Talk:Work breakdown structure

message: I've put this article on my To Do list for substantial re-work.  Here are a few ideas:
A WBS should be comprehensive but not "exhaustive."
A WBS is a step-wise refinement of broad objectives to discrete effort that can be scheduled, or similar wording.
No reason to associate WBS with U.S. Government projects; it applies to all projects even if the WBS is a simple list.
The painting example goes back to the orignal aricle; need a better example and better presentation.
How to Build a WBS states "In building a work breakdown structure for painting a room (activity-oriented) it is essential that you state the obvious."  Huh? 
The second graphic (generated by inforapid.com) violates WBS design principles and graphic design principles.
WBS design principles not spelled out clearly (e.g. 100% rule, outcome orientation, triple constraint decomposition, etc.)
Application of short-term memory to WBS design?  This is not supported by literature, and it's just wrong.
Link cleanup
More later
If you have other ideas, now is a good time to list them.  --Garrybooker 20:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A major re-write has been initiated, as I announced here about two weeks ago.  This is an important topic, and the prior article was unsatisfactory.  Comments? Questions? Complaints?  Garrybooker 07:32, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just one, since its an article talk page, its not good practice to remove any talk from the page unless its vandalism or personal attacks.--Crossmr 21:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article was re-written from scratch on Dec 2, 2006 

message: Phil Magrogan: The statement, " A terminal element is sometimes called a work package, although the two terms are not synonymous." is not a correct statement in teh PMBOK.  According to PMI the Work Package "is" the lowest level of the WBS. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.83.129.163 (talk) 01:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WBS element 

message: There is a substantially similar white paper by Michael D. Taylor at http://www.projectmgt.com/Files/Article-WBS%20How.pdf
Has Mr. Taylor released this paper into the public domain? Or is the paper an expansion of the wiki? Or should this article revert to its previous form?
--ComputerGeezer (talk) 18:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, don't revert.  This Wikipedia article definitely came first.  Mr. Taylor's article is a copy of much of the content from this Wikipedia article.  I know this because I wrote much of the original content of this article on Dec 2, 2006 (see note above) including the graphic in Taylor's white paper. --Garrybooker (talk) 03:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See, that's why I don't just revert without asking...perhaps someone should suggest some attribution notes on the whitepaper. ComputerGeezer (talk) 18:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright Issue 

message: The diagram has underscores after every item, not just the terminal elements, contrary to ...
"In this example, the WBS coding scheme includes a trailing "underscore" character ("_") to identify terminal elements."
... It looks incorrect to me, but I'm not a PM-person... 203.110.13.5 (talk) 03:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diagram 

message: I'm not sure a comprehensive list of "what a WBS is not" is possible or advisable.  Unless someone cites a source for these "common" problems, I recommend removal of the section. ComputerGeezer (talk) 00:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Common pitfalls and misconceptions 

message: ... would greatly enhance information delivery to the individuals involved in the readership of this article.  Just saying. 189.136.140.190 (talk) 00:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plain English... 

message: There has been a lot of confusion on this page stemming (I believe) from the disparate uses of the phrase "work breakdown structure".  PRINCE2 uses the phrase "Product breakdown structure" to describe what other practitioners call a "physical achitecture" or "product part" of a work breakdown structure. Perhaps it would be helpful to create new articles labeled Work breakdown structure (PRINCE2) and Product breakdown structure (PRINCE2) so that those definitions could be clearly laid out there. You could even label the existing article "Work breakdown structure (PMI/US/NASA/DoD)" or something like that... 214.4.238.61 (talk) 22:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  PRINCE2 

message: :In the A work package at the activity level is a task that paragraph of the section Level of detail, the bulleted item can be completed in accordance with one of the heuristics defined above; lends itself to some ambiguity.
::I present that the heuristics described above are not clearly detailed as such.  I am truly uncertain as to what context the author is intending to be referenced.
:::I propose a resolution to this ambiguity by having a Subject Matter Expert (SME) more clearly detail the aforementioned heuristics as such, to be referenced in the latter context.
:----------
:Additionally, it presents that the content describing A work package at the activity level is a task that is synonomous with the content described two section lower: Terminal element
::I propose that an SME Author consider combining the two to remove any redundancy.
:----------
:I am not an SME and as such, it would be inappropriate for me to provide any content therein.  Thank you, in advance.  Take care.
:-TodWulff 18:08, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some confusion from a reader... 

message: The "Coding" section of this page was largely copied and pasted from http://www.pmhut.com/wbs-examples.  Seems to be a pretty clear violation of the copyright asserted by that page ( © 2007-2011 PM Hut - an itoctopus project )
It is not OK to copy-paste from a non-free source even if we change the text a little bit ( Wikipedia:Copy-paste#Can I copy-paste if I change the text a little bit? ) 
164.58.104.33 (talk) 19:05, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok thanks. I restored an earlier text from 1 December 2008, see here. -- Mdd (talk) 21:58, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like User:Pm master reinstated the copyvio with "I don't think if we reference an article somewhere and we copy a few words we are violating any copyright."  But the policy is pretty clear that we cannot just copy someone else's work and change a few words.  The copied text includes well over 100 copied words, and nearly as many paraphrase changes, directly from the copyright PM Hut text. Unless User:Pm master can relase the PM Hut text under a compatible license, we have to either QUOTE the website, or summarize it in our own words with appropriate reference. (PM Master may own the PM Hut site and have the authority to release the text, I don't know) 214.4.238.180 (talk) 19:16, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright violation 

message: Does the article need more highlighting of the context or use ?   If so, HOW ????   I am thinking the article perhaps needs an explicit section for usage or relationshiops.
It's not something you see much said directly but more apparent by the context and examples, so I've not got an easy way to summarization nor something said in numerous cites.  The WBS is able to be the dictionary defining each part of work and everywhere else (like invoices or orgcharts) can just then use those reference numbers to indicate the association and show complete coverage.  It's easy if the WBS matches exactly the label, meaning, and structure of the contract document -- it could/should basically be the outline or table of contents for Statement of work that gives the definition of what is done, and the Statement of work says what to do at each.    I've not seen usage and relationship commonly SAID nor is it commonly said all WBS uses, but do see many instances of mention -- the MIL-HDBK-881 on WBS, the DAU SE Fundamentals or their Scheduling guide for PMs, the CMMI project planning requires it to breakdown work, be heirarchial, and include definitions.  Then in various users I see locally-specific relationship or practices, such as MIL-HDBK-245, the CDC  practice guide. consultant, 
:* Orgchart or Product teams by WBS - and if none exists then identify by key products and processes (which would be the 'most important' WBS elements)
:* Used as an ID # to reference part of the work, and to describe a scope of work.
:* Task orders, funding and contract 
:* Technical feasibility evaluation, to show comprehensive, traceable to design, and is it appropriate
:* Related to Systems engineering in Configuration Management, Risk management, cost estimating, cost-reporting, and event-based scheduling ....
So -- anyone want have a better way than just making a section and trying to fill it in ?
Markbassett (talk) 22:10, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linked to Statement of Work 

message: It looks like user:Jpussacq uploaded a new file named "Product-oriented work breakdown structure of an aircraft system.png" to the Commons in support of es:wikipedia, then user:Armbrust thoughtfully updated the filename to WBS.png to make it clearer, thus destroying the English language picture which originally held the name "WBS.png". Now we have a Spanish language example illustration in the lede. Fortunately it's too small to read anyway, so I guess we'll just leave it there...
--a former editor 214.10.6.24 (talk) 16:14, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Busted picture 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Work breakdown structure. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060211165311/http://www.dau.mil/pubs/pdf/SEFGuide%2001-01.pdf to http://www.dau.mil/pubs/pdf/SEFGuide%2001-01.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:49, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified