Mitigating the risks posed by malicious code requires the proactive implementation of industry best practices. In today's world, combatting malicious software begins at the CxO level with the recognition that there is a critical business need for an information security program and the appropriate high-level staffing for that program [1]. The components of the information security program will vary according to business needs. In this two-part Bulletin, I will examine those components that must be considered.

As managers, we all face that judgment day -- the project has failed and fingers are now pointed at us. What actually happened? The project stats looked fine on paper -- how could it have failed? Should we attempt to recover the project or just let it die?

As managers, we all face that judgment day -- the project has failed and fingers are now pointed at us. What actually happened? The project stats looked fine on paper -- how could it have failed? Should we attempt to recover the project or just let it die?

As managers, we all face that judgment day -- the project has failed and fingers are now pointed at us. What actually happened? The project stats looked fine on paper -- how could it have failed? Should we attempt to recover the project or just let it die?

In this issue of CBR , I continue my multipart series examining project management husbandry issues, drawing on data from two Cutter Consortium surveys, one conducted in June 2003 and one from 2001.

What exactly is project management husbandry? In short, it encompasses organizations' ongoing efforts to improve the capability and quality of project managers by experiential means, training, or certification.

In Part III, we discussed project morale and noted that it suffered significantly from the combination of requirements volatility and ineffective project managers. Here in Part IV, we shift the focus to the influence of project management experience and certification on achieving program success and quality.

This series has examined various factors contributing to project success. To summarize, here's what we have discussed thus far:

Nowadays, it's easy to understand why trust is in such short supply. Companies such as Enron and WorldCom have become household synonyms for deception and greed.

The "dot-bomb" era resulted in venerable brokerages such as Merrill Lynch, Goldman Sachs, and Credit Suisse First Boston collectively paying fines of nearly US $1.5 billion for misleading investors.

This month's CBR is the second half of our close look at project management. In the February issue (Part I), we focused on the "hard" factors that play into project success or failure (methods, tools, etc.). Now in Part II, we turn to the intangible, elusive, and extremely important "soft" factors. Leadership and interpersonal communication skills, levels of morale and training, and that ultimate intangible -- trust -- are usually presumed to matter greatly in managing projects.