PM World Today Letters To The Editor
Letters to the Editor are comments on the Editorials, Viewpoints column or other project management notices that appear in issues of the Project Management World Today.
Thursday, April 03, 2003
Warren Allen Comments on the April 2003 Editorial: The Case of the Missing Domain
Warren Allen comments on the April 2003 Editorial: The Case of the Missing Domain
I listened to and read your editorial on "The Case of the Missing Domain". Enjoyed it. I want to give you two observations on your piece.
1- At the core of your editorial is the fact that the PMBOK is a misunderstood and falsely represented reference. The "Project Management Body of Knowledge" is NOT the project management body of knowledge. The real project management body of knowledge is made up of all of the world-wide knowledge that exists in the field of Project Management, both documented and undocumented! It is a vast and impressive source of professional expertise that is dynamic, constantly changing and expanding, constantly improving.
The PMBOK document is primarily a data classification scheme that provides some assistance to project management professionals in organizing and referencing some small segment of the documented part of the real world-wide body of knowledge.
The PMBOK label serves an emerging army of consultants and trainers well as they exploit a growing market of people wanting to prepare for the (Project Management Professional (PMP) testing process. However, the PMBOK label does a terrible disservice to both the true PM professional and the relatively uninformed business executive because it quickly conjures up an image of something fundamental and complete at the heart of project management. And in doing so, it totally misrepresents what in fact it is. The PMBOK, in the end, gives project management professionals a bad name!
2- I want to challenge some of your thoughts in your comparison of project and process methodologies, particularly in the software
development context. On one hand, you make the valid point that the PMBOK does not serve the needs of project managers as a guide to effective PM methodologies. But your words go on to suggest that "project management" does not serve the needs of the business executive as effectively as "process management", again particularly in the software development context.
I know that this is a secondary premise to your editorial but it is one that I have the challenge. The track record of successes in the area of software development projects is horrendously bad, and in my mind, one of the primary reasons for this sorry state is that software designers are by their very nature and training "process oriented" rather than "project oriented".
You make reference to the four pillars of project management; scope, time, cost and quality. Well I have for years now made reference to the 5 pillars of effective project management; scope/quality, time, cost, value-for-money, and perceived success. To me quality is an integral part of defining the scope of work of any project. The "value-for-money" objective is the multi-dimensional "business" imperative of the project. This objective must be defined not only for commercial projects, but for government and academic projects as well. And if the first four objectives are fully and completely satisfied, the project can still fail if the major stakeholders to the project do not perceive the result in a positive manner.
Given this general framework for effective project management, the software development "process managers" need to be forced (nicely) out of their open-loop mindset, and into the "project management" mindset where they are focused on managing their total environment to a specific and successful conclusion. The effective management of scope/quality, time, cost, value-for-money, and perceived success are all vital in the successful execution of any and all projects.
Warren Allen
email address: warren.allen@shaw.ca
I listened to and read your editorial on "The Case of the Missing Domain". Enjoyed it. I want to give you two observations on your piece.
1- At the core of your editorial is the fact that the PMBOK is a misunderstood and falsely represented reference. The "Project Management Body of Knowledge" is NOT the project management body of knowledge. The real project management body of knowledge is made up of all of the world-wide knowledge that exists in the field of Project Management, both documented and undocumented! It is a vast and impressive source of professional expertise that is dynamic, constantly changing and expanding, constantly improving.
The PMBOK document is primarily a data classification scheme that provides some assistance to project management professionals in organizing and referencing some small segment of the documented part of the real world-wide body of knowledge.
The PMBOK label serves an emerging army of consultants and trainers well as they exploit a growing market of people wanting to prepare for the (Project Management Professional (PMP) testing process. However, the PMBOK label does a terrible disservice to both the true PM professional and the relatively uninformed business executive because it quickly conjures up an image of something fundamental and complete at the heart of project management. And in doing so, it totally misrepresents what in fact it is. The PMBOK, in the end, gives project management professionals a bad name!
2- I want to challenge some of your thoughts in your comparison of project and process methodologies, particularly in the software
development context. On one hand, you make the valid point that the PMBOK does not serve the needs of project managers as a guide to effective PM methodologies. But your words go on to suggest that "project management" does not serve the needs of the business executive as effectively as "process management", again particularly in the software development context.
I know that this is a secondary premise to your editorial but it is one that I have the challenge. The track record of successes in the area of software development projects is horrendously bad, and in my mind, one of the primary reasons for this sorry state is that software designers are by their very nature and training "process oriented" rather than "project oriented".
You make reference to the four pillars of project management; scope, time, cost and quality. Well I have for years now made reference to the 5 pillars of effective project management; scope/quality, time, cost, value-for-money, and perceived success. To me quality is an integral part of defining the scope of work of any project. The "value-for-money" objective is the multi-dimensional "business" imperative of the project. This objective must be defined not only for commercial projects, but for government and academic projects as well. And if the first four objectives are fully and completely satisfied, the project can still fail if the major stakeholders to the project do not perceive the result in a positive manner.
Given this general framework for effective project management, the software development "process managers" need to be forced (nicely) out of their open-loop mindset, and into the "project management" mindset where they are focused on managing their total environment to a specific and successful conclusion. The effective management of scope/quality, time, cost, value-for-money, and perceived success are all vital in the successful execution of any and all projects.
Warren Allen
email address: warren.allen@shaw.ca
Archives: September 2002 October 2002 December 2002 January 2003 February 2003 March 2003 April 2003 May 2003 June 2003 September 2003 October 2003 November 2003 December 2003 January 2004 February 2004 April 2004 July 2004 September 2004 January 2005 July 2005 August 2005 February 2006 March 2006
