially misleading.

PRINCE2 is a project management method: its efficacy depends on its implementation and its deployment context. If you follow any method without first understanding the underlying principles, you're asking for trouble! Respectfully, I suggest that the Aston Business School's claim that PRINCE2 is an ineffective method is both premature and unsupportable and that Project Magazine is guilty of sloppy, inaccurate reportage.

Labels: PRINCE2

The recent turmoil in the financial markets should have made us all aware of the need for better risk management. I suppose that the lesson that we should all take from this ghastly recession is that whilst taking risks is not necessarily a bad thing, ignoring risks always is!

The problem for most of us is that we are not particularly good a risk management: our risk appetite often exceeds our capacity to cope with the negative manifestations of risk (issues) and frequently masks the opportunities that can accompany uncertainty. What we can be reasonably sure of is that once the smoke clears, additional legislation and the pursuit of the guilty will take precedence over learning the lessons and there is a real danger is that such actions will encourage us to become so risk-averse that we stifle creativity and hamper recovery (something that the banks in the UK already stand accused of). David Hillson, in his March 2009 briefing, makes an excellent case for avoiding over-regulation and argues that corporations should embrace risk management as part of our strategic and tactical decision-making processes.

I, for one, have taken David's advice to heart. Projects are inherently risky undertakings and all project managers have a responsibility to ensure that risk management is an integral part of their project planning and control activities. Despite having extensive risk management training, I feel that I can do more to add value to my clients' ventures. Accordingly, I've begun my studies for the APM's Risk Certificates: my target date for Level 1 is November 2009 and, work and family commitments permitting, Level 2 will follow in 2010.

There's an added bonus in that my latest adventure will contribute both to my CPD hours and provides me with an excuse to indulge my passion for new books!

Labels: Risk

I'm having some unexpected downtime at the moment and, as usual, it's a mixed blessing. On one hand I'm conscious of the need to keep the home fires burning by moving onto my next engagement as quickly as possible, on the other, it is a welcome opportunity to catch up on some of those important non-urgent tasks that we all tend to postpone in the midst of a hectic project or assignment.

While thinking about the first of these issues, it occurred to me just how much I depend on my personal and professional networks for assignments: pretty much all of my work is either repeat business or comes by way of referral. However, networking for me isn't just about my next job, it also provides a way to maintain my professional development, exchange information and ideas with colleagues, maintain contact and friendships with people all over the world, develop new and mutually beneficial relationships and good, old fashion friendship. Clearly, networking is an essential tool for me and my business and I started to wonder if I do it well.

Enter one of those important non-urgent tasks: reading! I read a lot, particularly between assignments. However, I'm embarrassed to admit that, when I am working my reading activity diminishes and the pile of books waiting to be read grows at an alarming rate. One book that has been waiting for my attention recently is Steven D'Souza's, brilliant Networking: What the best networkers know, do and say. Usually I'm a bit leery of self-help books, but this one is a gem! Don't get me wrong, there is no eureka moment here and this is not a panacea for forsaken contact lists, but it does do what all good self-help books should do: it does your thinking for you.

D'Souza structures the concept of networking in a logical, easy to follow format covering the why, how, where and when of building a rewarding network and there are plenty of practical tips to help you avoid some of the common networking blunders and indiscretions. Moreover, this is not a tough read; five or six hours should be enough time to consume the contents of this book for all but the slowest of readers.

Two things are clear from this book; networking requires effort and persistence to perfect and it is as much about giving as taking. Having read this book, I would assess my own efforts as "OK, could do better"!

brilliant Networking: What the best networkers know, do and say (Steven D'Souza, 2008) is published by Pearson Prentice Hall.

Amazon

Waterstone's

Play.com

Pearson Education

Labels: Networking

Simon Singh is a journalist and scientist who is under threat of a libel action by the British Chiropractic Association.

Singh stands accused of pointing out that there is little (or no) peer reviewed research that supports the BCA's claim that:

manipulating the spine could treat 95% of all diseases, because disease was supposedly caused by blockages in the flow of innate energy along the spine and through the nervous system

I'm no scientist, but it strikes me that, if someone is offering advice about your health, they have a duty to make sure that it is accurate, relevant, evidentially supported and (most important of all) beneficial.

Click on the link below to read Singh's account of the story.

May I wish all of you a somewhat belated "Happy New Year" for 2009.

Although the coming year is likely to be challenging for many of us given the current economic climate, the New Year will almost certainly herald opportunities as well as the much anticipated difficulties: being alert to the possibilities in your particular markets will differentiate your organization from your competitors and can often result in a meaningful advantage in tight fiscal conditions.

Nonetheless, identifying an opportunity is only the first part of the process and many organizations fail to capitalize on otherwise excellent foresight through a lack of organizational agility. One significant constraint is expertize: with cost restraint and departmental downsizing being the "order of the day", many companies find themselves ill-equipped to take advantage of favourable situations and can even find themselves struggling to meet the day-to-day needs of the business. This is where hiring experts on short-term contracts can pay dividends.

Hiring consultants or contractors on an ad hoc basis is a cost effective way of plugging internal resource and expertize gaps as well as providing your organization with a flexible and adaptable workforce. There are also financial benefits to this type of arrangement, not least, reduced training costs, pension arrangements, vehicle and fuel considerations, etc.

It's worth bearing in mind that a poorly managed project is often just as disastrous for a company as a missed opportunity. Building a relationship with third-party organizations that provide the necessary expertize and agility to take advantage of opportunities as they present themselves is an essential investment for any organization in such times as we find ourselves.

Let's hope that 2009 is a year of opportunity for us all.