Was sind denn schon “seriöse” IT Projekte? Zhhhh… Entscheidend ist, dass die Projekte den gewünschten Output und Outcome bringen.

Schlussendlich ist da eine PM Software immer noch ein Tool. Ja, und ich bin davon überzeugt, dass Basecamp ein gutes Tool ist. Ein Tool wird aber nie die Führungs- und Managementaufgabe ersetzen. Dort liegt der Hund begraben, wie ich meine.

Abschließend noch eine Bemerkung zum Stil Deines Kommentars: Neben der leichten Arroganz, die ich aus Deinen Worten heraus hören kann, wundert es mich doch, dass Du Dich offensichtlich nicht mal traust, hier Deinen richtigen Namen bzw. Deine e-Mail-Adresse anzugeben. Sehr seltsam…

Just imagine the dictatorial project manager, lone with his ugly and hugely complex MS project file, that is imposing work to all his slaves; he has a huge salary, and his employees/slaves are kept in the most economical working conditions, with strictly the most limited information access compatible with their doing their assigned job. The Gantt chart gets printed, with hundreds of tiny unreadable lanes, all sort of dependencies, attached somewhere on the wall, and totally ignored.

It is a diffused knowledge in software development, and by now not only there, that this kind of a-priori top-down centralized management most of the times leads to great failures.
There have been all kinds of reaction to this situation: agile methodologies, good working conditions, unlimited access to information, distributed planning and work logging application, dynamic “runtime” work reporting tools that allow real time planning evaluation and reaction.
There is one conclusion to be drawn: software-aided work management owes its occasional success mostly due to team continuous adoption of the software tools, instead of the a-priori drawing of a Gantt chart.
Adoption is possible if all is done to facilitate it: it should allow very simple data insertion, it should not force data duplication, it should be all done “in one place” whenever possible, it should present the most relevant information without making the user “chase” it.
Now anyone who has even little real experience in software-aided project management, is aware that work management is never simple, and things most of the time turn out to be more complex than planned.
The same happens when you start to use a software: if you remember the wonder sensation when you first started using Excel (I remember it), how naturally it did make data fit in its simple model. And would you ever have imagined that all the export, import, calculation, graphs and all those other functionalities would have been so useful? That you, not just an imaginary user, would have used them so many times? The fact that good software must be provided in advance of many, many, many limit case uses is something that the current Web 2.0 discussion is ignoring totally. And also some easy way to expand it. Keeping project trees simple does not at all imply that you need a powerless software to manage work. Even small groups’ work quickly gets complex, and involves issues, documents, a shared agenda, meetings, and you won’t be able to make sense of this by using a hundred different, separate, immature social web based solutions.
Let’s consider security problems for even a medium-small company, say with a hundred employees. I bet that no one can find a single example of such a company where everyone can see all the information floating in the company in the IT structure. But more: there will always be local exceptions to a simple role-based security model, because there will always turn up a particular project that has its own security: limit cases are the killers.

Another typically ignored fact that makes the discussion about Web 2.0 is that today software does not get adopted in a void, in particular if we are considering business oriented software. So a “deeply intimate” software choice like that of a project management application must consider how will such software interact with existing one, like the old AS-400 accounting application, how will it comply with data privacy and so on. Using a closed box online webapp is simply not a solution for most cases.

Microsoft Project, but also Basecamp, are deeply incompatible with all the above considerations. Project management 2.0 concerns the methodology, and also the software, but nothing of the sort of Basecamp can be the answer.
Our Teamwork is structurally compatible with the above, though certainly not perfect from the point of view of fast access of information: but this improving this is the target of release 4. Maybe it will not be the killer app, but at least we start from realistic considerations.

ebenfalls auf Ruby-on-Rails basierend arbeitet REDMINE (www.redmine.org). Das Tool steht unter GPL und für Softwareprojekte sehr empfehlenswert.

Stefan