Français (France) 
Finnish (FI) 
English (United Kingdom) 
 |
Follow the Discoverit.fi LinkedIn company page and get special benefits. |
| Subscribe to 'A Hitchhiker's Blog of PM' newsletter | |
Select your language
Select your language
|
Follow the Discoverit.fi LinkedIn company page and get special benefits. |
| Subscribe to 'A Hitchhiker's Blog of PM' newsletter | |
As soon as a problem is identified in an organization, the familiar pattern begins: a project is created, a steering group is named, and a Teams channel is opened (figure 1). Soon, people are already making a plan – without stopping to ask: what is the real problem, and what would be the most reasonable way to solve it?
According to research (including Saara Karasvirta), large organizations can have hundreds of change projects running simultaneously – often without a clear overview, prioritization, or targeted resourcing.
Figure 1. "Houston, we have a project."
Reflecting further based on the earlier post 'From training to success', could success vector be used as project governance tool?
Let's combine together the earlier post 'Why do project trainings rarely produce results?' and concept of project success vector as described in the LinkedIn newsletter.
Figure 1. PM certificates.
In my previous blog post, I discussed why project training rarely produces intended results. Would PM certifications work better?
Last fall, Tuomo Koskenvaara wrote an insightful post specifically from the perspective of IPMA certificates.
Read more: Would certification work better than training or coaching?
Figure 1. Project pain.
Having been a project management trainer during this millennium, more or less, I have wondered why project training rarely produces results. There are certainly no conclusive research results on the subject, so I am careful with phrasing. Training does not automatically translate into lessons, let alone better performance. I have divided the obstacles into three categories.