Success with Agile Project Management in General Dynamics Essay

Success with Agile Project Management in General Dynamics - Essay Example It allows the allocation of different tasks to each individual, and a creation of a discussion forum to evaluate the progress of each of the development team members (Cockburn, 2007). The stand-up meetings in the Agile Project Management are essential in the provision of information on the individually allocated responsibilities, as well as provision of a proper communication platform for discussion on the software development information. In agile software development, stand-up meetings have significant value in delivering crucial information to the individuals involved within the project. The concept of agile software development revolves around providing solutions through assessment of operational problems, through constantly and continuously reviewing the essential requirements (Schuh, 2005). In Agile project management, the projects are normally broken down into pieces for faster completion and the individuals divided into numerous teams working on different sections of the proj ect (Cockburn, 2007). The projects cycle normally remains the same and is repeated on the various sections identified by the project managers, and team leaders. Agile project management in software development ensures that the software development cycle is unaltered, and hence the project is completed on time and within the allocated resources (Cockburn, 2007). ... gile project management facilitates and encourages continued communication, which remains a fundamental component for any agile software development methods (Cockburn, 2007). In the General Dynamics, the use of the Dynamic Systems Development Method (DSDM) proved suitable to the Defence Equipment and Support, in addition provide for a study ground for testing the effectiveness and possible future use of DSDM in other software development projects. The Dynamic Systems Development Method proved effective in the General Dynamics due to ensuring the delivery of the Combat Identification Server (CIdS) Technology Demonstrator Project (TDP) within the stipulated time, allocated resources, and high quality (General Dynamics, 2010). Dynamic Systems Development Method helped in the swapping of requirements, and hence the provision of flexibility that ensured delivery within the stipulated time and within the allocated budget and other resources. This is contrary to the traditional project mana gement that mainly focused on meeting the technical requirements of the project and ended up compromising on the project cost and duration (General Dynamics, 2010). The Dynamic Systems Development Method is a fixed process that strictly adheres to the allocated time, budget and quality assurance, regardless of the economic and technology trends. The only dynamic factor in Dynamic Systems Development Method is the features. However, the traditional project management methods tend to have the features as the fixed factor in the project, with uncertainty on quality and suitability of the resultant software and the need for additional time and resources for the project completion (General Dynamics, 2010). In other words, the traditional project management is inconsistent in the terms of

Factors in High-Impact Innovation Term Paper Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words

Factors in High-Impact Innovation - Term Paper Example Jewkes contextualized his research by noting the underlying mythology about high-impact innovation, which is basically that it requires a lot of manpower, a lot of resources, a lot of money and fancy equipment, and complex bureaucratic support (Jewkes). While not proving the inverse of this notion, his findings indicated more variability than popular assumptions support. In examining an impressive range of high-impact innovations, more than half were done by individuals, working independently and with few resources, either in isolation or within an organization in which they had freedom to experiment and analyze on their own initiative without having to cooperate in a team (Jewkes). Inventing can be a group process, of course, but the kind of individuals who contributed some of the most important discoveries and basic products of the 19th and 20th centuries were not even assigned to a project to do so and, in various intriguing cases, were not even formally qualified in the area they explored, discovered or invented within. Sometimes it was an accident and other times individuals were pursuing interests rather than careers. (Jewkes) Furthermore, it seems that many such individuals are not people who negotiate a career field and social skills that would endear them to a team or get them appointed to a formal position in the area to which they greatly contributed. They are often people who question every assumption, however consensual (Jewkes). They are eccentric and want to be left alone to explore their own curiosity. Many such individuals can be characterized as loners. The work of inventing has private elements to it. Thinking and creative â€Å"messing around† with ideas and materials needs a climate of unconstrained thinking, uninterrupte3d reflection and working autonomy. It can call forth heroic effort. The group dynamics of a team can constrain thinking and redirect creative ideas, or even humiliate them. Cooperation may overly-structure the proce ss and conflict may weaken it. Jewkes notes that the human mind, working alone, can organize and synthesize ideas far more efficiently than a team. There is a loss of creative power when the individual has to adjust to team members. Perhaps these are clues to why so many initial innovations came from lone individuals (Jewkes). Jewkes distinguishes between initial pioneering discoveries and inventions and the development of those discoveries and inventions (Jewkes). Development will generally benefit from the resources and monetary investment, as well as additional input and expertise that can be found in a university setting or in a larger organization. While inspiration and exploration is often initially a private matter, development and exploitation is often a more cooperative and planned one. Some stunning chemical innovations were accomplished by General Motors (Freon refrigerant and tetraethyl lead), but their pattern was more typical of the lone hero, since they are not a chem ical company, but a motor engineering company, and since their innovation involved an element of chance (Jewkes). Large companies have contributed significant innovations out of strong research programs, maybe because research itself has a private, lone hero aspect which can be done with a certain amount of autonomy by an individual or a small team, and merely funded and later expanded by the larger organizati