|
|
 |
|
|
Isn't designing before doing just common sense? Boeing wouldn't build a new plane without computer designs and simulation of in-flight performance. Ford would not put a new vehicle into production without computer modeling to test the design’s response to various driving conditions. Investment firms simulate many performance scenarios before committing large amounts of funds. |
|
|
|
If our projects are increasingly complicated, shouldn't we design them too? Customers, investors and regulators would roundly criticize any company that would “bend metal” without first subjecting designs to the rigors of modeling and performance simulation. Yet thousands of companies wade into complicated, multi-million dollar initiatives without the benefit of looking ahead with project design. They miss the opportunity to examine the complex interactions thatwill determine whether their efforts are likely to meet expectations. |
Some companies confuse excruciatingly detailed project schedules and budgets with effective project design. Traditional scheduling and reporting – with tools like Microsoft Project, Primavera or Artemis – overlook nearly half of what actually determines the ultimate outcome of these projects and programs. What’s missing? Realistic attention to the cost, time and risk associated with coordination. Including the communication, decision-making, waiting and rework common in most projects and programs – particularly in this age of global teams, extended enterprises, outsourcing, quality improvement and speed-to-market. |
|
|
Click on the image to the right to see |
|
|
