And rightly so. Means matter.
One reason they matter is that most of us are not artifacts of 'Taylorism', the business theory of "people as interchangeable parts" insertable into an [almost mindless] process. But for most, the governance culture of the project intersects with our personal and political ideas of governance. That intersection may be harmonious, but sometimes it's not. Where not: move on; otherwise: let's get to work.
I've quoted Alistair Cockburn before, but it's worth remembering:
Almost any methodology can be made to work on some projectAny methodology can fail on some project
To repeat: means matter.
But of course, the 'ends' matter most. That's where 'achievement' comes into play.
Achievement should take up more of our energy--more, but not all, to be sure--than that which we put into debates over governance and methodology.
A similar theme was struck in an article I read this past month, from which I borrowed the title for this post. The idea there, and the idea here, is that what matters most is throughput: results--enabled by an effective governance scheme--that are consequential for the people and enterprises affected.
An achievement test for projects is not high science; here are the five big points:
- The project produces the objects of greatest value, most importance, and most urgency as judged by the stakeholders
- The project beneficiaries are better off for having the benefit of the project outputs.
- The project team earns their just rewards for a job done well according to the performance measurement baseline [PMB]
- Project outputs beget business outcomes that increase the value of the enterprise, and
- The sponsor-investors who underwrite the project receive a reasonable value as a return on their investment
