Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Rethinking Lessons Learned in the PMBoK Process Groups: A Model based on People, Processes and Technologies

3,235 views

Published on

The Ballistic 2.0 model
Intends to fill a gap in literature regarding LL
Based on consolidated literature
Expands the use of the knowledge creation model
Is in tune with PM 2.0 (agile, flexible, dynamic)
Provides theoretical foundation for future researches.

Published in: Science
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Rethinking Lessons Learned in the PMBoK Process Groups: A Model based on People, Processes and Technologies

  1. 1. Rethinking Lessons Learned in the PMBoK Process Groups: A Model based on People, Processes and Technologies Prof. Dr. Marcirio Silveira Chaves - mschaves@gmail.com Cíntia Araújo – cintyaraujo@gmail.com Laura Ribeiro Teixeira - laura.ribeiro@gmail.com Irapuan Glória Júnior - ijunior@ndsgn.com.br Débora Virginio Rosa - deborenhas@gmail.com Cláudia Dias Nogueira - claudia.dnogueira@uol.com.br
  2. 2. AGENDA Introduction Research Goals Theoretical Foundations – Lesssons Learned in Literature – Knowledge Management: Shared Context – Web 2.0 & Service Models The Ballistic 2.0 Model Discussion Conclusion 1
  3. 3. PROBLEMS o 47.9% of practitioners believe PMMs offer little or any help (Wells, 2012) o Regarding LL: little focus on this subject on the main PMM’s (Bentley, 2009) o PMBoK: mechanistic & rigid ≠ LL: organic & fluid (Jugdev, 2012) o Lack of researches on LL in conference proceedings (Jugdev, 2012) o Organizations face little incentive or lack of structure for organizational learning (Hobday, 2000) o Project Management 1.0 vs. Project Management 2.0 2
  4. 4. CONTRIBUTION: BALLISTIC 2.0 MODEL PMBOK PROCESS GROUPS STORAGE CAPTURE DISSEMINATION VERIFICATION AND PURIFICATION 3
  5. 5. OVERALL PERSPECTIVE OF LL IN LITERATURE LL = knowledge acquired by both positive & negative experience in order to improve performance (Lientz & Rea, 2003; PMI, 2013) LL system helps individuals who go through similar situations (Weber et al., 2001) 4
  6. 6. LESSONS LEARNED PROCESS COLLECT REUSE VERIFY STORE Figure 1: A generic lessons learned process Source: Weber et al. (2001, p. 21) DISSEMINATE ORGANIZATIONAL MEMBERS LL CENTER DOMAIN EXPERTS LL REPOSITORY ORGANIZATIONAL PROCESSES 5
  7. 7. LESSONS LEARNED METHODS IN LITERATURE Methods Authors Project Review Schindler and Eppler (2003) Postcontrol or Post-Project Review Schindler and Eppler (2003) After Action Review Schindler and Eppler (2003) Post-Project Appraisal (two years after Gulliver (1987) project completion) Journaling Loo (2002) Learning Histories Roth and Kleiner (1998) Micro article Willke (1998) Project history day Collier, DeMarco, and Fearey (1996) Appreciative Lessons Learned Method (4ALL) Baaz, Holmberg, Nilsson, Olsson, & Sandberg (2010) Exhibit 1: Main lessons learned methods in the literature. Source: The authors 6
  8. 8. KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT: SHARED CONTEXT Figure 2: Four types of ba Source: Adapted from Nonoka et al. (2000, p. 16)
  9. 9. WEB 2.0 SERVICE MODELS Exhibit 2: Description of the four Web 2.0 service models Source: Adapted from (Shang et al., 2011) Service Model Description Web 2.0 applications Exchanger • Enables socialization and externalization with low control mechanism • The content is not organized nor systematized. • VOIP calls • Chat • E-mails Aggregator • Enables from socialization to externalization • Control mechanism is low • Users can share/aggregate information in many ways • Blogs • Bookmarking • RSS • Social networks Collaborator • Enables the full cycle of knowledge creation • Users can recreate content and applications • Contains processes for feedback • Wikis • Bookmarking • Games • Progr. Languages Liberator • Enables the full cycle of knowledge creation. • Source code is open to users for continuous improvement • OS’s • Web 2.0 tools • Games • Progr. Languages 8
  10. 10. THE MAIN COMPONENTS OF BALLISTIC 2.0 MODEL LESSONS LEARNED PROCESSES • Capture • Storage • Verification & Purification • Dissemination LESSONS LEARNED METHODS • Project Review • After-Action Review PEOPLE, KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT & SHARED CONTEXT Figure 3: The main components of the Ballistic 2.0 Model Source: The authors • SECI • Ba WEB 2.0 SERVICE MODELS • Exchanger • Aggregator • Collaborator PMBOK PROCESS GROUPS 9
  11. 11. THE MAIN COMPONENTS OF BALLISTIC 2.0 MODEL • EXCHANGER • AGGREGATOR • COLLABORATOR • COLLABORATOR • EXCHANGER • AGGREGATOR • COLLABORATOR • AGGREGATOR • COLLABORATOR ORIGINATING ba DIALOGUING ba EXERCISING ba SYSTEMISING ba Figure 4: Ba 2.0 – Extending ba with Web 2.0 Service Models Source: The authors 10
  12. 12. THE BALLISTIC 2.0 MODEL TO MANAGE LL IN PMBoK PMBOK PROCESS GROUPS STORAGE CAPTURE DISSEMINATION VERIFICATION AND PURIFICATION 11
  13. 13. DISCUSSION o “Ba is fluid and can be changed quickly as the participants set it.” (Nonaka et 12 al., 2000) o Inter-project knowledge sharing is complicated (Swan et al., 2010) o The Ballistic 2.0 addresses important aspects in LL o Fosters changes on organizational culture o Encourages people to use new technology o Addresses 4 main challenges in LL: Time, Motivation, Discipline, Skills “All technical and organizational knowledge unable to be found via Google in less than two minutes should be documented” (Stocker et al., 2012, p. 334)
  14. 14. CONCLUSION o The Ballistic 2.0 model o Intends to fill a gap in literature regarding LL o Based on consolidated literature o Expands the use of the knowledge creation model (Nonaka et al., 2000) o Is in tune with PM 2.0 (agile, flexible, dynamic) o Provides theoretical foundation for future researches For more studies on LL, visit the research group: Managing Web 2.0 Technologies in Projects - TiP http://tip20.wikidot.com 13

×