In the blacksmith’s house, all knives are wooden

Luis,

The sunsetting statement on the “The Critical Path” Blog regarding the “PMI Fact File” was made clearly in the context of ProjectManagement.com, assuming anything else is a major leap.

Over the years, we have seen that this platform, although a channel of PMI, carries its own policies, and its content “walks to the beat of a different drum” and serves a different purpose than the content we see published on its parent.

To quote Sergeant Shultz, “I know nothing.” But I know enough to recognize that assumptions do not further a cause or make a point that stands time.

Dear Rami
Thank you for participating in this exchange of opinions

Don't even remind me of this sad story about ending PMI Influence Score
Not to mention that initiative of the "community ambassadors" and, above all, the people appointed

Because I am interested in this community, PMI's involvement with its members and participation is why I created this topic
Another reason for creating this topic was alignment with the PMI Code of Ethics and Conduct

I have not yet seen any of the PMI ethics heralds participating in this reflection
I would like to read your arguments to justify the measure that leads to a lack of transparency
You'll see they send you an email :-)

Membership owns PMI. They vote for the Board. The Board appoints the CEO and gives him annual targets. The CEO appoints leadership and sets success criteria for them. The CEO takes a low-key approach as long as the Board does not define how the CEO should engage with the membership. Like you would.
Yes, Luis and Rami, why do we perceive that PMI frustrates membership by gradually reducing engagement, services and respect? Members are not only paying customers.

Luis,

We (project professionals) understand more than anyone that organizations must “change” and “adapt” if they are to remain relevant, even more so for the premier organization (i.e., PMI) that provides guidance and best practices for “all things—change.” Wouldn’t you agree?

Suppose a customer/member-impacting project is underway on this platform, as it does appear. Isn’t it incumbent on us “project professionals” to understand from our own experience the complexities that are often involved and provide PMI the “non-politicized space” to implement before we make any judgments?

Inevitably, some will not like the changes that get implemented, and that may include me. But for now, let’s corral the horses at the blacksmith’s house and allow its occupant the time needed to modernize the forge, as “stoking the fire” before that point serves no purpose but to cause a meltdown.

Luis, I am not sure that removing those features goes against the code of ethics but it does somehow show lack transparency with the community.

To be fair and clear, the Community Engagement Specialists be it Kimberly, Heather, Laura and others are doing a great job and they are engaging with the community as much as they possibly can so I am not talking about this level of community engagement but more of an organization wide feel of community engagement and this is felt by seeing meaningful changes coming through, not by emails, or posts. Action speaks louder than words.

Dear Rami
Is the lack of transparency not an ethical issue for you?

It depends on the situation and in this specific situation related to the stats, I personally believe it’s not an ethical issue because they mentioned they are doing this as part of a larger platform improvement that is coming soon so while I am not happy the facts won’t be published anymore, yet, I am excited to see what changes are coming!

Luis,

When I responded to you regarding this question, I only addressed your concern regarding the “PMI Fact File.” After coming back and looking at the additional responses, I recognized you brought concern to the “PMI Annual Report,” wherein you stated, “Curiously, The latest annual report dates back to 2021.” Stated in the context of a transparency concern.

When I went to the referenced page, the first report displayed was from 2022, published in 2023. Hence, PMI is publishing per the usual standard, in that they publish the report once finalized and approved, which takes a handful of months into the following year. I checked that page’s history, and that publishing pattern has been consistently followed over the years.

Hence, there is (in my opinion) no transparency issue in the concerns you brought forth.