Reply To: Project Management Standard



Is there a definition of what “significant” means in the context of how this standard applies?

“Examples of projects includes in the scope of this standards are”

should read:

“Examples of projects included in the scope of this standard are”

“Assess Risk Asses” should read “Assess Risk Assess”

Are the numeric rankings a required part of the project documentation?

Many of the projects we work on have an IT component, but are not primarily IT driven. i.e. an academic initiative may require certain IT support, but the larger context of the project includes training and pedagogy support, curriculum design, reporting and compliance, student service planning, etc. Where do those sorts of projects fall as it relates to this standard?

“At a high level, this plan identifies milestones; at a detailed level, it is a complete work break down structure.”

A complete work break down structure may not be possible for projects with iterative development cycles, extended development timelines, complex dependencies, many unknowns, etc.

How is this standard applied to projects with iterative development cycles?

As an aspirational document, this standard is pretty good. However, achieving that level of documentation and process definition within IT and other parts of the university seems like it would require more project management resources than the university currently has, unless this is applied with a very limited scope. Is it useful to have a standard that only addresses very large projects and does not provide guidance on small to medium ones? If this standard is to be applied more broadly, how will UNM address the cases where a project is needed, but project planning and oversight resources are limited? Cancel the project? Obtain project management support from a central entity? Obtain funding to supplement departmental project management resources?

On the artifact side, the document seems heavy on paper artifacts and formal reports. There are many electronic project management tools available (Jira, Redmine, Basecamp, Trello/Slack…) How would departments prove adherence to the standard for artifacts using these tools?