Talk:Project management

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Engineering (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of engineering on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Systems (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Systems, which collaborates on articles related to systems and systems science.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is within the field of Project management.
WikiProject Business (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Portal Layout[edit]

Can we convert this topic into a portal type setup similar to either the wikipedia portal or something like agriculture? It just seems there are so many details within this topic that being able to look up "project management" and having direct access to materials specific in the PMBOK and other methodologies makes sense. Perhaps having link sections on project management maths and formulas, section for the ITTOs and management styles etc etc.

I think this would be immeasurably helpful to people who need to look up this information. I'd help it all together if the request is approved.

Thanks, Scot

--scot.mcpherson (talk) 10:07, 6 February 2012 (CST)

Process-based management[edit]

It seems the first sentence of the section has a syntactic error

"Also furthering the concept of project control is the incorporation of process-based management".

If this is not a case, can anyone explain the meaning.

--Smbat.petrosyan (talk) 09:40, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Removed links from the see also section[edit]

I removed a series of links from the see also section, see here. All these links can be found in the category:project management. The see also section doesn't have to dublicate this.

-- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 14:57, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I am not undoing the edit but note that most are not in the mentioned category. Of the 16 links deleted, 9 were not in that category. The deleted items Microsoft Project, Visio are under Project Managemant Software. Cost Benefit Analysis I just added to PM category. The analysis items Monte Carlo analysis, Variance analysis, Pareto analysis, Statistical sampling, Delphi technique, SWOT analysis are not PM category nor do they share a category. Markbassett (talk) 15:02, 22 October 2013 (UTC)


Inclusion of the term, "finite" creates confusion because it offers nothing to help the reader differentiate the applicable term from some other. For example, life is also "finite" but I don't believe it adds anything to any definiton of the term, "life".

However, a project may be characterized by phasic (e.g. [[1]]) as opposed to being cyclic (e.g. [[2]]) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kernel.package (talkcontribs) 07:20, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Kernel.package (talk) 07:22, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I guess the term "finite" is used to contrast processes, which are (ever)lasting. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 11:20, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
In business terms, it's functions that are ongoing, not processes: the (short) definition of a process is that it has a defined start and end, and produces an effect or something tangible; while a function is a set of processes and resources typically governed a set of business rules -- functions often equate to business unit, department, or team (although not always). In this way, processes are like projects writ small. Greyskinnedboy (talk) 19:50, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
To avoid possible confusion with the term finite, it may be preferable to use something more along the Project Management Institute definition, which describes a project as "a temporary endeavour undertaken to create a unique product, service or result" (PMBOK). Greyskinnedboy (talk) 19:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Suggested ADDITION to the New Opening- Definition of Project Management[edit]

“Project Management- the administration supervision or executive function to plan, organize, coordinate, direct and control a proposed or planned undertaking to achieve a particular aim or objective within a specific time frame, with some reasonable expectation for success, through the skillful handling or use of limited or constrained resources and the successful organization, administration and controlling these affairs in a business-like manner.”

Again, this was a definition derived from my PhD research. It is based on a restatement of the definition of Project + Management adapted from the Merriam Webster's On Line Dictionary. My reason for NOT using a definition from any single published textbook on the subject was, as can be seen from looking at Max Wideman's Glossary of Project Management terms, and Manager there is evidence that little agreement exists between experts. Thus my approach was to go back to a standard English Language Dictionary and restate the terms based on a fresh beginning.

Dr. PDG, Jakarta Dr PDG (talk) 06:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

New opening and section about the TCMF Methodology removed[edit]

Sorry but I removed both of your contributions for now. There is a reason I removed them in the first place, and I removed it again. If you want to add it back, it is custom to discuss this first. Two more thinks:

First, I removed your new introduction, and restored:

Project management is the discipline[1] of planning, organizing and managing resources to bring about the successful completion of specific project goals and objectives.
Source: David I. Cleland, Roland Gareis (2006). Global project management handbook. McGraw-Hill Professional, 2006. ISBN 0071460454. p.1-4": Project management was formally recognized in the 1950s as a distinct discipline arising from the management discipline.

The first sentence you removed was based on a reliable source. It is shorter then you academic introduction, and I think more appropriate here.

-- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 10:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Obviously, I don't agree. Yes, Cleland and Gareis are credible researchers, but to my knowledge, their research was not based on any quantitative study. If you wish, I can send you the results of my survey and you can see clearly that discipline ranked far down the list. Not sure how to break this deadlock, but I stand by my changes.
Dr. PDG, Jakarta Dr PDG (talk) 13:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, you want to replace the given first sentence with a definition from your own PhD thesis:

Project management is the administration supervision or executive function to plan, organize, coordinate, direct and control a proposed or planned undertaking to achieve a particular aim or objective within a specific time frame, with some reasonable expectation for success, through the skillful handling or use of limited or constrained resources and the successful organization, administration and controlling these affairs in a business-like manner.
Source: Giammalvo, Paul D (2007) Is Project Management a profession? And if not, what is it Proquest/UMI Dissertation Services, 2008.3310456. p.43.

Wikipedia tries to avoid that editors start promoting their own work because there is a possible conflict of interest, see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. So this makes your proposed change very weak.

[PDG] I am not trying to promote any interest here at all, other than the most neutral point of view. The definition I am proposing achieves that simply because there is so much confusion out there about definitions. Furthermore, the definition I am providing is simply a restatement of basic, English language, with no bias or opinion. If you want to help me clean it up and make it sound less "academic" then I have no problem. But the definition is clearly based on Merriam Webster and Oxford English Language Dictionaries.
Dr. PDG, Jakarta Dr PDG (talk) 13:22, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Your argument that the first definition is not based on any quantitative study, is rather an original conclusion, which Wikipedia tries to avoid as well, see Wikipedia:No original research. Building on reliable sources is enough. We are not going to argue about which source is more reliable.

[PDG] Unfortunately, as evidenced by Wideman's Comparative Glossary, that becomes a problem. What do you propose? That we include 20 or more definitions? Why not collaborate to come up with something that works better?
Dr. PDG, Jakarta Dr PDG (talk) 13:22, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

More important however is teh question, which introduction fitts the most here. I think it is the first description, because it is shorter then you academic introduction, and easier to understand for the general audience.

[PDG] Yes, I am in total agreement. Let's collaborate to come up with a definition that works better for both of us. I believe your definition is incomplete, as it doesn't address the all important "business" aspects nor does it sufficiciently address the management responsibilities. (Which came from Fayol)

Dr. PDG, Jakarta Dr PDG (talk) 13:22, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Now you are not sure how to break this deadlock? If a lot of other Wikipedia editors agree with you, you might stand a change. But I think I will find even more editors, who agree with me. Because I stand with my choice as well. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 14:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Again, I don't want this to become a pissing match, but as a life long practitioner (the PhD is recent) I don't think your definitions are as complete as they could or should be, and I have no problems collaborating with you to come up with something that does work. My email is and if you want, let's see if we can agree on a definition and make the agreed to changes?
Dr. PDG, Jakarta
Dr PDG (talk) 13:22, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Paul, in your PhD thesis, p. 321, I just read:

Based on both qualitative and quantitative analysis, and viewed in the context of both positivist and post-positivist perspectives, project management cannot be considered a profession... Responses by approximately 400 global practitioners clearly indicate that project management is a process, methodology or system...

Now this might seems interesting even for Wikipedia. However in Wikipedia we have a strickt policy about "Primary, secondary and tertiary sources", see WP:PRIMARY. Your text is a result of what is mentioned there: "field experiments or observations written by the person(s) who conducted or observed the experiments". This classifies in Wikipedia as a primary sources. In Wikipedia we have an explicit policy to avoid these kind of primary sources. Especially on a subject so familiar as Project management, there are tons of other publications use as source and references.

I do think your research conclusion is very interesting and would challenge other researchers. But in Wikipedia we, or I can say I, try to keep a distance from these kind of controversial conclusions. If other research and secondary sources start confirming these findings, then it would be maybe time to add this to Wikipedia, but until then, I like to keep the way it is.

Back to your intial definition I think it is trying very hard to avoid stating project management is a field of study or a profession. In Wikipedia I like to keep it simple. I am not going to replace a simple definition, by a brand new investigated complex definition. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 00:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

TCMF Methodology[edit]

And second the TCMF Methodology. If this new approach is even worth mentioning in Wikipedia, please first write an article about it. This article is not ment to add all new development in the field. It is rearranged into a overview article, showing what else Wikipedia has to offer about the subject.

-- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 10:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I just noticed there is a Total cost management article. I moved the new section about the TCMF Methodology to that article. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 11:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
The TCM Methodology has been around for 30 years or more. It is certainly no less valid than PRINCE2 or any of the other methodologies listed. As a matter of fact, it is the ONLY methodology that incorporates portfolios of assets and portfolios of projects. Quite unique approach, although well tested and proven in oil, gas and mining sectors.
So once again, I am not sure of the dispute resolution protocols here, but I think you are unjustified in removing this.
Dr. PDG, Jakarta Dr PDG (talk) 13:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I restored your text in the Total cost management article. If the TCM Methodology is that important, please first write an separate article about it. It is not the issue here whether the TCM methodology of PRINCE2 are more or less valid.
I removed it because I like this article to remain an overview article, not showing all old and new related topics, but just the topics Wikipedia explains in other articles. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 15:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

[PDG] The TCMF Methodology has been around for at least 30 years and perhaps more. It originated in the oil, gas and mining sectors it is as common if not more common than PRINCE2 and is gaining traction in the Telecommunications sectors as well. As this is the ONLY methodology that integrates Portfolios of Assets with Programs and Porfolios of Projects, it is more advanced than PRINCE2 and much more advanced than what PMI is currently advocating. Perhaps more importantly, as AACE is making this methodology available for anyone to download at no cost, it is supporting the intent of Wikipedia very nicely. (Although the TCMF is NOT yet being made available under open source licensing, I am working with John Hollman, the primary author, trying to get them to do so. Dr. PDG, Jakarta Dr PDG (talk) 13:30, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

[JKH] Mr. Dekker, I would ask a similar question as Dr. PDG. Can you explain the rationale of a paragraph with highlighted heading on PRINCE2 and not TCM? Both are established-not buzz words. Both are substantive works supported by major organizations, and are significant enough for their own Wiki articles. But only PRINCE2 gets reasonably full explanation in this article. TCM is deemed worthy of only a mention and link. I do not want to diminish PRINCE2 by any means. Just interested in fairness and balance. Can you please explain your rationale a little better--why are these two differently treated? John Hollmann Jkhcanoe (talk) 14:44, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Ok, Paul and John I would like to explain once more. First of all this discussion items is directly related to the Talk:Total cost management discussion. Here we don't seem to agree, which doesn't make it easier. Paul doesn't agree with me I moved the section there, and you don't agree with content Paul added. Now I am still asking myself, are we talking about two different Total Cost Management Frameworks?
Now I value your experience from the field, and if you both state the TCM Framework is as important as PRINCE2, I will give this some serious consideration, but I also check this myself. I check both in Wikipedia and in the books & internet.
  • Now in Wikipedia PRINCE2 has a detailled article, and the TCM Framework has none.
  • Now in books PRINCE2 is mentioned in over 1274 books and the TCM Framework in 35 books according to
  • In internet PRINCE2 gives 1.730.00 hits and the TCM Framework 842 hits.
Based on these data I made up my mind some more. First of all I double checked making a comparisment with the Process-based management, which is also mentioned in this article:
  • This article is just a stub (wikiterm for very short article), and
  • mentioned in 241 books and 8040 internet pages.
Now this seems to be a more notable subject as well.
Now as I explained earlier, I rewrote the whole article December 1/2, 2008, see here, and choose to make this what I call an "overview article" (or introduction article). I choose to make this an article that only highlights some of the more notable related items, and shortly explains the Project development stages. Now I moving the new section about the TCM Methodology, because I like to keep this an overview article. I explained before, that this overview/introduction article is not the place to start explaining about a for Wikipedia new subject (even if it is 30 years old). The main introduction has to be made in a related article, and then this article can give a summery.
Now I hope I have explained some more about my motives here. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 22:00, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Surely the whole point about Wikipedia is not to reflect one editors perspective. It's clear that you want this article to be a good introduction to the topic of project management, and that is a laudable aim. It is also to be commended that you monitor the page for potential spam links and content that is duplicated elsewhere or that doesn't belong on Wikipedia at all (viz. original research). However, I think that restricting it solely to topics that already have articles on Wikipedia is too restrictive. Writing a new article is often triggered by someone searching for a topic, and only finding it mentioned en passant in another article. More than one person has described TCMF as a valid, authentic, and long-standing approach to project management. Your own research indicates that it has published references (books and other websites). On that basis, it warrants at least a mention, IMHO. Greyskinnedboy (talk) 20:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Section CISTM removed[edit]

I removed the following section from the article

Centrally Integrated System for Transformational Methodologies (CISTM) is an advanced process-based Project Management system that was developed in 2008, as an answer to problem of lacking processes in contemporary infrastructures. CISTM draws heavily on RUP and RAD ideals, and inserts the need to address multiple PMLC and SDLC methodologies in any given dynamic. The system can be used for simple Project, larger Program (simultaneous Projects with common goals), or Portfolio (simultaneous Programs) level applications. "We manage to Quality" is the running theme -- citing the notion that managing to schedule or budget inevitably results in missing the intended deadline or cost (or both). CISTM utilizes a bi-level, 5-point constraint construct, with an underlying focus on process Quality, and explicitly requires discussion, discovery, documentation and discipline as core principles. Project results (the process changes -- not to be confused with the intended product) are considered iterative, and the respective lessons learned are pulled back into the PMO in an automated fashion.

The reason is, that this article is not the place to start discussing all kinds of new developments in the field of project management. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 23:20, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello Marcel -- by that reasoning, you need to remove Agile, Extreme Project Management, Critical Chain Project Management (basically the latest PMI, following from Critical Path understanding), and RUP. Please advise where you will locate each of these, if not under "Project Management approaches"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Just start a separate article about Centrally Integrated System for Transformational Methodologies. Just don't start the it here in the project management article. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 20:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Sections about Virtual Project Management removed[edit]

I just removed the whole new sections about Virtual Project Management, and explained on the User talk:Spartikus411 talk page. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 00:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I will reinstate some Virtual Project Management content here. It looks like Spartikus411 created content here, where it got deleted and told to make separate page, Spartikus411 created separate Virtual Project Management, and then it *again* got deleted by two people in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Virtual project management as seeming WP:NEO from not having the proper cites. Yeesh -- one worker, three deleters who obviously did no contribution of doing the move nor of looking for cites, just took the path of deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markbassett (talkcontribs) 15:59, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Why a RUP description here?[edit]

To my understanding the PM article is about projects in general and as such it doesn't seem to make much sense to include a description of RUP, for the following reasons:

  • RUP is a software development methodology and not a project management one
  • RUP is IT related and falls outside the scope of a general purpose article

It seems to be better to write a seperate article about RUP, as you suggested for other topics earlier

Hadouma (talk) 11:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

This is a good question, but I think, the situation is not similar to previous topics, which have been moved from here. There is quite a good article IBM Rational Unified Process, which also explains about other similar frameworks.
Now I checked the history first. This subject itself was kind of smuggled in two years ago on July 4 2007, see here, after an initial section about Agile Unified Process was added the the article three months earlier, see here. Since then, the article has been edited over 1300 edits. But nobody has doubted it so far, as far as I can see.
I have never doubted it, because project management and software engineering are two close related fields. The whole Project management approaches chapter makes several links to software development topics: waterfall model, Rational Unified Process, Agile Project Management, Extreme Programming, Scrum, Capability Maturity Model, CMMI and OpenUP. All these approaches may relate to project management in software development, but this has been one of the most important fields of project management.
To bring more balance here, maybe the whole chapter should mention some specific systems engineering approaches as well, such as Systems Development Life Cycle and the V-model... because project management and systems engineering are close related as well, and project management in systems engineering development is one of the most important fields of project management as well. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 13:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
I disagree. This article is on project managegemnt not software development -- projects can result in business process improvement, organisation change, construction, purchase of hardware/software, development/enhancement of software, etc. As such, any discussion of life-cycles should be restricted to project life-cycles (PLC), which would include PRINCE and SCRUM (as two examples), and exclude no software development life cycles (SDLC), which should of course be listed under the see also section. Greyskinnedboy (talk) 22:09, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
I guess I don't understand your comment here. If you insist this article is on project management, and not software development, we should remove all links to waterfall model, Rational Unified Process, Agile Project Management, Extreme Programming, Scrum, Capability Maturity Model, CMMI and OpenUP etc... And you insist only topics related to Project life cycle should be mentioned here. Now it seems to me the Systems Development Life Cycle is close related to Project life cycle. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 22:47, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Section removed[edit]

The following section is removed from the article June 9, 2009. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 12:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Rational Unified Process
The Rational Unified Process (RUP) is an iterative software development process framework created by the Rational Software Corporation, a division of IBM since 2003.
RUP is not a single concrete prescriptive process, but rather an adaptable process framework, intended to be tailored by the development organizations and software project teams that will select the elements of the process that are appropriate for their needs. The following are phases of RUP, which align to business activities intended to drive successful delivery and deployment of projects. It also provides the taxonomy for blue printing and producing enterprise architecture artifacts across its different domains.
  1. Inception - Identify the initial scope of the project, a potential architecture for the system, and obtain initial project funding and stakeholder acceptance.
  2. Elaboration - Prove the architecture of the system.
  3. Construction - Build working software on a regular, incremental basis which meets the highest-priority needs of project stakeholders.
  4. Transition - Validate and deploy the system into the production environment
The open source version of RUP is OpenUP.

Agile Project Management as a topic[edit]

While the RUP section is just removed, an Agile Project Management as a topic is just added. As far as I know this is a software development methodology. And at the moment Agile Project Management just links to Agile software development, but there is no separate article about it.

Now I have been removing sections from this article for the same reason to avoid all kinds of minor subjects gets highlighted here. For this reason I would propose to delete that section as well, untill a separate Wikipedia article about Agile Project Management have been written.

-- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 12:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed - viz. my earlier points on this article being about project management, therefore the only life cycles in the body of the article should be project life cycles (PLC) - but of course, software development life cycles (SDLC) are important (and often influence the PLC) so should be included in the see also section. Greyskinnedboy (talk) 19:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. I have removed the section for now. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 19:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

It looks like Agile Project Management was added to the end of a section instead of its own section. This is still only applicable to software development and not general project management. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:17, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the comment Pm master gave regarding restoring the Agile Project Management text, see here, so I added a section header. -- Mdd (talk) 23:51, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

New section about "Project control variables"[edit]

I removed the following new section about "Project control variables" just as I removed similar new sections before, see previous discussion. The section removed:

Project Management tries to gain control over variables such as risk. Potential points of failure: Most negative risks (or potential failures) can be overcome or resolved, given enough planning capabilities, time, and resources. According to some definitions (including PMBOK Third Edition) risk can also be categorized as "positive--" meaning that there is a potential opportunity, e.g., complete the project faster than expected.
Customers (either internal or external project sponsors) and external organizations (such as government agencies and regulators) can dictate the extent of three variables: time, cost, and scope. The remaining variable (risk) is managed by the project team, ideally based on solid estimation and response planning techniques. Through a negotiation process among project stakeholders, an agreement defines the final objectives, in terms of time, cost, scope, and risk, usually in the form of a charter or contract.
To properly control these variables a good project manager has a depth of knowledge and experience in these four areas (time, cost, scope, and risk), and in six other areas as well: integration, communication, human resources, quality assurance, schedule development, and procurement.

I argued before that text about new subjects shouldn't be added in this overview article. This is apparently about the for wikipedia new subjects of Project control and Project control variables.

Personally I think both subjects are very interesting and deserve a separate article. Now the procedure here is not to start this article here in the project management article, but to start an individual article first. If this new subject is interesting a summary can be added here. Following this procedure quarantees that this article remain an overview article, (only) explaining about the mayor topics. A fine example of project control. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 18:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Specific start and completion dates[edit]

Dates are only one of the factors that can delimit a project. The phrase "specific start and completion dates" implies that the dates would be known in advance, and this is often not the case -- especially on projects that are driven along more agile lines -- it may be that you keep iterating until sufficient functionality has been delivered or the approved budget has been used up. As I have just posted elsewhere on this talk page, I would suggest something more along the lines of the Project Management Institute description as project management being a "temporary endeavour". Greyskinnedboy (talk) 20:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, now I understand. Those improvements seems fine to me. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 10:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
P.S. Maybe you can add the same quote + reference to the project article
Thanks for the vote of confidence. Greyskinnedboy  Talk  03:31, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Just feed back. To often people just want to remove things, without offering an alternative, and I am glad you did. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 14:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

New section about "Project dictionaries and project Wikis"[edit]

I removed the following section:

A project dictionary can be useful to save time and to reduce risk and cost. A project dictionary is a dictionary of key terms relating to the project. In a large project or a project which spans different countries or cultures, terms such as "weekday", "Launch date", or "User acceptance" may mean different things. "Weekday" includes Fridays in Europe and the US, but not in the Persian Gulf. Less obviously, "User acceptance" may mean one thing to the engineering team and another to the contracts department. A project dictionary is a way to clarify key terms, and thereby reduce time spent resolving confusion over terms and cost of rework from people not using the right definition. Project dictionaries used to have a high bureaucratic cost associated with them. However, by using a Wiki for a project dictionary, this cost is virtually eliminated. There are many other benefits of using a project Wiki, all deriving from lowered costs and risks in the project.

Again this subject of project dictionary seems hardly notable here. If it is, just write an article about it. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 09:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

P.S. In instead of starting new Wikipedia articles about these (new) subjects, people keep adding new subjects to this article. I keep referting these changes, because I don't think this wikipedia article should be a News Bulletin Board on project management.

The copied and pasted from various Wikipedia articles in this article[edit]

By rearranging this article last Dec 2008 I could have unintentionally copy-paste various parts of Wikipedia articles here without proper attribution in violation of copyright. New insides have brought this to my intention, so I tagged the article with a copy-paste-template tag. During further investigation please leave the tag on top of the article.

Some more data:

  • The current article is mainly a result of the rearrangement I started dec 2008, see first move.
  • These changes have only been documented on the talkpage, see here
  • These rearrangement took place 1-2 Dec 2008 in 17 edits, see history.
  • Now these edits might not have been properly attributed.

Also possible other copyright infringements could have occurred then and ever since. A check could or should be made here. I and/or others will try to solve this problem as soon as possible. Your welcome to participate. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 21:11, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

With the next Copy-paste registration is solved these problems here, and I will remove the template on top of the article. -- Mdd (talk) 22:07, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Copy-paste registration[edit]

In the past year I copy/paste four larger sections into this article, two from wikipedia articles and two from pd-souces:

  • In this edit text was copy/paste from Work Breakdown Structure article
  • In this edit text was copy/paste from PRINCE2 article
  • In this edit text was copy/paste from a pd-source
  • In this edit six images and text were copy/paste from a pd-source

-- Mdd (talk) 22:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


I've been looking over the article today and have some immediate thoughts.

Namely, I noticed this article is in the Systems Engineering wiki, but not the Business wiki. Why? Several of the cited methods are in the business wiki (ex: CCPM). If anything, PM is about completing it for an IT dept, business, home buyer, etc. WHAT is to be completed is not relevant, ensuring that it meets the scope/cost/quality/time targets IS...and is the control aspect of management. Should this article be placed in Business...either solely or in addition to the other classifications?

Further, this article is slanted WAY heavy on the IT side. Example, while XP (eXtreme Programming) may have its place as a lifecycle; XP is only good for software development. Should we consider a separate page devoted to industry specific PM methods (software, construction, engineering, etc.)?

Jwbryan (talk) 04:02, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Project management vs. product management[edit]

How exactly does project management relate to product management? Are they even related or completely separate. These articles don't reference each other. Should they? --Dan LeveilleTALK 00:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

What about program management?

These questions are discussed in the Project management institute's body of knowledge document...

I propose working on some of this language to develop a unified project management article between all of the professional organizations and the end users such as DOD and DOE ... Risk Engineer (talk) 22:12, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

What's a sponsor?[edit]

The page mentions a project sponsor exactly once, without explaining what that means. --Bill T., 12 January —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

  • I added a note that it is the person who provides the budget. Another way to define it is: "the person you would need to go to in order to get sign off if you need more money!" Reliablesources 14:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reliablesources (talkcontribs)

Definition of Project[edit]

As requested on the article page, an update to the definition of project is first being described here. The definition should include the word "unique", as in the PMBOK definition "A project is a temporary endeavor undertaken to create a unique product, service, or result." The word "unique" is important, because it differentiates projects from what they are handed off to, often called "operations". Work might be hard, costly, and take a long time, but unless it is unique, it is not a project, and does not require the PM process. Work is only a project if at the beginning the team really does not know how to produce the result, and the time and cost are not known, therefore requiring the planning step. Please let me know any comments. If no objection I will add this to the definition in a few days. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reliablesources (talkcontribs) 20:46, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree with the above, absolutely. The other change I would consider is that where it states "Typical constraints are scope, time, and budget." I would strongly consider adding quality. I think that within a given scope, time, budget and quality are widely accepted as the three key constraints within any project management framework. (talk) 06:55, 5 April 2010 (UTC)Simon Cullen

The "scope, time and budget" triad derives from the concept of the iron triangle, which is used to represent the concept that the various factors affecting project outcome are coupled such that a decrease along one dimension necessarily results in an increase in at least one of the other dimensions. Usually, this triad is some variant of budget, schedule and scope (a.k.a. technical performance). "Scope" includes all factors associated with the project deliverables, including quality. "Budget" includes all things that cost money, including resources and equipment and "Schedule" includes.
Many authors have taken issue with the concept of the iron triangle (see this blog post on Iron Triangles and Spiders for an example), and I believe that the fourth edition of the PMBOK Guide dropped the concept entirely. With this in mind, we might do one of two things: (a) greatly expand the "typical constraints" to include all factors, perhaps using the process areas of the PMBOK Guide, or (b) add some significant elucidation of what is meant by, and can constitute, "scope," "budget" and "schedule." Personally, I think that (b) is right approach, as the "iron triangle" is well-established in the project management literature and therefore should not be ignored by Wikipedia, and further it can be a useful mnemonic for discussing project constraints.
Tom Hopper 06:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thopper (talkcontribs)
I concur with the proposal to work more of PMI BoK into this definition.... The Civil Engineers in the US, ASCE in their BoK reference the PMI material.... Risk Engineer (talk) 22:15, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

search for project[edit]

give a brief discription of the project, it's deliverabl, and the reason for conception  —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:29, 11 March 2010 (UTC) 

Monitoring and controlling processes text is piecemeal[edit]

The section on monitoring and controlling processes reads as if it were written by three different people, at different times.

The paragraph beginning "Project Maintenance is" appears random, and specifically references "Updates of the software over time" - what software? Then two paragraphs later, it starts to specifically reference construction projects, although I am not sure why. Why focus on a particular industry at this point in the article? (talk) 06:53, 5 April 2010 (UTC)Simon Cullen

Milestone-based project management[edit]

Milestone-based project management is a new approach. This is not supposed to be promotional. Maybe I should word it differently? Please advice. Thanks Mlavannis (talk) 02:33, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

There is a Milestone (project management), which you can start expending. -- Mdd (talk) 02:17, 25 November 2010 (UTC)


Tony1 altered the layout of the article, see here, with the argument Valuable figures, but I've centered many because they're useless unless bigger.

I don't agree with this kind of argumentation, for more reasons:

  • Wikipedia is an interactive medium, and figures can be read by clicking on them
  • Images and text can only be read separately, so one click will not hurt
  • Making the images smaller makes the text more open for readers to read
  • Making those images that big is more a thing for Wikibooks, where the text should be fixed and links in the text should be limited

Now I won't just refert those changes, but there is no consensus about changing the lay-out. As far as I know there is also no consensus about altering the lay out based on this first argument.

I personally take great pride in making articles more open to the public and I wikified over 5000+ with the similar lay-out standards. The lay-out Tony1 created here is not better, it is simply different. -- Mdd (talk) 10:12, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree with a single one of your points. So what if you can click on pics? They should not appear in the main article if they're so small it's impossible to make out a single word (even with a magnifying glass in some cases). The images—many of them based on text within them (flow charts, etc)—are merely ornamental splotches of coloured mess if you can't make sense of them.

"Images and text can only be read separately, so one click will not hurt"—well you can't read two sentences at once either, but we do put them in sequence on the same page. The adjacent text should be explaining/referring to the figures, and that's something that needs to be worked on in a few cases. Making readers divert to what are less likely to fit on their screens, then return to the accompanying main text, is not a good idea.

I think File:NASA NF 533 reporting structure.jpg needs to be binned as an image: it's pretty ugly, and even at large size it's hard to make out the text. The cube design looks gratuitous to me; why not just explain it in the text.

The project management framework image is awkward: even at the current larger size it's very hard to make out the text. You may be right about that one, but better to link to it in the run of the text, especially since the reference to it in the prose is:

"For example, see figure, in the US United States Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) the program management life cycle is depicted and describe in the overall VA IT PROJECT MANAGEMENT FRAMEwork to address the" ... doesn't make sense. And I'm wondering what the circular arrows mean, and the traffic-light symbols at the top. Again, if it's not explained to the reader, it's not a good image. in fact it ends up being superficial, when there's so much good information in the article otherwise.

On another matter, I find that there's insufficient sourcing of criticism of the methods surveyed. The VA chart is a good example of a procedure that needs broader commentary, according to WP's policy on balance. Tony (talk) 11:08, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Mdd, "Making the images smaller makes the text more open for readers to read"—actually, the problems of text squeezing and squashing are often worse with small pics than with centered larger pics. Have you tried enlarging/narrowing your window gradually to see the effects? Openness is enhanced by several of the changes I made, although I'm not averse to suggestions on how to improve the layout, of course. "Making those images that big is more a thing for Wikibooks"—I don't think this is a strong argument for making WP inflexible WRT the text–image relationship. Tony (talk) 12:12, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Lay-out design is no exact science. I have a pretty clear set of rules I follow, which I implemented this is over 10.000 article on the English and Dutch Wikipedia. Of course I am also interested in suggestions on how to improve the layout. Now it seems to me there are two philosophies here:
  • Using images so large that the text on in images and on the page are about the same size, and can be read at once (together).
  • Using smaller images, that small that just the right suggestion remains, and people need to click on them to read them.
You seem to be convinced (because of your first statement) that there is only one right way here? -- Mdd (talk) 12:39, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm happy to talk this through and compromise (it's no big deal). I did put considerable work/thought into trying to improve it. Could we establish what the common ground is? And may I ask whether you have a small monitor? Tony (talk) 13:00, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
    • I am also happy to talk this through, and I also have put considerable work into trying to improve articles. A common ground could be the acceptance there there are different philosophies to design the Wikipedia lay-out. However, if you can not accept this as a common ground, what could there be left?
Personally I have a 19 inch monitor, which a 1440 to 900 resolution. Maybe this is why I don't understand your remarks about Have you tried enlarging/narrowing your window gradually to see the effects?. If the images are just the thumb-size, which I have set on 180px, I never have any problems with enlarging/narrowing my window. However if you make the images bigger, as you did in the history section, I get problems when I make the window as large as I normally do: The picture start to flip over to the other section. -- Mdd (talk) 13:25, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Please note that your experience of the page on such a small monitor is only one way readers see it. The first issue I have is that the text on the diagrams should be legible in the article; otherwise it's probably better to link to the image in the run of the text. The second issue is that the text should refer more closely to the images. Do you agree that the cube is not worth having in the article? I have to go to bed. Talk later. Tony (talk) 13:50, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
19 inch monitor small? What kind of monitor are you talking about? I don't understand your concern about how big my monitor is? If the image are set on thumb-size, any body can adjusts the appearance of the images by changing it's own settings (at: My preferences, Thumbnail size).
And one more thing: Please let us talk here about one thing at the time. If you want some image removed, please start a new talk item and I will respond over there. -- Mdd (talk) 15:06, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Only WP editors can adjust their default thumbnail size, and it's not recommended, since we need to see what our readers see—after all, they are who count in this matter. Image placement is hostage to monitor size, window size, and font settings, all of which have signficant effects of the text–image relationships. Now some of the images at issue are text-based, and readers should have to click to the original source (which in some cases will be slow to download and a little large for comfort, and require the juggling of two windows or two tabs. But if the image is incomprehensible at the size given in the article, there's no choice but to remove it and link to the source, don't you think? Off to bed. Tony (talk) 15:21, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
I just do understand the first half.... what do you mean with image is incomrehensible at the size given in the article. Could you give an example of (a featured article), where these images are removed for that reason?) I just realized the origin of my idea's here:
I guess in your terms this diagram is incomrehensible at the size given in the article, and you are trying to tell me they should all be removed? So what do you mean? Give an example? And what is the origin of your lay-out idea's. -- Mdd (talk) 18:03, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Unsure why you focus on FAs. "Incomprehensible" = the reader can't make out the details, especially the text. They're all thumbnail size, but not the default 220px in most cases. in "Electrical engineering" the use of pics seems to be quite OK: none of them contains tiny text that can't be read. Slight issue with the left-side portrait, but aside from that, good. Tony (talk) 01:04, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Why focus on FAs? We are not at te same level here. You don't agree on anything I say. I guess it is time we ask for some second opinions here.

And: If you can't make out the details of an image, you can improve it; ask somebody to improve it for; replace it; or just leave it; just remove the image is the worst solution. -- Mdd (talk) 20:14, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I asked about FAs because I don't understand the logic of your point. You respond by announcing that communication is futile.
If the text of a diagram cannot be deciphered, it needs to be bigger, or removed and a link to the original image page inserted into the main text. Otherwise, the image is just a decoration. The text needs to refer more explicitly and in greater detail to the examples given in the diagrams, too.
Let's take a specific example: the Capability maturity model: the scan makes the text fuzzy, even at the larger size. Yet the original NASA page has it not much larger, but much clearer. Can something be done about the quality of the scan? Tony (talk) 01:11, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi Mdd and Tony, I was following this conversation between you both and I didn't say anything because I'm not a "layout person". However, from a layman's perspective, I do prefer the layout of the article before the changes by Tony were made. I think the article looks a bit un-elegant at the moment with all these big images. That's just my opinion, and maybe someone else has a different opinion.Pm master (talk) 06:56, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Can you explain why a figure should be displayed too small to make sense of it? Tony (talk) 09:28, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi Tony, no I can't. But what I know is that the article was very readable before, now it looks confusing and somehow even non readable. If you insist on keeping the large images just because you think the previous images are not that clear, then I suggest 1) we remove the images altogether 2) you create better images of the previous size or 3) revert the article to how it was and then add "click to enlarge" below the image. Meanwhile, I suggest we revert the article to how it looked like before your changes. It is a very important article (by far the most important in this topic) and the way the big images are thrown right now in the middle makes it look unprofessional (if not ugly) and really hard to read.Pm master (talk) 11:58, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Not a wholesale revert, please. I see nothing wrong with the first five images at their current size, nor "Process groups", "Initiating process groups", "Monitoring and controlling", and "Closing process group processes" (clunky caption) further down, do you?

"PRINCE2", "Capability Maturity Model", "Planning Process Group Activities", and "Program (I) life cycle" are still highly unsatisfactory even at larger size—bad scans and small original text, especially PPGA), and "Work breakdown structure" is just so ugly and poorly scanned; so can't these ones all be linked to in the text? It's mere ornamentation to actually display these indecipherable images, and I don't disagree that at large size they break up the text undesirably. I just can't see the point at small size (isn't it rude to the readers?).

"Executing" and "Monitoring and controlling" could be smaller and still readable, as could the Triangle image.

I'll try implementing this: please review and comment.

The other issue is that the main text really needs to refer more explicitly to some of the diagrams.

I don't have a scanner or software that can improve the problematic images; nor is this my field, although I can assist by copy-editing. Tony (talk) 13:22, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Tony. I think the article looks readable (again) now. Thanks! Let's wait for Mdd's feedback... Pm master (talk) 20:56, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
    • ^ Cite error: The named reference ClGa06 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).