In Microsoft Project 2010, you can create a custom calendar to set your day as something different than the default 8 hours per day. In this example, I changed the working time to 7.5 hours per day.
So far, no problem. However, look what happens when you view the Resource Usage Tab for the same task:
That’s not what I want - I said 7.5 hours per day is the working time! It should be 7.5 hours per day, not 8 hours for the first 4 days and 5.5 hours for the fifth day.
About 2 months ago, I started a survey on IT Management. The following are the results so far after about 40 responses. If you would like to participate in the survey, please feel free to do so by following this link: https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/ITManagerSurveyWeb.
Here are the highlights so far…
As a global consultant, I travel from time to time to the United States. When you go through customs, you are questioned to ensure that you are not “working” full-time in the United States without a green card or visa.
The basic rules for "working" in the United States when you interact with airport customs seem to be as follows:
So those are the basic rules, formulated decades ago before the Internet era. The rules clearly show a very mid 20th century view of "work":
If the goal is to prevent labor from competing with local “workers”, these types of restrictions don’t really provide much support in the digital global knowledge working realm. Really, the rules basically are a restriction on face to face meetings but place no restriction on me being able to compete first hand with local resources from remote access points. Instead, they just put a barrier to innovation and physical collaboration as a complement to existing means of digital collaboration. It means that American companies with offices in other countries (Canada being a great example) need to obtain visas for employees who are jumping across the border for short term stays.
Surely, in the 21st century, we should update this approach and recognize that INCREASING global knowledge workers ability to collaborate across borders is essential to higher productivity, better solutions, and a better economy.
Given that reality, I would propose a very easy to obtain, very low restriction visa that would enable short term deployments (say 2-4 weeks) across the border. The governments on both sides could charge a fee and use a Nexus type approach to clearing consultants for the usual security risks. Once they have the pass, they could go down at any time to deploy solutions, meet with customers, and collaborate with stakeholders with the assumption that 80% of the work would still be done outside the country but that at crucial times there is a requirement for global knowledge workers to collaborate together. If the United States wants to be the centre of global innovation, it should enable these global workers to actively choose the US as their physical meeting hub for planning sessions, deployments to data centers, training, and collaboration sessions. This would create a high degree of network effect that would put it at a significant advantage over more restrictive countries such as China, Russia, Middle Eastern countries, etc.
Gartner is reporting that after almost 30 years of being the de facto Enterprise Architecture framework for government, aerospace, and other large scale enterprises the Zachman Framework has collapsed as John Zachman is retiring.
At first glance, it appears that John A Zachman is closing up shop and about to retire, having severed his business partnerships, and appearances are that his son, John P Zachman, will take over the IP trademarks and, as alleged by a former business partner Stan Locke, seek to place the Zachman IP within a COTS package.
A second, and more penetrating glance, into the actual lawsuit itself reveals alleged deceptive practices by the defendant, Stan Locke, and claims of serious and reprehensible actions that are alleged to damage the brand of Zachman.
The capitulation by the defendant in a surprising lawsuit, Stan Locke, will not resolve the concerns or Zachman brand ownership concerns as the damage has already occurred. This, in turn, raises questions about how the Zachman brand will regain control after relinquishing that control for so long.
What does this mean for Enterprise Architects that have spent their time, energy and significant financial resources getting certified and becoming practitioners in the EA field? Based on the current state, it is not clear how this will be sorted out.
As of right now, certification programs have been suspended, John Zachman is exiting the business and the entire framework is now surrounded by legal troubles over who controls the brand, the IP, etc.
In Project 2007, copying data from Project to Word was quite painful, resulting in some funky formatting that was hard coded to whatever colors, fonts, etc. you had in your project file. In addition, when you copied dates, the default format was 9/8/2010 12:00pm which unless your plan is VERY time sensitive is not typically want you want to show in a word document.
So in Project 2010, the Microsoft team seems to have fixed some things but broken others in an effort to improve these problems in 2007.
So take this dummy project plan I created:
I want to move this into Word so that I can include it in a Statement of Work, Project Charter, etc. What I want is this data in a simple table – I don’t need GANTT charts or anything else…just a basic list of tasks and durations.
So now if I copy this into Word, this is what I get:
Not a bad representation of the plan – certainly better than the output in Project 2007. However, the biggest challenge here is the indenting – Task 1.1, 1.2, etc. are indented using 4 Spaces instead of a TAB, a proper Word paragraph indent, etc. If you want to change the size of the indent in word, you’re now stuck with doing a search and replace for 4 spaces and either replacing them or converting them to TABs or Word paragraph indents.
In Excel, there is a further problem – date formatting. In Excel, the same plan looks like this:
Again, not bad and certainly an improvement over MS Project 2007. However, let’s suppose that you want to change the date format to a simple date without the day in it, e.g. 8-Sept-10. In order to convert the cell into a proper date, you have delete the "Wed " from the dates for each day of the week. Then you can format your dates anyway you like in Excel. In addition, you have the same problem with indents as Word – indents are handled with 4 Spaces instead of real indent marks, making them tough to remove.
So from my perspective, while the formatting is prettier when copying data from MS Project 2010, its actually less useful and harder to convert to something I can manually format and change in Word or Excel myself. This is ultimately what is needed – if you are copying and pasting into another document, you will want to use the parent documents fonts, indenting, date formatting, etc. and not Project’s default settings.
In the past several years, I have been working with the Zachman Framework for classifying and organizing architecture artefacts. Zachman is quite popular as a framework in large enterprises such as governments, big banks, utilities, etc. because it is seen as a comprehensive way to manage the architecture process.
In the past year or so, I have been switching over to TOGAF which is a competing EA framework. In comparing the two frameworks, I have found it to be fundamentally more useful in my line of work for a simple reason – TOGAF is a process for managing architecture change, while Zachman is a taxonomy for capturing the current state of an enterprise (exhaustively seems to be the goal).
Roger Session’s wrote a good article comparing various EA frameworks, and I agree with his conclusion – Zachman is really a taxonomy and TOGAF describes processes.
The TOGAF process is described by the Architecture Development Method (ADM) :
The ADM has some interesting features that make it more relevant to evolving enterprises:
Zachman, in contrast, is about capturing state in a structured way. It provides no guidance on HOW to do architecture design, HOW to introduce change or HOW to improve the architectural maturity of an organization. It simply provides the model for storing architecture artefacts.
Zachman also has no guidance for incorporating processes into an architecture state – there is no spot in the grid for defining change management processes, operations processes (e.g. ITIL), project management processes, etc. TOGAF in contrast compliments these processes quite nicely:
In my work, I am finding TOGAF to be an effective framework for working with stakeholders through strategic planning and architecture work, especially for organizations who are actively transforming themselves. It allows me to define a process for managing the architecture change in a structured manner through an iterative change cycle. Stakeholders see a PROCESS that involves them through change and growth in their organization’s maturity.
