Webinar - Half Double Research

Learn more about the research behind Half Double, how the research team has compared the projects, and the research results.
View Video On Vimeo
webinar half double portfolio, how do we become agile at the portfolio level?

Webinar by Anna Gerstrøm Rode, Post Doc & Per Svejvig, Associate Professor at Aarhus University, Department of Management.

Aarhus University has evaluated 16 Half Double pilot projects to outline how Half Double projects perform compared to similar projects in the same organisations – and we can reveal that Half Double works!

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

See other Half Double Video's and more information about Half Double Research and Webinars on Research, Methodology, Portfolio and the partnership between Half Double and Global connect.