The toolbox for faster projects and awesome products
There are a large number of tools available that can foster faster projects and awesome products. Through analogy of hand tools and managerial tools, the author establishes a framework for understanding the function, form, and fit of a tool and explains that there are many tool containers. They can be simple or complex. The author describes the “tools strategist” concept as a philosophy for building an effective tool container.
A worker uses a tool to achieve a result. In projects, tools could include a paper checklist of discussion topics for a project start up meeting, a question routinely asked of users in capturing requirements, a work breakdown structure, standup meetings, and the like. This paper and presentation will develop ideas for building a toolbox of management tools appropriate for the needs of the user. While many people use the term tool to refer to “software” tools, software is simply automating some sort of function like facilitating communications and decisions.
A Tool Story
Quality function deployment (QFD) is a tool known to many practitioners in the project management community and practiced by a few. I recall that at least one PMP preparation course from a decade ago that recommended knowledge of QFD as a subject for the examination. The QFD technique translates customer requirements obtained from market research into product features using matrix diagrams and product development teamwork. Many firms use a series of QFD phases to continue this process from design to production, optimizing results by prioritizing and trading off the key functions and features. Many proponents regard QFD as an excellent competitive tool because it reduces cost, increases quality, and increases customer satisfaction.
Despite the many benefits, many firms have abandoned QFD in frustration because it is too hard. A report by David Ginn and Mohamed Zairi (Ginn & Zairi, 2005), states that the reasons for abandonment include lack of resources and other forms of senior and middle management support, and challenges in using the tool within the existing product development process. Tellingly they write, “All this depends on well-trained, cross-functional and multi-disciplined teams with unified goals and focus” suggesting the need for strong project management capabilities.
Should QFD be in the toolbox for faster projects and awesome products? The answer is “maybe” and one goal of this paper is to help the reader develop a more thoughtful approach to building a toolbox that works for them individually and for their organization.
The term “faster” is a relative term about the speed of one item compared to another and there is no objective and universal measure of faster. Organizations frequently try to measure their average performance to others, sometimes using vague categories like “best in industry” or “best in class,” but also they simply try to improve their performance by internal measures. I have found it useful to consider project speed in terms of the dimensions of average length of a project and a concept that I call “entitlement.” Entitlement is an estimate of potential project duration given the removal of systematic inefficiencies. It is the project performance that an average group of people using average good tools can achieve.
There are two types of faster projects. The first and more common type of faster project is one is longer than entitlement; that is, it has potential for significant reduction in duration. This is because the organization is removing significant amounts of inefficiency. Let us consider an organization that computes the average project duration for all of its projects and determines the average is 18 months. Presumably, that average would reflect current workload, skills, and other complexities of that organization’s practices and processes. For example, let us assume the average duration of 18 months is associated with individuals contributing to an average of seven projects. Let us further assume that if the organization would relax the workload (assign fewer projects), individuals would now be able to focus on the “vital few” activities critical to project completion. Thus, the average duration could improve to 14 months. This project becomes a “faster project” by removing an impediment to project performance, or a “speed bump,” as I described in my 2002 PMI Congress presentation (Githens, 2002). There are a number of speed bumps in addition to the resource assignment problem described in this paragraph. For many firms, the speed bump is the lack of consistency of operations. They improve consistency through common language and tools, and these improvements remove major impediments to speed.
Tools for this first type of faster project tend to be basic and well-known tools that encourage consistent communications in the project. Exhibit 1 presents some tools for faster projects that are those that often help inefficient organizations get the biggest improvement. They are relatively simple and easy to adopt. Organizations who have developed a good project delivery system find that they can easily cut the average project duration in half.
The second type of “faster project” involves applying tools to a project that is already functioning at “entitlement.” Whereas the first kind of faster project can cut the time in half, this type of faster project has met some point of diminishing returns and has potential to shave 10 to 20% off the project duration. Here the emphasis shifts adds “doing things right” to “doing the right things. Almost all of the tools on this list in Exhibit 2 require good team functioning.
An awesome product is remarkable and interesting and generates a feeling of amazement and respect. Sometimes, a person will regard a product as awesome because of the technology embedded in the product, but I think it is more commonly due to the user’s emotional/experiential connection with the product. There are many examples of products that might be considered as awesome. One listing is the Spark Awards (www.sparkaward.com) a product design competition that seeks to “validate superlative design”. What makes a project or a product awesome? The Spark site lists 11 different categories; with the following three provided to give the reader a feel for what the award emphasizes:
- Inventiveness and innovation – The design enhances the human experience in a tangible new way.
- Personal connection – The design helps create a feeling like joy, delight, pleasure, inspiration or reverence.
- Expressiveness -The design fits the use (and user) naturally and easily, with a low-learning curve.
Why should anyone be concerned about the design of an awesome product? The Spark site says, “Commerce is important, but it is a means to an end. We might call the real goal "betterment." Better lives, better health, better water, better air, peace and liberty in our time. Great design can help us get there.”
Here are two tools that can help foster the integration and collaboration that leads to awesome products. Both are described in a recent book by Luke Hohmann, Innovation Games: Creating Breakthrough Products Through Collaborative Play (Hohmann, 2007). The first tool is “Give Them a Hot Tub.” The basic premise of this tool is “using outrageous features to find hidden breakthroughs.” (Hohmann, 2007, Insert) The use of the term hot tub conveys that adding a nonessential, but nevertheless cool feature, to a product concept will foster creative thinking. Extreme combinations increase the potential for something that is truly novel and attractive to users. For example, Hohmann’s suggests, “If you’re making a MP3 player, try adding requests that the product heats coffee, cracks concrete or conditions dog hair.” (p. 103) Hohmann continues, “If you’re making a system to manage payroll, try adding features like ‘plans family reunions’ or ‘refinishes wood floors.’”(p. 103) Perhaps, these are crazy suggestions, but once upon a time people found it unthinkable to put a radio in an automobile or that Botulinum toxin could be used to remove facial wrinkles with a product called Botox. Integrating these outrageous and frivolous features into a design causes the mind to find ways to transform the product into alternatives that is less outrageous and this process leads to potentially useful concepts. A second tool described by Hohmann is, “Product Box.” The product box is a facilitated session with customers, where the facilitator gives the customer a blank white cardboard box. Customers design the box for the product and they decorate it and make promotional claims. This tool gets the customer to identify what they regard as the most exciting product features. The pharmaceutical industry often designs drugs for the “indication” which is the label that will go to the FDA for approval. This not only focuses the technical effort, it tends to avoid wasteful work and could also be considered a tool for faster projects.
The list of tools for awesome products is longer than these examples. Other books like the PDMA Toolbooks describe tools like Hunting for Hunting Grounds, Voice of the Customer, Toolkits for User Innovation, and Customer Wish Mode.
Integration is Essential for Faster Projects an Awesome Products
Integration is a fundamental managerial function needed to achieve faster projects and awesome products. While A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK® Guide) has a described knowledge area for Project Integration Management, I am using the term integration in a more general sense of combining elements into a well functioning system – one that has integrity. I claim that the project manager is chief integration officer of the project. The project manager and team select the tools that the team will use, and I argue that tool selection and use will largely dictate the success of the project. Further, integration in projects is a social phenomenon of individuals working together of information exchange.
So what is integration? This quote captures it succinctly: “The essence of integration is the generation, fusion and accumulation of knowledge: the capacity to merge new knowledge about the impact of possibilities with deep accumulated knowledge of the complex capability base of the organization” (Iansiti & Clark, 1994, p. 602). The better the capacity to merge new knowledge with accumulated knowledge, the better the project’s performance. The through the selection of tools, the project manager and team increase their probability of developing faster projects and awesome products.
Project teams on faster projects and awesome products spend considerable time in meetings, more than what project members would experience on average project. Thus, integration is a social process and the meeting is vital to the use of tools. Few people relish working in project meetings. Recall the earlier discussion of abandonment of the QFD tool that requires much dialogue within the project team. Many people find the discussions and coming to agreement to be time consuming, tedious, and uncomfortable. Thus, conducting good meetings is an important enabler for using project management tools.
Getting a Handle on Managerial Tools
Workers—be they manual laborers or managers—want better and more tools because tools can make their work easier and the results of higher quality. I have learned much by exercising this analogy: hand tools (physical tools) are comparable to managerial tools. Hand tools like saws, wrenches and hammers are important for their physical functioning. Managerial tools are important for their conceptual functioning.
I define a tool as an “object” that people perceive as contributing to results. The Exhibit 3 formula suggests two questions. The first is, “What is the result you want to achieve?” While this seems commonsense, I observe that many people spend so much time in motion that they have lost sight of their goals. A tool cannot help them much until they decide what they want. The second question is, “How much force are you willing to apply?” Tools might make an individual’s work easier, but they might require more thought energy than that individual is willing to invest. Even if the individual is willing to apply effort, some tools require the cooperation of others, and they may be unwilling. My readers who have some knowledge of physics might recall the definition of work as, “the scalar product of the force applied and the distance moved by the object,” will see the parallel of Exhibit 3 with that definition.
Three Managerial Tools: RAID, FAME, and SWIFT
This section of the paper describes selected tools that may be familiar to those individuals who are well read in project management and product development literature, but could be new to many readers. Because these three tools are simple, you can get a feel for what a tool is and is not. Then, I can introduce more complex – and powerful tools.
The first is RAID, as described by me in Chapter 8 of the first volume of PMDA ToolBook for New Product Development (Bellevue, Griffin & Somermeyer, 2002). An initial risk management activity is for the team to generate a list of “concerns” that could affect the project’s success. RAID is a classification strategy and stands for the Risks, Assumptions, Issues, and Dependencies that project managers must manage. The team will get improved results by using techniques specific to each classification. For example, use assumptions analysis to understand uncertainties in assumptions, issues management for issues, risk management for risks, and schedules for dependencies. The RAID tool helps Fast and Awesome by classifying “concerns” so that people can act and react faster. In particular, I find that the team discussions involved in analyzing assumptions and developing risk responses will liberate creative ideas that can be opportunities to add value.
The second acronym is FAME, a metrics communication tool (Githens, 2005). FAME represents the Frequency of reporting metrics, the Audience for the metric, the Mechanism of communication, and the Expectations of behaviors resulting from the information. The FAME tool helps the user overcome the misperception that metrics are a “data dump” from the accounting department, or a “silver bullet.” Metrics are a form of communication that managers use to gain insights for taking proactive action. FAME helps to answer the questions, “Who needs to see the metric? How often do they need to see it? How will they receive the information? What is the expected use?”
The FAME tool helps Fast and Awesome by focusing attention on the role of measurement as a communication mechanism. It improves speed by increasing the probability that only useful information is considered. It can encourage creativity in product design by stimulating the expectation of a creative outcome.
As an aside, the FAME and RAID acronyms suggest a sequential ordering that might be unnatural. For me, it makes the most sense to sequence communications by Audience then Expectation then Frequency then Mechanism. However, the resulting AEMF order is not memorable. Nor is AIDR, which is probably the most logical sequence for addressing the anxieties of a project. Here is one important difference in the analogy of hand tools and managerial-tools: managerial tools are largely stored in individual’s memory. This implies that an individual’s skill with a tool starts with the ability to remember the tool at an appropriate time.
The third acronym is SWIFT, and stands for Strengths, Weakness, Individuality, Fixes, and Transformation. Product innovators use this tool in product concept development as described in Chapter 10 of PMDA ToolBook II (Belliveau, et al 2005). The SWIFT tool helps to overcome the problem that people unintentionally filter out novel product ideas, giving the ideas insufficient assessment and evaluation. Because people tend to avoid ambiguity, those novel ideas are rejected before they are fully and fairly evaluated for their potential benefits. Consequently, the organization tends to develop safe-but-uninspired products. With the SWIFT tool, the team identifies the strengths and weaknesses of the concept. The team then clarifies the individuality of the concept, meaning, “What makes the concept novel or different?” The “fixes step” intends to shore up the weaknesses that could cause decision makers to kill the idea, and the “transformation step” results in a revised product concept statement that incorporates the fixes. The SWIFT tool provides a structure that encourages the team to linger with the challenges posed by the novel idea, and work through them, increasing the probability of generating an awesome concept.
Whereas the acronyms of RAID and FAME provide classification, the SWIFT acronym comprises a set of steps for product development - essentially a decision-making process for the project team. SWIFT is a higher order tool, like the “Give them a Hot Tub” tool described earlier in this paper.
Function, Form, and Fit of a Managerial Tool
We can use the common framework of Function, Form, and Fit (the 3Fs) of an item for evaluating a tool, and it works well for both hand tools and managerial tools. When we describe the behavior of a tool with regard to the intended outcome, we are describing its function. When we characterize the item to others, we are usually describing its form. Lastly, the presence and relationships of the interfaces of components of the item, or with other items, or with the user is the fit.
Starting with the concept of function, suppose you need to have a surface covered with paint. Many people would quickly and intuitively jump to a solution: use a paintbrush or roller. Surely, there are alternative solutions, and some of those alternatives are improvements. We can look to the technique of functional analysis for help with the requirements for the tool. Functional analysis starts with developing a statement of functions (written as a verb + noun: the activity that yields the desired result). In the surface-covered-with-paint example, the primary function is this: apply paint. Given the function of apply paint, it should be is easier to see that there are numerous techniques for applying paint; for example, dipping, spraying, and brushing.
Managerial tools – the concern of project management practitioners – are similarly amenable to functional analysis. Let’s return to the three tools of RAID, FAME, and SWIFT and express the functions of each tool using the verb + noun format. The basic function of the RAID tool is that it helps the user categorize concerns. This further implies that the analyst may choose to quantify risk, manage issues, and so forth. The basic function of the FAME tool is that it helps the user structure communications. Thus, we design the metric strategy in terms how the audience uses the metric information. Finally, the SWIFT tool is more sophisticated. Its basic function is that it helps the user increase the robustness of the product concept statement. SWIFT helps the user to recognize novelty, recognize potential flaws, develop mitigation, and re-articulate product concepts.
Managerial tools function to help a person think better by making the individual more conscious of his or her data and inferences. A good managerial tool sparks questions that lead to insights. In the examples provided here, the tools foster innovation by helping us reframe. RAID helps the user reframe anxieties into categories that he or she can further address to improve the project’s performance. FAME helps the user reframe metrics in terms of communicating for improvement, rather than as a scorecard for blaming. SWIFT helps the user reframe product concept weaknesses into novel, competitive offerings.
The second F is form, and it expresses how we would describe an item to another person; for a hand tool, you describe the materials. I own an old hammer with a wooden handle, a steel head, and a small steel wedge to enable the handle to join to the head. A person can improve a hand tool by using different materials. On a recent trip to the hardware store, I notice that there are a lot of “improved materials” in tools – for example, replacing the wood with a composite - designed to make them lighter, stronger, cheaper, etc.
It is more difficult for us to describe the components that constitute a managerial tool. My own experience is that tool development is characterized by serendipity. I find that I subconsciously invent or modify a tool, and then afterwards recognize the accomplishment. The starting point for making tool development more purposeful and systematic is describing the basic components of managerial tools. Fortunately, I was able to find some research from a team of innovators at the multinational company Philips, one of the largest electronics companies in the world, founded and headquartered in The Netherlands (6). I cannot tell you whether the managerial tools program continues, but found the work logical and consistent with my experience. Here is how I interpret their answers to the question, “What are the components of a managerial tool?” The components of a managerial tool incorporate three mental elements: concept organization, logic, and ingenuity. The mind applies the element of concept organization to clarify and categorize perceptions and data. The element logic involves the mental operations to reach a conclusion. The ingredient ingenuity is the pragmatic application of imagination to solve a problem. I think that RAID is mostly a tool of concept organization. FAME uses concept organization but adds an element of deductive logic. SWIFT embraces concept organization, and logic, and adds the element of ingenuity.
Let us take the three mental elements of concept organization, logic, and ingenuity and evaluate its cognitive operations with the example of injecting Botulinum toxin (Botox) to eliminate facial wrinkles. Try to put yourself in the position of a project manager of a development team. Your mental model or concept organization would probably parse the data and beliefs into categories of relevant (protect people from harm) and paradoxical (helping people health by injecting them with poison). If you were applying deductive logic that says health and poison do not go together, you would feel a tension that you would want to resolve. Accordingly, you might choose to terminate any product development discussion immediately and you would find the tension resolved.
However, this tension is a source of creativity. A managerial tool can help sustain the tension and foster a breakthrough product concept. Here is how it might work for the Botox example. A person would apply inductive logic to evaluate separately botulin poisoning at the level of the organism compared to the intracellular level. At larger doses, Botulinum toxin kills the organism. However, in small doses targeted to specific muscles Botulinum toxins block the signals that would normally tell facial muscles to contract. If an area of the body cannot move, it cannot "scrunch up" for a period of time and wrinkle. Therefore, the wrinkles in the area of injection often referred to as furrows or frown lines, temporarily go away. This example provides some evidence the earlier quote about the essence of integration being “the capacity to merge new knowledge about the impact of possibilities with deep accumulated knowledge.” The ingenuity provides the breakthrough insight through the questioning of assumptions, a broader search for solutions, greater insight into relationships among entities, and yields a concept for a new product that others would not think of. The “Give Them a Hot Tub” tool described earlier is simply a simple tool that forces the creation this tension.
The third F in the 3F model is that of fit of the user to the tool and the tool to the application. A good tools user will start with the application. For example, tightening a flat-headed screw would dictate the use of a flat-headed screwdriver rather than a Phillips-head screwdriver. Analogously for project with a goal of minimizing the risk of late delivery, the use of critical path analysis is more appropriate than the common approach of working backwards from the due date. In addition to the fit with the application, the tool needs to fit the user. Consider this example of a tool-user misfit: the example of the repair of a watch where a user has large, burly hands and is attempting to manipulate a small jeweler’s screwdriver. The most powerful managerial tools require people who can deal with abstractions, preserve through the often-tedious and ambiguous steps, and apply judgment as to the suitable amount of detail. Sometimes the individuals have these capabilities, but I observe that often the social processes of groups push people towards being overly simplistic and intolerant of ambiguity. For example, there some people talk about a tool called “simplified QFD” that is more approachable by non-specialists. However, the risk is that people are now working with the “lowest common denominator.” This partially that explains why people abandon solid tools like QFD.
Function, Form, and Fit of a Managerial Tool Box
Toolboxes and other tool containers are themselves “tools” amenable to analysis by the 3Fs of function, form, and fit. The function of a tool container – physical or managerial - includes storing, organizing, securing, and transporting individual tools.
The form of tool containers includes tool belts, toolboxes, and tool chests, with materials of construction including steel, plastic, wood, and fabric. While the toolbox for conceptual tools is the mind; people to put them into artifacts like books. Books serve as useful metaphor for a toolbox, and several authors have exploited that metaphor. Dragan Z. Milosevics’s book, Project Management Toolbox (2003), is one example. Milosevic describes a collection of over 50 tools, some that are basic and some that are advanced. Many are appropriate for inclusion in the toolbox for faster projects and awesome products. Another example is the previously cited PDMA Toolbook for New Product Development (Belliveau, et al, 2002), with two volumes in print and a third volume scheduled for October 2007. (PDMA is the Product Development and Management Association, and group similar to the Project Management Institute.) Each of the 47 chapters (comprising all three volumes) of the ToolBook presents a tool. ToolBook I - published in 2002 - organizes the tools into four: the project leader at start, the project leader anytime, the process owner, and a final section on portfolio tools. Toolbook II - published in 2004 – is organized into three parts: organizational tools, tools for improving the fuzzy front end, tools for the new product development process, tools for managing the product portfolio and pipeline. ToolBook III - published in 2007 – is organized by 1) tools for engineering and design, 2) for improving market research inputs, 3) improving performance across firm, and 4) strategic tools for improving new product development project performance.
Interestingly, there are tools identified in both the Milosevic ToolBox & Belliveau ToolBook books. The common tools include use of Teams, Portfolio Management, Quality Function Deployment, and Risk Management. Common tools and different toolboxes should not be surprising, but it suggests that the toolboxes – like a toolbox for physical tools – are developed in a unique and personal way.
The fit of a physical toolbox would include its fit with the application; for example, a large complex job would require a toolbox that had the capacity for a large number of specialized tools. Fit would also apply to the fit with the user, such as the toolbox handle. The fit of the managerial toolbox also involves fit with the application and fit with the user. For example, organizations needing Type 1 Faster Project would focus on acquiring simpler tools and communicating them for consistency in the organization.
Scaling Up the Tool Container
The generic term tool container embraces tool belts, tool boxes, and tool chests. While the analogy is not a perfect one, it can help the manager to develop a useful approach for improving project management.
A tool belt for individual tools
The kinds of tools carried in a tool belt are lightweight and suited to the style of the individual. Contrasted with other kinds of tool containers, a tool belt has lower capacity, but with forethought, the craftsman only loads the tool belt with the tools that he or she needs. This crafts approach contrasted with the “industrial” or large scale approach. When using a tool belt, the worker moves to where the work is located. For managerial tools, with the memory serving as the tool belt, people will recall simple tools such as FAME or RAID. They will also rely on well-established routines. They do not need to insist that others use the same tools as them. Through their individual managerial tools, they can influence others by asking questions. For example, in designing a reporting systems they might ask, “Who is the audience for this metric?” subtly finding the Audience of the FAME acronym. For another example, they might ask, “Is this a certainty or a probability?” thereby separating risks and issues per the RAID tool.
A tool box for individual tools with potential for sharing
With a tool box of managerial tools, people move to where the work is but they are carrying more tools. Workers can carry and apply relatively “heavier” tools. The SWIFT tool described earlier most closely matches the functions of a tool box (compared to the analogy of a tool belt or a tool chest).
A tool chest where work comes to the worker vicinity
A tool chest is larger and less mobile than a toolbox. (For a physical tool analogy, consider an airplane comes to repair hangar.) However, some tool chests have mobility such that, within some local space, the workers can move the tools to where the workers will apply them. Some management analogs to the tool chest might include collocation, team based risk assessment, and QFD.
A machine tool where work comes to the worker’s station
The required function needs to be done with very high precision (consistency) and on a big scale. There may not be any project management tools that are analogous to the machine tool (but there might be some that are analogous for functional work).
Transcending the Limitations of “Best Practices” with the Tools Strategist Philosophy
I want to conclude a discussion of good (or best) practices. Many people look to others in “authority” for direction of rules and principles. It is natural for many to desire the “right” toolbox, but that desire is probably not realistic given numerous tools and the variation in organizations. Whether it is a senior manager trying to improve production, or an individual trying to get a task done, people generally are able to find something that works. Logically, if a practice or tool works, it must be good. The semantics and logic start to get a little slippery here: if something works for me, then it is the best that I can do. “Good” or “best” is usually defined in terms of local experience. For example, what seems to be a good idea for an individual manager (e.g., loading up people with projects to assure there is no wasted time and they are motivated) may suboptimize enterprise performance for efficiency, speed, and agility. I observe that the practices that produce superior performance in one type of program will create dysfunction in others.
The best project and program managers are “tools strategists” who select tools that are most likely to create expected outcomes with minimum potential for harmful side effects. These “tools strategists” recognize that each tool has strengths and limitations, matching the tool to the situation, and having patience with the time needed to gain proficiency. An example analysis of strengths and limitations for the common Gantt chart project scheduling tool includes having an advantage of being a straightforward communications tool. A disadvantage is that a Gantt chart tends to promote linear thinking, which can lead to ignoring opportunities to start tasks earlier. Another example of this analysis for collocation shows it to have the advantages of improved communications, which leads to speed. However, it takes time and is difficult to pull off with dispersed work groups.
The number of tools available for project management and product development is countless. The subset of those tools for faster projects and awesome products is also a large number, numbering in the hundreds or perhaps the thousands. I suggest the criterion should be this: the right tool for the situation, applied at the right time, to achieve the right result.
Belliveau, P., Griffin, A., & Somermeyer, S. M. editors. (2002) The PDMA Toolbook for New Product Development New York: John Wiley & Sons. (see Chapter 8 Githens, Gregory D. “How to Assess and Manage Risk in NPD Programs: A Team Based Approach.”)
Belliveau, P, Griffin, A, & Somermeyer, S. M. editors. (2005) The PDMA Toolbook II for New Product Development New York: John Wiley & Sons. (see Chapter 10. Dorval, K. Brian and Kenneth J. Jauer. “The Birth of Novelty: Ensuring New Ideas Get a Fighting Chance”)
Ginn, D. & Zairi, M. (2005) Best practice QFD application: an internal/external benchmarking approach based on Ford Motors’ experience International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 2(1) 38-58 Accessed on July 6, 2007 at http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/mcb/040/2005/00000022/00000001/art00004
Githens, G. D. (January, 2005) “Advice from PDMA’s annual “Metrics That Matter in NPD” Workshop” Visions Magazine, http://www.pdma.org/visions/jan05/metrics.html
Githens, G. D. (2002, October) “Using the Speed Bumps Technique to Foster Organizational Agility” Proceedings of PMI Global Congress. San Antonio, TX.
Hohmann, L. (2007) Innovation Games; Creating Breakthrough Products through Collaborative Play. Upper Saddle River NJ: Addison Wesley
Iansiti, M. & Clark, K. B. (1994) “Integration and dynamic capabilities: evidence from product development in automobiles and mainframe computers,” Industrial and Corporate Change, 3(3), 557- 605.
Milosevic, D. Z. (2003) Project Management Toolbox: Tools and Techniques for the Practicing Project Manager. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons
Rhodes, J. (1991) Conceptual Toolmaking, Expert Systems of the Mind. Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell Ltd.
© 2007, Gregory D. Githens
Originally published as a part of 2007 PMI Global Congress Proceedings – Atlanta, GA, USA