One step to new format, PM
On Wednesday evening, May 28, an event took place in Moscow that can give a significant impetus to the development of project managers - this is a meeting of members of the Project Management group on LinkedIn. It was not a training seminar. It was not a conference. The format of the meeting was unique - the creator of the group, he is also the speaker - Dmitry Jafarov analyzed the book “The Goal: The Process of Continuous Improvement” by E. Goldrath. Why was the event format unique? Everything is simple - the real methodology, which has become popular in the West, was sorted out, but not only with projecting onto the processes of Russia, but also with the analysis of the real cases of the participants.
But I'd better tell you everything in order. I will make a reservation in advance that there will be no links - my post was created not to advertise and attract participants, but to share my impressions. I think anyone who is interested in this topic will easily find both the group and the contacts of the organizers in search engines. Participation was free. The meeting was held in the conference hall of the company "Skramtrek." There were about 50 registered participants, plus those who came with their friends and colleagues. With the help of a projector, a presentation was viewed, a webinar was also broadcast online for those who do not live in the capital, there were more than 40. Frankly speaking, we settled down very comfortably - comfortable chairs, good visibility, tea, coffee, cookies, sweets. Each participant had a badge.
')
At the very beginning, Dmitry spoke about the goals of the meeting, the group and prospects. On project management there are different points of view and methods. There are different answers to the same questions, not always the right one. And it happens that there can be no right answer at all. The meeting was for those who want to understand the subtleties, discuss, and, most importantly, develop. For those who believe that not everything knows and knows how. There are more than 4500 participants in our Project Management group. In the future, Dmitry will create a great PMPeople resource because the Linkedin communication format no longer allows us to update the available information, and yet we have already accumulated a huge knowledge base on many management issues. PMPeople will be a tool to help organize and more flexibly create the result of our discussions.
Then began the analysis of the main points of Elia Goldrath's book on the theory of system constraints (TOC). I think that there is no sense in transmitting its brief content, the whole essence can be described in one phrase - the plant stopped generating income, the weak points of the production chain were found and strengthened, and a deep analysis of cause-effect relationships was continuously carried out, which eventually broke many stereotypes. Plant broke into the lead. What exactly did we find out?
- If the capacity of the organization is equal to the market demand - this is bad, not good;
- If there are equipment and employee downtime - this is not always a bad thing;
- Bottleneck (weak link) - this is normal;
- Estimation of idle time is estimated by estimating a simple resource - this is also a mistake;
“Large stocks are bad, not good.”
Throughout the meeting, not only the situations from the book were analyzed, but also those that occurred among the participants, conclusions were drawn, advice was given. Before voicing which author of the book gave answers to questions, the speaker asked us the same questions. Everyone tried to answer, add. As a result, we came to the conclusion that the book, as a rule, gives the most complete and correct answer. But sometimes not answers are given, but an incentive to think for yourself and how to think for yourself. As for the book itself, it also made us understand several important points. First, the process of continuous self-improvement itself:
1. There are no problems;
2. Problem identified;
3. Problem solved;
4. Analysis;
5. Subsequent improvements.
Let theses sound trivial, but is it really easy for someone to practice?
In addition to the presentation, recordings and plotting graphs and diagrams on the board, communicating with the audience, Dmitry suggested that we play a game - 4 people were chosen, a dice was taken (he was a die), a box of matches, and 4 plates. The essence of the game was as follows: the first player had to take as many matches as dropped when he threw the dice. The second player also threw the dice, also took as many matches as dropped, but not from the box, but from the first plate. The third one took the matches from the second plate, and the fourth from the third plate. The whole point is that you can not take more matches than there is on the plate. For example, player 1 threw a three, took 3 matches, player 2 threw a six. It can take six matches, but only 3 in the plate. If we take the size of the deviations from 1 to 6, then the average value should have been 3.5. In the end, after a few laps, it became clear that the average result can not be achieved. I think readers have already guessed that this game demonstrates the impossibility of a balanced enterprise to produce effectively, which is due to the presence of lactuations and their influence in related processes. Players and cymbals were production facilities, the die was an indicator of deviations from the norm. It was on such a trivial example that we found out that if all the production capacities are equal, there will always be delays without giving out the average rate.
Many other examples and cases were analyzed (both from the book and the real ones), many tables and graphs were built, which clearly demonstrated what we learned from Dima and from each other. And most importantly, important conclusions were made. For example, a project manager should not be reactive, but proactive. The main questions for improving the whole process are “what needs to be changed?”, “What to change?”, “How to change?” And the method of finding the right answers. A nice bonus was getting to know each other. Everyone unanimously stated that they will come to the next meeting. I hope more and more people will join us, among whom you will be, dear Habrazhiteli!
UPD: I decided to post a link to the group: Project Management
But I'd better tell you everything in order. I will make a reservation in advance that there will be no links - my post was created not to advertise and attract participants, but to share my impressions. I think anyone who is interested in this topic will easily find both the group and the contacts of the organizers in search engines. Participation was free. The meeting was held in the conference hall of the company "Skramtrek." There were about 50 registered participants, plus those who came with their friends and colleagues. With the help of a projector, a presentation was viewed, a webinar was also broadcast online for those who do not live in the capital, there were more than 40. Frankly speaking, we settled down very comfortably - comfortable chairs, good visibility, tea, coffee, cookies, sweets. Each participant had a badge.
')
At the very beginning, Dmitry spoke about the goals of the meeting, the group and prospects. On project management there are different points of view and methods. There are different answers to the same questions, not always the right one. And it happens that there can be no right answer at all. The meeting was for those who want to understand the subtleties, discuss, and, most importantly, develop. For those who believe that not everything knows and knows how. There are more than 4500 participants in our Project Management group. In the future, Dmitry will create a great PMPeople resource because the Linkedin communication format no longer allows us to update the available information, and yet we have already accumulated a huge knowledge base on many management issues. PMPeople will be a tool to help organize and more flexibly create the result of our discussions.
Then began the analysis of the main points of Elia Goldrath's book on the theory of system constraints (TOC). I think that there is no sense in transmitting its brief content, the whole essence can be described in one phrase - the plant stopped generating income, the weak points of the production chain were found and strengthened, and a deep analysis of cause-effect relationships was continuously carried out, which eventually broke many stereotypes. Plant broke into the lead. What exactly did we find out?
- If the capacity of the organization is equal to the market demand - this is bad, not good;
- If there are equipment and employee downtime - this is not always a bad thing;
- Bottleneck (weak link) - this is normal;
- Estimation of idle time is estimated by estimating a simple resource - this is also a mistake;
“Large stocks are bad, not good.”
Throughout the meeting, not only the situations from the book were analyzed, but also those that occurred among the participants, conclusions were drawn, advice was given. Before voicing which author of the book gave answers to questions, the speaker asked us the same questions. Everyone tried to answer, add. As a result, we came to the conclusion that the book, as a rule, gives the most complete and correct answer. But sometimes not answers are given, but an incentive to think for yourself and how to think for yourself. As for the book itself, it also made us understand several important points. First, the process of continuous self-improvement itself:
1. There are no problems;
2. Problem identified;
3. Problem solved;
4. Analysis;
5. Subsequent improvements.
Let theses sound trivial, but is it really easy for someone to practice?
In addition to the presentation, recordings and plotting graphs and diagrams on the board, communicating with the audience, Dmitry suggested that we play a game - 4 people were chosen, a dice was taken (he was a die), a box of matches, and 4 plates. The essence of the game was as follows: the first player had to take as many matches as dropped when he threw the dice. The second player also threw the dice, also took as many matches as dropped, but not from the box, but from the first plate. The third one took the matches from the second plate, and the fourth from the third plate. The whole point is that you can not take more matches than there is on the plate. For example, player 1 threw a three, took 3 matches, player 2 threw a six. It can take six matches, but only 3 in the plate. If we take the size of the deviations from 1 to 6, then the average value should have been 3.5. In the end, after a few laps, it became clear that the average result can not be achieved. I think readers have already guessed that this game demonstrates the impossibility of a balanced enterprise to produce effectively, which is due to the presence of lactuations and their influence in related processes. Players and cymbals were production facilities, the die was an indicator of deviations from the norm. It was on such a trivial example that we found out that if all the production capacities are equal, there will always be delays without giving out the average rate.
Many other examples and cases were analyzed (both from the book and the real ones), many tables and graphs were built, which clearly demonstrated what we learned from Dima and from each other. And most importantly, important conclusions were made. For example, a project manager should not be reactive, but proactive. The main questions for improving the whole process are “what needs to be changed?”, “What to change?”, “How to change?” And the method of finding the right answers. A nice bonus was getting to know each other. Everyone unanimously stated that they will come to the next meeting. I hope more and more people will join us, among whom you will be, dear Habrazhiteli!
UPD: I decided to post a link to the group: Project Management
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/224573/
All Articles