Even on Mars, projects budgets and teams are shrinking.
Five years ago, the U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) launched its twin Mars rovers, Spirit and Odyssey. Since then, they've been taking a beating. An article published this week in the Columbus Dispatch reports on how the Mars rover project team has seen continual success despite being forced to do more with less, partially due to the resilience of the machines themselves.
"They're like that old Volvo or Honda in your driveway--they keep running and running," said John Callas, rover project manager at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California, USA.
And it's a good thing, too.
Earlier this year, NASA proposed slashing US$4 million from the project's US$20 million annual operating budget--which would have meant putting the Spirit rover in "hibernation." But the rover team protested and the cuts to the US$800 million project didn't happen. But the team has seen some brutal cuts in staff numbers. In a five-year period, it has seen its ranks drop from 280 scientists and technicians to roughly 60.
Going lean means sometimes making do with what's on hand. "We're learning how to make things work for a long time on Mars," said Geoffrey Landis, a scientist at the NASA Glenn Research Center in Cleveland, Ohio, USA and member of the rover science team. "The experience will help us make more capable rovers and eventually put people on Mars."
What would you do if stakeholders proposed cutting 20 percent of your budget for the year? Would you protest or absorb the cut? And have you been on a long-term project that has seen team size drop drastically?
Five years ago, the U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) launched its twin Mars rovers, Spirit and Odyssey. Since then, they've been taking a beating. An article published this week in the Columbus Dispatch reports on how the Mars rover project team has seen continual success despite being forced to do more with less, partially due to the resilience of the machines themselves.
"They're like that old Volvo or Honda in your driveway--they keep running and running," said John Callas, rover project manager at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California, USA.
And it's a good thing, too.
Earlier this year, NASA proposed slashing US$4 million from the project's US$20 million annual operating budget--which would have meant putting the Spirit rover in "hibernation." But the rover team protested and the cuts to the US$800 million project didn't happen. But the team has seen some brutal cuts in staff numbers. In a five-year period, it has seen its ranks drop from 280 scientists and technicians to roughly 60.
Going lean means sometimes making do with what's on hand. "We're learning how to make things work for a long time on Mars," said Geoffrey Landis, a scientist at the NASA Glenn Research Center in Cleveland, Ohio, USA and member of the rover science team. "The experience will help us make more capable rovers and eventually put people on Mars."
What would you do if stakeholders proposed cutting 20 percent of your budget for the year? Would you protest or absorb the cut? And have you been on a long-term project that has seen team size drop drastically?
I think all project teams are inherently suspicious of all budgets cuts given what we know about nearly all projects; that there is some negative risk involved and the scope will inevitably change. I am therefore not surprised by the behavior of the guys at NASA. But again, most project management professionals always wish for the best and plan for the worst. So If my stakeholders proposed to cut my budget by 20%, I'll fight it but also start making arrangements to cut costs
I often wonder how businesses survive! Almost everyone focuses on ‘time and budget’ – these are almost irrelevant. What matters is how well the project is performing in terms of value, benefits and strategic fit.
If a project, or any other business activity, is contributing to the strategic objectives of an organisation and creating value that will deliver real benefits the work should continue. As soon as a project fails in any of these three areas it should be canned. A myopic focus on achieving on-time and on-budget will often see business project de-scoped to the point where they add no value. What’s the point?
I think the issue is that time and cost are easy for senior management to measure; value and benefits are more difficult and are generally only realised after the project is finished. Measuring these needs more sophistication at the portfolio management levels than most organisations possess.
Also there are always limits on available funds; a value focus requires prioritisation and limiting the projects in work to the available funds. Restricting funding (or funding cuts) avoids awkward decisions on which project to shut down but typically destroys significant value. Dr Lynda Bourne presented a paper on this at the 2007 Asia Pacific Global Congress, copies can be downloaded from http://www.mosaicprojects.com.au/Resources_Papers_046.html
Happy New Year to everyone.