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...
Mark TolbertOwner| Best Practices Training, LLCAnnandale, Va, United States
I completely agree with your view that Version Seven appears (from the partial information we have) to be ill-conceived, and a poor evolution from all the preceding PMBOK Guides. I only entered one recommendation to PMI on Version Seven. I knew it wouldn't be considered, and it wasn't. Here's my recommendation:
Your Recommendation
The existing framework of 10 Knowledge Areas and 5 Process Groups in Version Six is simpler, more intuitive and a better framework than the new proposed structure of “Project Delivery Principles” and a “Value Delivery System." All the principles in the new structure are already present in the old framework; they're just represented as tools-techniques or concepts in the 49 processes. At the end of the day, the sponsor and customer want to know a couple of basic things: what will you deliver, when will you finish, and how much is this going to cost? The old framework aligns with this very nicely! We need to get reacquainted with "KISS" ("Keep It Simple Stupid") and "Occam's Razor" - ("Don't multiply entities beyond necessity.") Our customer and management don't care a bit about whether we're focusing on processes or principles! Saving Changes...
Dave VioletteRetired| Duke Energy CorporationMooresville, Nc, United States
To all who are concerned about the current path PMI seems to be on with this latest update with PMBOK7 and the 7th Edition of the Standard for Project Management, you should be aware that the 7th Edition of The Project Management Standard is scheduled to go into Consensus Body voting by the Standards Consensus Committee (SCC) in June with the final consensus vote due in July. All it takes is 2/3 of the members submitting votes to vote to affirm the Standard as the ANSI approved standard for project management. If that occurs it WILL BE the latest ANSI standard for project management.
If you have serious reservations about this draft becoming the ANSI Standard for Project Management, I strongly encourage you to reach out to both Danille Ritter, PMI Standards Program Manager, and Lorna Scheel, PMI's Program Specialist overseeing the ANSI standards processes, and ask for the names and contact info for the Standards Consensus Committee. Then follow-up with the SCC voicing your concerns about the current update. After all, true consensus is only reached through broader discussion not less.
Maybe if enough voices can be heard, PMI will rethink whether the current revised draft of the 7th Edition update is ready to be published as a standard.
Regarding the update to the PMBOK(R) Guide itself, the situation is even worse. To my knowledge only the Drafting Committee and the members of Review Teams 1&2 have ever seen these drafts. (For full disclosure, I served on both Review Teams 1 & 2) The Standards Consensus Committee will not even be asked to review and vote on this updated document. And, for the first time since PMI started publishing the PMBOK(R) Guide, the Guide portion of the PMBOK7 update never has and is not planned to go through an public exposure draft. This is unprecedented in the 20+ years I have been involved with PMI Standards. In my opinion, with the significant changes being put forth with PMBOK7, a full exposure draft if totally warranted. How else will PMI ever be able to say there is a consensus view around this update?
...
1 reply by Sergio Luis Conte
Jun 03, 2020 9:15 AM
Sergio Luis Conte
...
Thank you very much @Dave. Good to interact with you after time passed from benefit realization guide. Just to comment, there is a presedent because in the last PMBOK the Agile Practice Guide was addedd to it and there was not public review as far as I remember. Now, I made a lot (believe me, an important number with all the justification into it) of comments in the published Standard for Project Management. In accordance to the feedback I received 98% of them has been accepted. But if they efectively were added then I can assure that the final version will be mostly different than published so I guess "accepted" will not be "added" just in my case.
Saving Changes...
Sergio Luis ConteHelping to create solutions for everyone| Worldwide based OrganizationsBuenos Aires, Argentina
Jun 02, 2020 10:17 PM
Replying to Dave Violette
...
To all who are concerned about the current path PMI seems to be on with this latest update with PMBOK7 and the 7th Edition of the Standard for Project Management, you should be aware that the 7th Edition of The Project Management Standard is scheduled to go into Consensus Body voting by the Standards Consensus Committee (SCC) in June with the final consensus vote due in July. All it takes is 2/3 of the members submitting votes to vote to affirm the Standard as the ANSI approved standard for project management. If that occurs it WILL BE the latest ANSI standard for project management.
If you have serious reservations about this draft becoming the ANSI Standard for Project Management, I strongly encourage you to reach out to both Danille Ritter, PMI Standards Program Manager, and Lorna Scheel, PMI's Program Specialist overseeing the ANSI standards processes, and ask for the names and contact info for the Standards Consensus Committee. Then follow-up with the SCC voicing your concerns about the current update. After all, true consensus is only reached through broader discussion not less.
Maybe if enough voices can be heard, PMI will rethink whether the current revised draft of the 7th Edition update is ready to be published as a standard.
Regarding the update to the PMBOK(R) Guide itself, the situation is even worse. To my knowledge only the Drafting Committee and the members of Review Teams 1&2 have ever seen these drafts. (For full disclosure, I served on both Review Teams 1 & 2) The Standards Consensus Committee will not even be asked to review and vote on this updated document. And, for the first time since PMI started publishing the PMBOK(R) Guide, the Guide portion of the PMBOK7 update never has and is not planned to go through an public exposure draft. This is unprecedented in the 20+ years I have been involved with PMI Standards. In my opinion, with the significant changes being put forth with PMBOK7, a full exposure draft if totally warranted. How else will PMI ever be able to say there is a consensus view around this update?
Thank you very much @Dave. Good to interact with you after time passed from benefit realization guide. Just to comment, there is a presedent because in the last PMBOK the Agile Practice Guide was addedd to it and there was not public review as far as I remember. Now, I made a lot (believe me, an important number with all the justification into it) of comments in the published Standard for Project Management. In accordance to the feedback I received 98% of them has been accepted. But if they efectively were added then I can assure that the final version will be mostly different than published so I guess "accepted" will not be "added" just in my case.
...
1 reply by Dave Violette
Jun 04, 2020 10:14 PM
Dave Violette
...
Nice hearing from you Sergio. The original thought with PMBOK6 was to only do an exposure draft for the Standard. However, at the last minute there were separate exposure drafts for the Standard, and the PMBOK (the PMBOK exposure included an Appendix X3 Agile, Iterative, Adaptive and Hybrid Project Environments).At the time of the 6th Edition update, it was felt the changes were too great to not exposure both the Standard and the Guide.
I guess time changes as we move forward. Even though the changes being made with the 7th Edition update are even greater, PMI has chosen to only conduct an exposure draft for the Standard. The BOK portion has only gone trough Review Team reviews. I truly believe people will be shocked at the magnitude of change made in the PMBOK(R) Guide. That is not to say all of the changes are bad. Just that with the magnitude of the changes being made, one would think more/broader public exposure would be warranted.
Time will tell whether the changes are embraced or not.
Saving Changes...
Kevin WhelanFacilitator| Northern Alberta Institute of Technology (NAIT)Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Too much change too quickly without ensuring stakeholder buy in is a recipe for disaster. I teach project management, I am connected to the local chapter, I stay informed about the industry and even I only found out about the 7th edition by accident one day last year. I am not sure what the risk management plan or the communication plan was here but it was/is sorely lacking.
FYI - Here is the link to the 30 minute "LinkedIn Learning" course introducing the 7th edition - https://www.linkedin.com/learning/introduc...guide?u=2109516
...
1 reply by George Jucan
Jun 05, 2020 10:05 AM
George Jucan
...
I don't think the problem is the change itself, but about how change is brought about:
- change that comes from within, generated because the large mass of practitioners are actually doing things differently, is organically accepted because it is theirs / ours.
- change imposed from outside (to not say "rammed down people's throat") generates resistance because nobody likes to be pushed outside of their own comfort zone.
As people really change only when they want to change, and will only reluctantly comply (unless they have a choice) when forced to change, I'm afraid that going too far too fast will make people discard the PMBOK altogether and do what they know to do best.
And frankly, why wouldn't they do so? Compliance with PMBOK is voluntary, and only as long as it is truly accepted as a collection of best practices - a.k.a. things that work best for most project managers, in most projects, most of the time.
If PMBOK is perceived as a collection of articles on various topics authored by a small group of people and with limited validation by the body of practitioners, who can guarantee that it is indeed a "best practice" and not the author's personal opinion?
Saving Changes...
Dave VioletteRetired| Duke Energy CorporationMooresville, Nc, United States
Jun 03, 2020 9:15 AM
Replying to Sergio Luis Conte
...
Thank you very much @Dave. Good to interact with you after time passed from benefit realization guide. Just to comment, there is a presedent because in the last PMBOK the Agile Practice Guide was addedd to it and there was not public review as far as I remember. Now, I made a lot (believe me, an important number with all the justification into it) of comments in the published Standard for Project Management. In accordance to the feedback I received 98% of them has been accepted. But if they efectively were added then I can assure that the final version will be mostly different than published so I guess "accepted" will not be "added" just in my case.
Nice hearing from you Sergio. The original thought with PMBOK6 was to only do an exposure draft for the Standard. However, at the last minute there were separate exposure drafts for the Standard, and the PMBOK (the PMBOK exposure included an Appendix X3 Agile, Iterative, Adaptive and Hybrid Project Environments).At the time of the 6th Edition update, it was felt the changes were too great to not exposure both the Standard and the Guide.
I guess time changes as we move forward. Even though the changes being made with the 7th Edition update are even greater, PMI has chosen to only conduct an exposure draft for the Standard. The BOK portion has only gone trough Review Team reviews. I truly believe people will be shocked at the magnitude of change made in the PMBOK(R) Guide. That is not to say all of the changes are bad. Just that with the magnitude of the changes being made, one would think more/broader public exposure would be warranted.
Time will tell whether the changes are embraced or not.
...
1 reply by Sergio Luis Conte
Jun 05, 2020 9:47 AM
Sergio Luis Conte
...
After saw the Standard which we could say is the basement, the foundation of the BOK but mainly the discipline I guess we will have a totally different project managemet approach. Nothing we know today seems will remain.
Saving Changes...
Sergio Luis ConteHelping to create solutions for everyone| Worldwide based OrganizationsBuenos Aires, Argentina
Jun 04, 2020 10:14 PM
Replying to Dave Violette
...
Nice hearing from you Sergio. The original thought with PMBOK6 was to only do an exposure draft for the Standard. However, at the last minute there were separate exposure drafts for the Standard, and the PMBOK (the PMBOK exposure included an Appendix X3 Agile, Iterative, Adaptive and Hybrid Project Environments).At the time of the 6th Edition update, it was felt the changes were too great to not exposure both the Standard and the Guide.
I guess time changes as we move forward. Even though the changes being made with the 7th Edition update are even greater, PMI has chosen to only conduct an exposure draft for the Standard. The BOK portion has only gone trough Review Team reviews. I truly believe people will be shocked at the magnitude of change made in the PMBOK(R) Guide. That is not to say all of the changes are bad. Just that with the magnitude of the changes being made, one would think more/broader public exposure would be warranted.
Time will tell whether the changes are embraced or not.
After saw the Standard which we could say is the basement, the foundation of the BOK but mainly the discipline I guess we will have a totally different project managemet approach. Nothing we know today seems will remain. Saving Changes...
George JucanManaging Partner| Organizational Perfomance Enablers NetworkWoodbridge, Ontario, Canada
Jun 03, 2020 10:18 AM
Replying to Kevin Whelan
...
Too much change too quickly without ensuring stakeholder buy in is a recipe for disaster. I teach project management, I am connected to the local chapter, I stay informed about the industry and even I only found out about the 7th edition by accident one day last year. I am not sure what the risk management plan or the communication plan was here but it was/is sorely lacking.
FYI - Here is the link to the 30 minute "LinkedIn Learning" course introducing the 7th edition - https://www.linkedin.com/learning/introduc...guide?u=2109516
I don't think the problem is the change itself, but about how change is brought about:
- change that comes from within, generated because the large mass of practitioners are actually doing things differently, is organically accepted because it is theirs / ours.
- change imposed from outside (to not say "rammed down people's throat") generates resistance because nobody likes to be pushed outside of their own comfort zone.
As people really change only when they want to change, and will only reluctantly comply (unless they have a choice) when forced to change, I'm afraid that going too far too fast will make people discard the PMBOK altogether and do what they know to do best.
And frankly, why wouldn't they do so? Compliance with PMBOK is voluntary, and only as long as it is truly accepted as a collection of best practices - a.k.a. things that work best for most project managers, in most projects, most of the time.
If PMBOK is perceived as a collection of articles on various topics authored by a small group of people and with limited validation by the body of practitioners, who can guarantee that it is indeed a "best practice" and not the author's personal opinion? Saving Changes...
Mahabubur RahmanProject Manager Structures-Bridges| Department of Infrastructure, Government of Nothwest TerritoriesYellowknife, Northwest Territories, Canada
Just curious, is Agile Practice Guide being reviewed as well? I came to know the ITTOs are no longer there and it is emphasizing on principle based practices! I was more or less confused about the full applicability of ITTO's in previous editions and now I am wondering how principle based approach could be a better alternative!
...
1 reply by Sergio Luis Conte
Jun 06, 2020 4:58 PM
Sergio Luis Conte
...
The definition of project management, the PMI definition, is:"The application of knowledge, skills, tools, and techniques to project activities to meet the project requirements.". In accordance to the PMI, the PMBOK is "as a term that describes the knowledge within the profession of project management. The project management body of knowledge includes proven traditional practices that are widely applied as well as innovative practices that are emerging in the profession.". So, the "tricky part" here is: if the PMI is change everything to be based on principles there is no collision with the BOK/PMBOK/PMBOK Guide definitions but it is a collision with the defintion of project management in the "tools and techniques". Obviously, those tools and techniques can be rewritten accordenly. The key here is: project management is a tactical or strategical discipline? Is tactical as stated today because it contributes to put strategy into practice. It seems to me the new deliverables will show other different thing. Just to comment I was part of the IIBA from the very begining and I participated in the creation of the role and the standards (just because I worked inside a company that was in that). I show how the IIBA "disapear" when changing the basement/the foundation of the business analisys discipline when the last version of the BABOK was created. Unfortunatelly some organizations, with the aim to keep the business running, destroy it.
Saving Changes...
Sergio Luis ConteHelping to create solutions for everyone| Worldwide based OrganizationsBuenos Aires, Argentina
Jun 06, 2020 4:39 PM
Replying to Mahabubur Rahman
...
Just curious, is Agile Practice Guide being reviewed as well? I came to know the ITTOs are no longer there and it is emphasizing on principle based practices! I was more or less confused about the full applicability of ITTO's in previous editions and now I am wondering how principle based approach could be a better alternative!
The definition of project management, the PMI definition, is:"The application of knowledge, skills, tools, and techniques to project activities to meet the project requirements.". In accordance to the PMI, the PMBOK is "as a term that describes the knowledge within the profession of project management. The project management body of knowledge includes proven traditional practices that are widely applied as well as innovative practices that are emerging in the profession.". So, the "tricky part" here is: if the PMI is change everything to be based on principles there is no collision with the BOK/PMBOK/PMBOK Guide definitions but it is a collision with the defintion of project management in the "tools and techniques". Obviously, those tools and techniques can be rewritten accordenly. The key here is: project management is a tactical or strategical discipline? Is tactical as stated today because it contributes to put strategy into practice. It seems to me the new deliverables will show other different thing. Just to comment I was part of the IIBA from the very begining and I participated in the creation of the role and the standards (just because I worked inside a company that was in that). I show how the IIBA "disapear" when changing the basement/the foundation of the business analisys discipline when the last version of the BABOK was created. Unfortunatelly some organizations, with the aim to keep the business running, destroy it. Saving Changes...
Mahabubur RahmanProject Manager Structures-Bridges| Department of Infrastructure, Government of Nothwest TerritoriesYellowknife, Northwest Territories, Canada
