That's exactly what seems like really reasonable approach to the problem. Learn, experiment, adapt. The funny thing is many PM methods (including vast majority of agile methodologies) incorporate this process. At least in theory. Why the practice looks that way oh so often then?

Why do people feel the need to "drink the Kool-aide" and trade in their brain for a "Manifesto" of some sort? Come on, is this a religion or cult of some sort?

You run into this everywhere. I've had some conversations with Critical Chain PM proponents in that past that were very similar. It's all or nothing, black and white. "Either your with us, or against us!"

Me? I use what works, adapt as lessons learned guide, and re-use as much as I can if it makes sense to do so. There are too many variables for me to submit to any particular method of project management.

Josh Nankivel
pmStudent.com

I actually fully agree with the quote you mentioned. Here in Poland we have a saying that we're always wise when damage has already been done.

It works that way with pretty much anything. Estimation? On the lowest level you actually guess to some point how much this small fetaure, class, function will take. 3 hours or 4 hours? If you wrote very similar function a couple of times before (aka you're retrospectively wise) your estimate will be better.

Problem solving? The same. If you were in similar situation before you are retrospectively wiser and choose statistically better solution (same if it worked before, different it didn't).

The role of any process of technique is, or should be, to gather knowledge of many people and give you a guide which helps you to choose right paths whenever you have to make a decision. The trick is probably no one was in exactly the same situation in exactly the same environment so you have to approximate. You choose which path promises, in your opinion, the best results.

Now, the question: How? How do you choose the best option? How do you decide which techniques among these delivered by methodologies you consider as valuable (whichever they are) are the most appropriate in a specific situation?

"Common sense … has the very curious property of being more correct retrospectively than prospectively. It seems to me that one of the principal criteria to be applied to successful science is that its results are almost always obvious retrospectively; unfortunately, they seldom are prospectively. Common sense provides a kind of ultimate validation after science has completed its work; it seldom anticipates what science is going to discover."

This is the old discussion we had here and on your blog. We may understand common sense as something a bit different. Either way I'm going to stay wit common sense as a guide which helps me to choose right techniques in right situations.

Common Sense is neither common nor sensical. Much of what passes for common sense is not based on any underlying principle it’s just anecdotes that have worked for the current situation.

Even when they find their bible appealing they stick with it no matter what which is equally bad.

Nothing can substitute common sense. And the hammer is neither the best nor the only tool in the toolbox. Even if it suits most of the tasks we do. The same is with any methodology out there.

I was part of an online discussion recently about the value of a PMP. And it was equally frustrating because so many people's conclusion was that the PMP is "worthless" and they based this mostly on the fact that they assumed the PMBOK was essentially the Ten Commandments of project management, and that it was not scalable and it required you to follow every practice and method it taught.

The problem is, so many people out there want to find the "Bible" of project management. They don't want to think for themselves. They want to find the perfect methodology and be able to follow it step by step to the letter and magically have successful projects. So, if someone points out a step/point/idea in their latest bible that doesn't fit, then they throw it out and move on to the next.

Anyway, good thoughts again, Pawel.

You should try to deliver this message to agile zealot group. I guess the response would be far from enthusiastic.

Sometimes I think we have a similar situation to .net versus java discussion, which is irrelevant most of the time. We can achieve pretty much the same using different techniques and you can't say one is universally worse or better than others. It all depends on the specific situation you're in.