How do you think about risk management from project dimension to project group?

Article and audio excerpts from Halo MSP-2112 Group 1 Pre-class Session (2 sessions per week)

Preview content: MSP official textbook chapter 11 “Risk management and problem Management” \

Participants: Project manager, PMO, project director, quality and project management director, general manager, etc

Jing Shukun, MSP senior graduate, commented on the preview content (General Manager of Product Delivery & Director of Project Management Office)

IT- Wang: The closure of the project group should be initiated by SRO and suggested to the sponsor to close the project group. It does not mean that the sponsor has the final approval authority, but that it is the SRO that recommends the closure of the program to the sponsor, and the stakeholders that inform the program of its imminent closure.

IT- Ms Zheng: Who will give final approval to the closure of the project group? I think it’s the founding team. Because the textbook states: “The Senior leader (SRO) will recommend the closure of the program to the sponsor team. If the sponsor team is satisfied with its overall results, they will endorse the recommendation and confirm the program closure.”

Therefore, the sponsor team has the final approval authority, and the SRO is only in the role of advising.

Yang: My understanding is that SRO suggests closing the project group to the sponsor from the general direction. However, if a regular operation mechanism is to be established for the project, it should be the specific organization that evaluates the conditions that meet the program closure, such as the closing project acceptance team.

I have a question that MSP has a whole set of roles and organizations, but in real business, there’s a whole set of roles. Then want to land the content of MSP, should be the role of the INTEGRATION of MSP into the existing role of the enterprise. If not, how do you map the roles in the MSP to the roles in the existing organization?

For example, in my organization, there are 17 roles, including business owner, product owner, requirements owner, project manager, etc. Then the role mapped to the MSP might be some Business leader for the Business Change Team. There should be some mapping between the two systems of roles. It’s not that underneath my existing system is the role of the business owner, and in the MSP is the business Change Manager (BCM).

In our enterprise, we have a special closing group. All items to be settled, unified application to the closing group, at the same time by the closing group to review whether the requirements of the closing. Should that be the case in the project cluster?

Medical care – Liu: I remember jing repeatedly stressed that we should clear up the existing cognition and learn the MSP theory, which is a prerequisite for learning. Because there is no right or wrong about “management”. So what fits is the best.

For “how to map the roles in MSP to the roles in the existing organization”, I think the pure acceptance of the theory should be first followed by tailoring and grafting in the program management practice. What is called is of secondary importance, but what is performed is of primary importance.

For example, the name of a responsibility in the enterprise is completely different from that in the MSP. Even in an MSP, it’s a team responsibility. In an enterprise, there are two independent teams, each carrying out different stages or branches of related responsibilities. All these are testing our ability of cutting and grafting in project group management.

Soe – Yang: As you said just now, we should think about how to integrate theory into practice while reading MSP. That does not know behind have some predecessors, can share him in the actual work, cutting, grafting MSP theory experience.

Teacher in charge: On the morning of December 18th, we specially invited guests to share with the class “how to build the project management office from 0 to 1”. At that time, Mr. Yang, you can discuss this question with the guests.

IT- Su: About who will give final approval for the closure of the project cluster. In my opinion, the fundamental purpose of project group is to undertake enterprise strategy. The formulation and planning of enterprise strategy belongs to the initiator team and the upper level, who plan the development of the whole enterprise in the long term. The SRO only oversees the implementation of the Program Committee.

Mr. Yuan: I have the same point of view with Mr. Zheng, that is, the sponsor team is generally responsible for confirmation. But from the Chinese context, there are other explanations.

For example, as a senior leader, I am a leader appointed or appointed by the sponsor team. When the project cluster is likely to end, I ask the sponsor team for advice. If the sponsor team agrees to close, THEN I will approve and sign and confirm the closure of the project group. Is it me who performs the action of closing the project group? And I think you can think about that as well.

Jing’s comments within the group: the correct answer is “The senior leader (SRO) will recommend closing the project cluster to the sponsor team. If the sponsor team is satisfied with its overall results, they will approve the proposal and confirm the closure of the project cluster”. After all, he who invests calls the shots. SRO is a working group, the sponsor team is the money, the final “acceptance” of course also has to be the sponsor team. Including the review of the program phase, whether to approve the start of the next program phase, etc., related to the decision whether to continue to spend money, have to be made by the sponsor team.