PM World Today Letters To The Editor

Francis M. Webster Jr. comments on the David Pells Open Letter to the Project Management Institute's Board of Directors.

Reference: PM World Today June 2003 Editorial

I have read David's letter and agree with it in most part. The following are some additional comments that I believe need to be considered by the Board and the Executive Director. I am sorry, I cannot be as gracious and kind to the Board or the previous Executive Director as was David.

Let me comment generally on my current attitude towards PMI which is best described as disenchantment. For the last four years I have had great difficulty generating any enthusiasm for PMI due to several of the policies put into place by the Board of Directors and the Executive Director. Indeed, from my perspective, the Board did not exercise their responsibilities adequately, at least in a few specific areas. As a result of this lack of enthusiasm, I recently have done nothing for or with PMI that I had not already agreed to do. I have a feeling others feel much the same way. I believe those Board members who have been around for sometime know that this lack of enthusiasm is quite contrary to my previous attitude.


First, based on the treatment of Lew Ireland, I believe the Board erred egregiously when it acted to vote a member of the Board off the Board. That specifically disenfranchised the members who voted Lew onto the Board. That provision that exists in the By-Laws as Section VI.B.5. Action should be taken to negate it ASAP. This does not require a provision for a referendum of the total membership but should provide for an alternative, perhaps through what used to be called the Council of Chapter Presidents or even the Ethics Committee.


Second, based on the treatment of Bill Duncan, I believe the Board erred egregiously when they established Chapter 9 of the Rules of the Board dealing with grievances. While it is not explicit there, I understand that the Executive Director is given full responsibility for dealing with grievances, including those initiated by the Executive Director. Thus, the Executive Director may well be the complainant, prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner. There is no apparent recourse to even the Board. That is totally unacceptable. An alternative procedure should be implemented to ensure fair and impartial treatment with appropriate due process and a judgment by peers, i.e., members that are not officers.


Third, the rules on confidentiality, or some other provision, seem to limit discourse between individual members of the Board and general members of the Institute. It seems to be in the order of a "Gag Rule." While this may be "efficient" as far as the Board is concerned, it seems to me to stifle free discussion and challenge of ideas. Too often in history the lone dissenter has, through persistent efforts, brought out truth and better solutions to problems, for example, Samuel Adams and Patrick Henry.

It seems to me that much of the governance of PMI has assumed a model of the "private corporation." PMI is not a "private business corporation" but a "membership organization" similar to federal, state, and other community organizations who are subject to "sunshine laws," seek membership input before making decisions, and are required, if only by the media, to defend their decisions. Many times while I was Editor-in-Chief for PMI I pleaded for the Board to permit publication of their intentions and allow for membership reaction prior to taking a vote. I can recall no instance when that really happened. It seems to be worse under the new system of governance.


Fourth, in its zeal to protect "intellectual property" the Board has gone overboard in requiring members to give up all rights to their intellectual property. I believe we had a far more fair balance of interests prior to the new governance system. Even that was considered unfair to some. I urge a review to redress this. It certainly limits my willingness to work on committees and the like as well as publish with PMI.


Fifth, in a matter of somewhat less significance, the relationship of PMI to the Fellows has deteriorated. I took a position long before I was considered for Fellow, and still believe it, that this group should be considered a valuable asset by PMI. I have always looked up to other Fellows as the ones who have been there, done that, in an excellent manner and have given much to PMI. The Fellows should be held up as examples to the general membership and people that members might want to meet. This was done in one way in the ceremony of inducting new Fellows by having all Fellows in attendance come to the stage to "vouch for" the new Fellow and welcome them into the Circle of Fellows. This was eliminated several years ago, along with other traditions of PMI such as encouraging the attendance of spouses at annual meetings. I believe the loss of such traditions is most unfortunate. Even the elimination of a banquet is unfortunate in my mind. I do not believe it should be expected that everyone should attend the banquet but something should be available to those who appreciate such formalities and recognition of peers. I believe many of these changes have been motivated by what I call the "Bureaucratic Man Model of Behavior"...i.e., "minimize problems to myself" on the part of both the Board and staff.

All of the above are factors that support my, and David's, contentions that PMI has lost interest in its members as it has become more commercially oriented. This commercial orientation has certainly been successful in monetary terms as attested to by David's reference to $20,000,000 in the bank. (I will not comment on the size of this cache.) I do not believe PMI has optimized the balance between commercialism and member considerations very well.

In the beginning I indicated that I was disenchanted with PMI. I value my experience with PMI and had hoped to continue it as long as I am able. I will attend PMI 2003, hoping to see some of my many friends. If PMI becomes more member oriented and revises its governance towards that of a public body, I will continue to be a fan. Else, I shall quietly fade away.

With deepest concern,

Francis Webster, PMI Fellow, PMP, member # 1810, PMP, Fellow, has more than thirty years of experience practicing, consulting on, and teaching project management. He has served PMI as editor-in-chief from 1985 until 1994. Longtime members of the Institute know he was also the voice behind the PM Network's
"Olde Curmudgeon"