PMBOK7

Thanks for this response. I fully agree with what you are saying. I do not see actually how this can be made usable. The PMBOK7 is so superficial. I am happy I did my certifications based on earlier versions. I refuse using the PMBOK7 in my practice and I make that clear from the beginning.

Quote: "The key to remember is that project management is always context-sensitive. There is no standard set of processes which applies to all projects, hence the change to this new approach."

That's what I was saying. I used the very modular structure of the old PMBOK with its almost 50 processes to select and tailor my approach. But this PMBOK7 is so unbelievably vague that it offers no practical value. It is nice for a philosophical "fireside chat" but not more than that.

Well said. I think PMI tried to fill as much en vogue buzzwords into the PMBOK as they could. But as you said, in none of these topics it really adds something new or becomes a thought leader. Maybe there is a fraction within the PMI community that thought the old structure with process groups and knowledge areas is too old fashioned and too rigid. However, exactly this detailed and complete structure was to me the benefit. I do not need PMI for having philosophical debates on how to do projects. I need a standard, state-of-the-art, demanding and precise, that I can refer to when tailoring my specific approach.

"Joke", yes. I think something similar came to my mind when I read it the first time. This "there is no one size fits all solution" is not new: PMI always mentioned in the earlier PMBOKs that you have to tailor your approach to the specific needs. Nevertheless, the 50 PM processes prepared me quite well and put me in the position to tailor. With the PMBOK7, there is nothing to tailor because it does not deliver you the practical material from which you can built your approach. Just with generic buzzwords and some verbiage I cannot built anything robust that stands the reality check.

In all fairness, what PMI tried to achieve with PMBOK7 I can sense but I think there are many ways to achieve this and they have chosen the wrong way.

I can also understand that PMI tries to account for the trends of our time and the zeitgeist. And to a degree you have to do this simply for marketing reasons. Because if the whole world cries and yearns for agile and so on, you have to have it in your book otherwise customers run for something else. Prince2 or IPMA or whatever is more trendy.

For me the best solution would have been to put all this trendy and soft stuff in a PMBOK Book 1 called "PM Philosophy" or "PM Leadership". The hard, detailed, more rigid stuff like the Process Groups, Knowledge Areas and Processes - the building blocks of your PM Plan - could have been relocated to a PMBOK Book 2 called "PM Process". So people can benefit from both worlds and both discussions.

But with the current PMBOK7, I do not get an adaptable PMBOK but a generic one which is so superficial that I can indeed apply it to anything because it is so commonplace. But is commonplace and generic = adaptable? I do not think so. I call that "meaningless".

Dave, thanks for sharing this experience here. That makes me deeply concerned. Even more than I already was. I mean, we all put an effort in achieving our credentials and putting our profession forward day by day. This PMBOK7 however is a frontal assault on our professional credibility and standing.