https://www.pocketpmo.com
PocketPMO is meant for Founders, Project Managers and Project Manager Officers. It allows them to quickly size, cost, plan track and report on multiple projects. Teams can be added, Stakeholders managed, Risks Registered and Budgets tracked.
Software estimates are unavoidable. I find this approach the best; rapidlyeatimate.com
It works well to bypass anchoring and biasing by initially focusing on ‘divergent thinking’. It's as accurate as any I'm come across.
That seems to make the mistake of summing up the lower bounds to create a lower bound for the total time (and correspondingly sum the upper bounds to create an upper bound for the total time.)
That yields a very unrealistic (as in not-relevant-for-reality) range for the total time. Am I misunderstanding something?
Would you be able to advise as to what business models or decision making frameworks you use within the C-Suite?
I'd like to validate the list that exists as a learning tool for Project Manager & how they can both learn from them and assist with them? Thanks
I'm building https://theprojectmanagement.expert
I'm seeking to shorten the timeframe that it takes for someone to get from the level of an Expert after they are certified. The site would also be useful for non project managers, as it provides bite sized chunks of information.
Thank you for the feedback. You clearly understand Project Management.
I’m an advocate for Earned Value. It offers deep insights into a project during the Execution and Control phase.
This ROM Auctioneering method is meant for the Initiation phase and allows the facilitator to create an accurate Rough Order of Estimation as possible, within an hour rather than the days or weeks that I typically saw it taking.
One failing of this approach is that it doesn’t account for Critical Path identification or analysis. However, I suppose it could be the groundwork for analysis in that area and for Risk Identification too.
Determining the Critical Path, the sequence of events that must happen from Start to Finish, is the next critical step. This conversation pours cold water on the Mythical Man month. (If the manager 'gets it)
This was one of those things that always ruined time travel movies for me. If I went back in time a few hours, would I be floating in the upper atmosphere? Go back few years, am I just floating in space? Does this mean that I can only really travel back to the previous galactic rotation and hope to Sagan that the galaxy both doesn't drift and the both the Sun and our arm of the galaxy are both in the same place?
Motion is relative. Without the blueprints for the time travel device we have no way of knowing what state of motion will count as "rest" for the device.
What is absolute is not circular motion, but proper acceleration and vorticity of a particular congruence of worldlines. But you can describe those phenomena perfectly well in a reference frame in which, for example, a person riding along on a rotating platform is at rest. The reference frame will not be inertial, but that does not mean it is any less valid. For that matter, we routinely describe phenomena on Earth using a reference frame in which the entire Earth is at rest, not just its center; that is perfectly valid as well.
> but proper acceleration and vorticity of a particular congruence of worldlines.
This is a side note, but you really think that's a good way to describe something? You sound like you found some buzzwords and wanted to make a sentence out of them.
> But you can describe .... will not be inertial, but that does not mean it is any less valid. ... that is perfectly valid
Sure it's valid, but that was never the question in the first place.
It still has an absolute component. And in the context of this discussion (time travel) that absolute component means you will have to take the motion into account, as opposed to relative motion.
> you really think that's a good way to describe something? You sound like you found some buzzwords and wanted to make a sentence out of them.
No, I just used standard terminology in physics.
> It still has an absolute component.
Yes, but "motion" is not part of what is absolute.
> in the context of this discussion (time travel) that absolute component means you will have to take the motion into account, as opposed to relative motion.
No, it doesn't, because there is no such thing as "motion" apart from relative motion. So the time travel device can't be using "motion" to determine what it does. It could use the other things I described, but not "motion".
reply