What Sci-Fi Movies Teach Us About Project Management Skills

Esther Schindler writes "It's certainly fun to pretend to find work inspiration from our favorite SF films. That's what Carol Pinchefsky does in two posts, one about positive business lessons you can take away from SF films (such as 'agile thinking can save many a project (and project manager) in a crisis' from Robocop and team motivation lessons from Buffy), and the other, 5 Project Management Horror Stories Found in Sci-Fi Movies, with examples of the impact of poor documentation on Captain America."

Comments

SF and project management

[rossdee]

"We shall redouble our efforts"

The commander of Death Star 2 when Vader told him the Emperor was coming to inspect the project.

Re:SF and project management

[flargleblarg]

"We shall redouble our efforts"

I've always wondered... Why didn't he just say quadruple?

Re:SF and project management

[DerekLyons]

"We shall redouble our efforts"

I've always wondered... Why didn't he just say quadruple?

Because redouble doesn't mean quadruple.

Re:What Sci-fi movies?

[DavidClarkeHR]

I mean you have Star Wars, Star Trek, Senerity, Farscape (I guess), Dune (maybe). A few movies from the 60's/70's (silent running, 2001, whatever).

What other sci-fi movies are there? It's all shit.

Alien. Aliens.

It's a stunning reminder of the value of human life ... when there's science involved (look at me still talking ...)

Science Fact

[bscott]

You don't need to reach for SF to get a great project management lesson, just look at the Apollo program.

A triumph of the human spirit, of technology, of ingenuity, sure - but mainly, an overwhelming triumph of project management. Who says the government can't handle any big jobs, eh? (well, anyone who's been watching for the last 40 years maybe...)

Re:Science Fact

[Ungrounded Lightning]

... just look at the Apollo program.

A triumph of the human spirit, of technology, of ingenuity, sure - but mainly, an overwhelming triumph of project management.

And then NASA changed their management. And the new management dropped "belt and suspenders" "managing for Murphy's law" in favor of "managing for success". And they launched Challenger when the solid-fuel booster O-rings were too cold to seat properly, over the objections of the engineers.

And the space program was put on hold for 2 2/3 years.

Re:Science Fact

[jd2112]

Appropriate quote:

“Crash programs fail because they are based on the theory that, with nine women pregnant, you can get a baby a month.”
Wernher Von Braun

Re:Science Fact

[Spy Handler]

And they launched Challenger when the solid-fuel booster O-rings were too cold to seat properly, over the objections of the engineers.

That's true, but what's even sadder is that those damn O-rings should've never even been there in the first place. The SRBs were meant to be a one piece monolithic design. However it was changed into a segmented multi piece O-ring design because pork had to be provided to Morton Thiokol at the insistence of the senator from Utah, who held the purse strings. (Thiokol, being in Utah, cannot ship a large one piece by ocean and could only build segmented ones shipped by rail)

The lesson here is, do not let managers into your project who have their own agendas that conflict with the main project's mission.

Re:Science Fact

[dbIII]

What's also sad is the engineers then had to sneak around their management to get to talk to the one guy on the inquiry that could not be threatened with loss of reputation if he delivered bad news. Some pressure was put on Feynman to drop the issue but thankfully he ignored it and the ugly truth came out.

Re:Science Fact

[DerekLyons]

That's true, but what's even sadder is that those damn O-rings should've never even been there in the first place. The SRBs were meant to be a one piece monolithic design.

No, they were never "meant" to be anything - there is no "absolute" Shuttle design from which the existing one was a departure.
 

However it was changed into a segmented multi piece O-ring design because pork had to be provided to Morton Thiokol at the insistence of the senator from Utah, who held the purse strings. (Thiokol, being in Utah, cannot ship a large one piece by ocean and could only build segmented ones shipped by rail)

No, they were changed to segmented design because nobody could figure out how to cast *one* motor grain with consistent burn properties (the monolithic grain took so long to cure that it stratified) - and the Shuttle required a matched pair. Nor could the figure out how to prevent the grain from flowing out the nozzle (the weight of the monolithic grain exceeded the strength of the grain material, resulting in the grain creeping under it's own weight). Not to mention the problem of handling a million plus pound motor without damaging it (as little as 3mm flex over the length of the casing could delaminate the grain from the casing and crack the grain).

Re:Science Fact

[DerekLyons]

And then NASA changed their management. And the new management dropped "belt and suspenders" "managing for Murphy's law" in favor of "managing for success". And they launched Challenger

You say this as if previous management didn't also have blood on their hands. Apollo 1 saw 3 astronauts burnt alive in their capsule.

Flammable materials, pure Oxygen environment, negative pressure preventing door from opening doesn't really smell like "managing for Murphy's law".

And Apollo 12, which was sent to the Moon despite having been hit by lighting and possibly having damage which could not be detected. And Apollo (IIRC) 15, which had a failed cable assembly in the SPS - and which was allowed to go into Lunar orbit even though the mission rules specified a return to Earth. (There are others, but these are the ones that leap to mind off hand.)

Apollo era NASA was lucky, they kept making bets and rolling snake eyes - and then covered up for decades just how big the risks had been and how close they repeatedly came to disaster.

7 Habits

[MrEricSir]

Sounds like it's time for Covey to come back to life and write "The 7 Habits of Highly Effective Fictional Characters."

Hmm...

[Anonymous Coward]

Sci-Fi teaches us not to hire George Lucas... he's terrible.

Re:What Sci-fi movies?

[bill_mcgonigle]

What other sci-fi movies are there? It's all shit.

According to TFS, Buffy is Sci-Fi. I knew right then not to read the article.

Re:What Sci-fi movies?

[ScottCooperDotNet]

Don't let Khan near anything.
If it breeds, it can take over your ship.
Sleeping with the test proctor will let you beat the no-win scenario.
If you have a bad feeling about something, it's a trap.

Ender's Game

[phantomfive]

Not a hip movie to like right now, but Ender's Game is almost all about project management and leadership.

Ender sees the great potential in his team, even in the misfits and castaways, but he also has high expectations for them to reach that potential. That is what I try to do as a leader.

Every Large Project

[Greyfox]

Should have a prominent big red self destruct button. This button should not do anything, and it should be booby trapped.

Re:What Sci-fi movies?

[NoNonAlphaCharsHere]

I've been on several projects where I fervently wished "dust off and nuke it from orbit" was a project management option. It is, after all, the only way to be sure.

Re:What Sci-fi movies?

[TWiTfan]

I do always hate it when science fiction and fantasy get mixed in together as "genre films." I have nothing against fantasy, mind you. And I'm aware there is a lot of crossover, especially among genre writers. But the two are very different forms in many ways. Sure, you can intermix them--in the same way you could make a science fiction noir detective story, or a science fiction sports movie. But fantasy generally incorporates implausible or supernatural elements, whereas science fiction stories generally stick to elements that must at least be justified as POSSIBLE in their setting. Not that the lines don't get blurred sometimes.

What about Jurassic Park?

[JDG1980]

How can you write about IT project management failures in sci-fi movies and not mention Jurassic Park?

For all Malcolm's talk about "chaos theory", the failure of the park was a very predictable result of (1) relying heavily on IT for mission-critical systems, and (2) putting all of this IT infrastructure in the hands of one guy, that the CEO knows is disgruntled! Any project manager with half a brain should have seen it coming. But Hammond, who "spared no expense" on everything else, apparently couldn't be bothered to hire a competent CIO, or spring for a real IT team.

A general rule of project management, not only in IT but in other fields as well, is that you should never have critical, undocumented knowledge that is in the possession of only one employee. The reason is obvious: if that employee quits, or is fired, or gets hit by a bus, or is eaten by a Dilophosaurus, you're completely screwed. All mission-critical systems should be covered by multiple people and should be properly documented.