PM World Today Letters To The Editor

Dear Hugh,

Your recent editorial on “Where do we debate the future of project management” was great, timely and relevant. Even in the old formats of PMI Seminars and Symposia and IPMA world congresses, however, there were not enough real debates on issues of importance to modern project management.

I have long thought that it would be a good idea for real debates to occur, even be sponsored by PMI, where some of the issues that have been raised as criticisms of PMI or of the PM profession could be fairly and openly debated. For example, the PMP is sometimes criticized as a poor qualification for real project managers. I believe, however, that there are many PMPs who would argue that they are, in fact, better project managers with their PMP than without (in the context of their organizations, personal experience, individual projects, industry, and/or personal perspectives).

What is good or bad about PMI's Guide to the PMBOK, or about critical chain scheduling, earned value or any other PM concept, policy or practice? What will the future of modern project management entail? Does modern PM even have a future? Will there ever be a project management “profession”? I think debates could be both useful and entertaining. But where or how could such debates occur? Perhaps you could publish “debates”, with two sides of an issue represented, in your PM World Today.

I also believe in continuous improvement, in non-threatening and less confrontational ways, and criticism in constructive language. These approaches are certainly advanced in psychology and sociology as more effective approaches for promoting positive changes. Generally speaking, I believe that policies and actions can be openly criticized, if appropriate, but individual persons or even organizations (such as PMI) should be respected. Open debate would seem to be the perfect vehicle for raising issues and providing opportunities for both sides to be fairly heard.

Respectfully,

David L. Pells
PMI Fellow
Dallas

Paul Giammalvo comments on David Pell's guest editorial in the January PM World Today:

While I agree fully and totally with you about the importance of adopting a "world class" Code of Ethics as part of the "professionalization" process, there is an issue your editorial raises that I think important to address. You referred to the "Profession" of Project Management. I am curious what evidence do you have justifying or supporting calling project management a "profession"?

In a recent research project funded in part by PMI, Bill Zwerman and Janice Thomas concluded Project Management "is not now, nor is it likely to be in the near future, considered a profession". My own PhD research following up on the work of Zwerman et al substantiates very much the same thing.

There is no empirical evidence supporting our occupational specialty is a profession, whether looked at using the "Extrinsic" or traditional traits, or the "Intrinsic" or non-traditional attributes. As a matter of fact, a global survey of practitioners completed late in 2005 indicates very clearly that a representative sample of some 400 global respondents perceive what we do as a "process, methodology or system" and not a profession at all.

As the PMForum has earned an enviable reputation for being the "No Spin Zone" of project management, I would urge the contributors and readership that henceforth, instead of perpetuating a marketing myth, that we refer to project management as an "EMERGENT" or "EVOLVING" profession at best, and more appropriately, I believe the term we SHOULD be using is PRACTICE. For until the processes, methodologies or systems we develop are mature enough to consistently deliver projects "on time", "within budget" while "substantially fulfilling stakeholder needs, wants and expectations", all we are doing is "PRACTICING".

Paul Giammalvo, CDT, PMP, CCE, MScPM

I agree wholeheartedly with your comments about the top 50. I find it appalling that the selection was made without asking the community at large for one. When we set aside folks who have given heart and sole to the profession by writing texts that are now regarded as the foundation of the profession, we are doing a disservice to the masses of folks who are seeking
to find the role model to follow.

You mentioned a few like Barnes but we need the Cleland, Frame, and Kerzner to be listed as the leaders as well as folks who are on the front lines and are the unsung mentors in systems who have succeeded in their lines of work.

Let's get real, the 50 listed are no more leaders in the area than they are corporate folks who lead PM organizations. If we wanted to bill them as such I might be able to support that effort. Trying to win favor by listing folks from large firms is not a winning ticket for a professional
organization.

Becky Winston

Rebecca Winston, PMI Fellow, currently serves as a consultant for the National Nuclear Security Administration, Department of Energy and the Department of Homeland Security.