I like to think of the PRINCE2 methodology as a buffet - there's so much to choose from, but we couldn't possibly eat it all.
The reason I liken PRINCE2 to a buffet is because it offers a plethora of tools designed to help with any kind of project (not just software development).
You pick and choose what you need on a particular project based on the project size and needs. Trying to use everything in PRINCE2 would be like trying to eat everything at a buffet (you'd probably be asked to leave the restaurant if you tried).
Where the buffet/PRINCE2 analogy starts to break down is when you consider you choose food at a buffet based on your tastes. Some people like roast pork and fill their plate, whilst others may not like it at all.
You don't choose PRINCE2 protocols based on taste (i.e. whether you like the tool or not). You choose based on the appropriateness of the tool to the project. Or do you? Would one project manager avoid a particular protocol out of PRINCE2 simply because he doesn't like it, even though another PM would judge it perfectly suitable if he was running the same project?
Why would such a thing happen? Surely the tools present in PRINCE2 are objective patterns, tried and true - they should work always when applied correctly and appropriately.
Take a change request budget for example. This particular tool is great for plugging a gap present in software development's waterfall model. It could be argued that the application of agile principles would negate the need for a change request budget, but we are focusing on PRINCE2 here.
A change request budget works by reserving an agreed upon pool of money for changes which may (will) crop up during the course of a project. This can be good because it averts the problem of a project going over-budget when new things are added along the way. But it can also be bad because it almost encourages stake-holders to change their minds mid-project; why not, the money for the change has already been budgeted? The other problem is the knock on effect changes have on delivery time.
Say there is a project where a PM does institute a change request budget and has a bad experience with it (e.g. it causes a delivery date to slip). They may become gun-shy about using it again. Isn’t this like having a bad experience with a particular kind of food? What if you get a 'bad oyster'? After the food poisoning subsides, you vow to never touch oysters again. Other oysters may be perfectly fine, so why are all oysters everywhere being punished?
Is the moral of the story to judge all PRINCE2 tools worthy upon the start of a new project, in spite of bad past experiences? From an evolutionary stand-point, when we eat something that doesn't agree with us, we develop an aversion to that food henceforth as a protection mechanism. But what if it was just us, what if we used the tool incorrectly? When we sniffed that oyster at the buffet and it smelled bit dodgy, why did we go ahead and eat it anyway?
