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.
Tuesday, June 17, 2003
Max Wideman Reply to the PMI Board Letter On the David Pells Open Letter
Max Wideman Reply to the PMI Board Letter On the David Pells Open Letter
David
In Response to May 26 Letter to the PMI Board of Directors
Yes, Debbie O'Bray's letter is indeed a well thought out response - and we must appreciate that because of the weight of her duties as chair and the time it takes to assemble such in-depth material. Not easy for a volunteer trying, at the same time, to earn a living!
But I think the heart of the matter may be found in her teenager analogy. Sure, the parents need to speak with one voice to be effective, assuming they (the teenagers) are willing to listen at all, but in applying that scenario to PMI implies that all PMI members are little more than teenagers. Unfortunately, I for one no longer fit into that category.
No, the problem seems to be not with the volunteers involved, but with the system and the flow of responsibility. Is it the responsibility of Board members to convey the recommendations of the Executive to the membership? Or, is it their responsibility to convey the views and needs of the members to the Board and the Executive? Of course, some will argue both but an exact balance is difficult to achieve and in any case is subject to individual perception. So there is inevitably a leaning one way or the other.
The flip side is the question of accountability. Under the present electoral system, potential Board candidates can only mouth generalities as a basis for their election and these are (naturally) in general conformance with PMI's existing policies and procedures. Policies which have been promulgated by previous Boards. So, the status quo remains tantamount, and it is difficult if not impossible for members to hold their representatives accountable for any specific initiatives.
It is quite true that size (i.e. numbers) leads to complexity and complexity requires bureaucracy, but that doesn't obviate the need for accountability. On the contrary, accountability needs to be even more transparent. That means that in a mature society, anyone should be able to speak their mind at any time.
This leads to the problem of attitude - defense of the status quo as the path of least resistance. Debbie may well be willing to listen but what can she do? The chair's tenure is only one year and that is already half over. Will the next chair be as interested, as there is no clear inheritance of leadership (as in "Vice chair elect")?
I agree with Fran Webster's recent missive. The problem goes back to the PMI Board electoral system and as yet, I do not see that topic being the subject of review. A review, like the issues with the status of the Fellows group, should be a subject for open discussion and input by the stakeholders concerned - and not by the Board alone. I believe that the present system has been in place for long enough now that such a review would be quite timely.
Max Wideman
max_wideman@sfu.ca
http://www.maxwideman.com
David
In Response to May 26 Letter to the PMI Board of Directors
Yes, Debbie O'Bray's letter is indeed a well thought out response - and we must appreciate that because of the weight of her duties as chair and the time it takes to assemble such in-depth material. Not easy for a volunteer trying, at the same time, to earn a living!
But I think the heart of the matter may be found in her teenager analogy. Sure, the parents need to speak with one voice to be effective, assuming they (the teenagers) are willing to listen at all, but in applying that scenario to PMI implies that all PMI members are little more than teenagers. Unfortunately, I for one no longer fit into that category.
No, the problem seems to be not with the volunteers involved, but with the system and the flow of responsibility. Is it the responsibility of Board members to convey the recommendations of the Executive to the membership? Or, is it their responsibility to convey the views and needs of the members to the Board and the Executive? Of course, some will argue both but an exact balance is difficult to achieve and in any case is subject to individual perception. So there is inevitably a leaning one way or the other.
The flip side is the question of accountability. Under the present electoral system, potential Board candidates can only mouth generalities as a basis for their election and these are (naturally) in general conformance with PMI's existing policies and procedures. Policies which have been promulgated by previous Boards. So, the status quo remains tantamount, and it is difficult if not impossible for members to hold their representatives accountable for any specific initiatives.
It is quite true that size (i.e. numbers) leads to complexity and complexity requires bureaucracy, but that doesn't obviate the need for accountability. On the contrary, accountability needs to be even more transparent. That means that in a mature society, anyone should be able to speak their mind at any time.
This leads to the problem of attitude - defense of the status quo as the path of least resistance. Debbie may well be willing to listen but what can she do? The chair's tenure is only one year and that is already half over. Will the next chair be as interested, as there is no clear inheritance of leadership (as in "Vice chair elect")?
I agree with Fran Webster's recent missive. The problem goes back to the PMI Board electoral system and as yet, I do not see that topic being the subject of review. A review, like the issues with the status of the Fellows group, should be a subject for open discussion and input by the stakeholders concerned - and not by the Board alone. I believe that the present system has been in place for long enough now that such a review would be quite timely.
Max Wideman
max_wideman@sfu.ca
http://www.maxwideman.com
Monday, June 16, 2003
David Pells Response to the Letter From the PMI Board On His Open Letter to the PMI Board
David Pells Response to the Letter from Debbie O'Bray Chair of the PMI Board of Directors on the David Pells Open Letter to
the PMI Board
Dear Debbie,
Thank you very much for your thoughtful response to my Open Letter to the Board. I appreciated how well thought through each of your comments was. Overall, your response gave me greater confidence in your leadership and the leadership processes working both on the Board and at PMI-HQ. I apologize if I was incorrect in any of my assessments of PMI decision-making processes or decisions themselves. I would, however, like to provide a few responses to your comments, as follows:
1. With respect to my comments on "group think", I can assure you that there is considerable pressure felt by some board members to conform, even during discussion. Please take a moment, as Chair, to study each individual Board member and to try to ascertain what reservations may come into play, either personal or cultural, that might limit board interaction.
2. With regard to Board diversity, the rules of the board cited would not seem to ensure greater diversity on the board.
3. On the subject of global vs American interests, I appreciate that PMI is taking more and more steps to meet the needs of governmental stakeholders in the USA and in other countries. However, it is my opinion that PMI is no longer in a position to fully meet the needs of the US government in the area of project management. Nor has PMI, at the HQ level or in any component, been proactive enough at the national, state or local levels in promoting more and better professional project management. There is a need that demands more aggressive and direct interaction, that PMI cannot satisfy. As a global organization, how can PMI take steps to do so when it is not prepared to do the same for other governments or in other countries worldwide? (If I were a French or Russian PMI member, for example, I might object!) I am not trying to attack or criticize PMI here, but rather point out the political situation, which in fact is now a difficult dilemma for the Institute. (By the way, in some small countries I believe PMI chapters may already be operating as de facto national PM associations. In other countries, such as the USA and Brazil, there is a need to organize and coordinate activities in line with national economic and political conditions and considerations.)
4. On the subject of licensure, I do not believe that I misinterpreted PMI position. Perhaps my wording was incomplete, or perhaps my usage of the word "licensure" was not quite accurate. The point was that the PMI Board recognized that in certain countries project management professionals are being subjected to regulatory considerations, based on legal or political considerations at the local (national, provincial, state) levels. This is clearly happening, as has been recognized by PMI. The actions taken by the Board and PMI, as you have indicated in your letter, were to initiate steps to position PMI as positively as possible for these "inevitable" developments. I believe my analogy was correct.
5. National Associations. I am disappointed that you did not respond to my suggestion that PMI begin to consider national associations in the Institute's organizational models and planning. I believe this is a true opportunity for PMI, for accomplishing more in the future, including serving members, satisfying more stakeholder needs, strengthening PMI's position (vis-a-vis standards and certifications) around the world. Most importantly, it provides a mechanism for keeping more people in the "PMI family". I hope this issue will be given more thought and consideration.
6. With regard to the PMI Fellows, thank you for your response and plans. Again, while I may not deserve so much respect, certainly Eric Jenett, Jim Snyder, Russ Archibald, David Cleland, Paul Dinsmore and the other founders and giants of our profession certainly do. Another relevant comment: I think all of the Fellows recognize that as PMI's membership has grown, many newer members will not be either familiar with the Fellow award or know anything about the contributions of Fellows in years past. This may also be true of some Board members, those who have joined PMI within the last 5-10 years. Don't worry too much about it. Just keep in mind that most of the Fellows have devoted 20 or more years to the PM profession, really are experts in the field, and are devoted to PMI. On this subject, I have confidence that you and the Board will do the right thing.
7. GPMF. I was glad to hear that you and other PMI leaders attended the session in Moscow. I was quite disappointed about missing the event again myself. I hope it was successful. Just keep in mind that PMI is clearly the world's leader in the project management profession, and that there are many ways to lead. Unfortunately, it has seemed that PMI's leadership style in the past really has been "too American", too arrogant and dominating, without enough consideration for other cultures or perspectives. I see that this is changing for the better, so keep up the good work.
8. On Global Responsiveness, I appreciate that Greg and his team at PMI-HQ are continuing to improve the information gathering and decision-making processes within PMI. The Balanced Scorecard is a good model. My main message on this subject, however, was related to "responsiveness", that is the ability to respond in hours, days or weeks, not in six month intervals. Continuous improvement in this area can produce equally fast rewards. I think PMI will, in fact, continue to improve in this area, which can help dispel disputes, problems and criticisms. I am equally sure that the PMI Board and leaders at HQ are working hard on PMI's behalf in this area.
9. On the subject of resources, I was just offering my personal perspective, thinking it might get the Board to consider new and different opportunities for PMI. Nothing more was meant. I agree that PMI has many resources and they should be "aligned" for maximum effectiveness. That is certainly easier said than done.
10. The Alternative Future for PMI that I suggested in my Open Letter was not proposed, but I believe it is a clear possibility. I am not now sure that PMI offers enough member benefits to keep someone involved over a long period of time. For the first five years, yes. After that, no. In my opinion, PMI needs to focus much more attention on member benefits, at least as much attention as it has on products, in order to solve this problem. On the other hand, PMI can and will continue to grow and prosper based on its high quality products and services. I think that better clarifies my position. So the question remains, what does PMI want to be, a member-oriented or product-oriented organization? It will take more than words to convince many of our members, at least those who have been members for more that five years.
11. A merger of PMI with IPMA is much too risky for IPMA, so I never thought this would get off the ground. But if PMI embraces national associations and continues to grow as it has, then PMI begins to look more like IPMA. If IPMA were to fold, then the result will be the same, with the same potential that I suggested. What will the future be? It may still be in the hands of the leaders of PMI and IPMA. I was happy to hear about the new spirit of cooperation and I will look forward to seeing the newly signed documentation.
Debbie, I too must now apologize for writing so much in response to your letter. Your response showed true leadership and I appreciated that immensely. It also showed that you have taken my Open Letter very seriously. Your responses indicated that my letter produced some serious conversation among some board members on the issues addressed, which was my main objective. Thank you. And thank you for your commitment and efforts on behalf of PMI and the Project Management Profession. As always, warmest regards to you and my other friends on the PMI Board and at PMI Headquarters.
Sincerely,
David L. Pells
PMI Fellow
the PMI Board
Dear Debbie,
Thank you very much for your thoughtful response to my Open Letter to the Board. I appreciated how well thought through each of your comments was. Overall, your response gave me greater confidence in your leadership and the leadership processes working both on the Board and at PMI-HQ. I apologize if I was incorrect in any of my assessments of PMI decision-making processes or decisions themselves. I would, however, like to provide a few responses to your comments, as follows:
1. With respect to my comments on "group think", I can assure you that there is considerable pressure felt by some board members to conform, even during discussion. Please take a moment, as Chair, to study each individual Board member and to try to ascertain what reservations may come into play, either personal or cultural, that might limit board interaction.
2. With regard to Board diversity, the rules of the board cited would not seem to ensure greater diversity on the board.
3. On the subject of global vs American interests, I appreciate that PMI is taking more and more steps to meet the needs of governmental stakeholders in the USA and in other countries. However, it is my opinion that PMI is no longer in a position to fully meet the needs of the US government in the area of project management. Nor has PMI, at the HQ level or in any component, been proactive enough at the national, state or local levels in promoting more and better professional project management. There is a need that demands more aggressive and direct interaction, that PMI cannot satisfy. As a global organization, how can PMI take steps to do so when it is not prepared to do the same for other governments or in other countries worldwide? (If I were a French or Russian PMI member, for example, I might object!) I am not trying to attack or criticize PMI here, but rather point out the political situation, which in fact is now a difficult dilemma for the Institute. (By the way, in some small countries I believe PMI chapters may already be operating as de facto national PM associations. In other countries, such as the USA and Brazil, there is a need to organize and coordinate activities in line with national economic and political conditions and considerations.)
4. On the subject of licensure, I do not believe that I misinterpreted PMI position. Perhaps my wording was incomplete, or perhaps my usage of the word "licensure" was not quite accurate. The point was that the PMI Board recognized that in certain countries project management professionals are being subjected to regulatory considerations, based on legal or political considerations at the local (national, provincial, state) levels. This is clearly happening, as has been recognized by PMI. The actions taken by the Board and PMI, as you have indicated in your letter, were to initiate steps to position PMI as positively as possible for these "inevitable" developments. I believe my analogy was correct.
5. National Associations. I am disappointed that you did not respond to my suggestion that PMI begin to consider national associations in the Institute's organizational models and planning. I believe this is a true opportunity for PMI, for accomplishing more in the future, including serving members, satisfying more stakeholder needs, strengthening PMI's position (vis-a-vis standards and certifications) around the world. Most importantly, it provides a mechanism for keeping more people in the "PMI family". I hope this issue will be given more thought and consideration.
6. With regard to the PMI Fellows, thank you for your response and plans. Again, while I may not deserve so much respect, certainly Eric Jenett, Jim Snyder, Russ Archibald, David Cleland, Paul Dinsmore and the other founders and giants of our profession certainly do. Another relevant comment: I think all of the Fellows recognize that as PMI's membership has grown, many newer members will not be either familiar with the Fellow award or know anything about the contributions of Fellows in years past. This may also be true of some Board members, those who have joined PMI within the last 5-10 years. Don't worry too much about it. Just keep in mind that most of the Fellows have devoted 20 or more years to the PM profession, really are experts in the field, and are devoted to PMI. On this subject, I have confidence that you and the Board will do the right thing.
7. GPMF. I was glad to hear that you and other PMI leaders attended the session in Moscow. I was quite disappointed about missing the event again myself. I hope it was successful. Just keep in mind that PMI is clearly the world's leader in the project management profession, and that there are many ways to lead. Unfortunately, it has seemed that PMI's leadership style in the past really has been "too American", too arrogant and dominating, without enough consideration for other cultures or perspectives. I see that this is changing for the better, so keep up the good work.
8. On Global Responsiveness, I appreciate that Greg and his team at PMI-HQ are continuing to improve the information gathering and decision-making processes within PMI. The Balanced Scorecard is a good model. My main message on this subject, however, was related to "responsiveness", that is the ability to respond in hours, days or weeks, not in six month intervals. Continuous improvement in this area can produce equally fast rewards. I think PMI will, in fact, continue to improve in this area, which can help dispel disputes, problems and criticisms. I am equally sure that the PMI Board and leaders at HQ are working hard on PMI's behalf in this area.
9. On the subject of resources, I was just offering my personal perspective, thinking it might get the Board to consider new and different opportunities for PMI. Nothing more was meant. I agree that PMI has many resources and they should be "aligned" for maximum effectiveness. That is certainly easier said than done.
10. The Alternative Future for PMI that I suggested in my Open Letter was not proposed, but I believe it is a clear possibility. I am not now sure that PMI offers enough member benefits to keep someone involved over a long period of time. For the first five years, yes. After that, no. In my opinion, PMI needs to focus much more attention on member benefits, at least as much attention as it has on products, in order to solve this problem. On the other hand, PMI can and will continue to grow and prosper based on its high quality products and services. I think that better clarifies my position. So the question remains, what does PMI want to be, a member-oriented or product-oriented organization? It will take more than words to convince many of our members, at least those who have been members for more that five years.
11. A merger of PMI with IPMA is much too risky for IPMA, so I never thought this would get off the ground. But if PMI embraces national associations and continues to grow as it has, then PMI begins to look more like IPMA. If IPMA were to fold, then the result will be the same, with the same potential that I suggested. What will the future be? It may still be in the hands of the leaders of PMI and IPMA. I was happy to hear about the new spirit of cooperation and I will look forward to seeing the newly signed documentation.
Debbie, I too must now apologize for writing so much in response to your letter. Your response showed true leadership and I appreciated that immensely. It also showed that you have taken my Open Letter very seriously. Your responses indicated that my letter produced some serious conversation among some board members on the issues addressed, which was my main objective. Thank you. And thank you for your commitment and efforts on behalf of PMI and the Project Management Profession. As always, warmest regards to you and my other friends on the PMI Board and at PMI Headquarters.
Sincerely,
David L. Pells
PMI Fellow
Monday, June 09, 2003
A Comment on Max's Musings - On Software Development PM World Today May 2003
A Comment by Gordon MacMaster on Max's Musings PM World Today May 2003
I finally had a moment to read Max Wideman's paper on Software Development & Linearity. See http://www.pmforum.org/pmwt03/practices03-05.htm I needed this paper about a year and a half ago. I had a huge protracted struggle with a Client's Best Practice group on the appropriate use of project management methodology. The group was more akin to an Inquisition rather than a Best Practices shop - they were the enforcers of the official PM dogma. I had argued that the PM methodology to use depends largely on the specific conditions of the project rather than one size all - OR ELSE! To make a long story short, I resorted to sneakery to get my heretical version of project management in place for my client.
Max's paper (parts 1 and 2) raises two general thoughts for me.
1) The separation of project management methodology and software development (product) methodologies. I think there needs to be a much clearer division between the two. I see Waterfall, system engineering, spiral, etc. as product methodologies. As you stated in your observation about PM methodologies and the element of control - none of these have that. Or as I always preach, managing the details of the product does not mean you are managing the project.
For software in particular, I believe an organization needs to develop separate project and product methodologies (say 3 of each). The methodologies should be able to 'plug and play' into each other - you select the appropriate PM and product methodology for the specific conditions of the project. The criteria for the selection need some thought and research (such as risk, competency of the product team, the maturity of the client, etc.). The suite of methodologies and the selection criteria need to be developed of course. But I think its better than trying to create a one size fits all approach.
2) The second thought is about that "holy trinity" of project success - on time, on budget and meets specifications. I think for software these need a serious re-think. As Max's paper stated, the Business Case is developed in the conceptual phase and the money is set aside for the project. Once the money (or dogs of war as a friend likes to call it) is released, the holy trinity criteria are hardened. It is because you would not get the money without the reward to the organization being clear. In order to define the benefit of the project you need to know when, how much and what it should do. And all of this occurs before the detailed specifications are defined which for software is way too soon.
As Max's paper explains quite well, the definition of what is needed is often a voyage of discovery. Yet the criteria for the success of that voyage are set while the ships are still at dock. Even with an effective Change Management process, is any project that exceeds any of the trinity's parameters by more than 10% considered a success? While officially it might be, the subjective feeling is different. Software projects should be seen as two projects.
The first project is to define the need. The Business Case is to show alignment of the idea with corporate strategy and some funds, resources and a deadline should be set to define the specifications. When this project is over, the idea is revisited with the new information. Now, such things as ROI, etc. are possible. The holy trinity can also be better defined.
The second project, to build the product, then goes ahead if the project is considered viable (there will always be scope creep afterwards, but the degree will be lessened). Unfortunately, such an approach is the antithesis of most management outlook, which believes the future is predictable. It also runs into problems with the quick release of funds (you would not want a long gap between projects). Finally, some projects should be cancelled once the specifications are defined. This may have the taint of failure associated with them.
"Software development projects are different!" For those who believe this, they need to look at the historical development of the methodologies and standards in use today. They are built from the experience of the military, engineering and manufacturing experience of the post WWII world. These are command and control organizations operating within the physical world (and bound by physics). And of course, establishing the parameters of these methodologies and standards is accounting which was developed by medieval monks.
No wonder the software industry has had difficulty borrowing from these standards and methodologies!! It is probably time for the software industry to make a serious break, but the trip will not be easy.
Gordon MacMaster
Day Is Done Partners Inc.
(613) 821-9350 Phone
(613) 821-9351 Fax
kgmacma@magma.ca
I finally had a moment to read Max Wideman's paper on Software Development & Linearity. See http://www.pmforum.org/pmwt03/practices03-05.htm I needed this paper about a year and a half ago. I had a huge protracted struggle with a Client's Best Practice group on the appropriate use of project management methodology. The group was more akin to an Inquisition rather than a Best Practices shop - they were the enforcers of the official PM dogma. I had argued that the PM methodology to use depends largely on the specific conditions of the project rather than one size all - OR ELSE! To make a long story short, I resorted to sneakery to get my heretical version of project management in place for my client.
Max's paper (parts 1 and 2) raises two general thoughts for me.
1) The separation of project management methodology and software development (product) methodologies. I think there needs to be a much clearer division between the two. I see Waterfall, system engineering, spiral, etc. as product methodologies. As you stated in your observation about PM methodologies and the element of control - none of these have that. Or as I always preach, managing the details of the product does not mean you are managing the project.
For software in particular, I believe an organization needs to develop separate project and product methodologies (say 3 of each). The methodologies should be able to 'plug and play' into each other - you select the appropriate PM and product methodology for the specific conditions of the project. The criteria for the selection need some thought and research (such as risk, competency of the product team, the maturity of the client, etc.). The suite of methodologies and the selection criteria need to be developed of course. But I think its better than trying to create a one size fits all approach.
2) The second thought is about that "holy trinity" of project success - on time, on budget and meets specifications. I think for software these need a serious re-think. As Max's paper stated, the Business Case is developed in the conceptual phase and the money is set aside for the project. Once the money (or dogs of war as a friend likes to call it) is released, the holy trinity criteria are hardened. It is because you would not get the money without the reward to the organization being clear. In order to define the benefit of the project you need to know when, how much and what it should do. And all of this occurs before the detailed specifications are defined which for software is way too soon.
As Max's paper explains quite well, the definition of what is needed is often a voyage of discovery. Yet the criteria for the success of that voyage are set while the ships are still at dock. Even with an effective Change Management process, is any project that exceeds any of the trinity's parameters by more than 10% considered a success? While officially it might be, the subjective feeling is different. Software projects should be seen as two projects.
The first project is to define the need. The Business Case is to show alignment of the idea with corporate strategy and some funds, resources and a deadline should be set to define the specifications. When this project is over, the idea is revisited with the new information. Now, such things as ROI, etc. are possible. The holy trinity can also be better defined.
The second project, to build the product, then goes ahead if the project is considered viable (there will always be scope creep afterwards, but the degree will be lessened). Unfortunately, such an approach is the antithesis of most management outlook, which believes the future is predictable. It also runs into problems with the quick release of funds (you would not want a long gap between projects). Finally, some projects should be cancelled once the specifications are defined. This may have the taint of failure associated with them.
"Software development projects are different!" For those who believe this, they need to look at the historical development of the methodologies and standards in use today. They are built from the experience of the military, engineering and manufacturing experience of the post WWII world. These are command and control organizations operating within the physical world (and bound by physics). And of course, establishing the parameters of these methodologies and standards is accounting which was developed by medieval monks.
No wonder the software industry has had difficulty borrowing from these standards and methodologies!! It is probably time for the software industry to make a serious break, but the trip will not be easy.
Gordon MacMaster
Day Is Done Partners Inc.
(613) 821-9350 Phone
(613) 821-9351 Fax
kgmacma@magma.ca
Monday, June 02, 2003
David Pells Open Letter to the PMI Board
David Pells Reply to Max Wideman's Comment
On "The David Pells Open Letter to the PMI Board"
With regard to my last point, I'm not sure that I want PMI to "leave its members behind", but I now see that as a definite possibility. PMI's focus is on products and services for the PM profession, which can be obtained from PMI whether one is a member or not. What if a majority of PMI's members continue to remain as members for 5 years or less? What if member loyalties shift to national or local PM associations? I don't know but I see a different future for PMI than the one it has had for thirty years, especially as it "globalizes". As it grows into a truly global institution, I believe its focus will continue to be on standards, certification, publications and congresses, with its influence with other global or multi-national organizations also growing. But size brings difficulties with relating to individual members. There is less representation at the top, less loyalty at the bottom. This could be changed, can be overcome with true leadership at HQ, and maybe Greg is the man for the job. But the entire focus of the PMI Board is on big strategic issues, and membership does not seem to be one of them.
It is true that my argument and logic have not been completely thought through, but my letter contained what I believe is an alternative future that is possible for PMI. I believe that PMI members in Dallas or Sydney or Johannesburg feel more loyalty to their local PMI chapter than to PMI, and if chapters are legally independent and if PMI evolves into a component enabler rather than a member-oriented society, then PMI becomes a provider of products and services and a stamp of legitimacy. Anyway, maybe just food for thought and discussion.
David Pells
Email pells@sbcglobal.net
On "The David Pells Open Letter to the PMI Board"
With regard to my last point, I'm not sure that I want PMI to "leave its members behind", but I now see that as a definite possibility. PMI's focus is on products and services for the PM profession, which can be obtained from PMI whether one is a member or not. What if a majority of PMI's members continue to remain as members for 5 years or less? What if member loyalties shift to national or local PM associations? I don't know but I see a different future for PMI than the one it has had for thirty years, especially as it "globalizes". As it grows into a truly global institution, I believe its focus will continue to be on standards, certification, publications and congresses, with its influence with other global or multi-national organizations also growing. But size brings difficulties with relating to individual members. There is less representation at the top, less loyalty at the bottom. This could be changed, can be overcome with true leadership at HQ, and maybe Greg is the man for the job. But the entire focus of the PMI Board is on big strategic issues, and membership does not seem to be one of them.
It is true that my argument and logic have not been completely thought through, but my letter contained what I believe is an alternative future that is possible for PMI. I believe that PMI members in Dallas or Sydney or Johannesburg feel more loyalty to their local PMI chapter than to PMI, and if chapters are legally independent and if PMI evolves into a component enabler rather than a member-oriented society, then PMI becomes a provider of products and services and a stamp of legitimacy. Anyway, maybe just food for thought and discussion.
David Pells
Email pells@sbcglobal.net
David Pells Open Letter to the PMI Board
Max Wideman Comment On The June Editorial
"The David Pells Open Letter to the PMI Board"
Very interesting. Good idea to get it all down on paper. I think I agree with all your points except perhaps the last item: "PMI may have an alternative future that is not based on members, but rather other success metrics, including global size, power and influence." I believe that what you have in mind may be not what this conveys. If you mean that PMI's "success" should not be based on numbers alone, then I agree. However, if you mean that PMI's driving force might be other than the will of the membership then I would disagree.
In fact, the reduction of membership influence has been one of the greatest sources of member discontent (not surprisingly) and, I suspect, one of the reasons why we have seen some very silly administrative decisions made. If not to the membership, then to whom would the executive and the Board be responsible?
The latter scenario would no longer be an "association" but some level of commercial operation that would eventually lose member support and, more importantly, lose the essential input that drives the so-called PM body of knowledge to keep it real-life rather than some fancy academic or commercial short-lived gimmickry. The body of knowledge is, after all, the foundation of the Institute's purposes and the underpinning of its financial success to date.
Max Wideman
Email max_wideman@sfu.ca
Web http://www.maxwideman.com
"The David Pells Open Letter to the PMI Board"
Very interesting. Good idea to get it all down on paper. I think I agree with all your points except perhaps the last item: "PMI may have an alternative future that is not based on members, but rather other success metrics, including global size, power and influence." I believe that what you have in mind may be not what this conveys. If you mean that PMI's "success" should not be based on numbers alone, then I agree. However, if you mean that PMI's driving force might be other than the will of the membership then I would disagree.
In fact, the reduction of membership influence has been one of the greatest sources of member discontent (not surprisingly) and, I suspect, one of the reasons why we have seen some very silly administrative decisions made. If not to the membership, then to whom would the executive and the Board be responsible?
The latter scenario would no longer be an "association" but some level of commercial operation that would eventually lose member support and, more importantly, lose the essential input that drives the so-called PM body of knowledge to keep it real-life rather than some fancy academic or commercial short-lived gimmickry. The body of knowledge is, after all, the foundation of the Institute's purposes and the underpinning of its financial success to date.
Max Wideman
Email max_wideman@sfu.ca
Web http://www.maxwideman.com
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
