An Editorial Observation
David Pells, a respected project management internationalist and Fellow of the Project Management Institute, has published an "Open Letter To The PMI Board Of Directors" that, is a tour de horizon of the Project Management Institute's operations and corporate strategy He has delivered a clarion call to the Institute through a reasoned and thoughtful personal view of the state of the Project Management Institute.
While we do not hold with all of his clearly "business imperatives" approach to the globalization of the project management discipline we were heartened that such a credible member, with two tours of duty at the epicenter of PMI affairs (the Board of Directors), would advocate enlightened views of " I highly recommend collaboration rather than competition" as a thesis of his comments on the operations and strategy of the Project Management Institute.
A couple of his briefs on
struck us as thoughtful and frank in an era of political correctness.
We have supported the Global Project Management Forum since the 95 Chicago EMI Annual Seminar. Our Global PM Forum support grew to the extent that we now host the Home Page of the GPMF. We continue to encourage the holding of what is to our minds a truly "open source" approach to the discussion and dissemination of what is happening in the world of Professional Project Management Organizations. That is, a simple PM "happening" without restraint of any particular organizational policies other that the search for collegial discussion and to come together to talk the talk of project management in a free and unrestrained "town hall forum".
Here are David's comments on the " The Global PM Forum -An Opportunity Lost by PMI
"I was very disappointed when PMI dropped its support of the Global PM Forums in 2000, opting rather to create its own version for the Sundays at PMI’s annual seminars/symposia. While PMI’s Global Assemblies have been interesting and have provided additional learning experiences for conference attendees, they have not been consistent with the objectives previously embraced by professional leaders from around the world.
While some of my disappointment can be attributed to my own personal role in the planning and hosting of the Global PM Forums by PMI, I have heard other former participants complain as well. First of all, the Global PM Forum (GPMF) was based on the knowledge that PMI is not the only PM association in the world, and that a forum was needed to bring leaders of all PM associations together to discuss the “world of project management”. Secondly, the GPMF was based on treating everyone as equals, even though everyone recognized that PMI was by far the largest and most influential PM association in the world. These two assumptions were abandoned by PMI with the Global Assemblies.
Hosting of the five GPMFs from 1995-1999 provided PMI with the opportunity to show leadership through humility and diplomacy, by commitment to a “higher purpose”. By all accounts, we were very successful. Since that time, the GPMFs have continued under the leadership and direction of Gilles Caupin and IPMA in Europe. The fact that IPMA has embraced and continued the GPMFs at their own conferences with virtually the same objectives and formats as was started by PMI speaks volumes about how valid those objectives were. I hope that PMI will actively participate in future GPMFs, name a representative to the GPMF Steering Committee, and host a GPMF in North America in the near future."...
The other briefs in his Letter deal with Board of Directors, PMI as Global vs American Institution, PMI Fellows, Global Responsivness and PMI's Real Resources. These are concerned with PMI organizational matters which are internal organization matters and at the same time important to the successful advancement of a global project management discipline.
The brief that really caught our attention was that of " An Alternative Future for PMI" . David raises a rhetorical question "What if PMI were not a "member based organization" and goes on to suggest a "business like" organization that focuses on "customers" rather than "members"
And here we part company with David believing that the strength of PMI is the members, it is for the member and members should never become "customers". Down this path PMI retreats further from a future professional licensing initiative and ever being other than an advocate for a project management discipline.
Here is an abstract from David's Letter dealing with the "Alternative Future for PMI"
"... I want to suggest an alternative future for PMI. What if PMI were not a “member based” organization? As PMI became a more “business like” organization in the late 1990s, it began to focus on “customers” rather than “members”. Now it is clear to me that such a focus will continue, with the organization evolving in response to customer and market needs. I believe that PMI will become more and more product and service oriented, with members becoming less and less important (critical) to overall success. Member retention has always been a concern, and a problem in a member-based organization.
But what if it did not matter? In fact, I think it matters only to PMI component leaders, only in certain parts of the world, and only as long as overall membership continues to grow. Then the bottom line is not hurt too badly. I believe PMI’s membership will continue to grow on a global basis but will level off in certain areas. I believe PMI should consider slashing its membership fees, uncouple products from membership, and focus on becoming a more product-oriented enterprise. By products, I mean standards, certifications, research, publications, seminars and conferences."...
We believe that this future direction will result in development of a wholly and consuming commercial strategy for PMI. David avoids the real issue of what is required for PMI to become a professional organization for project management practitioners. A "troica of organizations" is required for a flourishing National professional project management organization. This was covered in the "Globalization of the Project Management Profession " a paper presented by David Curling at the Chicago GPMF.
The David Pells "Open Letter to the PMI Board of Directors" should be read by all who are interested in the advancement of the project management discipline. David suggests that PMI has become the Microsoft of the project management world. While we agree we sincerely hope that PMI will not adopt the commercial strategies espoused by Microsoft.
Debbie O'Bray Chair of the PMI Board has replied to the David Pells Open Letter.
What do you think about the issues that David has raised?