ISO 21500 and PRINCE2

Another interesting discussion on LinkedIn. If you can, join the ISO 21500 group.
If you can't, this is the text:

Stephen Goodwin • Does anyone know how PRINCE2 has been utilised in this new standard? The discussion draft seems to lack maturity in application across the project organisation.

It seems that this draft standard falls short of the lessons learned and already incorporated into PRINCE2 - the outline methodology for 21500 seems very open and still doesn't appear to address the whole of the project organisation - it seems to maintain the Druid/Guru approach to PMs and for my money misses the mark somewhat... Projects aren't successful because of the PM; it's a whole of team thing from the doers down to senior management. I don't believe I've yet seen this expressed in the discussion draft...

 

 

Lars Wendestam • What I know, not at all. I try to separate between PM frameworks, like PMBoK, IPMA ICB & APM BoK, and PM methods like PRINCE2, PROPS and others. PM methods goes one level down, and also contain templates, which a framework doesn't. The ISO 21500 only have tried to align existing PM standard, like ANSI PMBoK and the Brittish standard, which I think is a little introvert thinking. It's still a framework. I don't think you will be seeing ISO 21500 as main differentiator finding better managed projects in the future.

But,
I think its possible to create a PRINCE3 version also aligning to the new ISO standard, which probably would lead to something more operational.

 

 

Iustin Ivlev • Kepp hammering to an open door wont help. ISO 21500 is a framework not a methodology. See previous posts and comments. Better yet, read the Scope od ISO 21500.

 

 

Pat Weaver • I’m with you Lustin, it never ceases to amaze me how many people at all levels of management expect a standard to be some form of magic cook-book that solves all problems everywhere.

The weakness of any methodology (PRINCE2 included) is it is only useful if the organisation is structured in the way assumed in the methodology. The major weakness and strength of PRINCE2 is it’s built in assumption the client is a part of the performing organisation (or closely allied to the performing organisation). This is true of government departments commissioning projects that are being managed by the department (the natural ‘home’ of PRINECE2) – it’s not true for a commercial contractor tendering for a project.

The basic hierarchy is:
ISO 21500 sets the overall framework and creates a common ‘language’
National standards expand the framework for local conditions and may provide more guidance (eg, the PMBOK® Guide, BS 6079, Etc)
Methodologies define how the standards are applied effectively in specific situations (eg, PRINCE2).

 

 

Nico Viergever • It is my impression that the ISO standard is very similar to the PMBoK.
The implicit assumption behind PMBoK is that projects are something a supplier delivers to a customer. The PRINCE2 assumption is based on the Customer/Supplier model: a project is driven by a customer.
This is why my view is that the PMBoK theory is more useful on the PRINCE2 Team Manager's level, process MP, less useful on the PRINCE2 PM level. If my view on this ISO standard is correct, it will be most useful on the TM/MP level as well.

 

 

Robbert Van Alen • ISO 21500 is an overarching standard that helps to bridge the various methodologies, bodies of knowledge, models and baselines for project management. Although the chapter on processes resembles the PMBOK presentation of project management processes, which were taken as starting point for developing ISO 21500, a Dutch Special Interest Group with experienced PRINCE2 practitioners concluded that the PRINCE2 processes are perfectly covered. Although this could be expected, since all popular sources for project management are based on similar practices, it emphasises that ISO 21500 represents our common ground and will help to identify the added value of each of these project management sources. And a clear(er) picture of these added values will help organizations in choosing which (combination of) project management source(s) to implement, and if they should be implemented to the full or not. Hence, PMBOK, PRINCE2, ICB, et cetera, become complementary sources rather than competitive sources. And if we have the courage and wisdom to travel along that collaborative road, our profession will profit from that.

 

 

Nico Viergever • These Dutch SIG members, what was their background?
PRINCE2 in The Netherlands is on a low level with most practitioners dismissing the principles because they do not fit into their IT suplliers background...

 

 

Robbert Van Alen • The people involved are very much involved in the PRINCE2 user group and in PRINCE2 training, so you need not worry about their knowledge of the principles. Moreover, it was a comparison with what is IN the ISO 21500 and not a check of what is OUT of the ISO 21500. As mentioned before by others, the standard is not developed to be a method, nor as a body of knowledge (eg PMBOK or APM BOK), model (eg P3M3, OPM3 or IPMA Delta) or baseline (eg ICB). The check by the Dutch SIG was mainly performed to ease the minds of those suspecting that ISO 21500 was leaning towards one source for project management more than to another. It doesn't, also because of the wide spread of inputs from all around the globe during the past four years.