PMI_TW電子報第八期_專欄文章

Source Code Escrow Agreement~"賣方不能"風險之防治

高添水 Galen Kao, PMP 副總經理/資訊長 IT服務中心暨專案管理辦公室 精誠資訊股份有限公司 在軟體專案合約中常會有智慧財產權歸屬的爭議，在此不是要討論智慧財產權的法律問題，而是要介紹一種國外(尤其是在美國)常見的安排，可以滿足買賣雙方，各取所需，皆大歡喜。 在軟體開發或買賣的合約中，買方最擔心的是廠商是否可以持續地提供系統維護的服務，尤其是Mission Critical的系統。這個擔心其實是很有道理的，因為在臺灣的中小企業有75%以上的公司活不過三年，而創業門檻很低的軟體或資訊公司的比例應該更高一些。就算活過三年的那些公司，是否還有能力；例如原來的技術人員已離職，或有意願去維護一個老舊系統，也是堪慮。儘管如此，買方又不願意付錢去買source code，有時是太貴買不起，或者就算是買了source code，但因為沒有專業人員可以維護，反而會造成更多問題。 而賣方呢？要把source code賣掉，特別是有利基的技術或是有市場潛力的產品，就怕賣了一套以後，變成公開的技術，整個市場就斷送掉了。要把公司賴以為生的基礎賣掉，當然也是百般不願意。當然，是有些智慧財產權的法律可以保護，但除非是規模很大的公司，那養得起專職的法務人員，再說，舉證之困難及高成本，都使廠商寧願多一事不如少一事。 好了，聰明的生意人看到這個矛盾(矛盾之所在，就是商機之所在也)，於是發明一種服務，叫作 Source Code Escrow Agreement，它的操作方式是由買方付費(一年只要一到三百美金)，請賣方將source code及設計文件等存到一家獨立的存放公司。在將來，如果賣方因為任何原因不願意再提供服務時(叫作release conditions)，買方可以要求存放公司將source code 無償地release 給買方，以便買方可以自力救濟，而不至於因為賣方的退出市場而無辜受害，求救無門。 這種存放公司是非常專業的，在加州有一家公司甚至有幾公里的地道，可以抵抗核子彈的攻擊，防火，防震，防水，恆溫、恆溼的空調，全部雙備份的電源及通訊線路等。 在Source Code Escrow Agreement中會約定各方的權利義務大約如下： 賣方須保證存入的source code及設計文件是完整的，且與買方的系統是同步更新的。買方有權利在存放公司的見證下進行驗證。 存放公司必須保證存放物品的安全及可用性，同時在買方要求release source code時必須向賣方求證，並取得書面同意。 買方必須按時給付存放費用。 這是買方對"賣方不能"的風險的一種回應策略，還不錯用，對不對？

……(閱讀全文與回應)

PMI_TW電子報第七期_專欄文章

Responding Flexibly to Risk~有彈性地回應風險~

Last week I travelled to London by train. We left the station at the scheduled time, followed a fixed route, stopping at a number of predetermined stations on the way, and arrived in London two minutes early. I also recently took a trip on a sailing boat across a small bay. Following a short delay in getting the boat ready, we set off in the right general direction, but were soon driven off course by the wind and tides. We also had to avoid other boats during the crossing, as well as one fast-moving jet-ski which appeared unexpectedly in front of us. Fortunately we were able to reach the other side by adjusting the sails and steering the boat carefully. Our route was certainly not a straight line across the bay, but we arrived at our chosen spot close to the expected time (and we had a very enjoyable time on the way!). Which of these two journeys best represents your project or your business? Are you travelling by train or sailing a boat? Do you follow a set plan and schedule, expecting each milestone to be passed on time, and hoping to arrive at your destination exactly when you planned (or at least reasonably close)? Is your motto “Plan the work, then work the plan”? Or are you affected by events and circumstances (both foreseeable and unplanned) which require corrections en route to ensure that you arrive safely? Most of us recognise that life, businesses and projects do not follow straight lines. In most cases, we can set clear goals, and we are often able to plan a route to get us there. However we know that reality is nearly always more untidy than our neat plans. Risk management is one response to this situation, seeking to look ahead and identify possible sources of variation to the plan, then developing appropriate actions to keep us on course. However even risk management is difficult if you try to run your project or business like a train journey. You have to stay on the fixed rails which lead from start to finish, follow the published timetable, and no deviation is possible. If unexpected events occur (such as fallen trees on the line, or a passenger is taken ill), delay or cancellation are the only options. It would be far better to treat projects and businesses like sailing boats. Their key characteristic is flexibility, the ability to respond quickly to changing circumstances. If the wind blows us off course we can adjust our sails to stay heading towards our goal, and we can even use the wind to assist us on the way. Of course train and boat journeys are just analogies or similes, which must not be stretched too far. But businesses and projects have to operate in changing environments, where it might not be possible or desirable to stick to the original plan. We need built-in flexibility to allow us to alter course rapidly when things around us change. We should not be rigidly restricted to “staying on track” or trying to avoid “coming off the rails”. Instead we should be free to take advantage of change in order to avoid or minimise threats, exploit or maximise opportunities, and so achieve our goal. How can businesses and projects ensure that they remain flexible? This starts with a management mindset and organisational culture that accepts uncertainty and does not demand unthinking adherence to “The Plan”. Good plans should include appropriate levels of contingency or reserve, to respond to emergent threats and opportunities. Processes must allow people to respond to changes as they arise, and should not form a straitjacket that imposes conformity. There must of course be a clear vision and a firm focus on the intended goal. The organisation must also have the ability to know where it is and where it’s heading. Finally people should be empowered to act quickly within clear boundaries of authority and accountability, so that they can act appropriately when things change. So next time someone asks whether your business or project is “on track”, why not reply that you are “navigating towards the goal”, with a clear view of where you are going and a flexible approach to respond to whatever happens along the way. 上週我坐火車到倫敦，我們準時開車、依循固定的路線、途中停靠了幾個預先設定的車站、並且提早了兩分鐘抵達倫敦；我最近也參加了一趟乘船橫越一個小海灣的旅遊，在預備出航時有一點耽誤、然後我們設定好航向出發、但很快就因為風向與潮汐而偏離了航道，我們也必須在橫越時避開其他船隻、其中包括一艘突然快速迎面而來的高速滑艇，索幸我們藉由小心地調整風帆及操縱船隻終得以到達彼岸。我們行經的路徑當然不是一條橫跨海灣的直線，但我們以接近我們所期待的時間到達了預定點（而且我們一路享受著愉悅的時光）。 以上這兩段旅程中，哪一段最能代表你的專案或事業？你是搭火車或是乘船出遊？你是否依據一組計畫及行程、期待能夠如期通過每一個里程碑、並希望在恰如你所規劃的時間（或至少在合理的範圍內）抵達目的地？你的座右銘是否為「規劃工作，然後照表操課」？或者你會受到一些事件或狀況（可預見的及未預期的）的影響、需要在中途改正以確保安全抵達？ 我們大部分的人都認為人生、事業、以及專案並不會遵循一條直線，多數的情況下，我們能夠設定清楚的目標、並且通常能夠規劃一條引領我們抵達的路徑；然而，我們知道相較於我們的完美計畫，現實經常是更不完美的，風險管理便是對此狀態的一種回應，尋求預先辨識在計畫中可能產生變異的來源，然後發展出使我們保持在航道上的適當行動。 然而，就算你想用火車旅行的方式運作你的專案或事業，風險管理也是困難的。你必須要維持在從起點到終點的固定軌道上、依據公告的時間表、且不可以有變動，如果發生了不預期的事件（如樹木倒在軌道上或旅客生病），延誤或取消班次就成為僅有的選項。將專案及事業視為乘船則遠較搭火車為佳，其關鍵特徵在於彈性，即對狀況改變的快速回應能力。如果風將我們吹偏離航道，我們可以調整風帆以保持航向目的地，我們甚至可以運用風力在途中協助我們。 當然，搭火車或乘船旅行只是類比或相似的概念，不可做過度的引伸；但是事業與專案必須要在變動的環境下經營，因此它不可能或不應期待綁死在原來的計畫上，我們必須置入彈性以使得我們可以在周遭發生改變時迅速地調整方向。我們不應該死板地受限於「維持既定軌道」或試圖避免「脫離軌道」，我們反而應該有利用改變的自由，以規避威脅或使之最小化、開拓機會或使之最大化、並因此而達到我們的目的。 要如何確保事業及專案能保有彈性呢？這要從接受不確定性及不要求未經思考地固守著「既定計畫」的管理心態與組織文化開始。好的計畫應該包含有適度的應變準備或預備金，以便於回應突發的威脅或機會。程序上必須允許人員在改變發生時採取回應，並且不能形成強制一致性的約束，當然在希望達成的目的上必須要有清楚的願景與確定的焦點，組織也必須有能力知道其身處何地及欲往何方。最後，應該要授權人員在明確的權責範圍內迅速採取行動，因此它們能在事情改變時採取適當的行動。 所以下一次當有人問到你的事業或專案是否「在既定軌道上」時，何不以你對去向何方及途中不論何事發生皆可以彈性方法回應的清楚視野，回答說你正「導航朝向目的地」。

……(閱讀全文與回應)

PMI_TW電子報第六期_專欄文章

What is Project Success

“On schedule, within budget and with quality.” Any project practitioner can respond in no time. The answer to this question is so apparent that PMBOK Guide1 mentions the word “project success” nine times without giving it a formal definition. Is the former answer both necessary and sufficient to guarantee the success of a project? To answer this question, further investigation into what “project success” really means is needed. Firstly, let’s look at a typical project cycle model as shown in Figure 1. Figure 1: Typical Project Cycle Model From above figure, it can easily be found that “project success” depends on the perspectives of key project stakeholders. From the point of view of the customer, “project success” means that the product delivered by the project solves his/her problems, the organization judges the “project success” by the benefits delivered by the product created by the project, whereas the project team considers that they deliver the product on time, within budget and with quality a success. We can subdivide these different perspectives about “project success” into “project product success” and “project management success”, which can be defined as2: Project product success focuses on the effects of the project’s end-product, i.e., the value perceived by the customers and the performing organization of the project product. Project management success focuses on the project management process and in particular on the successful accomplishment of the project with regards to cost, time and quality. These three dimensions indicate the degree of the efficiency of project execution. Project results can be classified into four types by the combination of “project management success/failure” and “project product success/failure” as shown is Table 1. Table 1: The Project Results Types Case projects for each type in above table can be easily found in the internet. A search by the author is shown as below: Table 2: Case Projects pertaining to Different Project Results Type Type Project Title Project Management Project Product SS Guggenheim Museum Bilbao3 Schedule: on time (completed at October 1997) Cost: within budget (USD 100 million) Less than one year later, the Basque Museum had already received more than 1,300,000 visitors. FS Sydney Opera House4 Schedule: 10 years overtime (completed in 1973 vs. 1963) Cost: 14 times over budget (AUD 102 million vs. AUD 7 million) appointed as a UNESCO World Heritage Site on 28 June 2007 SF Tacoma Narrows Bridge5 built between November 1938 and July 1, 1940, it had been completed in record time, and its completion was called a triumph of man's ingenuity and perseverance collapsed on November 7, 1940 at 11:00 AM (Pacific time) FF Superconducting Super Collider6 Cost: USD 4.4 billion in 1987, USD 12 billion by 1993. canceled by US Congress in 1993 As project management practitioners, which type of project results should we pursue? There is a very good argument in an article written by Major Delano7 - “Delays in procurement or cost overruns are temporary problems that must be managed in order to keep the program alive. Those problems are forgotten once the system is fielded. The main concern of the ultimate user is if the system works well when deployed.” So, the answer is apparent - we should pursue SS as the first priority, FS as the second priority, and the remaining types are unacceptable. The problem lies in the time delay of validating if the product can really solve the customer’s problem and benefit the organization. At project completion, the product delivered is presumably capable of solving the problem of the customer and delivering benefits to the organization. Depending on the purpose of the project, the delay varies over a wide range. According to the extent of the delay, four primary project success categories as seen at project completion can be defined8 : Project Efficiency - Internal Project Objectives such as meeting time and budget goals. Impact on the Customer - Immediate and long-term benefit to the customer Direct and Business Success - Direct contribution to the organization (usually not observable until the medium term) Preparing the Future - Future opportunity (e.g. competitiveness or technical advantage typically expected in the long term.) According to above definitions, the relations between project success categories, project success, and time since project completion can be portrayed as shown in Figure 2. Figure 2: Project Success Categories vary with Time From above figure, it can be easily understood that whether the project is successful or not cannot be determined at the time of closure for projects belonging to categories 3 and 4. According to above discussions, we know that the product success is the key point to project success. The problem is how we can promise something which cannot be determined within the time frame of a project. The clue lies in Critical Success Factors (CSF) which is defined as below: “Those managerial factors, listed in order of importance, that when present in the project’s environment are most conducive to the achievement of a successful project.” Research has shown that attention to these factors will improve the probability of project success, and reduce the chances of failure. The project management literature abounds with critical success factors models. The most cited is Pinto’s 10-factor model9 shown as below: Pinto’s 10-factor model Project mission—Clearly defined goals and general directions. Top management support—Willingness of top management to provide the necessary resources and authority/power for implementation success. Schedule/plans—A detailed specification of the individual action steps for system implementation Client consultation—Communication, consultation, and active listening to all parties impacted by the proposed project PersonneL—Recruitment, selection, and training of the necessary personnel for the implementation project team Technical tasks—Availability of the required technology and expertise to accomplish the specific technical action steps to bring the project online. Client acceptance—Selling the final product to its ultimate intended users. Monitoring and feedback—Timely provision of comprehensive control information at each stage in the implementation process. Communication—The provision of an appropriate network and necessary data to all key actors in the project implementation process. Troubleshooting—Ability to handle unexpected crises and deviations from plan. However, there are cautions about the usage of CSF10: By simply adopting a list, managers never learn how to think in terms of CSF, and therefore CSF utility is minimized. The lists produced from the research tended to be stated as something other than an activity, and the lists deliberately eliminated any reference to CSF having a contextual flavor. Yet, any valid set of CSF for a manager will always be contextually relevant to that manager. A few conclusions can be drawn from above discussions as follows: Project success = Project Product Success + Project Management Success For some projects, project product success cannot be determined at the completion of the project. To assure project success, attention should be paid to CSFs. But beware of CSFs’ contextual relevance to the project environment A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge, 3rd ed., ANSI/PMI 99-001-2004, Project Management Institute, Inc., Newton Square, Pennsylvania, USA, 2004. Adapted from Jugdev. K. and Muller, R., “A Retrospective Look at Our Evolving Understanding of Project Success,” Project Management Journal, Vol. 36, No. 4, December 2005, pp. 19-31. “Guggenheim Museum Bilbao - Bilbao, Spain,” http://www.paratusgroup.com/project_content_html?project_id=1&status=completed, retrieved on 6 August 2007. “Sydney Opera House,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sydney_Opera_House, retrieved on 6 August 2007. “History of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge,” http://www.lib.washington.edu/specialcoll/exhibits/tnb/page2.html, retrieved on 6 August 2007. “Superconducting Super Collider,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superconducting_Super_Collider, retrieved on 6 August 2007. Delano, K. J., “Identifying factors that contribute to program success,” Acquisition Quarterly, Winter 1998, pp. 35-50. Shenhar, A.J. and Wideman, R. M., “Optimizing Success by matching Management Style to Project Type,” April, 2002. Pinto, J.K, and Rouhiainen, P. J., Building Customer-Based Project Organizations, John Wiley & Sons, 2001. Dobbins, J. H., “Identifying and Analyzing Critical Success Factors,” Program Management, September – October 2001, pp. 46-49.

……(閱讀全文與回應)

PMI_TW電子報第五期_專欄文章

讓台灣PMP們有多一點「國際化」的空間吧！

自從PMP Computer-based 在台灣的考試可以選擇以中文(簡體)作為Language Aid之後，確實方便了許多人的選擇、降低了許多報考者對英文的畏懼；當然，也是創造台灣PMP快速成長的主要原因之一。尤其，現在有越來越多的PMP培訓單位完全以簡體中文作為教材及運用大陸版的模擬題庫，況該課程與講師亦仿大陸版「補習班」的模式授課，把「通過考試」當成唯一要務；而對專案管理思維的正確詮釋、知識與技術的傳道、面對專案問題的解惑與實務經驗分享等這些訓練PMP的真正價值卻均置若罔聞。我個人對此現象則深以為憂。且曾經與以這種方式學習而獲得的PMP們閒聊，問他們〝拿到這張證照會不會有一點心虛？〞，多數是默認的；若再問其原因，「英文能力」，則是大多有障礙的。 PMI的立場是絕對在認定PMP是「國際通用」證照之餘，又同時考量各不同國家「在地化」的接受度。況PMI雖是從1969年在美國成立，而現已轉變成是一跨國、跨文化、跨知識體融合的組織，且對任何有興趣學習及應用專案管理者均是「有教無類」的。所以才有PMP/CAPM考試八種語言的Language Aid。然而，這不代表PMI認為PMP是可以只是非常Local的，而是希望都能成為國際PM社群的一份子，尤其強調的是如何對這個社群的「參與」、「回饋」、「貢獻」與「持續學習」（每三年需獲得60個PDU方能Renew PMP的要求就是為此而設計的）。因此，在此呼籲台灣的PMP們，不管您之前是用何種學習方式獲得PMP，請您務必回應PMI希望您「成為國際PM社群的一份子」的期許。加入我們是您最佳的選擇－當然，我們支持國內任何相關的社團組織亦提供專案管理經驗交流的平台－只是請多Global一點少Local一點好嗎！ 我從2002年起即到大陸包括北京清華大學及上海交大各地及幾十家企業以他們的語言及簡體字講授「項目管理」，而我相信在台灣鮮有人比我更瞭解他們的語言及用字遣詞在專案管理專業上的運用。而當我看到簡體版的PMBOK Guide後卻與許多大陸的專家一樣也感到不敢恭維，這也是我們堅持要有正體PMBOK Guide 3rd edition的翻譯發行的原因，它雖然延宕了3年(詳見該書序言)。我絕不反對許多人為了考慮未來到大陸發展的可能而學習簡體中文使用的必要，但是必須要知道我們「正體中文」保留傳統中文語言之優雅度、使用語法之正確度及對經常性翻譯名詞的貼切是要超過簡體中文的。大陸有一位學者告訴我，在1949年時許多在北京的知識份子、專業人士及在如上海各大城市的資本家不是都隨國民政府到台灣，就是被抄家下放，留在北京胡同的多為知識水平不高的，而他們所講的較粗俗的話，就成為現在大部份大陸原始的「普通話」，所以有些我們認為不雅的文字（如把經濟『搞』活、「領導班子」）卻可「登堂入室」成為大陸的官方語言。 負責提供與執行PMP電腦考試的Prometric公司大中華總經理的John Chen 曾到我辦公室訪談，他認為〝PMI在台灣使用簡體中文作為PMP考試的Language Aid應該是一種誤解，因為PMI的認證考試基層執行者根本分不清中文還有簡繁之差別〞。當然，能有中文考試無論是簡繁確實是一件好事，但不要只為了考試把所有考題重點以填鴨式『搞熟』了卻忽略專案管理知識技術的內涵與英文的原意，或腦中完全沒有運用的概念，且反被一些簡體中文可能錯誤的語意所混淆了。我曾經看到一篇鼓吹「以中文（簡體）考PMP的文章」，作者說〝我英文好到可以用英文與老外吵架，但我還是選擇用中文（簡體）考PMP〞，雖然這只是某家公司的一種文宣方式且我也尊重作者個人的想法，但以我們PMI-Taiwan的立場，我們對此種論調持相當保留的態度，而我個人也實在很想以英文向他請益，想瞭解他的英文既然好到「那種程度」為何還要屈就去用不是我們所使用的中文去考PMP。在此，我仍要強調，使用中文簡體考PMP並無不可，只是您要問自己您是否真的把專案管理學通了，且是否體驗到它原屬於西方管理哲理與其深層文化意涵的「原汁原味」？ 至於，我所謂PMP「國際化」的意思是指〝能走得出去〞，能成為全球專案管理社群的一份子，且能自由自在的與來自於全球各地的專業人員交流。近五年來，PMI-Taiwan與中華專案管理學會曾共同舉辦過60餘場的講座及近十場半天或一天的研討會；其中，有超過1/5的講座邀請的是國外知名的講者，提供在台灣有志在專案管理學習與發展的會員或非會員們（無論是否已是PMP）一個非常好與「國際接軌」的機會與專業交流的平台。在台灣，感謝有滿街的PMP培訓單位製造了快3,000位的PMP，但能帶領大家走入國際的也只有我們了！尤其，我希望把已「簡體化」的台灣PMP們多給他們一些能「國際化」的空間。 這些年我通常若不能組成一個team就是隻身參加PMI在全球各地舉辦的活動，主要就是不要讓台灣在這些國際活動中缺席，況且PMI-TW的理監事與祕書處的成員在PMI的社群中還相當活躍，每隔一兩期的PMI-Today還都能看到有關我們的報導，使我們有相當的曝光度。而這仍然不能滿足我們，今年從11/2-11/4日在台北晶華酒店我們終於要第一次舉辦一場連續三天的國際級的大型研討會－〝International Project Management Forum （IPMF2007）台北國際專案管理研討會〞。除邀請來自於兩岸三地及美、加、澳、英、馬、印等國際知名及包括資訊、電子、營建、通信、高科技等各種產業的代表共聚一堂，提供PMI會員、已成為PMP與即將成為PMP者及各行各業的菁英門在專案管理實務上最佳的交流學習的機會。從未參加此種國際會議的人千萬別錯過，曾參加過的人您這次也不需出國就能參與此盛會，您怎能不珍惜呢？

……(閱讀全文與回應)

PMI_TW電子報第四期_專欄文章

Proving The Value of Risk Management(特別感謝范淼博士翻譯此專欄!)

Dear Risk Doctor, Risk management is considered by management to be a waste of time and money if nothing happens. How can project managers convince management and decision-makers that risk management is a good investment and necessary, even if an actual event does not occur? Yours hopefully, Project Manager Dear hopeful Project Manager, You raise an important and vexing question for risk practitioners – how do we prove we’re adding value?! I have a three-part answer: Firstly, in old-style implementations of risk management that focus only on threats, you’re right that successful risk management means “nothing happens” (or at least no unexpected problems happen). In line with Popper’s Falsifiability Principle, we know it’s impossible to prove a negative, even though absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. So we couldn’t say for certain that investing in risk management was positively correlated with lack of problems. However now we have a new view of risk which includes opportunities as well as threats. Now successful risk management results in avoiding problems as before, but we also create additional value through maximising and exploiting opportunities. And of course this can be measured. So perhaps we can create a demonstrable and measurable “Risk Management ROI” in this way. Secondly, while we cannot run a project twice so we have no control for proving risk management effectiveness, we can learn from experience over time. Organisations which have been tracking project performance over the years can demonstrate that as risk management maturity increases, so does project success. What gets measured gets improved. And nothing beats demonstrating success to get the attention of management! Thirdly, senior management will quickly realise and accept the value of risk management when they understand the close link between risk and objectives. They understand the need to “spend to save”, and will be looking for a payoff from risk management in terms of more successful achievement of project and business objectives. When they see those benefits then their commitment will be reinforced yet further. I hope that answers your question adequately and that you manage to persuade your management to invest in managing risk. With best wishes, The Risk Doctor -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 親愛的風險醫師： 風險管理在什麼都沒發生的情況下，會被管理階層認為是浪費時間及金錢的。專案經理應如何說服管理與決策者，既使沒有實際發生什麼事件，風險管理也是個好投資而且是必要的？ 滿心期待的專案經理 親愛的滿心期待的專案經理： 你提出了一個對風險實務工作者而言重要且困擾的問題—我們如何證明我們是有附加價的？ 我對此的回答分為三部分： 首先，在舊式僅專注於威脅的風險管理執行上，你是對的，成功的風險管理意味著「沒有事發 生」（或至少是沒有不期盼的問題生）。根據帕伯(Popper)的可證否原則，我們知道對『沒有（其存在）的證據不能當作其不存在的證據』此一說法，是不可能做出否定的證明的，所以，我們當然不能說風險管理投資與不會有問題間是正相關的。然而，我們現在有一個新的風險管理觀點涵蓋了機會及威脅。現在成功的風險管理仍像過去一樣可導致問題的規避；但是，我們也經由對機會的開拓與極大化創造了額外的價值，同時這些當然是可以衡量。因此，也許我們可以用這種方式建立可展示及衡量的「風險管理投資報酬率」。 其次，因為我們不能對同一個專案執行兩次，所以我們不能在有對照控制下證明風險管理的效益，然而我們可以從時間中學到經驗。長年追蹤專案績效的組織可以顯示，當風險管理成熟度增加時，專案成功的機率也跟著增加。可以衡量了就可以改善，沒有東西比展現成功更能引起管理階層注意。 第三，資深的管理階層在瞭解到風險與目標間的密切關聯後，將會迅速理解並接受風險管理的價值。他們瞭解「支出以求得節省」的需要，並且尋求因風險管理使得專案及企業在目標的達成上獲致更大成功的報酬。當他們看到這些利益後，他們將更進一步強化其承諾。 我希望這些可以適切地回答你的問題，並且讓你可以有效地說服你的管理階層投資於風險管理 祝你好運 風險醫師

……(閱讀全文與回應)

PMI_TW電子報第三期_專欄文章

The Value of Project Management

Many brand-new PMPRs at Taiwan are enthusiastic about promoting project management in their company. But much to their disappointment, they often lacked support from their top management and were swamped by their colleague’s complaints, such as too many documents, too often meetings, daunting procedures, and, no time to do work, etc. After a while, their enthusiasm was dissipated and the project management implementation initiative just disappeared like ripples in a pond. Is there any solution to solve this problem? In my perspective, to communicate clearly the value of project management is the crucial point. Value does matter “Values are the basic convictions that a specific mode of conduct or end-state of existence is personally or socially preferable to an opposite or converse mode of conduct or end-state of existence. They contain a judgmental element in that they carry an individual’s ideas as to what is right, good, or desirable. Values tend to be relatively stable and enduring” According to the above quotation from the popular organization behavior textbook written by Robbins and Judge, we can infer that once the value of project management was established in an organization, the top management will consider the institutionalization of project management is right and they will commit the company resources to the implementation of project management for long rather than an impromptu as filed in various lessons learned. We can also infer that the project managers will recognize that running projects using the project management methodology is the norm rather than exception, and proper documents, meetings and procedures are necessary for the benefits of both projects and the company in the long run, and most importantly, they will persevere at running project with project management disciplines no matter how hard the environment is. By the same argument, the project team members will deem that following the project management procedures is what they should do, and appreciate that disciplined project management can help them do right things from the right start, avoid unnecessary rework and overtime, and they will cooperate with the project managers from their heart. The cognition gap Though we, project management practitioners, consider the value of project management is so apparent that there is no need to overemphasize it, a popular textbook written by Hill and Jones on strategy management doesn’t even mention the word “project management” once in the sections about “value chain”2. They clearly state the value creation roles of primary activities (research and development, production, marketing and sales, and, service) and support activities (company infrastructure, human resources, and, materials management). The above mentioned fact has a great influence on the cognition of the value of project management by top management. Because this textbook is used by many MBA programs, many top managers learned strategy management just from here. They had no idea about the value of project management, because the textbook doesn’t mention that there is any role played by project management in the value creation process of a company. All the project management practitioners know that projects are the main instruments in the company to integrate all these primary activities and support activities to produce products, services and results which are beneficial to the company stakeholders. Without projects most of the promises to the company stakeholders will be hard to be realized. This is the reason why we need to communicate the value of project management to the top managers. The environment here is even worse here than developed western countries. The companies at Taiwan are mostly medium to small size, and, are owned and run by family—the boss is the law. If we cannot convince the boss the value of project management, the promotion of project management is just like fighting a campaign without any hope of success. Numbers tell According to the survey (with 1,867 respondents) by Tomas et al3, they captured the following insights into the value placed on project management in today's organizations: 82% agree that project management is used to increase the likelihood of delivering successful projects While 60% agree, "projects are usually aligned with my company's strategic plans," 60% disagree that projects within their company are usually completed on schedule or on budget. 73% agree that project management enhances customer satisfaction 71% agree that project management enhances their firm's performance in non-financial ways. If the above figures are not convincing enough, the Center for Business Practices (CBP), the research arm of PM Solutions, has conducted industry-wide studies using a balanced family of measures that document the value of project management to organizations4. In those studies, 97% of the respondents say project management adds value to their organizations. By implementing project management improvement initiatives, organizations have on average returned the following value: What we should do next It can be expected that there are still some antagonists claiming the above data are not convincing because of the difference between cultures and environments. Truly, much of the quantitative data about the value of project management we can show now are from developed western countries, which are much more mature on project management than us. I suggest that PMI Taiwan chapter continuously sponsors graduate student research programs surveying Taiwanese companies on the value of project management, contrasting with western countries, and observing the trends. After a few years, we will have solid local data base to convince anyone the value of project management on Taiwanese companies and to obtain their commitment to implement it. Robbins, S. P. and Judge, T. A., Organizational Behavior, 12th Ed., Pearson Education Inc., Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, 2007, pp. 108-109. Hill, C. W. L. and Jones, G. R., Strategic Management: An integrated Approach, 4th Ed., Houghton Mifflin Company, New York, 1998, pp. 119-123. Thomas, J., Delisle, C. L. and Jugdev, K., Selling Project Management to Senior Executives: Framing the Moves that Matter, Project Management Institute, 2002. “The Value of Project Management: Validating the positive impacts of project management on organizations,” PM Solutions White Paper Series, Project Management Solutions, Inc., 2002.

……(閱讀全文與回應)

PMI_TW電子報第二期_專欄文章

PMP們所應面對的挑戰

台灣目前已產生了近2,700位的PMP，即每一萬個台灣人中就有1.2位是PMP，且台灣的PMP數已佔全球約23萬PMP的1.17%（即每100位PMP中就至少有一位是來自於台灣）；且台灣是亞洲國家中僅次於印度為PMP成長第二高的國家，況本會預估到2007年底會突破3.500位、2008年則至少5,000位。有這樣亮麗的成績，台灣每一位的PMP都應與有榮焉。然而，每一位剛出爐的PMP在興奮高興之餘卻應立即冷靜的思考〝接下來，我要如何證明獲得這張PMP證照絕不是『浪得虛名』？〞因為您的老闆、同事或部屬可能會在欽羡您的同時就開始觀察您的「功力」了，或開始對您執行的專案給予厚望，而您若是一位有PMP的專案經理可能更要開始承受如何證明自己「名實相符」的壓力，就算您只是一位專案成員，您亦可能被期許能輔佐PM而成功達成專案的目標。 1998年我在美完成博士學位返台前，歷經兩次PMP艱苦的考試（當年的PMP考試是要花7.5個小時考八個單元【知識體】、每單元40題共320題「五選一」選擇題，且考試平均通過率低於30%），我雖在喬治華盛頓大學修過大師級的教授Dr. William Wells的Program/Project Management課而具備有35小時知識學習的條件，事實上，卻完全是以自修方式研讀PMBOK Guide96年版來準備PMP。當我第二次又煎熬了近8個小時而終於過關後，感覺上比我博士論文口試「全壘打」時還興奮。在當時，考試通過並不代表就可獲得PMP資格，除了要提送所有相關學歷、工作與專案經歷資料外，還需檢附三封推薦函，且通常要等待一個月由PMI的一個認證委員會對每位申請者進行資格鑑定及〝驗明正身〞；故常有人因不符資格要求（如專案經驗）就算考試過了還是無法如願以償，而只有申請文件確認無誤者才會被正式授予PMP證書，所以當年要能考上PMP確實是一件非常不容易且是感到無上光榮的事，最重要是那時候的PMP們比較不會被質疑其價值與專業性（最起碼，一定曾有專案的實務經驗）。這也是當年我自認自己具近十餘年主持與參與各重要大型專案的經驗，若不拿一張這樣的證照以證明自己的能力，實在是對不起自己。 時至今日，PMP產生方式無論是資格鑑定的門檻（只有10%~20%PMP報考者會被隨機抽中而需檢驗資格且無需推荐函，未被抽中者就〝自動〞被視為符合報考資格），還是考試的難度都已大幅降低（改以五大流程方式考200題，且把「五選一」改為「四選一」），另考試的時間縮短為4小時（減少應考者在考場所需承受的壓力與耐力），加上有8種不同語言的〝Language Aid〞等原因而使通過率持續提昇。然而這樣的蓬勃發展，除了象徵著專案管理專業的興盛與普及外，它是否即意謂者擁有PMP的專案管理者於實際規劃執行時能確保專案的成功呢？我對此則一直是持相當保留態度。 我常說〝拿到PMP是一回事，是否會作專案又是另一回事；尤其千萬不要以為PMBOK Guide中所學的所有知識與技術都可順理成章地變成您專案的『護身符』。〞且從學習理論、瞭解知識到實作通常會是有一段距離。〝其實，PMBOK Guide中所教導許多重要觀念、知識與技術，有許多在台灣是根本行不通的，這與我們的文化、(與西方國家比較)相對不成熟的商業環境與工作態度是有關的。〞而有PMP證照者僅能證明其專案管理的知識與技術是OK而已，卻未能保證其專案的成功。特別是，當越來越多的人拿到PMP證照，而其中多數的人無法因此而提昇專案成效，加上現在有大比例的PMP 是未有專案的經驗，如此會使PMP的價值會被逐漸的貶低。 當然，沒有任何人能否認考到一張PMP是要參加至少35小時的「專案管理九個知識體與五個流程」的課程、花上可能最少3個月的時間的準備（包括作上千題的模擬題）、耗費5~10萬台幣的上課與考試的錢，加上考場中所受的煎熬等所有辛苦的付出；故其所應相對獲得之實際價值是無庸置疑的－也就是說－一個受過這樣知識洗禮的PMP，理論上會比未有此證照者是值得信賴的。然而，任何一種證照，幾乎都只能證明獲照者本身的『知』，卻無法確保他/她的『行』。而所謂的『行』就是『實戰力』，也就是專業『勝任能力(Competence) 』，而所謂的Competence就是一個影響工作最後表現的綜合力量，所包含的內容中，知識與技術也只是其中的一部份，它還要具備能力(Capability)、態度(Attitudes)、行為(Behavior)以及某種人格特質(Personality)。 我希望目前的PMP們都有責任去維護這張證照的專業地位，並要能接受後續相關的挑戰；並應告訴自己〝取得PMP只是一個開始，要證明自己的『實戰力』仍有相當長的路子要走。〞這也是PMI要求PMP們需每3年累積60個PDU的原因之一（且最少20個PDU要來自於持續的學習）。身為PMI-Taiwan的理事長、PMI-REP諮詢委員、PMI資深會員(1996年迄今11年)以及台灣第一個PMP(#10973)，我的使命感是從本分會於1999年的創會開始迄今（與中華專案管理學會）推動專案管理的知識與證照，如今還更希望能帶領著我們的PMP們不斷的成長、接受考驗、強化專業、開創更好的未來。PMI-Taiwan目前所能作的雖然有限，但我們期許提供更佳的會員服務、建立更好的交流平台，既努力把專案管理知識「在地化」（如《繁體中文PMBOK Guide第三版》的翻譯出版），又把大家帶入「國際化」（如11/2-11/4的IPFM2007國際會議的舉辦）。這是我們的責任，還真是「捨我其誰」？

……(閱讀全文與回應)