Part II.
I paid 66 Suisse Francs and bought the DIS 21.500 and was disgusted!
It is a worsened version of chapters 1 -3 of the PMBOK® Guide which itself is rather incomplete and biased.
The inclusion of activiti in WBS (scope) after the controversy which was settled in 2001 in favor of deliverable-based WBS is a retrocession.
Although the idea of stakeholder managemment is welcome, the way it is included, i.e., without any integration with communication and integration (governance and change control processes) IMHO is a huge mistake.
The "ease of reference -the Process Groups: Initiating, Planning, Implementing, Controlling and Closing " that you talk about is a pure confsusion. Nobody manages projects by process groups but by its life cycle integrated with pre-project (portfolio) phases and post-project (transition to operations and ramp-up processes).
The business justification through business case and benefits management is simply forgotten. No Management of Change (MoC) is included.
Project Manager role is highlighted but all other protagonists (and ever more important than PM himself) such as executives, SRO's, Change Managers, Project Assurance and change autorities are not mentioned.
I wasted my time and money and am really frustrated and upset.
David Hudson • Dear Farhard
I personally believe the requirement to pay for a global standards draft is outrageous, there are free versions around.
But think of it this way, you haven't totally wasted your time, you have found out several things you are not happy about. And you are joining a group of practitioners who are realising that we should not place all of our eggs in one basket. To expect too much of such a broad based document is maybe the first mistake. Even allowing for getting things right in terms of your comments, it will be what it is, a general standard that attempts to bridge an almost impossible span of project contexts and requirements. It is, after all, produced by mere mortals like you and I who are doing there best to represent such a broad community of practice.
Regards
David Hudson
I personally believe the requirement to pay for a global standards draft is outrageous, there are free versions around.
But think of it this way, you haven't totally wasted your time, you have found out several things you are not happy about. And you are joining a group of practitioners who are realising that we should not place all of our eggs in one basket. To expect too much of such a broad based document is maybe the first mistake. Even allowing for getting things right in terms of your comments, it will be what it is, a general standard that attempts to bridge an almost impossible span of project contexts and requirements. It is, after all, produced by mere mortals like you and I who are doing there best to represent such a broad community of practice.
Regards
David Hudson
Richard E. Renshaw MBA, MAPM Prince2 Practitioner • @ Farhad and David, thank you for the welcome posts which were highly appreciated. For me too I consider I'm a lesser mortal for whom the achievement of excellence requires considerable effort. The synergistic exchange of 1 + 1 = 3 I personally find beneficial and am keen to encourage others to seek out the positive initiative associated with this forthcoming standard and co-create approaches on how to influence changes during this period that the document has been distributed for comment.
@ Farhad I echo David's good post which aids the search for options on paths to go forward. I offer the following for yourself and others to consider and adapt as you see appropriate.
Path one; I thought the post from Karl Best was most helpful and I have replicated below for ease of reference.
Opportunities to influence the forthcoming IS; this process is by country. Each country's mirror committee will collect comments from its members, then compile and prioritize those comments before submitting the country's response to ISO by 4 September.
If you're not already a member of your country's mirror committee and want to get involved you should contact your country's standards organization; see a list at http://www.iso.org/iso/about/iso_members.htm
Path two; I wanted to suggest that you select an element of the Draft International Standard and focus. One area is the lexicon and there are currently 15 terms. What I would like to ask of yourself and others, should you see merit is consider from your personal experience and knowledge to post up your opinion of what would be a nominal list of circa 30 items for a glossary and further include your viewpoint in respect of abbreviations and acronyms.
Thereon within such nominal list of 30 items embed the current 15 items and offer up what you would consider is a more appropriate definition and a short paragraph as a comment as supporting rationale.
Path three; Consider to already express interest to join the forthcoming Technical Committee or relevant sub-committees in respect of forthcoming Working International Draft documents in respect of Programme Management and Management of Portfolios / Portfolio Management.
Path four; Other and I should appreciate members posts on this discussion thread to initiate concurrent dialogue prior to the deadline of 4 September in respect of ISO 21500 DIS.
It's just an idea, hope it appeals. I hope this is of help.
Kind regards
Richard
Sunny Saudi
@ Farhad I echo David's good post which aids the search for options on paths to go forward. I offer the following for yourself and others to consider and adapt as you see appropriate.
Path one; I thought the post from Karl Best was most helpful and I have replicated below for ease of reference.
Opportunities to influence the forthcoming IS; this process is by country. Each country's mirror committee will collect comments from its members, then compile and prioritize those comments before submitting the country's response to ISO by 4 September.
If you're not already a member of your country's mirror committee and want to get involved you should contact your country's standards organization; see a list at http://www.iso.org/iso/about/iso_members.htm
Path two; I wanted to suggest that you select an element of the Draft International Standard and focus. One area is the lexicon and there are currently 15 terms. What I would like to ask of yourself and others, should you see merit is consider from your personal experience and knowledge to post up your opinion of what would be a nominal list of circa 30 items for a glossary and further include your viewpoint in respect of abbreviations and acronyms.
Thereon within such nominal list of 30 items embed the current 15 items and offer up what you would consider is a more appropriate definition and a short paragraph as a comment as supporting rationale.
Path three; Consider to already express interest to join the forthcoming Technical Committee or relevant sub-committees in respect of forthcoming Working International Draft documents in respect of Programme Management and Management of Portfolios / Portfolio Management.
Path four; Other and I should appreciate members posts on this discussion thread to initiate concurrent dialogue prior to the deadline of 4 September in respect of ISO 21500 DIS.
It's just an idea, hope it appeals. I hope this is of help.
Kind regards
Richard
Sunny Saudi
For ease of reference the Process Groups: Initiating, Planning, Implementing, Controlling and Closing.
These maps I thought added value to the document and I recognize that the intent is that the Annex is not part of the Standard but to aid the reader comprehend the overview and the inter-relationships.
Potentially what may also prove helpful when the publication is launched into the public domain is a loose fold out insert to map how the sections of this forthcoming standard relates to existing PM standards from participating and observer countries. The expection to map against standards. As an example in the UK BS 6079 Parts 1, 2 & 3 - A Guide to PM.
The benefit in my opinion is that you then compare apples with apples.
From my viewpoint by 4Q 2012 then there would exist a set of documents, each with a different purpose. The set would include a national BoK (PM Body of Knowledge), a PM methodology (the most popular and effective in my opinion being PRINCE2) and a PM Standard.
• It will be interesting, following the fairly definitive move to model PMBoK principles into the standard. But Richard it needs to be said again and again that when you talk about PMBoK and Prince 2 as two methodologies; in fact only one is a methodology, that is Prince 2. The book is called The Guide to the Project Management Book of Knowledge, and it is that, a BOK not a methodology.
For all that I don't personally know a successful implementation of Prince 2 that doesn't fundamentally rely on PMBoK for an adequate level of process definition.
I would keep an eye on IPMA as well, with the current consensus program to establish the IPMA Competence Baseline v4.0, and whether that process aligns to ISO 21500 or not.
All that said, I get the impression that there is an expectation that ISO21500 will deliver guidance, process and templates - I suspect not. It is after all just an ISO guidance standard, and the expectation that it will immediately radically reshape the world of project management is a doubtful proposition in my own experience of what standards are intended to do and how they actually roll out. Processes and documents need to be contextually driven and designed. All we need is a bunch of experienced free thinkers who can take ISO21500 for its optimal value, and to derive contextually relevant processes and documents from that.
Thanks again.
Richard
Great to see complete alignment of practical ideas.
Regards
DH