This Focused Performance Weblog is a "business management blog" containing links and commentary related primarily to organizational effectiveness with a "Theory of Constraints" perspective. TOC is noted for its applications in Project Management and Multi-Project Management (Critical Chain) and Operations Management (Drum-Buffer-Rope), as well as in Marketing, Strategic Planning and Change Management (TOC Thinking Processes). If you are on an archive page, current postings are found here.
Friday, March 19, 2004
Resources, Skills, Performers, People -- Some of you might have noticed that I've been recently shifting a bit of the language I use in discussing the people involved in projects. I just noticed it myself, and doing so, have given it a bit of thought.
The traditional word is "resources," which technically refers to not only people, but equipment, facilities, money, and other "stuff" consumed/used by or required to deliver a project. A while ago, I mentioned my opinion that when it comes to "people resources," the real thing used by the project is the skill or knowledge that happen to be contained in the mind of a body. What is scarce and needs to be managed is not the person, but the skill that they (or others) bring to the party. The resource is the skill, not the person.
This isn't just a matter of semantics or some manifesto . To regularly confuse people with resources in a project-planning context leads to over-use of some people and under-use of others, as project managers strive to "resource" their efforts with "the best people." To hold on to those "best people" for when they really need the skill that person has, they often use the person's limited time and attention on other stuff, shutting out other projects from the ability to take advantage of what might be a scarce skill. This practice also results in under-utilization of people who carry the skill but don't get the opportunity to improve it with practice simply because they're not "the best." If they don't use it, the organization loses it.
People are not "plug-compatible," but defined and understood skills are. The practice of defining resources needed for particular project tasks as that minimum level of skill necessary to complete the work, rather than as Joe or Maria or Pat, would help to allow those that manage such resources and people to assign appropriate people as needed to perform the task.
So, if I'm unconsciously shifting away from the impersonal "resources" when referring to people, what word do I find myself using? Well, we already designate some people associated with project environments as "managers" -- project managers, resource or functional managers. "Contributors" has too much of a pro bono feel to it. "Team members" is an overused cliche. For some reason, I seem to have started using "performers", and kind of like the ring of it. Skills are resources, people who apply those skills are performers, individual and unique. Yeah, sounds good to me. (And on top of it, "project performers" is a nice bit of alliteration.)
posted by Frank - Permanent Link -
|
View Frank Patrick's profile
