I need to be direct and honest. I do not like PMBOK7 and that the process groups, knowledge areas and processes vanished. Did they really vanish?
The PMBOK so far, with the old set-up, provided me a complete overview on what needs to be done to manage a project successfully. It gave me the library and toolbox of almost 50 processes from which I could select the one I need to tailor a project- and context-specific approach. In addition, each process was defined clearly with input, process and output.
And now? Clarity and completeness was given up for the sake of ambiguity and a lot of blabla.
I am really sad.
Furthermore: What happened to the OPM3? I used it for conducting PM audits and it was quite useful.
What do you think, my fellow project managers? Saving Changes...
This discussion points out to me a fundamental flaw in how PMI develops and revises it standards. The only time to get engaged and make a difference in the final publication is when it is being drafted.
There was a Public Exposure Draft (PED) posted for review and comment during the drafting of PMBOK7. Over 500 individuals submitted over 5,000 comments. Those comments were adjudicated and incorporated into the final draft. However, there was no 2nd Exposure Draft to review the changes that were made. Thus, these 500 individuals had no opportunity to review the changes resulting from their comments.
Per ANSI requirements (PMBOK7 is an American National Standard), there was a comment period opened after the PED revision. However, this comment opportunity period was not broadly communicated with the net result being no public comments were received for the revised draft. And thus, the PMBOK7 you see is what you get.
To keep this type of occurrence from happening again, interested parties must get involved in the process and vigorously submit comments on any draft standard. This is the only way you can get your concerns addressed.
BTW - PMI only exposed the first three chapters of PMBOK7 for public review and comment. The other three chapters never received any feedback/review except by a selected group of about 70 reviewers. There was never an opportunity for public review and comment for these chapters.
For full disclosure, I served on both Review Team 1 and Review Team 2 for the PMBOK7 update. This means I had an opportunity to submit feedback on all 6 chapters of PMBOK7. But mine was a single voice.
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. Saving Changes...
Thomas WalentaGlobal Project Economy ExpertHackenheim, Germany
Hi Sascha,
I share many of your and others frustrations with the new PMBoK Guide. The older ones were more useful for organizations to build their methodologies and for individuals to build a skillset. On the other hand, PMI had to take action because of the agile spread, the size of the PMBoK, the need for digitization and other things. All well documented.
The PMBoK G was never intended to be a trendsetter but to reflect practices used (!) in most projects most of the time. Some felt that might be too slow in VUCA times.
What has been lost are key benefits: - the Chapter 4 Integration management, how everything fits together - the separation of PM activities (processes) and product development activities (lifecycles and phases). With that, the PMBoK G can no longer claim it presents the base for an industry-agnostic PM profession (and PMI also leaves that ground with changemakers) - the focus on making things happen, deliverables, instead now we gradually make the PM responsible for benefits - without telling them how to do that and it is not easy (only 3000 PgMPs are a hint how difficult it is to deliver benefits) - and still the lack of leadership standards and certifications at PMI, though 42% of PMP exam questions are about people skills (I would have left those out of the PMBoK and put them in a separate BoK).
Yes, and Dave Violette who served on many standard teams is right. The whole process of developing the standard needs an overhaul. It is US-focused and certainly english language biased anyhow (how much Russian, Chinese, German, French, Spanish or Italian knowledge is included?)
It is what it is. Decisions have been made. Now, let's make the best out of it.
...
1 reply by Sascha Reimann
Sep 18, 2021 2:15 AM
Sascha Reimann
...
Hello Thomas, As mentioned earlier, I appreciate the fact that some trends have to be incorporated, simply for marketing reasons. However, and I also stated this, there are many possible ways for achieving this.
I actually do not have a problem with the US lead in PMI. The Americans are proven masters in standardization whereas in Europe we leave a lot to the individual's judgement and capability - including many trials and errors and a lot of inefficiency. Second, Americans have demonstrated the capability of managing mega projects such as the Apollo Program or the Manhattan project. I like McDonaldization because there is a difference between creativity and inefficiency. Therefore I decided some years ago for PMI. It is exactly the rigidness of the roughly 50 processes that provides the backbone of managing projects. In your words the details to build up a skill set.
As you and I mentioned earlier, to strike the balance PMI could have indeed splitted the PMBOK into different books or volumes, like substandards, kept together by a Master-PMBOK guiding the people towards the right volumes. Some volumes may please the agility, VUCA and new age fraction while others need to be supported with the rigid stuff, I mean all those hard working people who are really doing the work. I do not want to start here the debate around agility but to me the term "agile" is often used as an excuse for bad preparation and a lack of strategy and decisive decision making. Sometimes I ask myself: do we get rid of detailed standards because of VUCA or is VUCA simply the result of an increasing unwillingness and laziness to follow detailed standards? Chicken or egg? What was first?
And "decisions" are relative. If a decision is proven to be wrong, the only way to make the best out of it is to recall it or use PMBOK8 as a means to say "SORRY, VERY SORRY". Microsoft also released Vista and it was a failure. But Windows 7 was then even more a success. After the decision is always before a decision. It is never too late for a better decision.
I share many of your and others frustrations with the new PMBoK Guide. The older ones were more useful for organizations to build their methodologies and for individuals to build a skillset. On the other hand, PMI had to take action because of the agile spread, the size of the PMBoK, the need for digitization and other things. All well documented.
The PMBoK G was never intended to be a trendsetter but to reflect practices used (!) in most projects most of the time. Some felt that might be too slow in VUCA times.
What has been lost are key benefits: - the Chapter 4 Integration management, how everything fits together - the separation of PM activities (processes) and product development activities (lifecycles and phases). With that, the PMBoK G can no longer claim it presents the base for an industry-agnostic PM profession (and PMI also leaves that ground with changemakers) - the focus on making things happen, deliverables, instead now we gradually make the PM responsible for benefits - without telling them how to do that and it is not easy (only 3000 PgMPs are a hint how difficult it is to deliver benefits) - and still the lack of leadership standards and certifications at PMI, though 42% of PMP exam questions are about people skills (I would have left those out of the PMBoK and put them in a separate BoK).
Yes, and Dave Violette who served on many standard teams is right. The whole process of developing the standard needs an overhaul. It is US-focused and certainly english language biased anyhow (how much Russian, Chinese, German, French, Spanish or Italian knowledge is included?)
It is what it is. Decisions have been made. Now, let's make the best out of it.
Hello Thomas, As mentioned earlier, I appreciate the fact that some trends have to be incorporated, simply for marketing reasons. However, and I also stated this, there are many possible ways for achieving this.
I actually do not have a problem with the US lead in PMI. The Americans are proven masters in standardization whereas in Europe we leave a lot to the individual's judgement and capability - including many trials and errors and a lot of inefficiency. Second, Americans have demonstrated the capability of managing mega projects such as the Apollo Program or the Manhattan project. I like McDonaldization because there is a difference between creativity and inefficiency. Therefore I decided some years ago for PMI. It is exactly the rigidness of the roughly 50 processes that provides the backbone of managing projects. In your words the details to build up a skill set.
As you and I mentioned earlier, to strike the balance PMI could have indeed splitted the PMBOK into different books or volumes, like substandards, kept together by a Master-PMBOK guiding the people towards the right volumes. Some volumes may please the agility, VUCA and new age fraction while others need to be supported with the rigid stuff, I mean all those hard working people who are really doing the work. I do not want to start here the debate around agility but to me the term "agile" is often used as an excuse for bad preparation and a lack of strategy and decisive decision making. Sometimes I ask myself: do we get rid of detailed standards because of VUCA or is VUCA simply the result of an increasing unwillingness and laziness to follow detailed standards? Chicken or egg? What was first?
And "decisions" are relative. If a decision is proven to be wrong, the only way to make the best out of it is to recall it or use PMBOK8 as a means to say "SORRY, VERY SORRY". Microsoft also released Vista and it was a failure. But Windows 7 was then even more a success. After the decision is always before a decision. It is never too late for a better decision.
...
1 reply by Thomas Walenta
Sep 18, 2021 12:31 PM
Thomas Walenta
...
Hi Sascha
are you on LinkedIn? Did not find you there.
Regarding the US bias of PMBoK G, my point was that a Body of Knowledge that claims to be relevant globally should include cultural aspects and knowledge from all significant global areas.
Agree with you that US culture promotes a sense for achievement and many techniques have been developed in the big projects here.
But now we see China and we saw Russia going to space and building hospitals in days. And from Germany we know that a vast body of PM concepts is researched and many inventions came from UK, supported by government very early on. Governance actually comes from England.
Regarding VUCA, my view is that it is hoax, a fearmongering buzzword, a kind of deus ex machina invented to sell consulting. Nothing real, no thing, no system is VUCA, only the perceptions of people are. Inexperienced people view the world as a place full of unknown threats. Wise people smile.
If agile is an answer for VUCA, it is meant to provide beliefs how to tackle your own incompetency.
Yes, I am with you that PMBoK ed8 will respond to the shortcomings.
Thomas
Saving Changes...
Thomas WalentaGlobal Project Economy ExpertHackenheim, Germany
Sep 18, 2021 2:15 AM
Replying to Sascha Reimann
...
Hello Thomas, As mentioned earlier, I appreciate the fact that some trends have to be incorporated, simply for marketing reasons. However, and I also stated this, there are many possible ways for achieving this.
I actually do not have a problem with the US lead in PMI. The Americans are proven masters in standardization whereas in Europe we leave a lot to the individual's judgement and capability - including many trials and errors and a lot of inefficiency. Second, Americans have demonstrated the capability of managing mega projects such as the Apollo Program or the Manhattan project. I like McDonaldization because there is a difference between creativity and inefficiency. Therefore I decided some years ago for PMI. It is exactly the rigidness of the roughly 50 processes that provides the backbone of managing projects. In your words the details to build up a skill set.
As you and I mentioned earlier, to strike the balance PMI could have indeed splitted the PMBOK into different books or volumes, like substandards, kept together by a Master-PMBOK guiding the people towards the right volumes. Some volumes may please the agility, VUCA and new age fraction while others need to be supported with the rigid stuff, I mean all those hard working people who are really doing the work. I do not want to start here the debate around agility but to me the term "agile" is often used as an excuse for bad preparation and a lack of strategy and decisive decision making. Sometimes I ask myself: do we get rid of detailed standards because of VUCA or is VUCA simply the result of an increasing unwillingness and laziness to follow detailed standards? Chicken or egg? What was first?
And "decisions" are relative. If a decision is proven to be wrong, the only way to make the best out of it is to recall it or use PMBOK8 as a means to say "SORRY, VERY SORRY". Microsoft also released Vista and it was a failure. But Windows 7 was then even more a success. After the decision is always before a decision. It is never too late for a better decision.
Hi Sascha
are you on LinkedIn? Did not find you there.
Regarding the US bias of PMBoK G, my point was that a Body of Knowledge that claims to be relevant globally should include cultural aspects and knowledge from all significant global areas.
Agree with you that US culture promotes a sense for achievement and many techniques have been developed in the big projects here.
But now we see China and we saw Russia going to space and building hospitals in days. And from Germany we know that a vast body of PM concepts is researched and many inventions came from UK, supported by government very early on. Governance actually comes from England.
Regarding VUCA, my view is that it is hoax, a fearmongering buzzword, a kind of deus ex machina invented to sell consulting. Nothing real, no thing, no system is VUCA, only the perceptions of people are. Inexperienced people view the world as a place full of unknown threats. Wise people smile.
If agile is an answer for VUCA, it is meant to provide beliefs how to tackle your own incompetency.
Yes, I am with you that PMBoK ed8 will respond to the shortcomings.
Thomas
...
1 reply by Sascha Reimann
Sep 19, 2021 10:51 AM
Sascha Reimann
...
"Regarding VUCA, my view is that it is hoax, a fearmongering buzzword, a kind of deus ex machina invented to sell consulting. Nothing real, no thing, no system is VUCA, only the perceptions of people are. Inexperienced people view the world as a place full of unknown threats. Wise people smile.
If agile is an answer for VUCA, it is meant to provide beliefs how to tackle your own incompetency."
Thanks for these words. I will put them in a frame and hang it in my office. Sorry, no, I am not on LinkedIn. I was, but not anymore.
Saving Changes...
James DeinerProject Manager| Janssen R&DPipersville, Pa, United States
I was quite disappointed in the 7th edition. The 6th provided a good process-based framework: here are the PM processes in the Initiation phase; here are the processes to do in the Planning phase, etc.
And for each process, here are the Outputs, the Tools & Techniques, the Inputs.
We lost all that with the 7th.
I think that the "one size fits all" comment made by some in this thread really goes to PMI trying to integrate the Predictive and Agile approaches. In the 6th, PMI just kind of added Agile at the end of each section, "... if you are doing Agile, here's some considerations ...". And they added a separate Agile guide.
PMI made the 7th so high-level and not specific, it is unusable and doesn't provide any guidance whatsoever.
I teach project management as an adjunct instructor, and I don't know what to tell students preparing for the exam. Saving Changes...
Regarding the US bias of PMBoK G, my point was that a Body of Knowledge that claims to be relevant globally should include cultural aspects and knowledge from all significant global areas.
Agree with you that US culture promotes a sense for achievement and many techniques have been developed in the big projects here.
But now we see China and we saw Russia going to space and building hospitals in days. And from Germany we know that a vast body of PM concepts is researched and many inventions came from UK, supported by government very early on. Governance actually comes from England.
Regarding VUCA, my view is that it is hoax, a fearmongering buzzword, a kind of deus ex machina invented to sell consulting. Nothing real, no thing, no system is VUCA, only the perceptions of people are. Inexperienced people view the world as a place full of unknown threats. Wise people smile.
If agile is an answer for VUCA, it is meant to provide beliefs how to tackle your own incompetency.
Yes, I am with you that PMBoK ed8 will respond to the shortcomings.
Thomas
"Regarding VUCA, my view is that it is hoax, a fearmongering buzzword, a kind of deus ex machina invented to sell consulting. Nothing real, no thing, no system is VUCA, only the perceptions of people are. Inexperienced people view the world as a place full of unknown threats. Wise people smile.
If agile is an answer for VUCA, it is meant to provide beliefs how to tackle your own incompetency."
Thanks for these words. I will put them in a frame and hang it in my office. Sorry, no, I am not on LinkedIn. I was, but not anymore. Saving Changes...
Community Champion
