You are spot on while distinguishing the planing from management. The plan needs to be taken a shape at the top because they are ‘best informed’. If one can identify the roles of ‘planning’, ‘management’, & ‘process’ differently, things become more clear. Also, you are right on saying that the plan need not be made at the ‘top’.

- David.

Your comment adds considerable clarification to my point. I agree with you completely.

Excellent post as usual. Agree with your distinction from top down management and have this to add;

Top down management brings the benefit of better alignment with the business or sponsnor’s goals.

Tht is; you start with the top level goals that are articulated in the project brief and break it down, like a WBS or functional decomposition of business units or IT systems.

That way you get to make sure everything taht is being built aligns with the strategic goals of the project.

Thank you for your comment! I don’t know Keith either and I understand that sometimes it’s a matter of bad luck to have not enough competent managers. But when it comes to planning we should always trust our team and make the plan together. This way it will be more accurate and we will be more motivated to fulfill it.

You’ve made good distinctions here. It’s easy to refer to planning and management interchangeably, often resulting in fuzzy thinking and confusion. Good management and good planning are both essential to projects that deliver.

I don’t know Keith personally – but I do know many excellent technical managers who have been burned by both “management model of the month” and single-focused planning dictated from somewhere “up there” in the corporate structure. It’s unfortunate (but understandable) that cynicism is pretty rampant.

As professional project managers, we have our team-building and bridge-building jobs cut out for us.

Thanks for the thought provoking entry.

Alec