Managing a project is so frequently compared to conducting an orchestra that the comparison has almost become a cliché.
I understand the comparison. There is a slight similarity between conducting an orchestra and managing a project. The similarity lies in the fact that both the conductor and the project manager do not make the actual product. They simply orchestrate the work of those who produce.: a conductor controls the performance of many different specialists, combining the individual performances into one single harmonic product.
There are a couple of key differences though.
The first difference is that an orchestra has had time to rehearse and practice over and over exactly what they are supposed to do. Indeed, they must refine their work until it is flawless, before the actual live execution. A project team hasn't got that luxury. It has only one pass at executing the project.
An orchestra will never be asked to work faster, redo a task, or cut the scope of a musical piece. There is no such thing as crashing the music by playing faster. Project teams have deadlines to meet and often need to redo work and work faster than normal. An orchestra performance is an operation. It is perhaps the smoothest of operations. There is no change of plans. The audience's (stakeholders) mood will not change what the orchestra will play or how they play it.
But then again, why use a conductor as the focus of an analogy? Every orchestra presentation has an actual project manager orchestrating it, scheduling the rehearsals, picking the team, picking the conductor, selecting alternate members, etc.
I think a more appropriate example is that of a coach in a basketball game. The coach does not deliver the points, he manages the team so that they deliver the points.
No comments:
Post a Comment