PMWT Viewpoints - August 2006

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

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

Return To PM World Today

Project Manager Success Criteria vs. PMP Certification - A Personal Viewpoint & Some History

by Eric Jenett, PMI Founder & Fellow, V.P. Brown & Root *Retired

This note is in reply to the PMForum February 2006 Viewpoint article by Bob Youker entitled "Project Manager Success Criteria". It appears that Bob starts with the intent of skewering the PMI PMP certification - or at least its claims and aims. Every one of his "- - - - can the PMI PMP exam measure ----- ?" questions is valid and the answer is a correct statement - the PMI PMP exam does not measure, in some cases even address, the subject or content. He does appear to omit discussion of the "credentialing process" that precedes the acceptance for the exam and certification. My own opinion is that, while a good faith attempt to cover the, "experience" aspect of PM practice, that practice still leaves much to be desired.

Now in PMI's "defense" let's review a bit of history. At the very beginning of the PMI  PMBOK effort, in the days of John Adams and Alan Stretton, the object - and pretty much only object - of the effort was to try to establish the definition of "the body of knowledge" of/for the PM profession. This was one of the “conditions” set in the original Canadian effort called ESA for defining a profession. It was also an attempt to provide a "guide" through the forest and wide-ranging/disparate extent and content of the writings, thinking and practices of/in PM. It was designed to help define what knowledge the practice of PM might find of use and why. It also acknowledged, loudly and often, that "no compilation" could ever be exhaustive or up to date; upon completion, in fact even prior to that, in a matter of minutes if not seconds, any such compilation was in error by the continuing and continuous contributions to the body of knowledge it was attempting to codify. Notice particularly that these early efforts  were directed almost exclusively at knowledge.

Subsequent developments, and I believe pressures to produce a "practical" document, added the concept of practice and a framework that, perhaps, indicated where in the process of "doing PM" the various elements of knowledge came into play. To this day I do not understand how the document as it developed, and even is today, could be used to examine on anything but knowledge. That's not bad at all as a first step towards any certification but the term PMP can have multiple and many meanings depending on the viewpoint, position in the industry, biases and degree of snobbery of the speaker, as well as the traditional factor of "whose ox is currently being gored". I really think some people would like to take the profession to the status of a medieval guild replete with secret handshake and "rites of passage" as well as progression through several progressively more illustrious sounding titles.

APM has done a rather well-balanced job of defining various degrees of PM CAPABILITY as has AIPM and the Swiss. As an aside, the Swiss are masters at selecting the best parts of anything European and adjusting it so that is much more universal and broader in application. I had some time ago reviewed that PM certification process description and found it excellent. Why PMI has not looked at that document and effort (NIH?) is beyond me.

I've known of Owen Gadeken and his work for some time and have admired much of it.  However, for the purpose of Bob's article, I believe the points of the exposition by Kotter are much more useful. And being that PM exists to execute business - and social - strategies, they are in my mind probably more closely aligned with what really is/should be exhibited by a successful PM. I personally do not like to use the term "successful PM" or "PM Success Criteria" where PM means Project Manager as opposed to Project Management. I believe the correct (more accurate??) term - and one that is much more defining of what is being sought - should be "Success Criteria for the PM who can lead a successful project (and as a touch of realism) - most of the time."

As most of us will admit in private, the work is done by the project team/resources. The principal job of the PM is to make sure the "ambient" that exist on the project and that within which the project is being executed enables them to execute and complete a successful project. I've thought for some time that a PM is really a project tribologist. He knows the "sounds" of "friction or vacuum" and also knows that these are almost entirely generated at and almost invariably occur at “interfaces”. “Friction” means there’s something conflicting occurring between the parties to/at the interface (happened, happening or about to happen). “Vacuum” means there’s nothing happening when something should be happening. In any event, “lubrication” (by intervention or injection) is needed and such points deserve and should receive  much of his attention. I’ve often though that a not inappropriate description of executing PM is “the recognition, care and feeding of interfaces” with the object being to successfully and effectively put them behind the project..

A factor neither Gadeken nor Kotter address is:  Project ManageMENT or Project ManaGER offers the only job I am aware of that regularly and consistently, as part of its doing, requires that its practitioners establish, or accept if established by others, their own "death sentence". While appeals are possible to achieve “a more equitable sentence”, the time pressures on most projects simply do not allow the repeated appeal process offered in the civil and criminal fields of law. Simply put, too much “appeal” almost always results in a “canned PM”. In addition, they have as an inflexible, and non-negotiable, principal mandate the obligation to get the hell out of business as fast, as successfully and as profitably as possible with a full and documented project end(ing). A further consideration neither addresses directly is that there always exists the possibility that the correct move is for the PM invoke his death sentence by “killing the project”. And that’s a not insignificant skill.

I agree with the conclusions of Menkes, stated near the end of Bob’s article, and believe that the equivalent of the PhD oral hearing is an excellent way to probe for the desired "competence in application". I hope PMI gets there soon, doesn't use staff personnel to do the query and leaves the go-no-go decision in the hands of the interviewers without too much in the way of rules, protocol, paperwork, criteria, etc. I feel strongly that not all the interviewers need to be (or even should be) PMPs; good businessmen YES - PMPs NOT ALL. A dose of business sense and the experience of being the recipient of PM effort(s) can do wonders in bringing to light the real abilities ( and their weaknesses or absence) of a candidate - especially in a verbal give and take.

One closing shot: the "timeless” soft skills attributed to Ms. Belzer near the end ain't at all that timeless. If you think they are, read almost any management or HR article, magazine, book or lecture content today and try comparing with what you would have found even 15-20 years ago; my number is less than 60 % match. I am both disappointed and upset by the apparently continual push-pull of hard versus soft skills. The spinning gears have sand thrown in them by the concepts that the first can be taught but the second must be learned.

I believe that the reality of getting projects successfully started, executed, completed and accepted is that the PM must determine the correct and needed hard skills to be used/useful on his project. He then selects and applies the assembly of soft skills. That assembly and mix of soft skills are both in fact project point in time, project condition and project forecast movement towards completion dependent. The application of the correct assembly is best done as sparingly and as often, as the “performance” and “sense” of the project indicate or imply or produce the feeling that there’s something needed; i.e. Not All, Not Always, Not Everywhere and NOT fire hose style and always as subtly as possible; people don’t like to be manipulated or to feel that they are.

 

Eric Jenett
Houston, Texas, USA  
July 15, 2006.


Eric Jenett Eric Jenett, PMI Founder & Fellow - V.P. Brown & Root (Retired) Mr. Jenett - retired since 1989 - has spent over 38 years working in project environments with increasing responsibility;  technical design through Chief Process Engineer, V.P. Engineering, corporate V.P. and Project Manager/Project Director. Particularly proud of having started, executed and closed out every project on which he has had project management responsibilities; experience both in U.S. and overseas for a wide range of project types. He has written and lectured on both technical and project management topics authoring some 20 magazine publications and handbook contributions including several for PMI publications and for the Houston Chapter. Serving the Project Management Institute (PMI) he was one of the Founders (1969 - member #3), served as President (1971), Chairman (1972) and Secretary (1975-6). He was instrumental in founding the Houston Chapter (first Chapter chartered) and in organizing the first regional seminar (1976). His PMI recognitions include Distinguished Contribution (1975) and PMI Fellow (1982); he also carries the distinction of PMP #1 (ret.). Only partially in jest he describes his lifetime goals and guiding principle as being:   to hunt down and eradicate the existence, acceptance and practice of the project management paradigm that in effect says: the project manager operates to solve the problems of today by tomorrow applying the techniques of yesterday.

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