MAP ®  Process

 

 

 

How is this Planning Process different?

  

 

 

Failing to plan is planning to fail...

 

 

 

 

 

 

Plan the Work.
Work the Plan...

 

 

A change at the planning table takes an eraser.
In the field, it takes a checkbook...

 

 

Planning is the most commonly used and misunderstood word in business today...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A 30 year history of PERT reveals an average 25% resource savings!

How is this approach to planning & management different?

MAP® Planning is the most modern "cutting edge" Project Planning & Management system available.
MAP
® Planning process includes:

Visioneering® -
The engineering of vision. This is how we transform a vision of the future into physical reality.
Current Reality Assessment®
A "comprehensivist" reality assessment. The difference between this "inventory" and what was produced by the visioneering process produces the "gap" that plan fills.

GAP Management® -
Developing the strategy, plan, and tools to bridge the gap between the current reality and the future vision.

In 1982, we were primarily offering PERT [Project Evaluation & Review Technique]. The common "planning meeting" then was a "discussion" of an upcoming project. No matter how well the agenda was set, it usually progressed towards disorder with everyone's "good ideas" in a mix with everyone's potential problems - presented with no solutions. There would rarely be time to schedule these meetings during business hours, and a pizza would commonly arrive before the meeting began. The notes from these meetings, when complete, would yield little that would be of value towards the development of a responsible project document.

It became quickly evident that if more Advanced Management & Planning was to be efficiently available to our clients, a new system for gathering and creating information would be needed. Our "Dream / Vision Crystalization - DVC" process was developed over the following years to satisfy that need.

The following is a brief description of some of the discoveries and solutions that make up the most powerful planning and management system available.

LANGUAGE: The actual words used in discussions of future projects set the foundation for, and most times, dictate the results of that project. We also discovered that people assign widely differing meanings to the same words. "Fun" is a good example. Most project team members have a different mental picture or of what the project looked like when complete.

What would happen to a football team if all team members weren't working toward the same goal line?

Words produce strong mental process and reactions in people. The word "nausea" is outlawed in T.V. commercials by the F.C.C. because it makes people "sick".

Our "D.V.C." information creation and gathering process uses carefully chosen words that have been defined in common by all team members used in a specific syntax.

The result is that the project team holds in common the same mental picture of the project. The team is aligned and moving towards the same goal line.

We then segregate the items of project inventory from the activities required to get or have those items.

The value of meeting time is calculated. People know what to expect and prepare for. Energy is balanced.
Meetings become very purposeful and efficient.

PERSPECTIVE: It was discovered through interviews that if people had a crystal ball that told what the future would bring, they knew what they would do to prepare for it. Without the crystal ball, though, the thought of the future leads to hesitation &emdash; and stress.

With our help, using our language tools, team members can be their own "crystal ball"&emdash; to create a picture of their future. They then "know" what to do to prepare for and have that future. Remembering what you did is much easier and less stressful than figuring out what needs to be done.

It was also discovered that when an "outsider" conducts meetings, management is more a part of the project team. It also allows for a less inhibited flow of information among all levels of an organization. We call this tremendoius advantabe "the dynamic of the outsider."

PERT/CPM: PERT [Project Evaluation Review Technique] and CPM [Critical Path Method] are project management technologies that were developed some thirty years ago and remain the most powerful project management systems available. PERT was primarily used by the military-industrial complex, and CPM by very large construction projects. What these large projects had in common was that human performance was assigned as an inanimate resource in a top-down management system. Also, those trained in the highly technical PERT/CPM systems were mostly engineers with little, if any, training in or aptitude for human communication skills. We discovered that the way to make these valuable tools available to businesses was to get the information that these systems required out of the meetings. The Pacific Planning Institute's process does just that.

The results are that the most powerful project planning and management tools are now available to people oriented businesses. The charts and documents are the "road maps" for the project. They become the project managers with results in full view of all. "Opinions" vanish because results are posted in black & white [& colors]. The project is "out of the head" and on paper. More mental energy is available to deal with present requirements.

A 30 year statistical history of PERT reveals an average 25% resource savings.
That's time and money. AND the benefits go on and on.

These are a few of the many Pacific Planning Institute "ingredients" which we now call
MAP® - MasterMind® Action Planning.

When blended with the mastery that experience with over 500 interntaional projects creates, we can design and guide your projects the way you would like them to be, and your results will have a much higher probability of efficiently producing what you want them to produce with certainty, responsibility, and satisfaction.

MAP ®  History

 

Similar studies of commercial projects indicated average cost and time overruns were 70% and 40% respectively.

 

 

 

 

 

Time was of the essence.

 

 

 

 

[CPM] has as its main feature the ability to arrive at a project schedule which minimizes total project costs.

 

 

The underlying basis of both CPM and PERT is the project network diagram.

 

 

 

It was discovered that the quality of the information related directly to the success of the project planned.

 

 

 

 

 

[It] allows Advanced Management Planning to offer powerful project planning and management ability.

The Pacific Planning Institute's MAP®
planning and management processes are a combination of linguistic and communication technology combined with P.E.R.T. and C.P.M. network-based management systems. Following is a brief history of the development of this incredible planning and management system.

*The development of PERT began when the Navy was faced with the challenge of producing the Polaris missle system in record time in 1958. Several studies indicated that there was a great deal to be desired with regard to the time and cost performance of such projects. These studies of major military development contracts indicated that actual costs were, on the average, two to three times the earliest estimated costs, and the project durations averaged 40 to 50 percent greater than the earliest estimates. Similar studies of commercial projects indicated average cost and time overruns were 70 and 40 percent respectively. While many people feel the original estimates must be optimistic in order to obtain contracts, a more important reason for these failures was the lack of adequate project management planning and control techniques for large complex projects.

Admiral W.F. Raborn recognized that something better was needed in the form of an integrated planning and control system for the Polaris Weapons System program. To face this challenge, a research team was assembled consisting of representatives of Lockheed Aircraft Corporation [prime contractor of Polaris], the Navy Special Projects Office, and the consulting form of Booz, Allen and Hamilton. This research project was designated as PERT, or Program Evaluation Research Task. By the time of the first internal project report, PERT had become Project Evaluation and Review Technique. This research team evolved the PERT system from a consideration of technique such as Line-of-Balance, Gantt charts, and milestone reporting systems.

Time was of the essence in the Polaris program, so the research team concentrated on planning and controlling this element of the program. As a result, one of the principal features of PERT is a statistical treatment of the uncertainty in activity performance time; it includes an estimate of the probability of meeting specified scheduled dates at various stages or milestones in the project. PERT also emphasizes the control phase of project management by various forms of periodic project status reports. The work of the original PERT research team has been extended into the areas of planning and controlling costs, and to a lesser degree, into the areas of the performance and quality of the product.

CPM [Critical Path Method} grew out of a joint effort initiated in 1957 by the DuPont Company and Remmington Rand Univac. The objective of the CPM research team was to determine how best to reduce the time required to perform routine plant overhaul, maintenance, and construction work. In essence, they were interested in determining the optimum trade-off of time [project duration] and total project cost. This objective amounts to the determination of the duration of a project which minimizes the sum of the direct and indirect costs, where , for example, direct costs include labor and materials, while indirect costs include the usual items, such as supervision, as well as "cost" of production time lost due to plant downtime.

The activities comprising this type of project are characteristically subject to a relatively small amount of variation compared to the activities of a Polaris program. Hence, unlike PERT, CPM treats activity performance times in a deterministic manner and has as its main feature the ability to arrive at a project schedule which minimizes total project costs.

The pioneering PERT and CPM groups did not know of each other's existence until early 1959, when the momentum of each effort was too great to influence the other. However, the underlying basis of both CPM and PERT is the project network diagram. *1

The development of P.P.I. Planning Process began in 1980 when Randolph Craft discovered PERT while looking for ways to manage his large scale art commissions. In 1981, Craft conducted the first public PERT workshop. Color was added to the timelines and the system was then called C.G.S. PERT [Color Graphic Systems].

AMP [Advanced Management Planning] was founded in 1981 (later becoming the Pacific Planning Institute, Inc.) AMP was serving small entrepreneurial business in the area of operational planning. In the process of working on projects that utilized people as the major resource, it was discovered that the quality of the information related directly to the success of the project planned. Further, when planning meetings were conducted by the clients in their normal manor, the meetings produced very little information that could be used by any planning system.

The AMP Planning Process system had its origins in late 1982 when the need for a communication procedure to be used in planning meetings was recognized and acted upon.

The years following saw extensive research and practice in the development of what is now become the Pacific Planning Institute. Included are technologies gleaned from the Synergetics and linguistics of Dr. R. Buckminster Fuller, the relativity research of Dr. Albert Einstein, Quality processes from Dr. W. Edwards Deming, NLP [Neuro-Linguistic Programming] of John Grinder, Richard Bandler, and Antony Robbins, linguistics of L. Ron Hubbard, presentation and negotiation techniques of Marshall Thruber, lateral thinking of DiBonno, integrated brain techniques of Tony Buzan, "Superlearning" of Ostrander and Schroeder, thought technology of Robert Fritz, meeting efficiency and rapport building of Genie Laborde, and much more.

PERT study was conducted with Richard Villoria, co-author of Network Based Management Systems, and James Halcomb, co-designer of the PERT system.

1984 broungt the advantage of computerization. The then-new project management software for PCs offered efficiency gains to the PERT part of our new technologies. Recent advances combined with new, more advanced software allows the Pacific Plannint Institute to offer some of the most powerful project planning & management ability available to businesses.

*-*1 Martino, R.
Finding The Critical Path
American Management Assoc. 1964