A tale of 2 PIDs

 This morning's module reading was about different approaches and methods for project management.  One of the methods covered was Prince2.  I felt the text to be didactic and it reinforced my existing prejudices against the method.

However it also enabled me to reflect on why two different Project Initiation Documents (PIDs) I reviewed at work this week prompted very different reactions.

The two documents were written by two different project managers for short technology based projects.

PID-1 was written by a junior member of staff with little project management experience and no formal project management education.  She had been supported by a more senior team member and had drafted a short (6 page) PID for my review.  It was clear, succinct and included the information needed to enable decision making within the context of the wider business.  And it articulated the main points in a manner all the key stakeholders can understand - very much using their language.

PID-2 was written by an experienced professional project manager.  Her document followed the requirements set out in Prince2 to the letter, was 24 pages long and had gaps still to be filled - including some really key ones such as the schedule.  While some of the minutia of items to be excluded from the scope were noted, there were key items missing and assumptions made about what the solution would be before the project starts.  The document was peppered with jargon and was not an easy read:  even for an experienced project manager and certainly not key business stakeholders.

As Ison said "we have arrived at a point where those who do project managing are not fully aware of what they do when they do what they do" (Systems Practice: How to Act, Ray Ison, 2017 pg 234)