ISO 21500 guidance on project management auf der Zielgeraden

In German, in het Duits, auf Deutsch.

http://gpm-blog.de/iso-21500-guidance-on-project-management-auf-der-zielgeraden/

und

http://gpm-blog.de/neue-norm-fur-multiprojektmanagement-verfugbar/

ISO 21500 in Spanish / Espagnol / español

A post in the ISO 21500 LinkedIn groep from Pedro Dubié Orienti.
(...) Paris also adopted the translation the ISO 21500 into Spanish. For Spanish this guide is very good news. The project management applied to the construction sector has a recent and intense history as a service. It is a very good trend for the regulation of the profession at national level. It is also very good for the Latin American community. For the construction world in Latin America this rule will be a solid base to improve later. (...)

ISO 21500 A Guide to Project Management moves forward in Paris

ISO 21500 moves on in Paris: here.

By Pat Weaver.

ISO 21500, laatste nieuws.

Video over de laatste ontwikkelingen in ISO 21500. Met Gilbert Silvius Robbert van Alen.

ISO 21500 current stage and publication date.

The current stage in the development of ISO 21500 is 40.60: Close of voting. Date 2011-09-06. Link: here.
Target publication date: 2012-08-31

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.                   

"Have the ISO 21500 standard focused on the right things?"

An interesting discussion on LinkIn about ISO 21500. You can find it here.
If you don't have access to this group, this is the text.

Lars Wendestam

Have the ISO 21500 standard focused on the right things?

When studying the content in the new standard, it seems like the work with the standard spent over 4 years focused on aligning country standards lika ANSI PMBOK, and UK BS 6079. But where is all future concepts? I am missing things like Agile Project Management, Project as a Practice (PaaP) and other future related project management methodologies. Projects are no longer plannable as the where during the 20th century. Shouldn't a new worldwide standard for project management reflect todays and future ways of managing projects?

Daniel Echeverria-Jadraque • Totally agree with you. I am Well aware of agile methodologies but not of PaaP. Could you recommend me something to read about? By the way, could you send me the present iso 21500 standard or tell me where can I download it? Thank you for all!

Pat Weaver • The purpose of a standard is not to define the methodology you chose to use. Methodologies come and go; Agile is the current fad that makes lots of consultants lots of money and I suspect within 5 to 10 years, the solid element of the methodology will simply merge into general project management (and there are a lot of really good concepts) and another fad will have emerged with another bunch of consultants. This has been going on for as long as I have been involved in project management and is unlikely to change.

The purpose of the ISO standard is to define WHAT has to be done if you are doing project management (as opposed to some other form of management). HOW these objectives are achieved is the province of methodologies ranging from PRINCE2, through the different flavours of Agile and onto whatever new innovations emerge in a year or two.

Agile is a useful but limited methodology – great for some forms of software and other ‘soft projects’ but of limited value if you are trying to build a nuclear power station. ISO 21500 should apply equally to both.

Daniel Echeverria-Jadraque • Scrum started in the early 80s, years before the Pmbok Guide. Therefore I wouldn't dismiss as a fad. Each problem requires a certain solution. When there is a uncertainty

Daniel Echeverria-Jadraque • ...In the technolgy or in the requirements, the iso 21500 as it is not will be of no valué and I there will be more and more there Projects. in any caso 21500 will be useful for a lot of Project and I welcome it.

Karl Best, CStd, CAPM • @Lars, 21500 was never intended to be an all-encompassing project management standard, nor will it be the only standard on the topic. It is only the first of probably several that will be produced by ISO over the coming years. There is an opportunity for you or any other interested person to set the agenda and suggest additional topics for standardization, but you have to go through the normal channels. Specifically, contact your national body and ask to participate in your national committee for ISO/TC258.

Theofanis Giotis | PMP®, BA, MSc, Ph.D. C. • I agree with Karl's comment. ISO21500 is for “most of the projects most of the time”. It cannot cover everything.

Also, all standards have value if adopted by industry and government. Can you recall the comments for ISO 9000 twenty years ago? Everyone was noting that ISO 9000 was useless in the 90's... Today all governments worldwide REQUIRE ISO 9000 as a must have criterion for any public tender!!!

My personal opinion is that ISO 21500 will follow the path of ISO9000 in the coming years.

Ravikumar Kalose N, PMP • If anyone has any idea on what is new in ISO 21500 compared to existing frameworks and PM principles.
Have things like Agile principles, PaaP, or any new dimension to future Project management thinking, etc.. has been covered? I would be interested to know these...
Thanks...

Theofanis Giotis | PMP®, BA, MSc, Ph.D. C. • ISO 21500 is based basically on Chapter 3 of PMBOK Guide, 3rd Edition. The main difference is that it has 10 Knowledge Areas ( in ISO 21500 are called Subject Groups). The 10th knowledge area is 'Stakeholders Management'

You can buy the standard here http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail?csnumber=50003

Ravikumar Kalose N, PMP • Any idea on what it means to consulting orgs, what opportunities exists? certified 21500 trainer, certified 21500 organization, certified 21500 auditor, coach..etc.

Brian Jones M Sc, M App Sc, MBA, Dip HE • Just a thought that may be relevant. During my recent research effort at JM Uni in Liverpool, I looked at PM training including about 27 Universities in the USA/Ireland/UK and Oz offering M Sc in PM. This in part was because some mining corporations I approached had expressed concerns about the training on offer and with regards to the management of mega projects ($1billion plus) now in planning. They fear that the project manager expertise will not be available and they are in competition with the oil & gas and hydro sectors for talent. It appears there is no standard PM training curriculum, so Universities are free to offer whatever. I advocate including contract law and only the Oz Unis of the ones I reviewed offered any training in law.

Lars Wendestam • Thanks for all comments so far. I was a little provocative when asking this question about the new standard and do think it's relevant to discuss the relevance in all new standards. Just because it's a ISO standard, it doesn't automatically became something you must follow. I could give several examples of where we have unnecessary standards. To give some example there are currently four separate ISO standards for counting function points (estimation methods) beacuse the national interests couldn´t be aligned. If your read ISO 31000 (risk management) in paralell with ISO 27005 (Info security risk managment) you find them overlapping, As I understood the information I got from the work with fifth edition of PMBoK, they will keep it separated from ISO 21500. The PMP exams will be kept as is. So if you have invested in PMI,s frameworks, why change? I am familar with the new TC 258 workgroup starting to look at Programme Management. I am afraid this work will be almost the same ending up in a fight between national interests in defending existing standards instead of looking out of the window. Will it it be base on PMI's programme management standard, OGC's MSP or something else? Probably PMI here also, beacuse it better aligns into ISO 21500.

Regarding the inititial question about the project management standard, I do agree with some of the comments. If your project concerns building a nuclear plant, you probably need a structural plannable PM model or method. I, working in the IT-industry have seen the use of project organisations changed dramatically over 25 years. All projects are no longer plannable, why I am more concerned in finding other ways of managing projects. The agile project management theory adresses this topic. Also the PaaP concepts, where you more are focusing on the project managers need of solving situations occuring in the project. PaaP and Agile aligns since also many Agile methodologies is built based on Practices.

I am currently involved in a Swedish initiative for agile contracting. I know the also the IEEE have had a work group regarding Recommended Practice for the Customer-Supplier Relationship in Agile Software Development. What I am a litlte curious about is if not agile PM approaches is used outside the IT-industry? Anyone to comment it?

David Hudson, FAIM, MAIPM, CPPD • Folks, at the risk of sounding patronising, this was one of the most objective and practical discussions on the topic of ISO21500 I have seen in the last six months. Particularly the comment about it being for most projects most of the time, and the realisation that it may or may not be taken up by various bodies. And as Pat indicates, it is important for a standard to be agnostic with respect to specific methodologies.

Brian Jones M Sc, M App Sc, MBA, Dip HE • In recent months there have been several reports of cost blow outs with mega projects in Australia: BHP, Woodside and a rail project to name some. To this can be added various military hardware projects around the globe; some might be interested to try and listen nline to the BBC Radio 4 programme about this latter sector broadcast a few days ago. My research also revealed concerns about the efficacy of project management training from within the mining sector, the fear being that current training did not equip a party to manage a billion dollar project, so who will manage mega projects currently being planned? In this I perceive the mining sector competes for professional project management expertise primarily with the energy sector whose (hydro) projects are similar in many ways. That being said, how does the ISO code address this problem? I am not talking about agile PM or Prnce 2 or whatever, more expertise and competencies in contract law, compliance and critical thinking - the 3 'C's'. Kind Regards. Brian.

David Hudson, FAIM, MAIPM, CPPD • It is an interesting question Brian.

I dont think ISO should be expected to handle all of the aspects of projects on scales such as that of mega mining projects.

Just some of the issues with the engineering approach to projects is

(a) it still fails to recognise a fully functional WBS, certainly not on the same principles as generic WBS,

(b) the scale of the projects are such that organisational investment decisions and project management decisions combine in a tricky pea soup, and

(c) we would be better off recognising that the initiatives are really portfolios or at least programs in their own right and stop the cr@phouse behaviour of planning them using project based methods.

I know some in the mining fraternity will disagree, and there are better practice examples of appropriate methodologies on larger mining projects out there for sure.