|
While the Guide's authors have added good illustrative examples making the document more readable, it is not at all clear from the text as presented, the difference between the practice being presented for PMP certification learning and that for illustration only. Students of the subject, and their trainers for that matter, will have difficulty filtering out the illustrative content from the serious stuff that they must memorize for the PMP certification exam. The text should be presented so that the difference between content-for-learning and content-for-illustration is abundantly clear. 项目管理者联盟
The question has also been raised whether, with double the number of pages of the previous version, will it take that much longer to study for the Project Management Professional certification exam? There should be no question that the Guide is a "knowledge" document and not a prescription for running a project. Nevertheless a legitimate question is: Does it help anyone to run a project? Perhaps it is time to rethink the approach.项目管理者联盟
In a previous section we referenced the flow diagrams added to each of the knowledge area chapters. Each specifically states: "Note: Not all process interactions and data flow among the processes are shown."6 Will this not leave students of the subject in some doubt? Who will answer the question: "What 'process interactions and data flow among the processes' are missing?" The content of some of the flow diagrams also appear to be open to question. We provide a couple of examples under Section III in Part 3 of our review.service.mypm.net
Interestingly, the authors have dropped the statement "Project management is an emerging profession" from the Guide's "Purpose". So presumably since 2000 and in their view, the project management profession has now arrived. Whether or not the Guide itself has finally arrived is another matter. The new Guide is more "process heavy" than its predecessor and one wonders if, in chasing all these processes, there will ever be any time left to do any actual project work!
For example, in the 2000 edition there were 39 project management processes. In this 2004 version "seven processes have been added, thirteen renamed, and two deleted for a net gain of five processes"7 for a new total of 44. By our calculation, that's a total change of over 50%. If all these processes complete with inputs, techniques and outputs, can be so readily shuffled and changed, then how can we be sure that what we now see documented as a standard is truly fundamental to the project management discipline? To be frank, we hadn't noticed these changes developing in practice over the past four years.项目管理者联盟
The 2000 version made the tacit assumption that each output is generated by only one process resulting from only one set of inputs. Further, with but one exception, each output that is not an end item is an input to a succeeding process. In other words, the whole represented substantial systems logic. This is not the case with the 2004 version where some outputs reappear as outputs from other processes with different inputs. Indeed, outputs from succeeding processes also appear as inputs to preceding processes. We will explore this in greater depth in Part 2 of our review.项目管理者联盟
From Appendix A we learn that "The terms 'Facilitating Processes' and 'Core Processes' are no longer used. These terms have been eliminated to ensure that all project management processes in the Project Management Process Groups have the same level of importance".8 We should not be losing sight of the fact that the core processes ARE different from the facilitating processes. The former represent targets or constraints, i.e. what is to be achieved, while the latter represent the mechanics, i.e. how it is to be achieved. Therefore, you cannot facilitate until you know what your core processes are producing.项目管理者联盟
Missed opportunitiesblog.mypm.net
And speaking of "project life cycle", if it is possible to revise the labels of so many "standard" processes, isn't it about time that we got rid of the word "cycle" that means endless repetition? The term "project life cycle" is used to refer to the time span of a project, but time is linear and there is no way we can change that. Therefore, "Project Life Span" (PLS) would be much better terminology. We'll use the latter in our following discussion.项目管理者联盟
Perhaps the single biggest disappointment is in the failure of the Guide's authors to recognize and advocate for the proper deployment of the project life span technique. According to the Center for Research in the Management of Projects, University of Manchester, UK, the importance of this life span process and its influence on the management of the project cannot be over emphasized. This relatively short-term life-to-death environment and the consequences that flow, is probably the only thing that uniquely distinguishes projects from non-projects.9 A properly formulated PLS, with appropriate "gates" between the major phases, is the vehicle for the sponsor or the executive management of the performing organization to exercise control over the whole project management process. Many project failures can be directly attributed to a lack of a sound PLS process.项目管理者联盟
If anything needed re-labeling it is the set of five project management process groups. We delve in detail into this misleading state of affairs in our comments under Section II in Part 2 of our review. While the authors have tried hard to clarify this difficult concept, the result is questionable.项目管理者联盟
And while we are talking about wholesale change, it is high time that the knowledge area chapters were re-ordered into their logical sequence. This sequence was carefully considered, justified, and correctly presented in the 1987 version of the Project Management Body of Knowledge. For those who no longer have access to this document you can read the justification in my latest book: A Management Framework for Project, Program and Portfolio Integration.10 转自项目管理者联盟
Unfortunately, the logic of the sequence was lost on the developers of the subsequent 1996 version and, it seems, ever since. The current version makes great play of "organizational process assets (updates)" that, according to the Glossary includes "lessons learned", since it appears as an output of the work of each knowledge area. The credibility of the Guide is challenged when it fails to apply its own recommendation. 项目管理者联盟
The authors have made a serious attempt to clarify the controversial topic of the term "scope". This is good, but the result is not quite conclusive and is not consistently reflected in the other knowledge areas. Again, we discuss this in more detail under Section III of Part 2 of our review.项目管理培训
The importance of quality is once again underplayed, both by its position in the sequence of knowledge area chapters and its treatment of the term "grade". "Grade" gets only a single passing mention in the document and that is in chapter 8 dedicated to Project Quality Management.11 We may therefore infer that what is intended here is "Quality grade". Like the three other "core" knowledge area variables, project quality management requires a "baseline" as a basis-for-comparison, i.e. "conformance to requirements". This quality management baseline is the quality grade. Note that "grade", i.e. quality grade baseline, is not mentioned in Chapter 5, Project Scope Management.项目管理者联盟
The fact is, quality ultimately transcends all else, whether in terms of performance, productivity, or final product. However, a remarkable number of people in the project management industry don't seem to have latched onto that. Who will remember that last year's project was late and over budget? That's all lost in last year's financial statements. It is the quality of the product that endures throughout its life.项目管理者联盟
One may legitimately question to what extent the Guide's update-team were charged with researching previous Institute documents and current project management texts, given the paucity of references12 for a document of this importance. It is also a matter for regret that none of the expertise of the senior members of the Institute, its Fellows, was available to the Standards Program Member Advisory Group during the development of this latest version of the Guide.13 It is possible that soliciting their collective review could have made a difference and some of these disappointments might have been averted.项目管理者联盟
To be continued项目管理者联盟
In Parts 2 and 3 of this review we will look in more detail at the Sections within the Guide.club.mypm.net
R. Max Wideman
Fellow, PMI
项目管理者联盟 项目管理者联盟
|
