Comprehensive Electronic Tracking of Entrepreneurial Projects: controlling tasks which are dynamically linked to multiple contacts and procedurally altered as a result of research analysis.
There are difficulties intrinsic to tracking projects electronically which I have been trying to solve for some time. The problems are not addressed in the literature (at least not the popular literature of the computer trades), nor by software tools readily available. Maybe this is because the specialized need for “entrepreneurial” control of projects has been the goal of few people, so the tools to address such tracking has not been introduced into the consumer marketplace. Current technologies and economic trends beg for these concerns to be addressed—if not directly by mass market software then by a philosophy of organizational procedure that expands to meet the new demands. This philosophy should anticipate the arrival of the software tools. The possibilities are new. The problems are new. There has to be a better way.
Entrepreneurial Control Defined
Control of “entrepreneurial projects” differs from control of established businesses where routines are stable and a creative growth of procedures is not anticipated.
Goals, Process, Task
Typically software that addresses project tracking is designed to follow “tasks” related to a “goal”; Ascend allows for personal overall guiding philosophies with long range and intermediate goals. True comprehensive tracking must also include provisions for tracking and altering “process” and the changes to “process” as goals are established, altered and/or discarded as they are outmoded or improved. It is good to state a given goal, but what happens when the process of achieving goals itself becomes an altering determinant. A major problem with Ascend functioning (6/27/96, ver. 5.0) is the inability to default prioritize tasks in the outline view of the Values and Goals window via 00000. One can only use Ascend priority letters which is too restrictive.
Practical Limits to Categories
What is the practical limit to the number of categories needed to track projects if multiple projects are being tracked from a single source file, that is to say an aggregated data source. What factors alter that number of categories: 1) sft method, 2) type of project 3) level of management (i.e., CEO vs. Middle management)
Because software applications specify process and task areas may not be globally functional (i.e., Access does not allow for sorting “tasks” in the Value and Goals view); one must be able to transfer data from one application to another. This necessity is complicated by the fact that each application uses data differently and export/import functions only from similar data types within similar program types. For example: Maximizer accepts data from Ascend but does not accept information from Encore. This is an extreme case.
[check specifics of Max/Asc xfr]
Management levels: CEO, Middle, Low Level, Labor; what are current philosophies.