Impressions from the Gartner PPM-Summit
Once more slightly off topic, but I thought you might find this interesting. These are just some impressions from the Gartner Project and Portfolio Management Summit that took place two weeks ago in Prag.
We participated in the PPM-Summit, because it was a good opportunity to match our view of project management/leadership topics with those of the large organizations. One finding is that beside some topics that are mainly relevant for large projects (e.g., detailed project risk management), the "big guys" seem to have the same overall problems as the smaller companies have, the discussions sometimes just taking place on a different level (inside the organization).
The current major topics of interest seemed to be:
- Resource management (sometimes combined with skills management)
- Resource capacity/utilization planning
- Portfolio monitoring
- Risk management
Also interesting - at least in my opinion - were Gartner's predictions of the major trends until 2011 (or 2012, not 100% sure here anymore ;-).
- Continued strong demand for PPM solutions
- A vendor with a mid-market focus will emerge, probably offering a strong Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) product line
- An integrated suite for IT management is on the horizon that includes PPM (I do not believe that Gartner is right on this one, however...)
What was surprising for me was that there were mostly IT executives. And the reason seems to be that the classic PPM applications are currently primarily deployed in the IT departments (beside some specific solutions for the construction industry).
In general, the event was quite interesting. A lot of good discussions with interesting people from larger, mainly Global 2000 companies. There was also a small detail I found quite interesting: I never came across Gartner's own project lifecycle definition before, but they have a quite nice wording for the typical 4-step process that is a little bit different from the usual ones:
- Select (they are mainly referring to the resource selection step)
I somehow liked it, because it is often complicated to "draw the line" between the two typical first steps (conception and planning) and "evaluate" sounds better than "analyze", because it is more goal-oriented. What do you think?