<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
    <id>http://www.cocomment.com/comments/synesthesia</id>
    <title>coComments related to synesthesia</title>
    <link rel="self" href="http://www.cocomment.com/comments/synesthesia"/>
    <rights>Copyright 2007 coComment.com</rights>
    <updated>2009-11-24T08:21:32.419+01:00</updated>
    <icon>http://www.cocomment.com/images/logo4rss.gif</icon>
    <entry>
        <id>http://www.cocomment.com/sidebar?object=people&amp;context=explore&amp;mode=detail&amp;id=synesthesia&amp;conv=2604727&amp;comment_id=138320099</id>
        <title>@Bill Thanks for pointing to t</title>
        <author>
            <name>(anonymous)</name>
        </author>
        <link rel="self" href="http://www.cocomment.com/sidebar?object=people&amp;context=explore&amp;mode=detail&amp;id=synesthesia&amp;conv=2604727&amp;comment_id=138320099"/>
        <content>@Bill Thanks for pointing to this - I've downloaded the paper and once you accept the audience is accountants it makes a useful read. Through my own lens of being focused on how to define and realise benefits from programmes of change, I think Louise has touched on a lot of key points, I think the paper could be improved by addressign the usefulness of benefits maps to link the benefits with the necessary behaviour changes as well as technology enablers.

Shame that CIMA don't follow her advice and make it so hard to comment. I tried signing up to their site, but the process fell over at various places, and indeed some pages seem to suggest that you can only sign up to comment if you are a CIMA member!</content>
        <published>2009-11-16T09:41:06.491+01:00</published>
        <updated>2009-11-16T09:41:06.491+01:00</updated>
    </entry>
    <entry>
        <id>http://www.cocomment.com/sidebar?object=people&amp;context=explore&amp;mode=detail&amp;id=synesthesia&amp;conv=2598025&amp;comment_id=136890997</id>
        <title>For me the phrase "best practi</title>
        <author>
            <name>Julian Elve</name>
        </author>
        <link rel="self" href="http://www.cocomment.com/sidebar?object=people&amp;context=explore&amp;mode=detail&amp;id=synesthesia&amp;conv=2598025&amp;comment_id=136890997"/>
        <content>For me the phrase "best practice" is not just a red flag, but also an alarm bell and a bad smell! (depending on your preferred representational system!)

Too often I've seen people adamant that they are applying "best practice", when all they are doing is applying some other person's actions.

As those actions were derived in a different context, it's a fair bet that they won't fit the new context.

The key (IMHO) is to find an underlying model or theory that makes sense, and then work out for yourself what you need to do to make it work in your particular context.

The problem in the past is that "big methods" like PMBOK and PRINCE were all about prescriptive actions, and very light on theory. 

You could say that the first big shakeup of project management theory was when the lean/agile movement started to appply a flow-based model based ona different theory. 

Luckily recent changes in PRINCE2 and MSP seem to be very focused on explaining the underlying model, and making it easier for organisations to adapt to their own circumstances.</content>
        <published>2009-11-03T14:28:22.121+01:00</published>
        <updated>2009-11-03T14:28:22.121+01:00</updated>
    </entry>
</feed>
