IS THERE WIDE SPREAD CONSENSUS? – An appeal for a Second Public Exposure Draft
Jim BrandenSenior Project Manager| Retired from UNC Charlotte - IT Services - PPMOCharlotte, Nc, United States
I believe the drafting committee who wrote the 7th Edition update to The Standard for Project Management made a good faith effort to bring the Standard in line with their vision of the state-of-the-profession. They obviously worked very hard and dedicated themselves to completing the document within the constraints of a volunteer team working in a virtual environment with sensitivity to schedule.
PMI Standards has always prided itself on developing consensus-based standards and guides that promote the practice of project management. To accomplish this, standards development committees seek open participation and multiple rounds of input. It is only through a robust effort to elicit and incorporate feedback can a true consensus view be obtained.
Unfortunately, in my professional opinion, (having contributed to the public exposure drafts of the third, fifth and seventh editions) the document as it stands today, does not reflect a consensus of the reviewers. The document suffers from flaws in the process of content development more than from the efforts of the drafting committee.
THIS POST RESPECTFULLY REQUESTS THE STANDARDS CONSENSUS COMMITTEE IN ITS JUNE MEETING TO VOTE AGAINST APPROVING THE DOCUMENT AS AN ANSI STANDARD FOR THE FOLLOWING FIVE REASONS.
Reason one: CONTENT DOES NOT REFLECT THE SPECIAL ASPECTS OF PROJECT MANAGEMENT AS A SUBSET OF GENERAL ORGANIZATIONAL MANAGEMENT. The heart of the document focuses on twelve principles which can apply to any business without regard for the demands of projects producing changes in those organizations. There is no basis for those twelve principles identified, no discussion of market studies or literature reviews, or even a bibliography or an example of a study focused on principles of pm-practice. There is no justification made for defining these 12 principles as the Project Delivery Principles
A Google search of “PM Principles” yielded some surprising findings. From fifteen sources (not counting PMI) 29 principles were identified that do not correlate to the twelve principles in the Standard. Two observations:
First, of the twelve principles in the Standard, two did not occur a single time in those fifteen sources:
1. Recognize and respond to systems’ interactions
2. Build quality into processes and results
Second, five of the twelve principles in the Standard were mentioned between one and five times out of fifteen sources. THE ABOVE TWO OBSERVATIONS INDICATE TO ME, THAT THE TWELVE PRINCIPLES ARE NOT UNIVERSALLY RECOGNIZED (I.E., THERE IS A LACK OF CONSENSUS) IN A MAJORITY OF THE DIGITALLY AVAILABLE RESOURCES FOR THE PMI MEMBERSHIP.
Reason two: THE CONTENT DOES NOT INCLUDE A SINGLE REFERENCE TO THE PM BODY OF KNOWLEDGE, THE LIFE CYCLE / TEMPORARY NATURE OF PROJECTS AND CONFLATES PM-VOCABULARY INTO ALMOST MEANINGLESS AND CONFUSING DISCUSSIONS. For example, repeated uses the phrase “projects, programs and portfolios” as if they are equivalent value delivery systems. In my opinion, only projects deliver value, while programs and portfolios MANAGE projects to magnify the coordinated value of multiple projects.
Reason three: APPROXIMATELY 500 REVIEWERS SUBMITTED OVER 5,000 COMMENTS ON 1,492 LINES. I.E. 3.35 COMMENTS PER LINE! As to the process of establishing consensus, the feedback I received from my 87 suggestions for improvements or clarifications of content resulted in 77 (89%) “Accepted with Modification” which is actually a misnomer because the vast majority received this standard reply: “Our justification: SEVERAL COMMENTS WERE RECEIVED FOR THIS SEGMENT OF CONTENT. IN RESPONSE WE HAVE ELIMINATED THE SENTENCE.” That is not “accepting and modifying”; that is REJECTING suggestions for improvement or clarification. Only one of MY 77 comments was implemented and my comment pointed out that the original statement was not ‘true’, so it was rewritten!
Of the 87 responses to my input, I appealed 56 (64%) because I objected to the elimination of content that needed clarification of simple additions to make it appropriate to the PM environment. The response to my appeals was shocking to me: “SINCE THE DISPUTED TEXT WAS REMOVED FROM THE DOCUMENT, THE APPEAL IS REJECTED.” Why cannot a person appeal for the reinstatement of content that was originally deemed worthy of inclusion to be improved rather than omitted?
Reason Four: BOTTOM LINE of my participation: my original review covered 211 (14%) of the 1,492 lines. Based on the identified text tied to the ‘eliminated sentence’, APPROXIMATELY 20% OF THE TEXT WAS ELIMINATED INCLUDING A DISCUSSION OF THE ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE KEY PROJECT PARTICIPANTS AND ONLY ABOUT 10% WAS REWRITTEN, INCLUDING A NEW FIGURE, WITHOUT PUBLIC EXPOSURE. If one extrapolates the number of appeals based on my experience, the magnitude of objections does not indicate consensus because of the significantly changed document.
Reason five: THE DELETIONS AND UNPUBLISHED REPLACEMENTS CONSTITUTE A SIGNIFICANT CHANGE TO THE PUBLIC EXPOSURE DRAFT; A DOCUMENT ONLY THE DRAFTING COMMITTEE HAS SEEN. Without a broader review by the larger project management community, for additional feedback, I do not believe PMI can claim the document has a consensus of the membership / profession. Changes of this magnitude warrant a full public exposure of the revised draft to support any valid claim there is broad consensus for the content of the new document.
Thus, I feel the document needs a second public exposure to establish that the new Standard has the consensus of the membership who have devoted so much effort to help the drafting committee reach its goals of a current Standard that will serve the profession for the foreseeable future.
I welcome other views as to whether the proposed draft Standard for Project Management-Seventh Edition as it now stands is a true consensus-based standard and its content reflects the pm context.
Jim Branden, MBA, PMP Saving Changes...
Dave VioletteRetired| Duke Energy CorporationMooresville, Nc, United States
May 20, 2020 12:54 PM
Replying to Pedro Engrácia
...
Hi All,
I tend to agree with Dave Violette and George Ducan ideas.
From my point of view, PMBOK should be a integrated document, and not an issue of PM Magazine, with different technical articles, stating different opinions.
Besides that, the alinement with ISO Standards is vital, not only for the credibility of the work done by PMI ( and it's huge!) but also because it will reflect at ANSI and PMI positions at PM ISO's Committee.
Pedro,
I agree wholeheartedly there should be alignment of the PMI Standard for Project Management (which if it is affirmed will be the ANSI Standard) and the ISO Project Management Standard.
When I chaired the update for PMBOK5, one activity we undertook was a review of ISO 21500 and the PMBOK5 update. At that time the 2 documents were closely aligned.
I'm afraid one cannot make that claim about this latest update with PMBOK7. The soon to be released ISO 21502 standard (the updated version of the ISO Standard for Project Management) has little to no correlation with the revised ANSI standard being put forth with PMBOK7.
I fear this will create confusion within the project management community.
...
1 reply by Stelian ROMAN
May 27, 2020 7:05 PM
Stelian ROMAN
...
I see a similar misalignment between the Risk Management standards PMI and ISO and I always wandered why do we need PMI standards for areas that are much broader than project management (risk, quality, change management)
Saving Changes...
Gina DavidovicPresident and CEO| www.PM1World.com Gold Coast, Qld, Australia
May 18, 2020 10:59 AM
Replying to Jim Branden
...
Thanks for the comments and your perspective.
Jim, same here. Interesting I came across a LinkedIn Course on 7th Edition by Cindy -the Chair of the 7th Edition update team? Bit premature
...
1 reply by George Jucan
May 26, 2020 9:20 AM
George Jucan
...
Gina, do you have the link by any chance? This is extremely interesting (and not in a good way)...
Saving Changes...
George JucanManaging Partner| Organizational Perfomance Enablers NetworkWoodbridge, Ontario, Canada
May 26, 2020 4:57 AM
Replying to Gina Davidovic
...
Jim, same here. Interesting I came across a LinkedIn Course on 7th Edition by Cindy -the Chair of the 7th Edition update team? Bit premature
Gina, do you have the link by any chance? This is extremely interesting (and not in a good way)... Saving Changes...
I found the course. It can be found in LinkedIn's training site, www.lynda.com, under business, then management. Check it out. Saving Changes...
Stelian ROMANProject Manager| MicroSafetyCarlingford, New South Wales, Australia
Jim Congratulation for this initiative. I was also part of the review groups 1&2. My view is that overall the change of the PMBOK is good but PMI should not deviate from his role as a community of practice. The PMBOK that I saw doesn't look like a practice guide but as someone else said, as a collection of articles, in some parts almost like an academic paper.
I see that the general consensus is that the book is "half baked" and I concur to that view. PMBOK, ANSI standard or not, should be written for practitioners (and by practitioners) not as a training support material written by consultants.
We (the practitioners) may not look perfect, but we are real. The real world is very different from what we learn in training courses and a good project manager should have the ability to identify and adapt the best practices to the project context.
Regardless the formal process to be adopted as a standard, a broad review is necessary to ensure that PMBOK 7 is a step forward in terms of relevance for the (real) project management practitioners. It is a significant change from V6. Saving Changes...
Stelian ROMANProject Manager| MicroSafetyCarlingford, New South Wales, Australia
May 22, 2020 2:42 PM
Replying to Dave Violette
...
Pedro,
I agree wholeheartedly there should be alignment of the PMI Standard for Project Management (which if it is affirmed will be the ANSI Standard) and the ISO Project Management Standard.
When I chaired the update for PMBOK5, one activity we undertook was a review of ISO 21500 and the PMBOK5 update. At that time the 2 documents were closely aligned.
I'm afraid one cannot make that claim about this latest update with PMBOK7. The soon to be released ISO 21502 standard (the updated version of the ISO Standard for Project Management) has little to no correlation with the revised ANSI standard being put forth with PMBOK7.
I fear this will create confusion within the project management community.
I see a similar misalignment between the Risk Management standards PMI and ISO and I always wandered why do we need PMI standards for areas that are much broader than project management (risk, quality, change management) Saving Changes...
Phil AkinwaleProject Management & Leadership Speaker, Coach, Trainer & Author| PRAIZIONMesa, Az, United States
They are walking on very shaky ground. Thanks for starting this one. Many of us are opposed to this excuse for a draft. I have a video on YT stating my many grievances with the direction they are headed. Google "pmbok guide 7th disaster waiting to happen" Saving Changes...
Ketan DavePMO Director| Independent ConsultantSan Jose, Ca, United States
I agree! Such a drastic change must take inputs from a large number of professionals from all industries. Input from a few dozens of SMEs, though valuable, does not constitute an alignment or reflect views from all industries.
I have had a brief chance to review the DRAFT as well as review comments from other seasoned professionals. In my opinion, the new standard will dismantle the FUNDAMENTALS of project management to mimic the latest hype in Agile. A lot of people do not understand that while Agile has its place and is powerful only when applied to the right types of projects in the right environment, it can NOT be used to manage complex, cross-functional projects with lots of dependencies. That is where PMBOK6th edition comes into the picture providing comprehensive standards and processes to be able to manage large complex projects.
The current version of PMBOK6th, along with the Agile Guide was a good direction. Though not perfect, the current Guide has evolved over decades with inputs from 1000s of professionals from all types of industries spending thousands of volunteer hours. All their work, which is still very relevant and serves as the FOUNDATION of project management, is likely to be butchered!
PMI is going through a transformation. I hope this transformation is achieved WITHOUT compromising the vision, mission, values, and quality in all aspects of PMI's operations. If they are compromised, "PRINCE" will soon become the "KING!"
...
1 reply by Stelian ROMAN
May 28, 2020 9:32 PM
Stelian ROMAN
...
It could be worst than that.... instead of a PRINCE we can have only a Scrum and reduce all project teams to 5-9 developers.
Saving Changes...
Stelian ROMANProject Manager| MicroSafetyCarlingford, New South Wales, Australia
May 28, 2020 5:17 PM
Replying to Ketan Dave
...
I agree! Such a drastic change must take inputs from a large number of professionals from all industries. Input from a few dozens of SMEs, though valuable, does not constitute an alignment or reflect views from all industries.
I have had a brief chance to review the DRAFT as well as review comments from other seasoned professionals. In my opinion, the new standard will dismantle the FUNDAMENTALS of project management to mimic the latest hype in Agile. A lot of people do not understand that while Agile has its place and is powerful only when applied to the right types of projects in the right environment, it can NOT be used to manage complex, cross-functional projects with lots of dependencies. That is where PMBOK6th edition comes into the picture providing comprehensive standards and processes to be able to manage large complex projects.
The current version of PMBOK6th, along with the Agile Guide was a good direction. Though not perfect, the current Guide has evolved over decades with inputs from 1000s of professionals from all types of industries spending thousands of volunteer hours. All their work, which is still very relevant and serves as the FOUNDATION of project management, is likely to be butchered!
PMI is going through a transformation. I hope this transformation is achieved WITHOUT compromising the vision, mission, values, and quality in all aspects of PMI's operations. If they are compromised, "PRINCE" will soon become the "KING!"
It could be worst than that.... instead of a PRINCE we can have only a Scrum and reduce all project teams to 5-9 developers. Saving Changes...
Ganesh WatveFounder, Director and Trainer| SarvaShikshan e-LearningPune, India
PMBOK was the global standard and leader in project management. But with the new version, looks like this will remain as one of the certification guide. PMBOK 7th, completely failed in making it's mark and show new direction to Project Management community. Looks like, they were not confident on their core and were not sure where to go- the agile path, which was already explored by many. PMBOK will loose it's uniqueness with this current draft. Saving Changes...
