ISO Standard Panel Discussion - 16 November 2011
dinsdag 15 november 2011
donderdag 29 september 2011
What's the future of PMBOK when ISO21500 is released
A nice discussion on the LinkedIn ISO 21500-group: "What's the future of PMBOK when ISO21500 is released?".
You can read it here.
You can read it here.
zaterdag 3 september 2011
PMI Global congress, ISO 21500
The PMI global congress contains a presentation by mr. Karl Best about ISO 21500. You can find the link here.
Date:
Sunday, 23 October
2:15 PM–3:30 PM
1 hour, 15 minutes
Location:
PMI Global Congress 2011—North America
Dallas/Fort Worth, Texas, USA, 22–25 October 2011
Gaylord Texan Resort & Convention Center1501 Gaylord Trail
Grapevine, TX 76051
Date:
Sunday, 23 October
2:15 PM–3:30 PM
1 hour, 15 minutes
Location:
PMI Global Congress 2011—North America
Dallas/Fort Worth, Texas, USA, 22–25 October 2011
Gaylord Texan Resort & Convention Center1501 Gaylord Trail
Grapevine, TX 76051
vrijdag 29 juli 2011
Current stage 40.20
The current ISO-stage is 40.20 (set on April 4th 2011): "DIS ballot initiated: 5 months"
(DIS = Draft International Standard )
(DIS = Draft International Standard )
donderdag 28 juli 2011
dinsdag 26 juli 2011
ISO 21500 und TC 258, neue internationale PM-Normen (in German)
Interview durch Andreas Heilwagen mit Reinhard Wagner.
donderdag 30 juni 2011
TC258 Project, program, and portfolio management, first meeting.
ISO/TC 258, the Technical Committee (TC) of the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) set up to work with standards in the field of project, program, and portfolio management has convened for the first plenary meeting in Washington DC on June 27th … 29th 2011.
Read more...
Read more...
maandag 27 juni 2011
Andrew Caswell: Do we need another standard?
A nice brief overview of project management (de facto) "standards", in relation to ISO 21500.
You'll find it here.
You'll find it here.
zaterdag 25 juni 2011
Peter de Graaf over ISO 21500
This time in Dutch, sorry.
Peter de Graaf ("Verbeterwerken") geeft hier zijn mening over ISO 21500.
Peter de Graaf ("Verbeterwerken") geeft hier zijn mening over ISO 21500.
woensdag 22 juni 2011
Henny Portman: Draft ISO 21500 Standard, a first look at the input/output model
An interesting article from mr. Portman. You can find it here.
dinsdag 14 juni 2011
Discussion about ISO 21500 on LinkedIn, part II
From this LinkedIn group an interesting discussing started by Richard E. Renshaw (you must be a group member to follow this discussion).
Farhad Abdollahyan • Dear Richard,
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.
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
maandag 13 juni 2011
Richard E. Renshaw: Reasons Why I Think the Forthcoming ISO 21500 is a Positive Initiative
Source: the LinkedIn group "ISO 21500 Project Management"
From this LinkedIn group an interesting discussing started by Richard E. Renshaw (you must be a group member to follow this discussion).
This is what it says:
Richard E. Renshaw MBA, MAPM Prince2 Practitioner
• Reasons Why I Think the Forthcoming ISO 21500 is a Positive Initiative
From this LinkedIn group an interesting discussing started by Richard E. Renshaw (you must be a group member to follow this discussion).
This is what it says:
Richard E. Renshaw MBA, MAPM Prince2 Practitioner
• Reasons Why I Think the Forthcoming ISO 21500 is a Positive Initiative
I would be interested in members views in respect of positive viewpoints associated with the forthcoming release into the Public Domain from 3Q 2012. Potentially after release of the document there shall likely in my opinion be subsequent related initiatives associated with Programme Managagement and the Management of Portfolios. My premise is that if we initially backcast to see where from my viewpoint the discipline of PM has evolved from then the contribution of the forthcoming Guide document for PM supports convergence and uniformity.
The mechanics of periodic updates to the ISO document after 3Q 2012 shall address in my opinion administrative addendums and reflections of the community at large.
The history of the study of project and programme management (PPM) is relatively recent and where there may be merit is to look backward initially to network planning and thereon consider casting forward for upcoming trends and initiatives. Consider the below as iterative development as Life After Critical Path ...
* Network Planning (Precedence diagrams)
* Integrated Project Control Systems
* PM's Interpersonal Skills
* PM's Competency
* PM BOK
* APM Body of Knowledge
* PRINCE2
* Management by Projects and Programmes
* Benefits Management
* Managing Successful Programmes
* Maturity Models
* Management of Risk
* Management of Portfolios
* ISO 21500 PM Guideline (available within the public domain 3Q 2012)
* Other ... your opinion please.
Comments, suggestions and thoughts most welcome.
Kind regards
Richard
Knowledge Economic City
Saudi Arabia
www.madinahkec.com
The mechanics of periodic updates to the ISO document after 3Q 2012 shall address in my opinion administrative addendums and reflections of the community at large.
The history of the study of project and programme management (PPM) is relatively recent and where there may be merit is to look backward initially to network planning and thereon consider casting forward for upcoming trends and initiatives. Consider the below as iterative development as Life After Critical Path ...
* Network Planning (Precedence diagrams)
* Integrated Project Control Systems
* PM's Interpersonal Skills
* PM's Competency
* PM BOK
* APM Body of Knowledge
* PRINCE2
* Management by Projects and Programmes
* Benefits Management
* Managing Successful Programmes
* Maturity Models
* Management of Risk
* Management of Portfolios
* ISO 21500 PM Guideline (available within the public domain 3Q 2012)
* Other ... your opinion please.
Comments, suggestions and thoughts most welcome.
Kind regards
Richard
Knowledge Economic City
Saudi Arabia
www.madinahkec.com
dinsdag 7 juni 2011
BPUG Thema-avond 6 juli: ISO21500 Guide to projectmanagement
'n uitnodiging van de BPUG (Best Practice User Groep) over ISO 21500 en PRINCE2.
6 juli 2011, locatie nog niet bekend.
Meer gegevens staan hier.
6 juli 2011, locatie nog niet bekend.
Meer gegevens staan hier.
maandag 6 juni 2011
PM World Today - Germany and / Deutschland und ISO 21500
Source: PM World Today – June 2011 (Vol XIII, Issue VI)
A small article about Germany and ISO 21500 / TC 258 can be found here (on top of page 2).
A small article about Germany and ISO 21500 / TC 258 can be found here (on top of page 2).
woensdag 1 juni 2011
New ISO/TC 258—“Project, program, and portfolio management"
Source: Qualitydigest.
Project, program, and portfolio management
ISO had originally established a project committee to develop a single standard on project management (ISO/PC 236). However, recognizing that the discipline of project management is much broader than what a single standard can encompass, it was decided that a new technical committee would be created to develop additional standards in this area.
The new ISO/TC 258—“Project, program, and portfolio management,” will address aspects that are not covered in the standard currently in development by ISO/PC 236 (ISO 21500), but that are considered essential and urgently needed in many countries.
The first meeting will take place June 27–29, 2011, in Washington. Currently, 34 countries are involved. The committee’s secretariat and chair are held by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI)—an ISO member for the United States, and the British Standards Institution (BSI)—an ISO member for the United Kingdom, respectively.
Project, program, and portfolio management
ISO had originally established a project committee to develop a single standard on project management (ISO/PC 236). However, recognizing that the discipline of project management is much broader than what a single standard can encompass, it was decided that a new technical committee would be created to develop additional standards in this area.
The new ISO/TC 258—“Project, program, and portfolio management,” will address aspects that are not covered in the standard currently in development by ISO/PC 236 (ISO 21500), but that are considered essential and urgently needed in many countries.
The first meeting will take place June 27–29, 2011, in Washington. Currently, 34 countries are involved. The committee’s secretariat and chair are held by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI)—an ISO member for the United States, and the British Standards Institution (BSI)—an ISO member for the United Kingdom, respectively.
dinsdag 24 mei 2011
Comments on ISO 21500 (versus PMBoK) Draft Version by Stanisław Gasik, Ph. D.
Interesting document: Comments on ISO 21500 Draft Version
By Stanisław Gasik, Ph. D.
ISO 21500 versus PMBoK.
Summary
There is one new subject in ISO 21500: Stakeholders which is a part of project communication management area in PMBoK® Guide.
There are 39 processes in ISO 21500 and 42 processes in PMBoK® Guide.
32 processes of ISO 21500 have their direct equivalents in PMBoK® Guide (for one of them its place in the sequence of processes has been changed).
4 processes have been moved between subjects (PMBoK® Guide knowledge areas).
4 pairs of PMBoK® Guide processes have been merged to 4 single processes in ISO 21500.
2 PMBoK® Guide processes have not been placed in ISO 21500.
3 new processes have been introduced to ISO 21500.
They are:
• 4.3.8 Collect Lessons Learned,
• 4.3.19 Control Resources,
• 4.3.40 Manage Communication.
By Stanisław Gasik, Ph. D.
ISO 21500 versus PMBoK.
Summary
There is one new subject in ISO 21500: Stakeholders which is a part of project communication management area in PMBoK® Guide.
There are 39 processes in ISO 21500 and 42 processes in PMBoK® Guide.
32 processes of ISO 21500 have their direct equivalents in PMBoK® Guide (for one of them its place in the sequence of processes has been changed).
4 processes have been moved between subjects (PMBoK® Guide knowledge areas).
4 pairs of PMBoK® Guide processes have been merged to 4 single processes in ISO 21500.
2 PMBoK® Guide processes have not been placed in ISO 21500.
3 new processes have been introduced to ISO 21500.
They are:
• 4.3.8 Collect Lessons Learned,
• 4.3.19 Control Resources,
• 4.3.40 Manage Communication.
woensdag 4 mei 2011
View draft ISO 21500 BSI UK
BSI is the National Standards Body of the UK.
You can view the draft ISO 21500 here.
ISO 21500 = Guidance on project management.
You can view the draft ISO 21500 here.
ISO 21500 = Guidance on project management.
zaterdag 30 april 2011
Read the the ISO 21500 DIS text at no cost.
Interested in the ISO 21500 DIS content? You can read it at no cost here.
Click the button "Bekijk het normontwerp", register yourself (also free, "wachtwoord" means "password"), and you can read the text paragraph-by-paragraph.
This service is offered by the Dutch standardisation office "NEN".
Click the button "Bekijk het normontwerp", register yourself (also free, "wachtwoord" means "password"), and you can read the text paragraph-by-paragraph.
This service is offered by the Dutch standardisation office "NEN".
maandag 18 april 2011
Bij NEN "ISO/DIS 21500 Guidance on project management" kosteloos ter inzage.
dinsdag 12 april 2011
40.00 DIS Registered. Guidance on project management.
March 28 2011: ISO 21500 now DIS registered (ISO 40.00).
DIS = Draft International Standard.
Expected release date: still August 31th 2012.
http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail?csnumber=50003
DIS = Draft International Standard.
Expected release date: still August 31th 2012.
http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail?csnumber=50003
Informatieavond: 'ISO 21500: de nieuwe richtlijn voor projectmanagement'
NEN organiseert een informatieavond om belanghebbende partijen te informeren over ISO 21500 en kans te geven commentaar te leveren op het huidige document.
16 juni, 19:00 uur, Amersfoort, €0
http://www.nen.nl/web/Cursussen-Evenementen/Evenementen/Informatieavond-ISO-21500-de-nieuwe-richtlijn-voor-projectmanagement-1.htm
16 juni, 19:00 uur, Amersfoort, €0
http://www.nen.nl/web/Cursussen-Evenementen/Evenementen/Informatieavond-ISO-21500-de-nieuwe-richtlijn-voor-projectmanagement-1.htm
woensdag 23 maart 2011
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.
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.
vrijdag 18 maart 2011
Is ISO 21500 intended to complement or to compete with PMI? Part I.
This part of a discussion on the LinkedIn group "ISO 21500 Project Management".
Interesed? Join the group.
>>>Joseph Lynn MPM PMP • Is ISO intended complement or compete with PMI?
>>>Kevin Kultgen • Until we see the completed ISO 21500, it's really a guessing game. I would have to suggest that ISO 21500 will strongly compliment PMI and Prince2 etc. much the same way that ISO 20000 compliments ITIL.
>>>Jaycee Kruger • Dear Joseph,
PMI has a standard (Section III of their PMBOK Guide) approved by ANSI, the USA national standards organisation, who is a member organisation of ISO, the International Standards Organisation. ANSI is a P member of ISO/PC236 and presently the secretariat, and represented by mostly (if nopt all) PMI members. PMI played a major role to get SME's (subject matter experts) internationally to contribute to ISO21500 through their national bodies.
So: You decide for yourself whether they compliment or compete. The national standard in the USA is ANSI (i.e. PMBOK Guide Section III) and the international standard will be ISO21500. I think it will be both.
Good news is that hopefully there will be an international approach in future, with less competition amongst the big players (no names, no pack drill) which confuses people more than help them.
>>>Bill Duncan, IPMA-B Assessor • Based on the latest draft, the ISO standard should be considered a derivative work of Section III of the PMBoK Guide. I believe that ISO 21500 will effectively replace the PMBoK Guide except for those who are preparing for the PMP exam. I expect that organizations such as asapm and IPMA will produce guides that expand on 21500, and they will now be able to do so without worrying about lawsuits from PMI.
>>>David Hudson • Does that mean, Mr Duncan that we will have a greater degree of certification and standards alignment. Heavens, we may even need to work towards a true competency/performance standards framework.
>>>Michael Fisher • I'm all for it....I think, perhaps, maybe!
Anyone know where I can get a copy of the draft 21500?
One of my concerns about such things, which may be theoretically laudable, is that they automatically DISqualify people who do not immediately sign up for and pay for the confettti of courses and certificates that are being promoted and SOLD worldwide. If we did the result would be that we would never do any work for our employers.
The reality is that those who are working in Project Management and any profession today simply do not have the time to keep up with all the changes in certification levels.
As mature professionals we don't need courses or certificates; we do need sensible, economically written, clear, waffle-free standards and regulations that we can study ourselves. If they are written well enough they will need no course or certification routes. Some times I wonder if standards and regulations are written simply to keep trainers employed, but that's the cynic in me being prompted by the thousands of courses that one MUST have....as defined by those who wrote the courses!
>>>David Hudson • Absolutely Michael,
I am with you as a practitioner and as the chair of standards of my national body. there is no point running out 'courses' on an ISO which clearly interacts with so many areas of professional certification.. Our expectation is that it will coomplement rather than compete with most standards, but that is to be seen.
My expectation is that practitioners will derive maximum value if and when their professional associations have completed the work to integrate the ISO into extant professional certifications, and get out to the community of practice with a single, sensible and integrated approach for their particular membership.
>>>Michael Fisher • Thank you David,
That is good to hear. Good old Australia being practical as usual.
It appears that Jaycee Kruger also hopes for alignment and standardisation of the standards (we seem to be running out of vocabulary to address all the many factions in this world of exponentially increasing numbers of improvements of derivatives of derivatives), just as we do. There is a very urgent need for rationalisation and unification of standards because they are, I suggest, causing more problems than they solve. It's no wonder that opinions are divided internationally, nationally, regionally and at individual practitioner levels.
As a suggestion, perhaps we should be looking at ways of reforming the relationships between the Standards Committees, Regulatory Authorities and professional Institutions. They appear to be 'fractured' if that is the right word. In logical terms, the separations between those bodies cause needless multiple approaches to the same subjects and those varied approaches often conflict with each other and that does little to help the process of change and improvement in practices.
The way forward for standards that affect a profession as a whole, e.g. Project Management, may be to improve the coordination between the relevant major bodies so that such standards are automatically embedded in professional practitioners' bodies of knowledge before they are finally issued. After all, it is at the practitioner end that such standards have their impacts. Excellent coordination is a 'must do' if we want to achieve optimal results. I belive you will spot the ironic humour I use in saying that the rollout of this standard in particular should follow the processes of good project management.
I know that the idea is ambitious and that it requires a complete re-think but its logic is inescapable if practicality is given its due weight in the process. I am still looking for a pre-release version of 21500 though...any ideas on sources?
>>>David Hudson • Couldn't agree more. Which is the essential reason that AIPM now engages with IPMA and the Asia Pacific Federation for Project Managment; to take what one hopes is a productive journey towards some level of collaboration and interoperability. My personal view is that interoperability is a much more realistic target than complete rationalisation of a single acceptable international standards.
Sorry, ... no sources.
>>>David Hudson • Back to Bil's comment
Reassuring to hear that the ISO may be so aligned that it could effectively replace part of PMBoK. And the likelihood that the PMP rote examination system could be replaced, I agree, is extremely low. Sheesh! So we continue to practice rote learning and the ability to discern minute nuances around absolute literal definitions as a way of qualifying project managers. No wonder most of the holistic performance indicators of project management performance have been at steady state for a decade. Roll on the revolution!
>>>Jaycee Kruger • I have been looking at the discussions so far and I am delighted to hear some of the utterances. I do feel myself obliged, however, to guide some apparent misconceptions about ISO21500, although I must agree that when Michael agrees with me it reaaly feels good. He-he). I am a member (representing South Africa) of ISOPC236, the committee developing the new standard, so I believe I have a good idea of what is happening there.
ISO21500 is not a competency standard and assumes competency by those applying it (as most ISO standards do). It is rather a standard about a thing (called project management) similar to most ISO standards, and not about the people practicing it.
For competency standards (which, by the way, is also - very exitingly - a single standard for the whole world, taking account of all the various training standards which exist) I suggest you go look at GAPPS (Global Alliance for Project Performance Standards - Google it) and look at what they have to offer. ..... and it is free!! Bill himself is an active contributer to that initiative.
A last thing: Once you see ISO21500, you may be quite disappointed, as it is really generic and at high level, and I am sure practitioners will find little new in there. But that is how it is intended to be. The standard is intended for those who have no idea of project management (as many many of our clients indeed have!) and who wishes to impose a standard of some sorts on service deliverers to ensure they get reasonable service in a field they do not understand ..... amongst others, anyway. Active practioners know what is right, so why teach them to suck eggs?
Hope this helps to put things in some sort of perspective.
>>>Michael Fisher • Appreciated Jaycee. I am not trying to step on anyone's toes here, just adding in my concerns for consideration while seeking some greater clarity. You are right though...approval from me is worth a fortune!!! :-) Just so you don't misinterpret...that is meant to be humorous.
I have had a sprint around the intranet and it is notable that there are many articles, PowerPoint presentations, etc on ISO 21500. It seems that the rocket has taken off before the 'Go' button has been pressed! That is one of the roots of the problem...too many gurus spreading the gospel before it has been written. Obviously that leads to hybrid vocabulary and different schools of thought, if not major errors.
One of the main aims of the ISO 21500 is to standardise the terminology used in project management. As the most fundamental essential that will help with the integration of the various project management processes.
In my opinion the PMBoK and PRINCE2 are excellent insofar as they go BUT they do present a few problems if we compare and contrast the terminologies used in each. From my point of view, they do need a bit of fine tuning in their phase-sequencing or flowcharting presentations.
For example, PRINCE2 (2009) goes a very long way towards providing representations of the framework in graphical terms BUT it breaks several of the rules of process mapping. My impression is that as they now exist, those points have led to widespread and very different interpretations. To new Project Managers and students that is not helpful but the more mature cheeses of PM have an innate understanding that such models are adaptable.
I suppose my message is that if we use different languages, terminologies and process diagrams we should not be surprised if they produce widespread misinterpretations of the 'standards' that are not yet standardised. If ISO 21500 fixes that fundamental need it should trigger a new era of clarity, common 'language' and wider understanding. Currently much of 'Project Management' produces the same effect as the 'Chinese Whispers' game i.e. the input is clarity but the output is eeeerrr ...different?
>>>Joseph Lynn MPM PMP • I just want to jump in and add that it will be very difficult to replace the PMP simply because it is so widely known and used. I see the flaws in the PMP, but I would not want it replaced simply because I have it and do not want to go through another PM certification.
Is SO 21500 modeled as a waterfall or agile type of PM?
>>>Bill Duncan, IPMA-B Assessor • Joseph -- neither. Waterfall and agile are project life-cycle approaches. ISO 21500, like the original PMBoK Guide, addresses project management practices that are applicable to both.
Interesed? Join the group.
>>>Joseph Lynn MPM PMP • Is ISO intended complement or compete with PMI?
>>>Kevin Kultgen • Until we see the completed ISO 21500, it's really a guessing game. I would have to suggest that ISO 21500 will strongly compliment PMI and Prince2 etc. much the same way that ISO 20000 compliments ITIL.
>>>Jaycee Kruger • Dear Joseph,
PMI has a standard (Section III of their PMBOK Guide) approved by ANSI, the USA national standards organisation, who is a member organisation of ISO, the International Standards Organisation. ANSI is a P member of ISO/PC236 and presently the secretariat, and represented by mostly (if nopt all) PMI members. PMI played a major role to get SME's (subject matter experts) internationally to contribute to ISO21500 through their national bodies.
So: You decide for yourself whether they compliment or compete. The national standard in the USA is ANSI (i.e. PMBOK Guide Section III) and the international standard will be ISO21500. I think it will be both.
Good news is that hopefully there will be an international approach in future, with less competition amongst the big players (no names, no pack drill) which confuses people more than help them.
>>>Bill Duncan, IPMA-B Assessor • Based on the latest draft, the ISO standard should be considered a derivative work of Section III of the PMBoK Guide. I believe that ISO 21500 will effectively replace the PMBoK Guide except for those who are preparing for the PMP exam. I expect that organizations such as asapm and IPMA will produce guides that expand on 21500, and they will now be able to do so without worrying about lawsuits from PMI.
>>>David Hudson • Does that mean, Mr Duncan that we will have a greater degree of certification and standards alignment. Heavens, we may even need to work towards a true competency/performance standards framework.
>>>Michael Fisher • I'm all for it....I think, perhaps, maybe!
Anyone know where I can get a copy of the draft 21500?
One of my concerns about such things, which may be theoretically laudable, is that they automatically DISqualify people who do not immediately sign up for and pay for the confettti of courses and certificates that are being promoted and SOLD worldwide. If we did the result would be that we would never do any work for our employers.
The reality is that those who are working in Project Management and any profession today simply do not have the time to keep up with all the changes in certification levels.
As mature professionals we don't need courses or certificates; we do need sensible, economically written, clear, waffle-free standards and regulations that we can study ourselves. If they are written well enough they will need no course or certification routes. Some times I wonder if standards and regulations are written simply to keep trainers employed, but that's the cynic in me being prompted by the thousands of courses that one MUST have....as defined by those who wrote the courses!
>>>David Hudson • Absolutely Michael,
I am with you as a practitioner and as the chair of standards of my national body. there is no point running out 'courses' on an ISO which clearly interacts with so many areas of professional certification.. Our expectation is that it will coomplement rather than compete with most standards, but that is to be seen.
My expectation is that practitioners will derive maximum value if and when their professional associations have completed the work to integrate the ISO into extant professional certifications, and get out to the community of practice with a single, sensible and integrated approach for their particular membership.
>>>Michael Fisher • Thank you David,
That is good to hear. Good old Australia being practical as usual.
It appears that Jaycee Kruger also hopes for alignment and standardisation of the standards (we seem to be running out of vocabulary to address all the many factions in this world of exponentially increasing numbers of improvements of derivatives of derivatives), just as we do. There is a very urgent need for rationalisation and unification of standards because they are, I suggest, causing more problems than they solve. It's no wonder that opinions are divided internationally, nationally, regionally and at individual practitioner levels.
As a suggestion, perhaps we should be looking at ways of reforming the relationships between the Standards Committees, Regulatory Authorities and professional Institutions. They appear to be 'fractured' if that is the right word. In logical terms, the separations between those bodies cause needless multiple approaches to the same subjects and those varied approaches often conflict with each other and that does little to help the process of change and improvement in practices.
The way forward for standards that affect a profession as a whole, e.g. Project Management, may be to improve the coordination between the relevant major bodies so that such standards are automatically embedded in professional practitioners' bodies of knowledge before they are finally issued. After all, it is at the practitioner end that such standards have their impacts. Excellent coordination is a 'must do' if we want to achieve optimal results. I belive you will spot the ironic humour I use in saying that the rollout of this standard in particular should follow the processes of good project management.
I know that the idea is ambitious and that it requires a complete re-think but its logic is inescapable if practicality is given its due weight in the process. I am still looking for a pre-release version of 21500 though...any ideas on sources?
>>>David Hudson • Couldn't agree more. Which is the essential reason that AIPM now engages with IPMA and the Asia Pacific Federation for Project Managment; to take what one hopes is a productive journey towards some level of collaboration and interoperability. My personal view is that interoperability is a much more realistic target than complete rationalisation of a single acceptable international standards.
Sorry, ... no sources.
>>>David Hudson • Back to Bil's comment
Reassuring to hear that the ISO may be so aligned that it could effectively replace part of PMBoK. And the likelihood that the PMP rote examination system could be replaced, I agree, is extremely low. Sheesh! So we continue to practice rote learning and the ability to discern minute nuances around absolute literal definitions as a way of qualifying project managers. No wonder most of the holistic performance indicators of project management performance have been at steady state for a decade. Roll on the revolution!
>>>Jaycee Kruger • I have been looking at the discussions so far and I am delighted to hear some of the utterances. I do feel myself obliged, however, to guide some apparent misconceptions about ISO21500, although I must agree that when Michael agrees with me it reaaly feels good. He-he). I am a member (representing South Africa) of ISOPC236, the committee developing the new standard, so I believe I have a good idea of what is happening there.
ISO21500 is not a competency standard and assumes competency by those applying it (as most ISO standards do). It is rather a standard about a thing (called project management) similar to most ISO standards, and not about the people practicing it.
For competency standards (which, by the way, is also - very exitingly - a single standard for the whole world, taking account of all the various training standards which exist) I suggest you go look at GAPPS (Global Alliance for Project Performance Standards - Google it) and look at what they have to offer. ..... and it is free!! Bill himself is an active contributer to that initiative.
A last thing: Once you see ISO21500, you may be quite disappointed, as it is really generic and at high level, and I am sure practitioners will find little new in there. But that is how it is intended to be. The standard is intended for those who have no idea of project management (as many many of our clients indeed have!) and who wishes to impose a standard of some sorts on service deliverers to ensure they get reasonable service in a field they do not understand ..... amongst others, anyway. Active practioners know what is right, so why teach them to suck eggs?
Hope this helps to put things in some sort of perspective.
>>>Michael Fisher • Appreciated Jaycee. I am not trying to step on anyone's toes here, just adding in my concerns for consideration while seeking some greater clarity. You are right though...approval from me is worth a fortune!!! :-) Just so you don't misinterpret...that is meant to be humorous.
I have had a sprint around the intranet and it is notable that there are many articles, PowerPoint presentations, etc on ISO 21500. It seems that the rocket has taken off before the 'Go' button has been pressed! That is one of the roots of the problem...too many gurus spreading the gospel before it has been written. Obviously that leads to hybrid vocabulary and different schools of thought, if not major errors.
One of the main aims of the ISO 21500 is to standardise the terminology used in project management. As the most fundamental essential that will help with the integration of the various project management processes.
In my opinion the PMBoK and PRINCE2 are excellent insofar as they go BUT they do present a few problems if we compare and contrast the terminologies used in each. From my point of view, they do need a bit of fine tuning in their phase-sequencing or flowcharting presentations.
For example, PRINCE2 (2009) goes a very long way towards providing representations of the framework in graphical terms BUT it breaks several of the rules of process mapping. My impression is that as they now exist, those points have led to widespread and very different interpretations. To new Project Managers and students that is not helpful but the more mature cheeses of PM have an innate understanding that such models are adaptable.
I suppose my message is that if we use different languages, terminologies and process diagrams we should not be surprised if they produce widespread misinterpretations of the 'standards' that are not yet standardised. If ISO 21500 fixes that fundamental need it should trigger a new era of clarity, common 'language' and wider understanding. Currently much of 'Project Management' produces the same effect as the 'Chinese Whispers' game i.e. the input is clarity but the output is eeeerrr ...different?
>>>Joseph Lynn MPM PMP • I just want to jump in and add that it will be very difficult to replace the PMP simply because it is so widely known and used. I see the flaws in the PMP, but I would not want it replaced simply because I have it and do not want to go through another PM certification.
Is SO 21500 modeled as a waterfall or agile type of PM?
>>>Bill Duncan, IPMA-B Assessor • Joseph -- neither. Waterfall and agile are project life-cycle approaches. ISO 21500, like the original PMBoK Guide, addresses project management practices that are applicable to both.
donderdag 17 maart 2011
Kort artikel over ISO 21500 op mypmhome.com
Op de website MyPmHome.com is een kort overzichtartikel geplaatst over ISO 21500.
Inhoud:
- Background;
- About ISO 21500;
- Benefits;
- Implementation Plan;
- Summary.
Inhoud:
- Background;
- About ISO 21500;
- Benefits;
- Implementation Plan;
- Summary.
donderdag 10 maart 2011
PMWorldToday about TC 258
Article "ISO Technical Management Board establishes Technical Committee 258 for Project, Program, and Portfolio Management"
http://www.pmworldtoday.net/BN/Feb/2011/01/ISOTechnicalManagementBoardestablishesTechnical.html?category=PM%20Community%20News
http://www.pmworldtoday.net/BN/Feb/2011/01/ISOTechnicalManagementBoardestablishesTechnical.html?category=PM%20Community%20News
dinsdag 1 maart 2011
ISO - TC258 Project, programme and portfolio management
Two messages from Karl Best in the LinkedIn group "ISO 21500 Project Management".
Mr. Best is the Secretary of TC 236 (Project Management, ISO 21500) and TC 258 (Project, programme and portfolio management)
Karl Best, CStd • Post-21500 work on project management will be conducted by the newly formed TC258. The scope and work plan for the TC will be specified in the TC's business plan, development of which is expected to start at the first TC plenary.
Karl Best, CStd • Anyone interested in participating in TC258 (or any other ISO committee for that matter) should contact their national body in order to join that country's mirror committee. (See a list of national bodies at http://www.iso.org/iso/about/iso_members.htm.)
A number of countries have already signed up for membership in TC258 (see a list at http://www.iso.org/iso/standards_development/technical_committees/list_of_iso_technical_committees/iso_technical_committee_participation.htm?commid=624837); if your country isn't on the list then the national body will need to contact ISO to become a member of the TC.
Mr. Best is the Secretary of TC 236 (Project Management, ISO 21500) and TC 258 (Project, programme and portfolio management)
Karl Best, CStd • Post-21500 work on project management will be conducted by the newly formed TC258. The scope and work plan for the TC will be specified in the TC's business plan, development of which is expected to start at the first TC plenary.
Karl Best, CStd • Anyone interested in participating in TC258 (or any other ISO committee for that matter) should contact their national body in order to join that country's mirror committee. (See a list of national bodies at http://www.iso.org/iso/about/iso_members.htm.)
A number of countries have already signed up for membership in TC258 (see a list at http://www.iso.org/iso/standards_development/technical_committees/list_of_iso_technical_committees/iso_technical_committee_participation.htm?commid=624837); if your country isn't on the list then the national body will need to contact ISO to become a member of the TC.
zaterdag 12 februari 2011
ISO 21500 Draft International Standard naar ISO
De DIS (Draft International Standard) ISO 21500, de ISO projectmanagement standaard is naar ISO gezonden voor review.
Meer informatie lees je hier: http://www.pmforum.org/blogs/news/2011/01/ISOPCsubmitsISODIStoIS.html
De volgende stappen:
- een Franse vertaling;
- review door de nationale standaardisatie organisaties van de deelnemers;
- eind 2011: bespreking door de deelnemers (35 landen);
- eind 2012: publicatie van ISO 21500.
Info bij ISO: http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=50003
Meer informatie lees je hier: http://www.pmforum.org/blogs/news/2011/01/ISOPCsubmitsISODIStoIS.html
De volgende stappen:
- een Franse vertaling;
- review door de nationale standaardisatie organisaties van de deelnemers;
- eind 2011: bespreking door de deelnemers (35 landen);
- eind 2012: publicatie van ISO 21500.
Info bij ISO: http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=50003
zondag 6 februari 2011
TCS258: Internationale PM-Norm ISO 21500 soll erweitert werden
Bron: http://www.projektmagazin.de/news/2601111_Erweiterung_internationale_PM-Norm.html
(26.01.2011) Die internationale Projektmanagement-Norm ISO 21500 soll um die Themen Programmmanagement und Portfoliomanagement ergänzt werden. Wie die GPM Deutsche Gesellschaft für Projektmanagement berichtet, hat die International Organization for Standardization (ISO) der Gründung eines Technical Commitee (TC) zur Entwicklung weiterer Projektmanagement-Normen zugestimmt.
Die Gründung des neuen Komitees mit der Bezeichnung "TC258" erfolgte auf Antrag des amerikanischen Normungsinstituts ANSI und des englischen Normungsinstituts BSI. Beide Organisation sprechen sich darin besonders für die Entwicklung von Normen im Bereich des Programm- und des Portfoliomanagements aus. Das Komitee tritt erstmals im Juni 2011 zusammen, um die Roadmap für die Normungsarbeit festzulegen und die Rollenverteilung zu klären.
Laut GPM werden voraussichtlich die Arbeiten an der Qualitätsmanagement-Norm ISO 10006 sowie an der ISO 21500, die sich ebenfalls noch in der Entwicklung befindet, in das neue TC integriert. Die Veröffentlichung der ISO 21500 ist für 2012 vorgesehen. (mz)
Weitere Informationen: GPM Deutsche Gesellschaft für Projektmanagement e.V. www.gpm-ipma.de; Blog Unlocking Potential unlocking-potential.de
(26.01.2011) Die internationale Projektmanagement-Norm ISO 21500 soll um die Themen Programmmanagement und Portfoliomanagement ergänzt werden. Wie die GPM Deutsche Gesellschaft für Projektmanagement berichtet, hat die International Organization for Standardization (ISO) der Gründung eines Technical Commitee (TC) zur Entwicklung weiterer Projektmanagement-Normen zugestimmt.
Die Gründung des neuen Komitees mit der Bezeichnung "TC258" erfolgte auf Antrag des amerikanischen Normungsinstituts ANSI und des englischen Normungsinstituts BSI. Beide Organisation sprechen sich darin besonders für die Entwicklung von Normen im Bereich des Programm- und des Portfoliomanagements aus. Das Komitee tritt erstmals im Juni 2011 zusammen, um die Roadmap für die Normungsarbeit festzulegen und die Rollenverteilung zu klären.
Laut GPM werden voraussichtlich die Arbeiten an der Qualitätsmanagement-Norm ISO 10006 sowie an der ISO 21500, die sich ebenfalls noch in der Entwicklung befindet, in das neue TC integriert. Die Veröffentlichung der ISO 21500 ist für 2012 vorgesehen. (mz)
Weitere Informationen: GPM Deutsche Gesellschaft für Projektmanagement e.V. www.gpm-ipma.de; Blog Unlocking Potential unlocking-potential.de
Abonneren op:
Posts (Atom)
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