Adaptive Project Management Techniques

Working with multiple LLM providers, prompt engineering, and complex data flows requires thoughtful organization. A proper structure helps teams: - Maintain clean separation between configuration and code - Implement consistent error handling and rate limiting - Enable rapid experimentation while preserving reproducibility - Facilitate collaboration across ML engineers and developers The modular approach shown here separates model clients, prompt engineering, utils, and handlers while maintaining a coherent flow. This organization has saved many people countless hours in debugging and onboarding. Key Components That Drive Success Beyond folders, the real innovation lies in how components interact: - Centralized configuration through YAML - Dedicated prompt engineering module with templating and few-shot capabilities - Properly sandboxed model clients with standardized interfaces - Comprehensive caching, logging, and rate limiting Whether you're building RAG applications, fine-tuning foundation models, or creating agent-based systems, this structure provides a solid foundation to build upon. What project structure approaches have you found effective for your generative AI projects? I'd love to hear your experiences.

I was once working on a project where one key stakeholder was… let’s say, not easy to work with. Constant last-minute changes, strong opinions, minimal responses on Jira or emails — and feedback always came in after we moved ahead. At first, I felt frustrated. I mean, as a Business Analyst, all I want is clarity, alignment, and moving forward together. But here’s what I did differently: 1) I scheduled short weekly syncs just with them — no agenda, no pressure, just a space to talk. 2) I stopped expecting structured feedback. I let them speak freely, took notes, and turned their thoughts into proper user stories. 3) I started sending back short summaries after every call — just to confirm, reduce misunderstandings, and track evolving requirements. 4) I noticed they weren’t active on Jira or long email chains, so I casually asked how they prefer to communicate. Turned out, they liked WhatsApp and quick voice notes — so I adapted. 5) I collaborated with the dev team to create quick mockups and visuals. They responded much better to that than documents. 6) Instead of defending timelines, I started showing how their feedback was shaping the product — and how it helped the end user. 7) I even built a “wish list” backlog for their ideas — not everything made it to the roadmap, but they felt heard. It wasn’t overnight. But slowly, they became more engaged, more trusting, and less reactive. One day, they said: “Thanks for your patience — I know I haven’t made this easy.” And honestly? That meant more than any formal feedback ever could. Lesson learned: Tough stakeholders aren’t always difficult — sometimes, they just need someone to translate their thoughts and make them feel heard. Ever been in a similar situation? Would love to hear how you handled it. #BusinessAnalysis #StakeholderManagement #ProjectLife #ProductDevelopment #RealTalk #LessonsFromTheField #Opentowork #UnitedArabEmirates

People argue about Fixed Price versus Time and Materials far more than they need to. In this infographic I give you the simplest way to decide: Choose Time and Materials if: • The project is large or long term • Requirements are unclear or evolving • The work is new or unfamiliar • You need flexibility as things change How it works: you pay for actual time and materials. Rates are agreed upfront, and scope can adapt as the project progresses. ✅ Pros: flexible, transparent, easy to increase scope. ❌ Cons: harder to manage, detailed tracking needed, risk of overruns without a cap. Choose Fixed Price if: • The project is small and well defined • The supplier has done this type of work before • Time and material needs are predictable • You want cost certainty How it works: scope, deadlines, deliverables and price are locked in at the start. Minimal tracking needed. ✅ Pros: clear deliverables, predictable cost, easier administration. ❌ Cons: changes require change orders which can slow things down. There is no perfect model. Just the right model for the level of certainty you have. If you know exactly what you want, go Fixed Price. If you need flexibility, go Time and Materials. Anything I missed? Save this post (…in top right) for the future Repost ♻️ if you found it helpful ____ I’m Tom Mills Procurement Protagonist®️ I simplify procurement. Sign up to my newsletter here: https://procurebites.com/ for FREE weekly insights. You get all my best cheat sheets FREE 🎁 to download the moment you sign up too.

Rethinking Requirements in Hardware Engineering Requirements management isn’t just about checklists—it’s the difference between effective collaboration and costly missteps. Here are once-unconventional approaches to requirements now embraced by top teams 1. From “Requirements” to “Design Criteria” Early systems engineers were part engineer, part lawyer. Someone had to create “techno-legal documents” to manage external contracts. These evolved into requirements. Many cultural issues stem from using requirements incorrectly–as a weapon rather than tool for collaboration. Not all requirements need to be treated as commandments. Reframing lower-level requirements as design criteria reduces resistance among engineers, empowering them to see requirements as flexible guidelines open to questioning and adjustment. This is what you want to inspire. 2. Culture of Ownership and Accountability Drives Agility A strong requirements culture is built when engineers “own” their work. Engineers must take responsibility for the requirements they design against, creating a culture of ownership, responsibility, and systems-mindedness. Assigning a clear, single-point owner for each requirement, even across domains, encourages each engineer to think critically about their area’s requirements, establishing ownership and trust in the process. Encouraging information flow between teams helps engineers see how their work impacts others, leads to reduced and stronger system integration. Requirements should be viewed as evolving assets, not static documents. You want engineers to push back on requirements and eliminate unnecessary systems rather than add more requirements, complexity, or systems. 3. Requirements as Conversations, Not Just Checklists Requirements aren’t just specs or checklists—they’re starting points for cross-functional discussions. Every problem is a systems problem, and to solve complex challenges, engineers must be systems thinkers first and domain experts second. In traditional settings, requirements stay isolated in documents. But when teams understand why requirements exist, where they come from, and who owns them—and engage in continuous dialogue—they blur the lines between domains and foster a systems-oriented mindset. This collaborative environment accelerates problem-solving, enabling engineers to align quickly and tackle challenges together. Instead of siloed requirements for each subsystem, drawing dotted lines and encouraging information flow between teams helps engineers understand how their work affects others. This cross-functional awareness leads to fewer misalignments and stronger system integration. When you see engineers make sacrifices in their own area to benefit the overall system, you know you are on the right track. There you have it. The full guide goes into specifics on how to start implementing these ideas in tools.

𝐒𝐭𝐚𝐤𝐞𝐡𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐫 𝐄𝐧𝐠𝐚𝐠𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭: 𝐌𝐞𝐞𝐭 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐦 𝐖𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐀𝐫𝐞 Enterprise Architecture abhors a vacuum—it thrives on stakeholder engagement. Often, architects jump into collaboration without first assessing one critical factor: • 𝐖𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐝𝐨 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐤𝐞𝐡𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐤𝐧𝐨𝐰, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐛𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐞𝐯𝐞, 𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐄𝐀? Before strategy, frameworks, or roadmaps, 𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐚𝐰𝐚𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐬𝐬, 𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐜𝐞𝐩𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 and 𝐞𝐱𝐩𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬. This will shape how you approach, gain buy-in, and drive outcomes. Here are 𝐭𝐡𝐫𝐞𝐞 𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐦𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐬 for aligning EA with stakeholders: 𝟏 | 𝐆𝐚𝐮𝐠𝐞 𝐄𝐀 𝐀𝐰𝐚𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐁𝐞𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐄𝐧𝐠𝐚𝐠𝐢𝐧𝐠 EA means different things to people, how can you align? Approach: * 𝐀𝐬𝐬𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐞𝐱𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐤𝐧𝐨𝐰𝐥𝐞𝐝𝐠𝐞. What do leaders think EA does? What experiences shape their view? * 𝐏𝐨𝐬𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐄𝐀 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐮𝐚𝐠𝐞. If a product saw EA as 'overhead,’ shift the conversation to ‘rapid decision-making.’ * 𝐓𝐚𝐢𝐥𝐨𝐫 𝐞𝐧𝐠𝐚𝐠𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐛𝐲 𝐚𝐮𝐝𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞. Finance, operations, and IT leaders have different concerns. Meet them on their terms. 👉 𝐎𝐮𝐭𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐞: When you shape EA’s role based on their reality, it becomes relevant, not theoretical. 𝟐 | 𝐀𝐥𝐢𝐠𝐧 𝐄𝐀 𝐭𝐨 𝐒𝐭𝐚𝐤𝐞𝐡𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐫 𝐏𝐫𝐢𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐞𝐬 EA isn’t all architecture, it’s solving business problems. Approach: * 𝐒𝐭𝐚𝐫𝐭 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐊𝐏𝐈𝐬. Growth? Efficiency? Risk? Align EA contributions to what leadership interests. * 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐧𝐞𝐜𝐭 𝐭𝐞𝐜𝐡𝐧𝐨𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐲 𝐭𝐨 𝐢𝐦𝐩𝐚𝐜𝐭. Show architecture driving go-to-market, savings, or agility—over compliance. * 𝐀𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐩𝐚𝐭𝐞/𝐫𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐯𝐞 𝐫𝐨𝐚𝐝𝐛𝐥𝐨𝐜𝐤𝐬. If EA was a bottleneck, demonstrate accelerated decision-making instead. 👉 𝐎𝐮𝐭𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐞: EA is a strategic enabler, not afterthought. 𝟑 | 𝐁𝐮𝐢𝐥𝐝 𝐄𝐀 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐁𝐮𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 EA works best in collaboration, not isolation. Approach: * 𝐄𝐦𝐛𝐞𝐝 𝐚𝐫𝐜𝐡𝐢𝐭𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐬 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐨 𝐛𝐮𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐜𝐮𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬. Decision-making improves when EA is a proactive presence. * 𝐒𝐡𝐢𝐟𝐭 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 ‘𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐄𝐀’ 𝐭𝐨 ‘𝐜𝐨-𝐜𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐬𝐨𝐥𝐮𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬.’ Stakeholders engage when architecture is a tool for their success. * 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐮𝐨𝐮𝐬 𝐞𝐧𝐠𝐚𝐠𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭, 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐨𝐧𝐞-𝐨𝐟𝐟. EA isn’t a pitch—it’s a dialog evolving with business. 👉 𝐎𝐮𝐭𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐞: EA shaping decisions early rather than reacting later. 𝐓𝐚𝐤𝐞𝐚𝐰𝐚𝐲 𝐒𝐭𝐚𝐤𝐞𝐡𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐫 𝐞𝐧𝐠𝐚𝐠𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐬 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠. Before pushing frameworks or models, assess 𝐰𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐄𝐀 𝐦𝐞𝐚𝐧𝐬 𝐭𝐨𝐝𝐚𝐲—and how to reshape that narrative to unlock its full potential. How do align EA stakeholders? Let’s discuss.👇 --- ➕ 𝐅𝐨𝐥𝐥𝐨𝐰 Kevin Donovan 🔔    👍 Like | ♻️ Repost | 💬 Comment    🚀 𝐉𝐨𝐢𝐧 𝐀𝐫𝐜𝐡𝐢𝐭𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐬’ 𝐇𝐮𝐛 👉 https://lnkd.in/dgmQqfu2

You can’t call it partnership if stakeholders only hear from you once before launch. True engagement isn’t a courtesy email. It’s about making stakeholders 𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘦𝘴𝘴 from day one to follow-through. 4 shifts that make the difference: 1. Map before you move Not all stakeholders need the same level of attention. Use mapping tools to identify who has influence, what they care about, and how they prefer to engage. 2. Align objectives early Don’t wait until the end to prove impact. Bring stakeholders into planning to set KPIs, success metrics, and business outcomes together. 3. Keep communication alive Use clear, jargon-free updates. Share progress, invite feedback, and celebrate wins. Trust grows when stakeholders feel part of the journey. 4. Champion transfer, not just learning Make managers and sponsors active player, e.g. mentors, accountability partners, and reinforcement leaders. Because learning in the classroom means nothing if it doesn’t show up on the job. When engagement is tailored this way, L&D stops being a service provider… and starts being a strategic driver of business results. A question for you: What’s worked best in your experience: mapping, alignment, communication, or transfer support? _____________ High functioning ≠ high capacity. I consult with L&D teams to turn busyness into business impact.

🎄 Day 14 of the #AdventOfOR 2025! The single biggest mistake in optimization projects? Engaging stakeholders once. Most teams nail the "Early" part (kickoff, problem framing, initial requirements). But then they disappear into complex code. Weeks later, they return with the perfect solution... but trust has eroded. Engagement isn't a single event. It's a continuous cadence: Early AND Often. Why is this continuous interaction essential? 🤝 Maintains trust: Consistent updates prevent the project from becoming a black box. 🎯 Ensures relevance: Requirements shift; regular check-ins keep your model aligned with business reality (just like we got new requirements on Day 12!). 🪡 Drives adoption: Stakeholders own the solution when they help build it. The secret to making it work is lowering the cost of understanding the model's progress. But you don't need to do heavy presentations; do easy, frequent demos with tools that help: 🔹 GAMS MIRO for interactive apps stakeholders can explore 🔹 Streamlit or Taipy for quick Python dashboards 🔹 Nextmv for comparing runs and sharing scenarios When showing progress becomes easy, you'll do it more often. When you do it more often, trust compounds. 🫵 Your turn: What's the single biggest piece of friction that currently stops you from sharing model progress (work-in-progress, not final results) with your stakeholders more often? (e.g., "It takes too long to clean the output," "We lack visualization tools," "I only share final numbers.")

This slide gets copied and stolen from me more than any other. It’s the blueprint for saving 4+ years and $4+ million on failed AI initiatives. Start with an iterative PMPV framework to avoid 4 expensive mistakes. Propose – Top-down and bottom-up opportunity discovery workshops. The business articulates its needs vs. being told what should be built. The opportunity is assessed. Does it require AI, or can a less expensive technology work? Measure – AI Product Managers work with stakeholders/customers to define the problem space and assess the opportunity size. They work with the data/AI team to assess feasibility and estimate costs. Prioritize – The 3 assessments allow the business to reach a consensus on a value-based prioritization without being dragged into technical solution complexity. The roadmap is updated. Validate – Did the initiative deliver the expected impact, revenue, margins, etc.? If not, why, and is it salvageable? If it did, can more value be delivered quickly? How much? The roadmap is updated/reprioritized. The roadmap can’t be static. New opportunities emerge, and some opportunities don’t pan out. Businesses need to take a pipeline approach with multiple opportunities on the roadmap. It can’t be opinion-driven or abandoned for every fire drill. Opportunity size estimation is critical, or the loss from constant reprioritization cannot be quantified. Loss allows AI Product Managers to push back. That’s it. Iterative PMPV is a lightweight product strategy framework that supports the unique needs of AI features and products. Remember, frameworks are only as good as the people who manage them. No AI Product Manager == No AI products, revenue, or cost savings…just a giant cost center. #ProductManagement #AIStrategy

Most Projects Fail to Deliver Full Value… Because Stakeholder Management Is an Afterthought. ~ Conflicting priorities stall critical decisions. ~ Misaligned expectations derail project timelines. ~ Key sponsors disengage, leaving teams without support. And yet, when these challenges arise, most teams focus on “more updates” or “more stakeholder meetings.” But the real issue isn’t the frequency of communication – It’s ineffective stakeholder management. Here’s what I consistently see in projects: → Too Many Decision-Makers – Multiple stakeholders with conflicting goals slow down consensus and project momentum. → Competing Priorities – What’s urgent for one stakeholder may be irrelevant for another, creating constant friction. → Limited Resources – Tight budgets and stretched teams make balancing stakeholder demands increasingly difficult. These challenges lead to delays, frustration, and loss of stakeholder trust. What’s the solution? A structured and strategic stakeholder management approach, not just ad hoc engagement. Here’s how I help organisations elevate their stakeholder management: 1. Clarify Expectations Early → Align all stakeholders on shared goals, roles, and success metrics upfront. 2. Strategic Stakeholder Mapping → Using tools like the Power-Interest Matrix to categorise stakeholders and tailor engagement accordingly. 3. Targeted Communication Strategies → Communicating the right information, to the right people, at the right time. 4. Action-Oriented Engagement Plans → Prioritising critical stakeholders and focusing efforts where they create the most impact. When organisations manage stakeholders effectively, the outcomes speak for themselves: → Faster decision-making: Streamlined discussions and fewer bottlenecks.  → Stronger stakeholder alignment: Reduced conflicts and enhanced project cohesion.  → Higher project success rates: Deliverables that meet or exceed expectations.  → Improved stakeholder relationships: Greater trust and long-term collaboration. Stakeholder management isn’t a soft skill – it’s a business-critical strategy. Are competing priorities slowing your projects down? Let’s address it. Drop me a message and let’s explore how structured stakeholder engagement can drive project success and stakeholder buy-in. —- 📌 Want to become the best LEADERSHIP version of yourself in the next 30 days? 🧑💻Book 1:1 Growth Strategy call with me: https://lnkd.in/gVjPzbcU #Leadership #Strategy #Projects #Success #Growth