<?xml version="1.0"?><!-- generator="bbPress" -->

<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
>

<channel>
<title>BossTalks.com Topic: What is your typical WBS (work breakdown structure)?</title>
<link>http://www.bosstalks.com/</link>
<description>BossTalks.com Topic: What is your typical WBS (work breakdown structure)?</description>
<language>en</language>
<pubDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 11:20:02 +0000</pubDate>

<item>
<title>white on "What is your typical WBS (work breakdown structure)?"</title>
<link>http://www.bosstalks.com/topic/39#post-84</link>
<pubDate>Thu, 15 Mar 2007 21:08:06 +0000</pubDate>
<dc:creator>white</dc:creator>
<guid isPermaLink="false">84@http://www.bosstalks.com/</guid>
<description>&lt;p&gt;What typical WBS (work breakdown structure) do you use during planning of the project?  I know that PMBOK describes one, which is tend to be classical and typical, but pretty often it adds unnecessary compexity.  How often do you really need anything else but 1. Design, 2. Build, 3. Test and 4. Deploy ?  (There is no Requirements here, because it should be a part of Scope phase, which prefaces Planning phase, so we already have the requirements).  Thanks!&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;P.S. Don't forget to mention your project management methodology, otherwise, I may think that you're talking about classical linear waterfall; and a lot of WBS sucks on it due to inconsistency.
&lt;/p&gt;  <a href="http://www.bosstalks.com/topic/39#post-84">(read more)</a> </description>
</item>

</channel>
</rss>

