The Manhattan Project
"Despite its official founding in August, the Manhattan Project really began on September 17, 1942 when Col. Leslie Richard Groves was notified at 10:30 a.m. by Gen. Brehon Somervell that his assignment overseas had been cancelled. Groves, an experienced manager who had just overseen the collosal construction of the Pentagon, seized immediate and decisive control. In just two days he resolved issues that had dragged on for months under Compton. On September 18 Groves ordered the purchase of 1250 tons of high quality Belgian Congo uranium ore stored on Staten Island, and the next day purchased 52000 acres of land to be the future site of Oak Ridge. Groves was promoted to Brigadier General on September 23. By September 26 Groves had secured access to the highest emergency procurement priority then in existence (AAA).
The era of weak, indecisive leadership was over.
Groves' pushy, even overbearing, demeanor won him few friends among the scientists on the Manhattan Project (in particular a special enmity developed between Groves and [scientist Leo Szilard]). Many detested him at the time, considering him a boor and a buffoon. It was only after the war that many scientists began to appreciate how crucial his organizational and managerial genius was to the MED [Manhattan Engineers District, aka Manhattan Project]. "
The Army clearly recognized that in order for projects to succeed, project managers need real power and authority and that must be visible power and authority. Project Management has existed for thousands of years. The recent trend of relegating project management to what often appears to be a clerical timekeeping and book keeping function is something new. I believe that this is due to pressure from government agencies that require contractors to have established formal project management systems and to achieve CMMI certifications or ratings of at least level 2. Within the past decade, corporations such as General Motors have been requiring their suppliers to follow formal project management processes.
A shortcoming of the CMMI evaluation process is that it does not measure results. It only looks at documented processes. The evaluation process does not assess the quality of leadership. In that sense, the maturity of Project Management is not the issue. The real issue is the maturity of the company in its adoption of Project Management principles.
I find the notion of Project Managers grovelling and begging for resources, project sponsors, charters and reasonable schedules to be both detestable and laughable. Organizations that expect low-level project managers to accomplish miracles without adequate objectives and resources are doomed to fail. Organizations that do not respect and appropriately compensate the profession of Project Management are doomed to poor performance.
- Contributed by Constantine Kortesis - Thanks!
First time reading this post. Constantine, wow...what a great post! In many organizations - particularly in conservative organizations (insurance, banking etc) - project management is nothing but "what often appears to be a clerical timekeeping and book keeping function". PMs are accountable for the delivery of their projects, but they have no power to make any decisions. There are too much politics involved in every project and if PMs don't realize it and play it safe, they may not be around for long.
ReplyDeleteI wish PMI had done something about it to understand how companies are using project managers - their accountabilities and responsibilities through direct surveys.
Posted by Bhaskar Chowdhury, MBA, PMP, ITIL