Is ISO 21500 intended to complement or to compete with PMI? Part II.

This part of a discussion on the LinkedIn group "ISO 21500 Project Management".

Interesed? Join the group.

>>>Theofanis Giotis PMP®, BA, MSc, Ph.D. C. • ISO 21500 will be in available soon as Draft International Standard (DIS). So, we will see the differences between PMBOK and 21500!!!

>>>David Hudson • Back to my comment on PMP, can I also say that any sensible person would appreciate the difficulty of changing the system with such a huge legacy of folk behind the current system.

I am on record in saying that I would probably have established something similar given the practical challenges of maintaining some level of integrity and quality over a global process, and remembering that the PMP started at a time when practical quality system support measures were in scant supply.

It isn't an issue of quality in strict terms per se; PMP delivers the result that most intelligent stakeholders expect. It is a matter of grade; what one can realistically derive from the process and the realistic expectations of the workplace performance of a PMP.

It would be a brave person who derides the efforts of anyone who undertakes certification, and I have many close colleagues and friends who hold PMP. Heavens, I even successfully sat the examination for MSP practitioner recently - a true accolade to my examination coach.

>>>Kishan Solanki, BE, LLB, FCCA, CCE, MBA, PMP • Hello,
I can see in the market that there are many professional bodies relating to Project Management. I have PMP certificatation from PMI.
I expect that the ISO 21500 which appears to be growing out of PMBOK of PMI section III. That serve as a foundation for the Project management. The practioner of Project Management need to take it furtehr to address the problem in economy - project delays, cost overruns and productivity. This may be in similar way other "Managers" - practioners of different management disciplines - marketing, Finance, HR, operations deal with general aspects.
We, the practioners of Project Management, need to debate at global level on this vital aspect of providng solution to the current problem being faced by the global economy.
the debate on ISO 21500 standard may please consider this aspect also.

Regards to all..
Kishan solanki
Abu Dhabi, UAE

>>>Michael Fisher • I have to say that whatever the 'method' employed in PM, any standard is no more than a guide that can rarely, if ever, directly address all the infinite variations that can arise in an infinite number of people, relationships/cultures, systems, projects, programmes or portfolios. What standards or methods such as ISO 21500 or PMBoK or PRINCE2 can provide are workable frameworks. None of them are absolute in the sense that we MUST apply them to the letter; we can depart on little hybrid journeys of our own IF that is what is required in special circumstances BUT we should all return back to the central theme or principles.

Most PMs do BASICALLY the same things. What differ most are the labels that we stick onto the systems that are used and the attitudes or characters of the individual PMs. Given the opportunity, ISO 21500 may correct the labelling or langauage elements so that we can at least start using a common language to discuss different methodologies. I like that goal...a lot.

A further justification for a common PM language relates to the fact that most of us are 'programmed' to use the different 'languages' of different 'methodologies'. That is why we often have to re-programme ourselves to communicate effectively with others. In such curcumstances the potential for misinterpretations and downstream mistakes is very high. Add different nationalities e.g. French, German, English, Indian, Chinese into the mix of one project and the probability of communication failure rises into the red zone, valves pop, steam escapes and the machine becomes unstable!

David Hudson's comment about discerning "minute differences" is highly relevant. On too many occasions we all encounter those who incorrectly interpret principles as absolute requirements that must be applied to everything in every project. Most of us know that is wrong but equally, many of us only learned it through experience. I doubt if many of us cling to one single methodology. We use what is appropriate from formally defined methodologies and we also make up our own 'bits' to plug the gaps that appear in specific circumstances.

I am not an enthusiastic fan of examinations at this level because to some extent they are artificially difficult. No names, no pack drill but many of the questions 'they' use are only difficult because of the bad (sometimes extremely bad) language that is used to define the questions. So, much of the process of 'exams' can be more of a lottery than a true test. BUT I agree that some form of test is necessary. The point here is that a 'true' test would be easier to define IF the language/terms/definitions it uses is common to all PM methodologies and less reliant on semantic differences and the use of ambiguous terminologies in the wording of the questions.

Language is a very powerful tool. Its imprecise use can create havoc but used precisely it can efficiently and effectively achieve great things.

If I had a chance to add in anything to ISO 21500 it would be on applying the heaviest emphasis and precision possible to the scoping and other precise responsibilities of the Project Board, Executive and Project Manager. The evasiveness, lack of precision and political manoevering in those areas are primary causes of downstream problems. Prevention is better than cure and this is where prevention should start. We will be missing an opportunity if ISO 21500 does not add greater precision to that requirement.

The bottom line re ISO 21500 is that it has the opportunity to create a common PM 'language'. Once that is established we shall all be able to communicate more effectively. Because a large part of Project Management falls under the broad heading of "communication", the establishment and use of that common language will be a giant and very positive leap forward for all Project Managers. If ISO 21500 is the 'tool' that helps to achieve that goal it will have my enthusiastic support....whatever that is worth!

>>>Joseph Lynn MPM PMP • Micheal, I agree with you about the examination and certification process. Many of the questions on the PMP exam purposely trick you just to keep their 'failure rates' up. The thing is, this is as much a corporate hiring issue as a PMI issue.

Corporations demand certifications and they want certifications that are difficult to obtain. So, company's look at the 'failure rate' of the exam. If it is high enough the company figures the exam is doing its job.