Computer or Human?

[Doug_Den_Hoed__AtAppStore]

Hi folks,

While updating them mechanics of our Executive Status Report solution, I hit the age-old question of whether the computer (i.e. Workfront) or the human (i.e. the PM) should decide what to report as the official project condition, with -- for context -- condition in this case referring generically to "How is it going?" (e.g. Green / Yellow / Red). Thinking that the situation could vary across organizations (or even between departments, or even among department projects, or even over time), I decided to allow for both, but am also interested to hear whether there's a clear majority these days.

In your organization, who sets the official project condition: Workfront (automatically), or the PM (manually)?

Regards,

Doug

cc: note to self @Doug_Den_Hoed__AtAppStore 

[edited to simplify]

[skyehansen]

For condition -- I think there's always going to be a case for both. I've seen the majority of customers report this manually and only a minority are willing to allow Workfront to automate the decision.

The tipping point is always a combination of customers who:

* use their failing timelines as a way to indicate a risk factor vs customers who are more "flexible" with dates.

* want to use the "project condition" as a quick way to flag the project for future mitigation (e.g. weekly status meeting).

* have a high volume of projects.

* don't want a lot of noise.

When customers trust Workfront to determine condition based on some date rules, and they get too much noise, they simply stop paying attention to reports that indicate that the vast majority of their projects are at risk or in trouble -- so, failure to adopt, in other words. I personally prefer to have them indicate condition manually unless I see a team with a strong adherence to meeting dates.