Project Management World Today Viewpoints
May 2006

Editorial | Viewpoints | Papers | Community |Scene | Publications

Viewpoints are submitted and invited editorials intended to promote discussion on issues of importance to project management. The views expressed in articles published in Viewpoints are those of the authors alone. They do not necessarily represent the views or opinions of pmforum.org or its staff.

Express your views on any PM World Today Viewpoints article by visiting the PMFORUM Discussion Center

TIME FOR GOVERNANCE AND ELECTION REFORM WITHIN THE PROJECT MANAGEMENT COMMUNITY?

by Paul Giammalvo

As PMI is in the process of rethinking the relationships of the components, I would hope that process includes governance and election reform.

In looking over the list of current elected PMI BoD members, I see representation from the leading democracies in the world- New Zealand, Canada, South Africa, Germany, USA...... So my question is, given the BoD are coming from such strong democracies, why is it the process to elect PMI BoD members and govern the organization does not do a better job of exemplifying the virtues of a democratic process? Why is it, the process of selecting, vetting and presenting candidates to run for BoD positions is more reminiscent of the days of Chicago under Mayor Richard Daly- than of a 21st Century professional organization seeking to be recognized and accepted globally?

The USA in particular is very aggressive about forcing “democracy” on the developing nations, yet an organization which is based in America and is not shy about forcing their components in other countries to subscribe to US State of Pennsylvania laws, is willing to conveniently ignore a fair, open, transparent and purely democratic process in electing BoD members?

The current system of electing BoD members is not working. We have a system in place of vetting people to weed out anyone who has “radical” ideas not consistent with objectives apparently established by PMI HQ. Under the current process, we end up faced with no real option, other than to select between some very nice and loyal PMI spokespersons, who once elected, seem incapable of getting control of the organization to deliver what was promised in writing as an enticement to get us to vote for policy governance back in 1998.

This results in member apathy and lack of interest in the larger picture. It also results in components which “placate” PMI HQ by pretending to acquiesce to their rules, while totally ignoring what PMI HQ says. This is a moral, legal and ethical hypocrisy which PMI HQ has created by their policies.

This inability to “connect” with the needs, wants and expectations of the member-owners results in member apathy and high turn-over rates. Why? Because the ordinary member-owner is mostly concerned with what happens in their own chapter/SIG, and does not see or feel any linkage between their local chapter and decisions made by PMI HQ.

Despite the addition of satellite offices in Europe and Singapore, the organization is still not very responsive to day to day problems from the field, does not have a “customer centric focus” and is perceived to be more intent on HQ staff building their own kingdoms and job security than on meeting the needs, wants and expectations of the member-owners or of the long term interests of the practice of project management.

A question- Is it mere coincidence or does it seem that PMI has “reserved” a seat on the BoD from Canada, New Zealand and now Germany? Will there now be a “South African” seat as well? And what about China? And will India eventually have a “permanent” seat? This apparent “gerrymandering” of seats on the BoD is something each member-owner of the organization should be concerned about. While I am fully in favor of regional representation on the BoD, it should not be manipulated by PMI HQ, but based on a fair, open and transparent election process, starting with the grass roots member-owner at the Chapter level.

So what to do about this? I think it fair to say that the “heart and soul” of PMI (not to mention the brain) lies at the chapter level. For most PMI members, the chapters ARE PMI.

Back in the “good ol’ days”, there was a Council of Chapter Presidents (CCP) at which all chapter presidents would gather each year, (twice a year if you count the leadership meetings) and discuss (sometimes quite emotionally and heated) the issues facing them. Under the capable leadership of Frank Saladis, the Council of Chapter Presidents (CCP) organized and formalized the process, running the meeting (which often consisted of 200 or more Chapter Presidents) as a form of “Senate” to the point of adopting “Roberts Rules of Order” http://www.robertsrules.com/ to present motions, debate on those motions and vote on them. For many chapter presidents from the developing nations, this was their first chance to experience “American Town Hall Democracy” as it was intended by Thomas Jefferson, George Washington and other Founding Fathers. Unfortunately, at the time, the Council of Chapter Presidents was advisory in nature. So what happened? Apparently, PMI HQ, fearing the growing power, organization and militancy of the CCP, managed to disband the organization.

Given I believe consensus exists supporting the fact that the chapters are the heart and soul of PMI, by way of this message, I am initiating a call to reorganize PMI along the lines of a parliamentary system, with the Chapter Presidents serving as the upper house and the Council of SIG Chairs serving as a the lower house. From the ranks of these houses, the BoD will be elected, and be held accountable to the member owners through their Chapter/SIG elected representatives.

By adopting a parliamentary model, I believe we can realize much more accountability of our elected BoD members to represent the needs, wants and expectations of the grass-root member-owners, by holding them accountable for results through the Council of Chapter Presidents. And failing results, the Council of Chapter Presidents will be empowered to issue a “no confidence” vote and change the BoD.

While this message uses PMI as the example, other organizations purporting to represent the practice of project management in the global environment are certainly not shining models of democracy, transparency and ethical best practices.

To assist our more recent readership, I have included a link to the promises made IN WRITING by PMI back in May of 1998 to entice us to vote for policy governance. I ask you to take a look and see if you feel PMI has/is delivering on those written promises, and if not, to join voices to institute a governance system which is more democratic, transparent and enables ANYONE with some minimum set of qualifications to run for Chapter President and Board of Directors.

Let’s explore some of the recent questionable practices. Not many years ago, the annual election was held by PMI. Shortly after the election, a vacancy opened on the BoD. Wouldn’t you think it logical that PMI would turn to the person with the next highest number of votes to fill the vacant seat? And the answer is no. PMI tapped a photogenic, popular name from an organization which they would like to influence rather than the name of the next highest vote getter- who was a proven and effective leader. Politics? Apparently so; At what price? The credibility of the elected BoD and democratic values we espouse coming from leading democracies.

Another question- Is it mere coincidence or does it seem that PMI has “reserved” a seat on the BoD from Canada, New Zealand and now Germany? Will there now be a “South African” seat as well? And what about China? And will India eventually have a seat? This apparent “gerrymandering” of seats on the BoD is something each member-owner of the organization should be concerned about. While I am fully in favor of regional representation on the BoD, it should not be manipulated by PMI HQ but based on a fair, open and transparent election process.

PMI laments the fact that each year, the numbers of voters in the election is very low. Is this a symptom of an electorate who don’t care who represents them or is this an indication that the electorate is turned off by the system itself? I would put forward the hypothesis that the apathy of the member-owners is a symptom of their lack of interest not in project management but of the system we are using.

As PMI is in the process of rethinking the relationships of the components, I would hope that process includes taking a look at how the BoD are elected.

Never wanting to be a gadfly without offering creative suggestions, why not consider:

Paul Giammalvo Paul D. Giammalvo, CDT, PMP, CCE, MScPM, is Director of the ASEAN Project Manager’s Center of Excellence, Inc. (APMX) For over 12 years, he has been provided Project Management training and consulting throughout SE Asia. He is active in the Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering International, (AACE); Construction Specifications Institute (CSI); Construction Management Association of America, (CMAA) and serves on the Global Project Management Forum Steering Committee. http://www.getpmcertified.com

Top of Page

Express your views on any PM World Today Viewpoints article!

Visit the PMFORUM Discussion Center

Editorial Policy: The PMFORUM® has no connection to any national or international project management organization nor does it reflect the policy of any project management professional or commercial organization. The PMFORUM® maintains an objective and impartial view of project management affairs. In the interests of advancing professional project management the PMFORUM® will publish contending and objective views on issues that reflect collegial differences and perspectives