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...
Mahabubur RahmanProject Manager Structures-Bridges| Department of Infrastructure, Government of Nothwest TerritoriesYellowknife, Northwest Territories, Canada
Aug 29, 2020 10:21 AM
Replying to Kiron Bondale
...
Mahabubur -
The updated PMP exam being launched in January 2021 is not tied to the PMBOK Guide Seventh Edition changes and PMI certification staff have stated that there won't be a direct update of the PMP exam questions based on the launch of the Seventh Edition.
Over time, as is normally the case, PMI does refresh questions in the PMP exam "pool" and those will use the Seventh Edition as well as many other project management books as references.
Kiron
Thank you for the information-Kiron! Saving Changes...
Marvin NelsonProduct Specialist| PMIExton, Pa, United States
Aug 30, 2020 11:57 AM
Replying to Karen R. White
...
Marvin, Please provide the full URL to the official community communications regarding this standard and the guide. My graduate students are concerned they are not being taught what they need for PMP exams in 2 years.
Thank you, Marvin, however, I found watching the videos did not address my needs. I tuned out after about 3 minutes of being "lectured." What I am looking for is the official written accounting of what is changing and why.
Call me old school, but I find in order to truly comprehend new materials, new thoughts, I need to be able to read it and peruse it, not just sit in on a lecture. Honestly, my adult graduate students would rebel if I told them to "listen to these videos, you will learn everything you need to know." Even with my college's online pedagogy, we do NOT deliver powerpoint lectures to students. Studies have show this is the WORST way to deliver information to adult students.
I also have students whose primary language is not English; they prefer paper they can run through a translator.
Perhaps the transcripts of these videos would answer my needs, I don't know. I just know the videos did not do it for me at all!
Karen Saving Changes...
