PgMP Certification

Dear Bethany,

Regarding the FICO score for project management professionals and the scoring process in general, here are a few thoughts that come to mind.

1. This needs to be an "Agile Manifesto" like effort to assemble a body of like-minded individuals who have a shared vision of the need, value, and integrity of having a project management professional score and scoring process that is fair, accurate, and is meaningful to all those involved. I like to use the analogy of the golfer, or the chess player, or the tournament bridge player. Such things as one's USGA golf handicap, USCF chess rating, or ACBL bridge master points are all measures of accuracy and integrity that serve to indicate the skill of the practitioner. This is not a knowledge ranking (PMI), nor is it a competence ranking (ASAPM). Rather, it is a "getting it done" and over a long period of time ranking.


2. The organizational body that develops the "PM FICO Score" and scoring process should be independent of existing organizations such as the PMI. Members of the organization body can and should come from these and other such groups (standards organizations, trainers, consultants, vendors, PM communities ala Gantthead, practitioners, etc,). But the organizational body should be independent, trusted, not for profit, and not for self promotion. The organizational body should seek to advance and maintain the accurate scoring of project management professionals and it should serve these project management professionals, not become a business entity unto itself with other objectives.


3. The scoring itself should be fair and accurate and reflective of meaningful categories of measurement. Three categories of measurement that come into view could be 1) knowledge, 2) competence, and 3) results. And each of these categories could be weighted as follows: knowledge 25%, competence 25%, and results 50%. And there is no shortage of things definable and measurable in each of these categories. In discussions that I have had with others on this topic, one view is that the score could be on a scale, like 1 to 100, with a defined lower and upper limited. Another view, the one I prefer, is that the score is not a scale, rather an attainment that is earned and that has no upper limit. For example, and back to the golf, chess, and bridge analogies, there is no limit to those rankings. The better you are, the better your ranking. And, the whole idea is to continually acquire knowledge, increase competency, and achieve results and to be able to apply and continually re-apply to have all of that reflected in one's PM Score.


4. There can and maybe should be multiple practitioner classifications such as IT PM, PSO PM, Consulting PM, Program Manager, Portfolio Manager, PMO Manager, etc. Or, as an alternative, these classifications can be assessed and addressed as part of the overall cumulative PM Score, per point 3 above, serving to differentiate those that have had a significant career in all of the above from those just starting out.


5. Ideally, there should be no costs to the program. This could be achieved in a number of ways - donations, sponsors, corporate funding, events, etc. Rather than thinking about how many PMs are out there and how much they can be charged each year for a membership and each time they apply to improve their PM score, I would first exhaust every possible way to make this a free service. And I would do this for two reasons. First, once Pandora's Box is opened and a fee-based business model is established, then it is likely going to be very hard to ever get away from that way of thinking. Next, you will have an organization that makes money off of its members, rather than serving its members. Second, if there is no cost, participation and take up will increase both because it's free and because members will likely feel that this is a bona fide and trusted "thing" as opposed to just another organization out there trying to build up the membership base and sell stuff.

Well, I could go on and on. Any thoughts..? :)