Transcript
Webinar Information: Webinar by Anna Gerstrøm Rode, Post Doc & Per Svejvig, Associate Professor at Aarhus University, Department of Management
good afternoon and uh
00:03
welcome to this uh webinar
00:06
about the half double and research i'm
00:09
pierce wyveek and i'm from
00:11
oak university this seminar will be
00:14
presented by anna gast i'm wall and and
00:17
me
00:18
and i will introduce the seminar in few
00:22
minutes first of all
00:25
the agenda for this
00:29
about one hour uh seminar is an
00:32
introduction where i will
00:34
explain how we'll run the seminar then
00:36
we will
00:37
take a brief discussion about what you
00:39
know about the half double methodology
00:42
then i'll continue presenting overall
00:45
research results from project half
00:47
double the research results we have so
00:49
far
00:50
after five years research so i think we
00:52
have quite many
00:53
and of course we can't go into depth to
00:55
all of this in
00:56
in such a short webinar
01:00
then anna will take over and explain a
01:03
specific case
01:04
and go into depths with a specific case
01:08
this is linak and it's about an
01:10
industrial robotics projects
01:12
which has been using half double
01:13
methodology and the anna will explain
01:16
more details about
01:17
what was the result from this project
01:20
how did we compare with other projects
01:22
etc
01:24
after anna's presentation we will have a
01:27
q a session where you'll get a chance to
01:29
come up with all the questions you uh
01:32
might have about the
01:34
half double and the research results we
01:36
have from half double
01:38
and finally i will end the seminar by
01:41
looking uh the way forward to saying
01:44
what is the way forward seen from a
01:46
research point of view
01:49
so i will dig into the introduction part
01:52
but before that i think it's right to
01:55
that you hear a little bit about anna
01:57
and myself so anna would you please
02:00
say something brief about yourself and
02:02
your involvement in half double
02:05
yes hello everybody my name is
02:08
anna le gessenhall i'm working at
02:11
department of management
02:13
on project half double and i've been
02:15
involved
02:16
since 2016 the end of 16 beginning set
02:20
of 17.
02:23
and um i think that's
02:26
that's it for now yeah and uh i'm ps my
02:30
week and
02:31
i've been at old university since 2007.
02:35
i've been involved in half double
02:37
from the very beginning in 2014
02:40
and i've been research responsible for
02:43
the project the five years it has been
02:45
run
02:46
as a formal project i think there's more
02:49
or less
02:50
gives an introduction to anna and myself
02:53
so i think it's time to move on
02:56
uh first of all a little bit important
02:58
issues about the webinar
03:01
we recommend that you turn off your
03:02
microphone and video
03:04
because we will use a mentee meter
03:08
for communication with you as
03:10
participants
03:11
then i also want to make sure that you
03:14
know this webinar will be recorded
03:17
so you know it's available afterwards
03:19
and it will be
03:20
public available we will use
03:23
mentimeter for for
03:26
this webinar and you can either use the
03:29
app
03:30
which you can have on your smartphone or
03:32
you can use the web page
03:35
wvwe mentee.com
03:38
so that's two ways you can use minty
03:41
then we will finalize with this q and a
03:44
session so
03:45
if you have any questions please keep
03:47
your questions
03:49
ready for the the final part of the
03:52
webinar and
03:53
and i will see and try to answer sir
03:56
as many questions as possible
04:02
then something about general about
04:05
research
04:06
there's always limitations and
04:08
uncertainty in research
04:10
and that does also count for project
04:12
half double research
04:14
so if you're interested in what is the
04:16
limitations what are the uncertainty
04:19
then we'll refer you to our latest
04:21
report
04:22
which were published back in summer 2019
04:26
and the last slide in this presentation
04:29
has
04:29
uh a reference to this report and it's
04:32
available on the half double institute
04:35
homepage so it should be quite easy to
04:37
to find the report
04:38
and if you're in doubt then you can
04:40
always contact the anna and i
04:42
but we'll not go into details about what
04:45
is the limitations and the uncertainty
04:47
in this brief seminar or webinar
04:52
then let's start the the
04:55
professional part of this webinar
04:58
when we say half double methodology we
05:01
mean this
05:02
circle shown here where you have three
05:05
core
05:05
elements impact flow and leadership you
05:08
have nine methods you have
05:10
nine tools and in the outer layer
05:13
you have local translation which means
05:16
that
05:17
you should try to adapt the methodology
05:19
to your own organization and your own
05:22
projects
05:23
we expect more or less that you know
05:27
have double methodology
05:29
maybe not in detail but at least i've
05:31
heard about it
05:32
so we will not go into depth about what
05:34
is half double methodology there has
05:36
been other
05:36
webinars in this webinar series where
05:39
you have got a chance to
05:41
know something about the half double and
05:44
i also think that many of you
05:46
knows something or some of you might
05:48
even know a lot about half double
05:50
so this is not the focus for the seminar
05:52
we just say when we mention half double
05:55
methodology
05:56
we mean the circle up here with the
05:58
three
05:59
core elements nine methods nine twos etc
06:03
but to give us an expression about what
06:06
you know about
06:08
half double methodology we have a small
06:10
uh
06:11
mentimeter question for you
06:14
so please either use the app
06:17
from intimate or go to mendy.com and use
06:20
the code 51 5082
06:23
and answer what competence level you
06:25
think you
06:26
are on for half double you can be a
06:29
novice
06:29
advanced beginner competent proficient
06:32
or expert
06:33
okay we have one expert good start good
06:35
start
06:37
so let's see how
06:40
many there must be
06:43
more than yeah advanced beginner yes one
06:48
novice
06:51
two now visitors
07:24
and i know there's more than 11
07:26
participants so
07:27
hopefully there will be
07:34
six okay
07:44
i'll just give you
07:48
15 more seconds and then i then i will
07:51
move on
07:59
i think that's more than 14 so there's
08:02
still a chance to
08:04
to enter your level
08:08
but at least i think we more or less can
08:10
conclude from this small
08:12
poll or survey that there's most
08:16
of you who are novice or advanced
08:18
beginners so i think i will
08:20
continue from now on so i'll go back to
08:24
the
08:25
presentation here
08:29
and i'll start to talk about what is the
08:32
overall results of the half double
08:35
methodology
08:37
first of all when we started half double
08:40
we said to ourselves what is the
08:42
objective of doing half double and we
08:44
said
08:45
the objective will half double was to
08:47
define
08:48
a project methodology that can increase
08:51
the
08:51
success rate of projects while
08:54
increasing the development speed of new
08:56
products and services
08:58
so we both want to accelerate projects
09:01
and we want to increase the success rate
09:03
so that's quite ambitious so
09:07
that's what was our outset when we
09:09
started half doubled back in
09:11
2015.
09:14
then during the four the first
09:18
four or five years we had been involved
09:20
in
09:21
16 different projects where we have
09:24
tried to
09:25
use half double methodology so you can
09:27
see a lot of
09:29
names up here grandfathers call plus
09:31
siemens lego
09:32
therma says lina food service denmark
09:36
nominees
09:37
a lot of companies some some of you
09:39
probably all know
09:41
where we have been involved in different
09:43
kinds of projects
09:45
from a research point of view it has
09:46
been awesome university
09:48
who has been responsible for the
09:50
research but we have also involved the
09:52
danish technical university
09:55
and the copenhagen business school or
09:57
cbs
09:58
and then there has been a lot of
09:59
practitioners also involved in half
10:02
double
10:02
and they have been involved in different
10:04
co-creation activities
10:06
for instance the book about half double
10:09
has been a co-creation
10:10
activity but let's see what results did
10:14
we get
10:15
from an overall point of view
10:19
first of all we ask ourselves to what
10:21
degree has the projects fulfill the
10:23
success criteria of the project
10:26
so here we measure how successful the
10:29
project has been
10:31
based on the defined success criteria
10:34
and the result is here that 87 of the
10:37
pilot projects
10:39
has fulfilled or partly fulfilled the
10:42
success
10:42
success criteria or a project and we
10:45
think that's
10:46
quite good and it's important to
10:48
remember here the success criteria for
10:50
the projects
10:51
is could easily include effects
10:55
kpis like increase in quality increasing
10:59
sales reducing
11:01
errors in the system etc so so it's it's
11:04
also
11:05
outcome measurement and typically there
11:08
are 10 to 15 different
11:11
kpis which we are measuring so that was
11:14
the one of the objectives to what degree
11:18
can we increase projects and i think the
11:21
success rate of 87
11:23
is better than industry standards
11:26
although it could be difficult to
11:29
compare
11:29
with other standards like the standish
11:31
group which has submitted different kind
11:34
of
11:34
success measures the other point is
11:39
to what degree has the half double
11:41
methodology contributed to higher
11:43
performance
11:44
than comparable projects in the same
11:46
organizations
11:48
this is where we ask the question can we
11:50
accelerate
11:51
projects in the given organization and
11:54
the only way
11:55
that we can what should i say measure
11:59
that we i don't know what you i should
12:02
say
12:02
measure whether we accelerate a project
12:05
is to compare it
12:06
with comparable projects and we have
12:08
compared
12:10
the project we have been running in a
12:11
given organization
12:13
with typically three other projects in
12:16
the same organization and the result is
12:18
here
12:18
around 63 percent is performing better
12:23
than comparable projects in the same
12:25
organization
12:26
typically we measure on different
12:28
parameters for instance
12:31
improving quality and then we compare
12:33
what the quality improvement has been
12:35
with other projects you will later see
12:38
the example
12:39
from linux which anna will present for
12:43
us
12:45
then if we take the two dimensions and
12:48
put them together
12:50
then we have a matrix here
12:53
where the x-axis of the matrix
12:56
is a success criteria and the y-axis
13:01
is to what degree have we been able to
13:03
accelerate projects there's one
13:07
microphone on can we ask the person to
13:09
mute the microphone
13:11
please mute your microphone
13:16
so we have these two axis we have the
13:18
ability to accelerate
13:20
and we have the success criteria and if
13:23
we map
13:24
all the projects on this matrix here
13:27
then you can see
13:28
if it both accelerate project and
13:32
fulfills the success criteria then we
13:35
can see some improvement from using half
13:37
double methodology
13:39
and we can say all the green projects
13:41
are in what we call the sweet spot
13:44
where we think it's relevant to look at
13:46
how to use
13:47
half double methodology that's where
13:49
half double methodology
13:51
has shown to be successful we also have
13:53
to realize
13:54
that we have four projects shown with
13:58
red projects down in the left
14:01
lower corner which were not successful
14:04
so of course half double is not the holy
14:06
grail
14:07
half double works on some projects and
14:09
it doesn't work on other projects
14:12
so if we take a look at these projects
14:14
which
14:15
are green and we have one as yellow
14:17
that's due to that
14:18
we have missing data for this yellow
14:20
project we simply don't have the
14:22
dimension of our accelerating project
14:24
but if you focus on the projects here
14:27
which are green then we can say what is
14:31
the characteristics of these projects
14:33
why are they in what we call the sweet
14:35
spot
14:42
and here we we have tried to look into
14:44
these projects and see what is the
14:46
what what what does these projects
14:48
express
14:49
first of all which kind of projects
14:51
types are we talking about and we can
14:53
see that
14:54
supply chain projects warehouse projects
14:57
production
14:58
projects here half double methodology
15:00
fits
15:01
nicely we have a lot of examples here
15:04
where it works
15:05
pretty good then it also work within the
15:08
itt
15:09
project e-commerce information system
15:12
projects area and i think that's
15:14
quite natural we have been seeing that
15:16
these agile hybrid methodologies
15:19
work in this area so this is more or
15:21
less just a confirmation of what we
15:23
always
15:23
already know then it also work within
15:26
market and product development area
15:28
organization and chains
15:29
industrial robots so at least within
15:32
these areas
15:33
it seems to work we can also say
15:36
going back to this slide that some of
15:39
the
15:40
red projects which doesn't work is what
15:43
you can call large
15:44
engineering projects here we haven't
15:46
been able to
15:47
get so good results so there are some
15:50
areas where half double methodology
15:52
works
15:52
and other areas where it doesn't work so
15:54
well
15:55
we also have been looking at what is the
15:57
duration of the projects
15:59
where you where it works and that's
16:02
about 4 to 18 months
16:04
and relating to project complexity
16:08
and here we use the ipma scale one to
16:10
four
16:11
which some of you might know if you are
16:14
certified the
16:16
ipma project manager then the range here
16:19
is between
16:20
1.3 to 3.9 and mainly between 1.8 and
16:24
2.4
16:26
which i will call last medium complexity
16:30
project which other types that we have
16:32
been running with
16:33
half double so now you have an
16:36
understanding of how successful this
16:40
project what is the ability to
16:42
accelerate project
16:44
and finally what project types has been
16:46
working and has been
16:48
performing good using half double
16:51
methodology
16:53
then i will run to the next minty meter
16:56
[Music]
16:58
scoring where i would like to know how
17:00
successful
17:01
are the projects in your organization
17:04
so i'll just move on here
17:08
so now you need to score how successful
17:11
are projects in your organization and of
17:13
course it must be your best
17:15
guess so it's more or less just what you
17:18
think
17:19
think it is
18:06
okay it looks like that we have a mean
18:09
around 25 to 50 percent which confirms
18:13
what i think
18:15
industry uh measurements also say
18:18
so it's it's it's difficult to get up to
18:21
50 to 75
18:23
but again be careful about this
18:25
discussion because
18:26
how do you measure whether a project is
18:28
successful or not so
18:30
it's it's a difficult discussion so i
18:33
think we have simplified the discussion
18:35
very much here
18:36
but at least it gives a very
18:40
coarse indication of things then i'll go
18:43
back to
18:44
the presentation here
18:48
and i will
18:52
hand over to anna and then give her the
18:56
control of of the presentation so now
19:00
anna you should be
19:01
able to do your presentation about the
19:04
lena
19:04
case yes thank you pierre
19:08
and we have added some nice drawings
19:11
here
19:12
on the screen or is that just my screen
19:15
with these black and red drawings
19:20
i don't know what happened but we can
19:23
we can manage we will do with them in
19:26
the presentation
19:27
and it is now about linux which
19:30
we have included in order to give you
19:34
a oh there was a yellow one
19:37
a picture of what goes on behind the
19:40
scene
19:41
so in order to give you a
19:44
view of the research process
19:48
behind all the facts and figures that
19:50
pierre presented we will now
19:53
zoom in and
19:56
and zoom in and go through the lina case
20:03
so let's see if i can
20:06
yes i can jump to the next slide
20:10
so linux is a pilot organization
20:13
headquartered at else as you can see in
20:15
the picture
20:17
employing 1200 employees in denmark and
20:20
more than 2
20:21
000 globally and represented in 35
20:24
countries
20:25
and having production facilities
20:28
in and outside denmark
20:32
what they do is that they create
20:35
electric linear
20:36
actuator solutions in order to create
20:39
movement in a variety of different
20:41
applications from
20:43
healthcare industry you see an example
20:46
down here of
20:47
a hospital bed and
20:50
agriculture comfort furnitures and
20:53
office
20:54
interior like for instance the
20:57
desk that many of us have in our in our
21:00
office
21:01
that you can lift up
21:04
and this is where the pilot project is
21:07
located
21:10
see if i can jump slide it's a little
21:13
bit
21:13
slow but hopefully
21:19
yes there we are the pilot project
21:22
in the pilot organization lina the
21:25
scopus
21:26
specification design sourcing
21:29
installation
21:30
and commissioning of a rubber based
21:32
automatic cell
21:33
in the production facility and the
21:37
answer to the why
21:38
question is to increase production
21:40
capacity
21:41
in this case it is to triple the
21:43
capacity
21:45
in the production and
21:48
what more is is that this pilot project
21:52
is a response to learnings from five
21:55
earlier
21:56
automation projects and this is
21:59
important because
22:02
what they've learned in the earlier
22:03
projects is among other things
22:06
that it takes a lot of time to install
22:09
this
22:10
this robot-based automated cell
22:14
and they want to increase the time spent
22:16
on the
22:17
project and that is their motivation for
22:20
engaging in
22:21
half double and therefore they implement
22:24
the half double
22:25
methodology to reduce the time spent
22:30
it is also important for another thing
22:32
and that is
22:34
it is sort of like the ideal case to
22:37
show
22:38
because we have three reference projects
22:41
that are earlier attempts to do the same
22:45
which is visible if we turn to the next
22:50
slide here showing you
22:54
the methodology behind the half double
22:57
research
22:58
it is a multiple and comparative case
23:01
study
23:01
meaning that we have different projects
23:04
within
23:05
different organizations that we compare
23:08
and we want these comparison projects to
23:12
be
23:12
as similar as possible to the pilot
23:15
project
23:15
so in this case with linac where they
23:18
have
23:19
sort of like the same project a
23:23
just in in another cell earlier on
23:26
it is kind of like an ideal setup
23:29
from a research and methodology
23:31
perspective
23:33
so so this figure basically shows you
23:36
that when we go into one organization we
23:39
have the pilot project
23:40
where the half double methodology is
23:43
implemented
23:45
and then we have a pool of reference
23:47
projects
23:48
so preferably we have three reference
23:50
projects
23:51
so this is how it looks in most of the
23:54
pilot organizations we have one card
23:56
project and then three reference
23:58
projects that are as similar as possible
24:00
to the pilot project and one could argue
24:02
well
24:03
all projects are unique so it doesn't
24:05
make sense to compare
24:07
and you can say yes that is true but it
24:09
is also true that some projects
24:11
are more similar than other projects
24:14
and here it is our goal to kind of
24:16
create a reference group
24:18
or you could say a control group to
24:19
which we can compare
24:21
the single pilot project that we you
24:24
could say give the half double medicine
24:26
in order to say well if everything else
24:29
is equal
24:30
besides the practices which are infused
24:32
by the half dollar methodology
24:35
uh we can see it makes sense to conclude
24:38
that we can see
24:39
if the performance of the projects are
24:42
different
24:42
it makes sense to infer that the reason
24:45
they are different comes from the
24:46
practices
24:47
hence the methodology
24:53
yes and that is the setup but we also
24:57
need to
24:59
get data in order to confirm is this is
25:02
if this is actually the case
25:05
so what we do is that we collect data
25:08
and a
25:09
lot of different parameters among others
25:11
these
25:12
four proxies that you see here practical
25:15
resources
25:16
in terms of hours project costs
25:20
in terms of money here measured in
25:22
danish crowns
25:23
and then three proxies from the diamond
25:27
model
25:28
including novelty pace and technology
25:32
and then finally complexity including
25:34
environment
25:35
tasks and organization and then we score
25:39
all the projects so the pilot project
25:41
and the three reference
25:42
projects on these proxies
25:45
and then finally we derive
25:48
one composite proxy for every project so
25:52
we say
25:53
when we look at these four proxies how
25:55
is
25:56
this single project compared to the
25:58
other projects how large
26:00
and comprehensive and complex is it
26:03
compared to the others
26:04
and here we can see that the pilot
26:06
project scores three
26:08
which is a medium score so 2 and 3 would
26:11
be medium
26:12
and that is of course an optimal
26:15
solution from the research perspective
26:17
we wouldn't like we wouldn't prefer that
26:19
the pilot project is very small
26:22
or the biggest project compared to the
26:24
reference group because then
26:26
a lot of other um
26:29
circumstances could explain the
26:32
performance difference that we see
26:33
so this is a very good example of a
26:36
perfect case you could say in the
26:38
research perspective because the pilot
26:39
project scores
26:41
medium three
26:45
so
26:48
good when we have
26:51
that under control we look at
26:54
two things so time and
26:57
impact here
27:00
you can see the time of the pilot
27:02
project which
27:04
is measured in days so it runs for
27:07
321 days and you can see the time spent
27:11
in these three
27:12
reference projects which lasts from 354
27:16
days to 465 days
27:20
so based on
27:24
these data we conclude that the pilot
27:27
project
27:28
has the shortest time is the fastest
27:30
project
27:32
then we look at impact
27:36
because that is the objective of the
27:39
half-double methodology
27:41
to increase
27:45
speed and impact and in this case
27:48
we have measured impacts
27:52
on based on perceived performance on
27:54
nine parameters
27:56
so these nine parameters are identified
27:59
together with the
28:01
project owner and manager in the
28:03
organization who knows the pilot project
28:05
but also the reference project so
28:07
they have together with us identified
28:10
nine p
28:11
parameters which are important not only
28:14
for the pilot project
28:15
but also for the reference projects and
28:18
then we've made this
28:19
focus group interview where we've
28:22
discussed
28:22
how does the project score on these
28:26
parameters
28:27
and you can see that the dark line
28:30
here is the pilot project
28:34
and that outperforms the three reference
28:36
projects on
28:38
seven of the nine parameters
28:41
it has the highest score on all except
28:44
from
28:44
two where a reference project score as
28:48
high as the pilot project so based on
28:51
these data
28:52
we conclude that the pilot project has
28:54
the highest impact
28:58
and that is the relative
29:02
comparison then we also do an absolute
29:05
comparison so we look at the pilot
29:07
project
29:08
in itself because also referring to the
29:11
half double
29:12
objective which is to increase the
29:14
success rate
29:15
of projects in denmark we want to look
29:19
at the success criteria and to what
29:21
degree
29:22
they are fulfilled in this project so
29:25
here you can see
29:26
the four targets the four success
29:28
criteria identified
29:30
and here you can see the status of the
29:33
project
29:34
when it is ended now i'll not go into
29:38
detail but show you
29:41
the conclusion so based on a
29:44
evaluation of the status of the project
29:47
when it is
29:48
ended it is fair to conclude that the
29:51
pilot project fulfills
29:52
some of its success criteria
29:56
so taken together we have these two
30:00
perspectives we have the relative
30:02
performance and we can see that the
30:04
pilot project is both
30:05
faster and has more impact than all
30:07
three reference projects
30:09
and then we have the absolute
30:11
perspective where we see
30:13
that the pilot project fulfills some of
30:15
its success criteria
30:18
and that is the two dimensions so now i
30:21
can take you back to the picture
30:23
pair presented this matrix and tell you
30:26
that this is why
30:28
we place linac up here because on the
30:31
horizontal
30:32
axis we have the success criteria and
30:35
they are partly fulfilled
30:36
which means it is here in the middle and
30:39
on the vertical axis
30:41
we have the accelerating the degree to
30:44
which the project is able to accelerate
30:47
and here it scores high so it has high
30:50
impact and it is faster than the
30:52
reference projects
30:54
and that is why we place
30:57
linux up here and showing you this we
31:00
basically go
31:01
through an internal bench sparking
31:04
so we look at projects within the same
31:07
organization
31:08
and compare them to external
31:10
benchmarking where we
31:12
here look at different projects in
31:14
different organizations
31:18
so hopefully this gives you a picture of
31:20
of the research
31:22
process and basically behind the results
31:27
and with that i can now give back to
31:30
word and mouse to you here
31:34
so yes i have taken back the control of
31:37
the presentation
31:38
and now we have been through some
31:42
overall results about half double
31:46
project and and the half double
31:47
methodology and anna has showed you
31:51
some how we work with a specific case
31:53
and why we position a specific case
31:56
on this matrix or figure that she just
31:59
showed us
32:00
now we will run into a q and a session
32:04
where you have a chance to ask us
32:06
questions about
32:07
the research we have done and the
32:09
question whatever you want to do so
32:12
just switch to mentimeter again and here
32:15
we will we will you will be able to ask
32:19
questions so now you can just start ask
32:22
asking questions and and and anna and i
32:25
will start
32:26
answering the questions which are
32:28
popping up on this screen
32:31
from using mentimeter so just
32:35
go ahead with your question and we will
32:37
see how many we can
32:39
answer hopefully you have some questions
32:41
to our
32:42
research so please go ahead
33:08
so
33:13
okay yes uh i can go back to the
33:16
presentation
33:17
and show you this and then we can go
33:19
back to
33:21
i'll just show you just a minutes i'll
33:24
go back many slides yeah
33:28
so the project types which were
33:30
successful were supplied in warehouse
33:32
production projects
33:34
it was it project e-commerce these
33:37
more soft projects it was market and
33:40
product development projects
33:41
organizational chains
33:43
industrial robots and if we look at the
33:46
projects
33:47
the rare projects which were not
33:49
successful
33:50
it's generally about the last
33:53
engineering
33:55
projects last
33:57
[Music]
33:58
for instance grunt was making a new pump
34:01
was one of the cases
34:02
which didn't work out nova science it
34:05
was an innovative
34:06
innovation project which they stopped
34:08
because the new enzyme they developed
34:11
were not successful enough on the market
34:13
so these are the
34:14
the considerations about which project
34:17
two types works and which not works i
34:19
also have to say
34:21
that we are seeing more project types
34:23
which works on half double methodology
34:26
but we're not finalized the research
34:29
with these projects so that will be
34:31
documented in later report and we will
34:34
publish a new report in first quarter
34:36
of 2021 where we'll present some of the
34:39
newer results
34:40
then i'll go back to the q a session
34:43
here maybe you could go back
34:45
just to add a few comments yeah
34:50
because we had the we also had
34:53
siemens wind power down there yeah
34:56
yeah that's also a large construction
34:58
project and what is also common among
35:01
these two projects is that they are
35:03
larger projects compared to the other
35:05
projects
35:06
so size also matters and you could also
35:10
say here that they are
35:11
the first projects in this experiment
35:15
so maybe that also has an explanation in
35:18
it
35:19
yeah that could be many explanations and
35:21
maybe i should take the other questions
35:23
about
35:24
have you handle an eventual horizon
35:26
effect and the
35:28
the answer is no we can't handle that
35:30
because
35:32
it's it's clear that if you go into an
35:34
organization you come
35:36
with consultants and you come with
35:38
researchers
35:39
then of course you'll have a kind of a
35:41
horse on the effect
35:42
on the projects so so the answer is
35:46
no we can't handle the houghton effect
35:48
and and i'm quite sure there is some
35:50
kind of horton effect
35:51
but on the other hand we can see that
35:54
the project works
35:55
so other organizations could also
35:57
involve consultants to help them do
35:59
projects if they want to do and if the
36:01
projects is important enough
36:03
but that's quite right to say the horton
36:06
effect is one of the things we already
36:08
have
36:08
specified in the limitations in the
36:10
report we have published
36:12
last summer then there is another
36:15
question over here
36:17
it's do you have any results link the
36:19
different elements of
36:21
the methodology to the time or impact
36:23
result that
36:24
it does let me see that it does one of
36:26
the elements
36:27
yes we have yeah we have some more
36:30
detailed results about
36:32
how things are related to different
36:34
practices and to the different areas
36:36
within
36:37
impact flow and leadership
36:40
we didn't have time to to do it today
36:43
because
36:43
then we should have focused mainly on
36:45
the practice part but in fact we're
36:47
doing
36:47
different kind of statistical analysis
36:50
and if you for some reasons are
36:52
interested in these results
36:54
please write and mail to me and then we
36:56
can take a a meeting and online meeting
36:59
where i can explain it more in details
37:00
we simply don't have time
37:02
to do that today but we have results in
37:04
in that area as well yes
37:06
then briefly
37:10
remember from the high level high level
37:13
research finding
37:15
brochure we published uh is it last year
37:18
the year ago uh i think it was 2018
37:23
we could see based on the results that
37:24
we had at that time
37:26
that we had all three core principles
37:30
uh as represented as powerful practices
37:34
meaning that they were
37:36
in the successful projects so both
37:39
from core from impact and from flow and
37:42
from leadership
37:43
so so that is a result telling you that
37:46
that
37:47
maybe you can't take just one of the
37:49
elements but but
37:50
we need to have all three and also
37:54
we can also say that the report will
37:56
publish
37:57
in q1 2021 there will be a chapter
38:01
about a more statistical analysis of all
38:04
the practices and how they relate to the
38:06
different kind of projects
38:08
so so we're certainly working on that
38:10
area then there's another question
38:12
in the middle here saying the half two
38:15
double the
38:16
project scored on two of seven
38:18
parameters
38:19
the same as control projects can you
38:22
elaborate i think that's a question to
38:24
you and
38:26
yeah so the half double project scored
38:29
on two of seven primary is the same as
38:31
control projects can you elaborate
38:34
yeah so what we saw was on seven of the
38:37
nine
38:39
parameters the pilot project outscored
38:42
the reference project
38:43
so it scored higher on seven of the nine
38:46
parameters
38:47
and then it scored equal on two of them
38:50
so
38:50
in two cases one reference project
38:53
which is not the same so it is two
38:56
different reference projects
38:58
scored as high as the pilot project
39:02
and and the reason the reason for
39:06
that scoring i can't go into detail now
39:10
but um if you're interested
39:14
write me an email and we can dig into it
39:16
more
39:18
then there is a question saying are the
39:20
projects cross-evaluated between
39:22
companies
39:23
i'm not sure what you mean about
39:24
cross-evaluate because
39:26
the way we do it is that we have a
39:28
standard evaluation template which we
39:31
use for all projects
39:32
both the projects which has been running
39:35
half double methodology
39:37
and the projects which has just been
39:39
done the normal way in the company
39:41
so it's exactly the same way we're using
39:44
the same
39:45
protocol or procedure for evaluating all
39:48
the projects and i think
39:49
as we speak we have more than 70
39:52
projects
39:53
which i evaluated so the cross
39:55
evaluation
39:57
is done through that we are systematic
40:01
using the same evaluation template and
40:03
evaluation
40:04
meso on the projects i'm not sure i
40:07
understand your project
40:09
the question right so so you might
40:11
elaborate your questions more if you
40:13
don't feel that i have answered it
40:15
specifically enough that that's all
40:17
right not
40:18
like we prepare projects from different
40:22
organizations
40:23
so we only compare the projects within
40:26
one organization
40:27
so this pilot project that you just saw
40:29
from leaning
40:30
is not compared to
40:33
to reference projects in other
40:35
organizations no
40:37
no that's not the case but we compare
40:39
all the pilot projects
40:41
in the overall scheme you just saw the
40:43
figure that both anna and i
40:45
showed then there is a question saying
40:48
this and god has described half double
40:51
as an adrian methodology in interview
40:53
that one of my students did
40:54
expanding that he saw it as building on
40:57
the ideal
40:58
agile manifesto do you agree with this
41:00
description
41:01
both yes and no i think i would call
41:05
half double a kind of an agile hybrid
41:08
methodology because i think
41:09
it takes some parts from agile thinking
41:12
especially the flow dimension in half
41:15
double
41:15
is related to what you say agile
41:18
manifesto and agile thinking
41:20
but the thinking about a project manager
41:23
project owner
41:25
is more traditional project management
41:28
and i think i'm right now working on a
41:30
paper together with a colleague
41:32
where we're digging further into all the
41:34
practices and we're comparing them
41:36
with both classical practices and agile
41:38
practices
41:39
and i would say you can find elements of
41:42
classical
41:43
project management and agile project
41:45
management that's the reason why i say
41:46
it's an agile hybrid methodology i think
41:49
it
41:49
it's skewed against agile thinking
41:52
but there's still also some traditional
41:55
elements
41:56
in half double methodology so i think
41:58
that's the best way i can express it
42:00
and and also this discussion about is an
42:03
agile methodology or not i think it's a
42:05
it's it's a kind of a religious
42:07
discussion i think what is interesting
42:09
is
42:10
what works in the organization which
42:12
kind of practices should you use
42:14
so your projects are successful that's
42:17
the important question you need to ask
42:18
not whether it's agile or not agile or
42:22
classical or not classical
42:23
but that's at least my point of view
42:25
related to that
42:29
yes any further questions
42:33
there's still time for more questions
42:38
but there doesn't have to be more
42:39
questions but
42:42
anyhow if if that's
42:45
not the case i think i'll go back to
42:49
uh okay see chats okay i'll just see
42:53
[Music]
42:56
chat
43:02
how do you rate the risk that the
43:04
success rate of the project could be
43:06
called by
43:07
parameters that you have not considered
43:09
that's absolutely a case
43:12
it's it's difficult it's called
43:16
it could be due to many issues that a
43:19
project
43:20
what should i say is successful and we
43:23
are fully aware of that
43:24
it's probably not only that you're using
43:27
half double methodology there could be a
43:29
lot of contextual factors
43:31
but i think we can't come closer to it
43:34
than trying to compare
43:36
the projects with similar projects in
43:38
the same organization
43:39
so that's the best way we can try to
43:42
come to
43:42
a classical experiment in a scientific
43:45
way
43:46
so but but i agree with you we can't say
43:49
for sure
43:50
we we can't talk about a causal
43:52
relationship between the
43:54
practices and successful projects that's
43:56
one of the limitations
43:58
which you always see in these social
44:00
science
44:01
comparisons that we are doing yeah
44:06
then this let me see this one have you
44:09
tried to use half double in your own
44:10
research project
44:11
yes we we are using half double every
44:15
day
44:15
in our research projects and the
44:18
experience is that we can use a half
44:20
double
44:22
in our research projects as well there's
44:24
nothing in half double
44:26
which hinder us from using it again it's
44:29
very important in half double to look at
44:31
local translation where you translate
44:33
the half double methodology into the
44:36
specific
44:37
circumstances you have in your
44:38
organization and your projects
44:40
but the whole half double project phase
44:43
3
44:44
is using half double itself and we're
44:46
using mirror for instance for visual
44:48
planning
44:49
and it works quite well and it works
44:51
quite well for research projects
44:54
yeah although we haven't researched it
44:57
it's still i can just say from our own
44:59
experience that we can use it within
45:01
without any problems yes have you
45:05
evaluate the impact of half double and
45:07
project portfolio
45:08
yes that's another discussions
45:14
i i think that it's uh
45:18
i'm just a small question
45:22
i'll take the questions about have you
45:25
evaluated the impact of half double on
45:27
project portfolio management and
45:29
and the answer is not really we have
45:32
some
45:33
initial evaluations about
45:37
the portfolio level but we don't have
45:40
the same kind of
45:42
what should i say expanded research
45:44
results as we have on the project level
45:47
and i also think that you have to
45:50
understand that on the portfolio level
45:52
my take would probably be that not all
45:56
projects in the portfolio could be run
45:58
and have double projects you have to
45:59
select
46:00
the projects which are probably most
46:03
important for you
46:04
and then run them as half double because
46:07
that's where you really need to
46:08
have success and you really need to
46:11
accelerate the project
46:12
that would be my take but again i have
46:14
to state we
46:15
we don't have this we don't have any
46:18
specific research results that's more
46:20
the way i see it from from the
46:23
involvement we have more generally
46:37
okay i think we more or less
46:41
have covered the the questions that uh
46:45
there's one there up here do you have
46:47
any results linking there
46:51
no not that one do you evaluate what nah
46:55
do you evaluate what level of project
46:56
methodology the organization has before
46:59
it would seem obvious that putting half
47:01
double on top of a low
47:03
non-methodology and a very well
47:05
developed methodology would give
47:06
different results
47:09
yeah yeah that that's right first of all
47:12
we don't see
47:13
half double as a stand-alone methodology
47:15
we see
47:16
half double as a methodology which merge
47:19
into the practices you have in your
47:21
organizations beforehand
47:23
so so we don't see half double as a
47:25
standalone methodology that's the first
47:27
thing
47:28
the second thing is that you're quite
47:30
right there could be
47:31
many reasons why things work because an
47:33
organization which has
47:35
a higher maturity in doing projects
47:38
would probably also have a higher
47:39
success rate
47:40
using half double mr so you're right
47:43
there are so many
47:44
things which could impact the impact
47:47
why things are successful or not
47:49
successful so yeah
47:52
it's something we we have touched it a
47:55
bit but we haven't been able to go into
47:57
depth in fact we would be able to
47:59
to go into more depth about this point
48:01
if we
48:02
want to but what we don't we haven't
48:04
done it so far maybe a good idea for our
48:06
next research
48:08
report thank you for this input
48:21
left comment yeah okay i think we
48:24
more or less has uh covered your
48:27
questions
48:29
uh so i'll switch back to the
48:31
presentation from this uh
48:35
now just have to move ahead
48:50
then i will just uh try to end
48:53
this uh presentation
48:57
by trying to explain a bit about what
49:00
are we doing research-wise
49:02
with half double in the next two three
49:04
years
49:05
first of all we are trying to stimulate
49:08
the diffusion and adoption of the
49:10
half-double ecosystem in denmark
49:12
regionally in europe and globally so we
49:15
are heavily
49:16
involved in the diffusion and adoption
49:18
and we try to follow
49:19
how half double is diffused and try to
49:23
get some research result about that for
49:25
instance we are planning a big survey to
49:27
be sent
49:28
out in the odds and where we want to
49:30
hear what our organizations doing will
49:32
have double
49:33
and that will also be part of the report
49:35
we'll publish
49:37
in q1 2021
49:40
then we focus on facilitating
49:42
international research collaboration
49:45
to fuel the half double ecosystem so we
49:47
want we are discussing
49:48
with international researcher how
49:52
can they see half double and how can we
49:54
work with the
49:56
what should i say stimulating
50:00
research perspectives and things like
50:02
that
50:03
and finally we're working with a new
50:06
area
50:06
where we are considering how we can what
50:09
should i say adapt
50:11
half double methodology to climate
50:13
projects so half double climate
50:15
where we both want to focus on
50:17
sustainability
50:18
and agility at the same time i think
50:20
that's quite a new area
50:22
where we all need to to dig very much
50:26
into so there's a lot of research going
50:28
on and you can follow what we are doing
50:32
on the half double institute web page
50:35
all our reports will be published here
50:37
you can always
50:39
contact anna and myself we you can find
50:41
our names on office university
50:44
website so i think that's more or less
50:48
our presentation for today thank you for
50:52
joining this session thank you for all
50:55
your good
50:56
questions as i said this webinar has
50:59
been recorded so you can see it again
51:01
and you will also receive the slides and
51:04
the mentee meda discussion from danish
51:08
project management association
51:09
so you should be able to get get the
51:12
things
51:12
we have been discussing here so i think
51:16
the last slide is that
51:18
we hope to see you soon again in another
51:20
event so thank you
51:22
for joining this
