Applying management theories in the workplace

I've just signed up for a Prince2 correspondance course, expecting to be dealing with Gantt & Pert charts, resource planning etc. Instead it appears to be abstract philosophy. Is that really how governments manage projects? No wonder they so frequently end up such a mess!

I haven't found management theories of any use.



I have used methodologies to manage the likes of Design for Reliability and Six Sigma, but I wouldn't say that there is a hard an fast way of managing these.



The problem with management theories etc. (and I haven't even read one book!), is they are aimed at people who are managers and who are, perhaps, indoctrinated, with 'isms', 'models' and tend to stick to their own 'roadmap'.



In the likes of Design for Reliability and Six Sigma, the Engineer needs many skills and he/she needs to used expert judgement to get the best result.



I recently attended an interview and I could tell that the two interviewers loved the idea of SMED, (single minute exchange of die). They asked me about it on at least three occasions! When I mentioned that I had used something similar, such as Poka Yoke, they didn't want to know! Poka Yoke takes in SMED and more, but they so set in their ways, SMED was the only answer.



Needless to say I told them I was interested in the role.



Monkey see, monkey do. And the Brits are exceptionally talented at it.

Hello Lisa, 



In our workplace, the favourite management theory we use is Pareto's Law on 80/20. Almost most of our work can be classified with this rule. 80% of the work done requires 20% effort while the remaining 20% always takes 80% of the effort to complete. It's not accurate science, but it does help us prioritise work scopes and manage resources more effectively. 

Alex Barrett:

I've just signed up for a Prince2 correspondance course, expecting to be dealing with Gantt & Pert charts, resource planning etc. Instead it appears to be abstract philosophy. Is that really how governments manage projects? No wonder they so frequently end up such a mess!

I had a, thankfully, short incursion into all things government, (note the deliberate use of the minor-case 'g'), and it was a real eye opener. It was a 'car crash'.



But you need only to work for a defence organisation to see the massive bulk that is the lifecycle approach to all their engineering needs. Incredible!

I was watching a good lecture (on IET TV) by Eben Upton, primarily on Raspbery PI, but as he points out, managers are all at sea in the engineering workplace, whilst engineers have the skillset - potentially - to analyse, fix and manage all manner of processes.

For me, management theories serve to provide useful frameworks that can make sense of an organisation as it develops, changes and evolves, and to obtain a more attuned sense of self and of organisational dynamics that happen around us (structures, politics, networks, etc.).  Used appropriately models/theories can also help light the way.



Personal favourites are McKinsey's 7's on culture, Mintzberg model of organisational configuration, Eisenhower Matrix for prioritisation, and more recently, the 'Business Model Generation' approach to service design/redesign.



As you may suspect and I'd agree with you, I can be a junky for these things... However, like Newton's laws, they provide a basis that helps me makes sense of the world and to navigate it.

You're not comparing these self-proclaimed, money-making 'gurus' to Newton are you? Seriously?

Alex Barrett:

I was watching a good lecture (on IET TV) by Eben Upton, primarily on Raspbery PI, but as he points out, managers are all at sea in the engineering workplace, whilst engineers have the skillset - potentially - to analyse, fix and manage all manner of processes.

I couldn't agree more!



Nathan compares Newton to some of the self-proclaimed experts! Blasphemy!



There's a fundamental difference!

In abstract terms, are they not?



Besides, I've seen the way some models/theories inspire, effect breakthroughs in performance, obtain efficiency improvements and change the way teams operate for the better. Yes they're not for everyone, but wherever they come from and whoever put them out 'there', it doesn't matter as long as they serve a use.  The British Cycling Team use the 'Chimp Paradox' - they did pretty well...

Nathan Vear:

In abstract terms, are they not?



Besides, I've seen the way some models/theories inspire, effect breakthroughs in performance, obtain efficiency improvements and change the way teams operate for the better. Yes they're not for everyone, but wherever they come from and whoever put them out 'there', it doesn't matter as long as they serve a use.  The British Cycling Team use the 'Chimp Paradox' - they did pretty well...

Not sure what you mean by 'abstract terms'.



One could argue that 'plus' and 'minus' are the same.....in abstract terms.