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
dinsdag 12 april 2011
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.
Abonneren op:
Posts (Atom)