h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

In the diagram it says the E&C Team manages Software Releases.

I feel on of the seats on The Business Team / Business Committee should be "Technology" who will be responsible for the technical affairs of running h2g2. It follows from this that Software (Release) Management is part of the responsibility of Technology.
This does not remove influence from the E&C Team (they are the Executive on the Project Board in 'Prince II projectmanagement' terms) but leaves them at what they do best.

Cheers!
Martin
---
I know where my towel is. It says so on the towel.

Good point - Some aspects of technology should be the Editorial And Community team though. Things that directly affect the way that they sites works for instance.

Are other people able to see the diagrams? They're working for me but not for Ben..

Ok, a bit of info about me.
I have done a course on projectmanagement based on Prince II.
The basic axiom of projectmanagement is that any change no matter how small is a project and should be managed as such.
This goes for big enterprises as well as a group of volunteers working on anything together. Building a Supertanker or a chickencoop are no different but in the amount of detail needed in managing the project.
The main principles of projectmanagement apply equally to both.

From this follows that a stakeholder (some party with a vested interested in the result) should not manage the project.
In this case the E&C Team have the roles (as defined in Prince II) of stakeholder, Supplier (of information) and Project Team member.
The Project Manager should be someone objective and without prejudice as to the desired result, only driven by the Deliverables.

In a (relatively) small community like h2g2 we would want to avoid the appearance of unacceptable influence.

So, again, I still feel strongly for a "Technology" seat on the Board, and no I am not implicitly volunteering my bottom to polish it.

Cheers!
Martin
---
I know where my towel is. It says so on the towel.

Nope, the diagram links to the FP for me ?

Cheers!
Martin
---
I know where my towel is. It says so on the towel.

The diagram links to the front page for me, too. I'm using Goo.

I think it should be this one:
http://h2g2c2.co.uk/furniture/BodiesAndGroups.jpg

That works.

>> The basic axiom of projectmanagement is that any change no matter how small is a project and should be managed as such.

Ye-es.

Those two models are simplified governance and operating models, actually. In my day-job there'd have been a good dozen slides. But such are the ways of Great Big Corporates.

I know why PMs think that all changes are projects, but actually some changes are BAU (Business As Usual) - they are the day job. Think of a PMO (Project Management Office) - what they DO is manage change, day in day out.

What we have are two phases

Phase 1 - creating the new h2g2, creating the governance models, defining the roles and responsibilities for each group within them, defining the RACI model (ie who is Resposnsible, Accountable, Consulted and Informed about each kind of decision).

Phase 1 is certainly a project.

Phase 2 - is Business As Usual - it is using the governance and operating models to manage and run the site.

Phase 2 will involve new projects - say a project to tidy up the guide or a project to create a smartphone app or a project to hunt badgers. And the governance model in the diagrams indicates who would be Responsible, Accountable, Consulted and Informed about different aspects of those projects.

I'll stop now before someone shoots me.

B

I do agree that there should be a technology position on the board though...

In a nutshell - the diagrams aren't about how we would manage projects; they are about how we would manage and govern the site.

Mrs. Zen,
Thank you for the clarification. I did not know you are versed in projectmanagement as well.
It has been a while since I took the course and there have been only a few opportunities to use the knowledge/skills.

Are you familiar with Prince II?
I have been taught, and have excercised, that even a small change should be handled *in principle* the same as a big Magrathea-shaking project.
The principle is that it is handled in the same flow but the amount of detail and sublevels differ. The project could be held on a few sheets or several reams of paper but the methodology always applies.
And because of this I argued that the E&C Team could not be the project- or changemanager but rather the Executive (ordering the change) and Information provider (as they are the 'expert') and that the E&C Team should be on the Project Board (because they are one of the three parties steering the project).

What you refer to as Business As Usual would be valid in a Development cycle with a Software producing company, where changes *are* B.A.U. but always part of a project, but not in a situation where a product is in use already.

Perhaps I am fiddling too much with details but I think it's important to have the necessary details clear up front and to avoid the facilitation of crossed agenda's.

If you want I can write a small essay about how the projectmanagement methodology would apply to running/maintaining h2g2 but I am afraid it will take some time specially to get it *right* because I'm a bit rusty.

Anyway, it's good to be discussing it all. I find it invigorating and I hope my enthousiasm is not found annoying or whining. Nitpicking I am OK with though.

Cheers!
Martin
---
I know where my towel is. It says so on the towel.

Well, I'm a Business Analyst not a Project Manager but I've worked in IT Project-Land on and off for 10 years. I've spent a lot of time and effort making sure I don't get asked to run projects though, because I'm much more interested in how things work than delivering them.

I've also spent 4 of them in IT Service (ie looking after existing systems rather than developing new ones) and spent a whole bunch of time working on operating models (who does what in organisations) and on governance models (who gets to *decide* what).

So this is a topic I know a lot about. Sadly, it me something of a pain and a smart-arse on the subject.

So...

I AM interested in what you've said about conflict of interest and the rights and roles of the different stakeholder groups.

I've not had time to think about what you have said in detail, but you are right, it is vital to iron out the conflicts and spot the gaps. I have worked in a company where it was literally impossible to get certain decisions made. They were seen as important decisons - so important that someone should sign them off, but no-one had the authority to do so. Madness.

The conflicts matter too - and crossed reporting lines.

I'll re-read what you've said and check for conflicts and gaps among the different groups.

Ben

I *am* interested in delivering them; it's just that organising budgets and resources and prepping documentation for project gateways is dull dull dull. I *like* pulling things apart to see how they work and putting them back together all shiny.