NOTHING ELSE TO SAY

2010-02-01T13:15:00.003+01:00

This blog has been closed due to the fact that I have little left to say that may be of interest to me, or others, for that matter.

Coalescence

2009-03-05T20:00:00.011+01:00

Reason has always existed, but not always in a reasonable form

I have drafted a few posts on self-important and complicated subjects I am not very sure about, so I am not publishing them, because they not yet mature enough to be called my words. To avoid writer's blogk (excuse my pun) I am publishing on the emerging trend towards some kind of unified Project Management Professional Standards that are not wholly owned by the PMI. It is a subject that is close to my heart, as seen in this blog before, and I just want to point out a couple of useful resources that I have found out there.

One is a website that explores a move towards benchmarking or "mapping" the various project management credentials (i.e. PMP, PRINCE2, CCC/E, APM, IPMA, AIPM, etc) against an alledgeledly independent "Baseline Competency Standard" of international application. The umbrella organisation for this effort is the so called Global Alliance for Project Performance Standards or GAPPS.

According to Dr. Paul D. Giammalvo, for the past 10 years approximately, a group of dedicated practitioners, academics and government agencies have been working to create these standards for project managers. They are independent of any one body of knowledge or methodology, and the group developing such standards would include names as Bill Duncan, one of the primary authors of the PMBOK Guide 1996.

They have completed the competency standards for Project Managers and are working on the Program Manager standards, which are to be released as an exposure draft. Importantly, they are making these standards available at no cost for anyone to use, adopt or adapt under "open source" or "creative commons" licensing. For those wanting to know more and get involved, it is useful to know that they have just finished "Working Session 15", hosted by Pretoria University, and their next working session is scheduled for May 2009, hosted by Cranfield University in the UK.

My concern was just how this works in relation to cultural approaches to work and social organization. I am not very sure you can asses the success of a PM working in, say, South Eastern Australia, versus another one operating in, say, Southern Spain. Both are sunny and have wine, but I can tell you that the approach to life and work is radically different.

Dr. Giammalvo reply is that "The assessments are done by peers, who have been trained in doing them. Thus, SE Australia assessments would be done by SE Australians while Southern Spain would be assessed by their peers from the same region/culture. So the cultural nuances should NOT be a major problem. Also, if you take a few moments to download the actual standards, you will see that the range statements provide for multiple ways to prove that you have in fact, fulfilled each of the requirements. Because the standards are NOT prescriptive, provides for mutliple ways to establish that you have met or exceeded the requirements."

Which is a good answer, but I was still wondering how transferable across countries and regions these standards for appraisal would be if - as in my case- one is skeptical about the quality and thoroughness of working methodologies being applied over here, for instance.

The reply to this is that "One of the primary purposes for creating these standards was to ensure transferability across borders and regions!! With more people becoming "global workers", unless we have a credible and INDEPENDENT standard against which to provide a baseline, everything else just becomes marketing hype."

Dr Giammalvo also believes that "A good part of the reason to join and contribute, is a concern that the PMP, which was originally designed to be an entry level credential, has taken on a life of it's own and is now being used in some countries as a prerequisite to being hired as a project manager. This is not good for the practice of project management. By having an independent baseline, it will enable organizations to access an unbiased standard in order to compare the various credentials and cut through the marketing hype based on objective and rigorous assessments and evaluations of the different credentials and their underlying bodies of knowledge.

He continues "Likewise GAPPS provides for organizations to benchmark their own in-house methodologies (i.e. Ericsson's "PROPS-C" or "PM@Siemens) to see how their proprietary methodologies compare. This helps state and local authorities cut through the BS and marketing hype in deciding which credentials to accept as being "equivalent" to those in their own country, state or region. "

Quite right I would say!

However, the very Bill Duncan asserts that "As an addendum to Paul G.'s last post, the GAPPS standards were developed according to ISO practices and procedures. The draft standard was submitted to public review, and all comments were addressed. The standard is currently being used to assess individuals throughout the world: over 1000 to date. What we (GAPPS) is looking for is not so much validation as improvements."

To Which Dr GIammvalvo replies that "while I am in full and total agreement that the GAPPS standards were developed according to ISO practices and procedures, that does NOT guarantee quality. All following ISO standards does is ensure that the process is consistent. Although I too am committed to the GAPPS standards, speaking pragmatically as a practitioner, until they have been validated through independent use, they still remain a theoretical construct.

Having said that, like Bill, I am totally and fully confident that the GAPPS standards WILL result in more COMPETENT practitioners, however, what I believe we need is one of more companies to participate in a double blind experiment to prove that those who have been assessed as COMPETENT project managers (as opposed to those who are assesed merely through knowledge based credentials) do in fact deliver projects on time, within budget, in substantial conformance to specifications, and substantially achieve the objective for which they were undertaken MORE consistently.

Now, having left the door open for a rebuttal from Bill, let me explain that in the end, that is all organizations want- is some instrument or process or method to help them achieve the above 4 objectives, and basing my argument around this definition of "Competent"- “the quality or state of being functionally adequate, characterized by marked or sufficient aptitude + attitude + skills + strength + knowledge”. I would argue that until and unless GAPPS endorsed people can consistently deliver projects on time, within budget, in substantial conformance to specifications, and substantially achieve the objective for which they were undertaken, the effort by so many volunteers will have been largely wasted."

You can see that this is relevant debate for the future development of Project Management!

Another useful and meritable effort, albeit much more limited in scope, is this practical and informative Table Listing various qualifications side by side. I would think that both are useful in their own way, one as a concerted international endeavour and another as an individual contribution.

I like them both because I feel that the way the Project Management Qualifications are structured across the world diminishes its status as a serious "stand alone" profession. A profession cannot be privately owned or branded, and certifications should be widely transferable across national boundaries to have any real meaning (that is not the case at practical level in many instances, know).

Let's hope that these efforts do come together to form some truly tangible achivements in this field.

DaPofessional...

NOTHING ELSE TO SAY

Coalescence