Yep - Prince 2 is common sense and I must admit that I have a feeling that Charlie is correct in a few circumstances about the scare factor. And an important question that I've been wondering about is why agencies have opted for this specific methodology ? I made an earlier point about the difficulties of recent times leading to smaller agencies panicking into taking on board sometimes unsuitable ways of doing things from other industries. It's probable that some agencies took on something like P2 because the clients they wanted to win were using it (however nominally).

Sounds reasonable enough. Except there is a danger in attempting to force your team and practices into a new, rigid methodology. It's my experience of P2 that it helps in formalising the structure of a project at least as far as the relationship between agency and client goes. But I quickly realised that the implementation of P2 as it stands would be very disruptive and in fact counter productive. It's often the case that some people follow such a methodology to the letter in order to cover up a lack of knowledge and / or experience. So by all means use something like P2 to aid in the explanation of the stages etc of the project but having a big P2 book is no substitute for experience and using your head!

As for Dave's good point on virtual teams, I've also seen the transferral of the running of projects to those who possibly do not have enough all round knowledge or even the willingness to take the time to find out why developers and designers have to do things in the way they do. A worrying trend and linked somewhat to my ramble on P2 above.

I haven't worked for a large company though for many years so maybe it isn't possible to utilise 'all rounders' in the pm position all the time.

Cheers

Bruce