Over at projectmanager.au.com they have a provocative post about whether project management is a profession, should be one or if it matters at all.
I’m going to jump into the fray, but first let’s have the Aussies set the stage:
Last week I attended The 2011 Walkley Media Conference. Delegates comprised news reporters and journalists from the realms of print, radio, TV and online. I am a journalist. I completed a media degree and I am a member of the Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance—but neither of these attributes makes me a journalist.
What does is that what I write is understood to be factual, and I follow the media Code of Ethics (yes, journalists have ethics! And some of them actually practice ethical behavior too!).
But that’s a simplistic way of describing what makes a journalist, just like ‘someone who manages time, cost and quality’ is a simplistic way of describing a project manager. And like journalism, project management is not recognized as a profession, neither requiring qualifications, deference to a core body of knowledge, mandatory registration or licensing, a code of ethics and legal status for people to practice. You can see that project management is almost there, but not quite.
Well, I think it is not quite there and may never be. We need to consider several things here (inspiration from Mintzberg’s book Managing):
• What is the definition of a profession?
• Does project management fit the definition?
• Do you need a profession to be ‘professional’?
• Does any of this really matter to the quality of service provided from project managers?
What is the definition of a profession?
A profession assumes a codified body of knowledge that can be taught with predictable retention and skill development on the part of the trainee. This means that trained people generally always outperform the untrained ones.
This is the case for accountants, engineers and medical doctors.
Does the definition fit project management?
It does not. Sorry, but there it is. There is no theory of project management and no codified body of knowledge that yields predictable outcomes when applied on the order of math and science. Management is not a science nor a profession so project management can’t be any different.
Practitioners of project management learn from experience. This makes project management a practice. The lack of a codified body of knowledge means that simply taking some project management courses or even getting a PMP certification is no guarantee that this person will outperform someone without these credentials.
There is nothing wrong with project management being a practice vs. a profession. The work needs to be done and there are plenty of good people to do it.
The physics are against us so to speak if we try to elevate project management to a profession. It won’t happen nor should we try, it’s a waste of time.
Do you need a profession to be professional?
Well, no, not in the common use of the term professional. The common use means someone doing something for pay. Sometimes the implication is that performance is at an elevated level of performance, but not always.
It is perfectly valid to say one is a professional without having to be part of a bona fide profession in our definition of that term (see above).
Does any of this matter?
Some of it does. However, we do not need to be part of a profession to do good and useful project management. We need to make sure we learn smart things, though.
While opinions differ, I feel the arguments go along the lines of “project management is important, so important that we should make it a profession” (e.g., The Profession of Project Management).
Who’s to argue? The goal is admirable. The problem is that until we argue with the same definitions, we will get nowhere. I have provided, or more accurately passed on, a definition that covers other recognized professions. We need to apply the same standards and definitions to project management and then we’ll see where we’ll end up.
In the mean time, project management can be properly considered a practice. And the practice of project management still has a way to go before it can say that it knows what and how to teach people so it makes a difference. We over focus on the 20% of time spent planning and budgeting and pretty much ignore what do do about the 80% of time spent delivering the plan (which incidentally falls apart on day one and is a struggle from that point on).
It is true you need a plan, it is a necessary condition, but just having a plan and a list of risks it not a sufficient condition for success. It’s no guarantee at all.
The reason is we do not typically understand nearly enough about variability, risk and uncertainty. Consequently, we plan poorly and inadequately for anything but small, very simple and straight forward projects. We often go with the wrong approaches and fail to adjust for the actual risks and uncertainties we are faced with because we have inadequate models for analyzing risks and uncertainties and how to respond to the conditions we discover.
This is, in my opinion, the single biggest reason why projects fail: viz. failure to select a delivery approach that is consistent with the risk and uncertainty profile of the project.
Before we get too depressed, all is not lost, we are making strides in the right direction.
As the old masters were wont of saying:
All learning requires time.
Time requires patience.
Patience teaches us to progress wisely.
Original Author : Preben Ormen
Courtesy : http://www.pmhut.com/
I do not currently have my PMP – although I am studying for it but I do have over 5 years of PM experience. Several years ago, my company hired a new PM who was PMP certified. That person should not have been a PM nor PMP certified. I was hoping to learn from that person since I had only been a PM for about 2 years but I tried my hardest to teach them what they needed to know before they were ultimately let go because they couldn’t perform the PM job. So, unfortunately, being certified and being senior does not actually make you a good project manager or even really be qualified to be a project manager.
How about calling it a craft? that encompasses the art of people management the techical skills of plannign and financial control, the art of risk management.
er hang on craft has some negative connotations. Lets stick with profession…
Should PM be a ‘profession’ hmmm
I can see it both ways. In my HEART I agree with Bryce and Lucas, we don’t need this professionalisation. My HEAD says don’t be so romantic, our ‘professionalisation’ is much needed…
What is most important in the end surely, is: What are the consequences of ‘professionalising’ project management? Are they positive?, negative?, both?
The ‘negative’ that I feel concerned about is that once we become a ‘profession’ projecting a codified ‘way’, reinforced by qualifications and a profit-making industry flogging these, then our horizons turn in on themselves, thinking can become narrower and focused on method and rules, whilst in truth (As Brice rightly says) ‘Life is bigger’. If we are not careful our professionalised ‘way’ can become the ball and chain we drag through work, though we are happy to have it on our CV, because it seems that balls and chains are recognised and so valuable to our desired next career step. This is a negative cycle. It is about INSTITUTIONAL behaviour, meaning that the ‘body’ feeds itself; institutions promote the profession because they exist to do this, members promote the profession because it helps our careers when linked to it, and (we) service providers promote the the profession because we sell more products when we lock it in. We follow each other in a circle, and (accidentally) we find we have stopped looking at real VALUE – namely: more able people and delivered project outcomes which make our organisations and the world better.
On the other hand, the ‘POSITIVE’ is that until our ‘thing’ is ‘on the map’ it will not be taken seriously enough with enough definition and shared experience to become powerful, and we need this – Power gives us impact. We need organisations to recognise our place, and we need our project managers to be valued and feel valued if they are to be inspired to greater things. Being part of something bigger helps, it is uplifting. When these intentions are exhibited POSITIVELY in our profession great things happen. communities form, knowledge is built, experience is spread around e.g. by brilliant volunteers giving up their time to help others to do better, then we have an incredibly positive cycle where the profession becomes the axis around which people help each other become better, and collectively we focus and deliver better project outcomes. This is a positive cycle.
[On a point of irony - this discussion would not exist without the profession which led to a Linkedin Group of 18,000 people]
So what’s the balance?
My conclusion, at the moment, is that (in the UK at least) we have made project management important enough now. Great things have been done and we are definitely ‘on the map’. Doing more of this would reflect insecurity. We need no more professionalisation for now, perhaps we need a little less. We probably could do with some sharper aiming (e.g. RPP). However, there is no need to get rid of it. No, we must keep and cherish our ‘profession’ or ‘practice’ (don’t care what it is called) BUT we must avoid institutional thinking and the negative cycle. We want project people to have wings, not a ball and chain.
The tougher question then is how can we have a great ‘positive’ profession, without an institutional cycle, and keep the focus on creating value? That is tough for any profession to accomplish, but lets keep trying, perhaps by getting more involved, ‘positively’.
[sorry it's a long post] Would love to hear more views on this…
Mark… AMEN!!! The characteristic features of a profession.
-They have a “professional association, cognitive base, institutionalized training, licensing, work autonomy, colleague control… (and) code of ethics, high standards of professional and intellectual excellence, professions are occupations with special power and prestige, Members of a profession have also been defined as “workers whose qualities of detachment, autonomy, and group allegiance are more extensive than those found among other groups…their attributes include a high degree of systematic knowledge; strong community orientation and loyalty; self-regulation; and a system of rewards defined and administered by the community of workers.
Bryce – what makes you think for one minute somebody that has qualified (Uni level studies and 30 years experience in PM field) himself as a senior member in his profession can not be part of a profession / professional body.
btw: what is a Clinical Workplace Consultant, is this your profession????
I suspect this is a debate that will not reach a satisfactory conclusion. However, there are professional project managers, who have an educational and practitioner based capability, coupled with membership of a professional body (APM/PMI etc), which together may constitute a ‘profession’ in the sense of some level of competence. One could easily buy a calculator, red pen and a copy of Excel – this would not make a person an accountant (at least not one that would be regarded with much respect). It would of course, be much cheaper than bothering to go through several years of formal training. I was told some years ago that ‘we are all project managers now,’ a statement that is neither true nor helpful – typing the comment does not qualify me as a journalist. Perhaps the debate needs to focus on ‘professionalism’ which is perhaps more based around ethics, codes of conduct, competence and mastery of an appropriate toolkit of capabilities.
Bob, I respect your position given your experience, but that is a very old view of the workforce! Do you really think the apprentice model will work given that many people no longer work for the same firm for long periods, many are working on a contract basis across industries and across projects? And being an engineer no longer defines a person as a project manager! What the heck is an ‘ultimate profession’? And why can’t people with a basic trade manage projects?
I like your growth through experience and expertise model. But having expertise does not define a profession. You can have expertise in a skill set, without it being labeled a profession. I resist the label ‘profession’ because it only speaks to the past generations of the workforce and does not fit the present or future state of project work. We live in an age of new subject matter.
The jobs my kids will have when they leave school don’t even exist yet and have no label. They will most likely have to manage projects. And it will be within a short time frame, not after working their way up over a period of years. The most pressing need for organised project management bodies is to plan how they will educate this new generation (using the expertise of past generations) to manage projects.
Project Management is an ultimate Profession but not a basic Trade. Like all forms of employment, you start by plying your trade (for myself it was as a civil engineer) and you learn how to manage your work, your position, etc.and the project around you. From that base you progress into management and finally, hopefully, attain the position of project manager. It is the position that people seek to attain, and should be the position that you should expect to start at with no experience. Otherwise you could come to the end of your career path earlier than you hoped.
Just to add a few to your list if not already there.
. Overall commitment to actually complete the work
. Mentoring your Project Team..bring out the best in them
. Communicate with everyone… Sr. Mgmt/Stakeholders, Your team, 3rd parties(Vendors)
. Ability to prepare your Project Team to carry-on and be able to support this
work after your no longer there to do so. (Outside Contractor)
. Provide the a positive attitude in everything you do.
. Possess the strength, wisdom to actually make the decisions rather than
be Micro-Managed by others.
William Woloschuk
website: http://www.nvo.com/scsusa
Good debate. I can see it both ways. In my HEART I agree with Bryce and Lucas, we don’t need this professionalisation. My HEAD says don’t be so romantic, our profession is essential…
What is most important in the end surely, is: What are the consequences of ‘professionalising’ project management? Are they positive?, negative?, both?
The ‘negative’ would seem to be that once we become a ‘profession’ projecting a codified ‘way’, reinforced by qualifications and a profit-making industry flogging these, then our thinking can become narrower and focused on method and rules, whilst in truth (As Brice rightly says) ‘Life is bigger’. Our success as a professionalised ‘way’ has now become the ball and chain we drag through work, though we are happy to have it on our CV, because it seems that balls and chains are recognised and so valuable to our desired next career step. This is a negative cycle. It is about INSTITUTIONAL behaviour, meaning that the ‘body’ feeds itself; institutions promote the profession because they exist to do this, our members promote the profession because it helps our careers when linked to it, and we service providers promote the the profession because we sell more products when we lock it in. Just look at the number of job ads that appear on this discussion group! We follow each other in a circle, and (accidentally) we find we have stopped looking at real VALUE – namely: more able people and delivered project outcomes which make our organisations and the world better.
On the other hand, the ‘positive’ is that until our ‘thing’ is ‘on the map’ it will not be taken seriously enough with enough definition and shared experience to become powerful, and we need this – Power gives us impact. We need organisations to recognise our place, and we need our project managers to be valued and feel valued if they are to be inspired to greater things. Being part of something bigger helps, it is uplifting. When these intentions are exhibited POSITIVELY in our profession great things happen. communities form, knowledge is built, experience is spread around e.g. by brilliant volunteers giving up their time to help others to do better, then we have an incredibly positive cycle where the profession becomes the axis around which people help each other become better, and collectively we focus and deliver better project outcomes. This is a positive cycle.
[On a point of irony - this discussion would not exist without the profession which led to a Linkedin Group of 18,000 people]
So what’s the balance?
My conclusion, at the moment, is that (in the UK at least) we have made project management important enough now. Great things have been done and we are definitely ‘on the map’. Doing more of this would reflect insecurity. We need no more professionalisation for now, perhaps we need a little less. We probably could do with some sharper aiming (e.g. RPP). However, there is no need to get rid of it. No, we must keep and cherish our ‘profession’ or ‘practice’ (don’t care what it is called) BUT we must avoid institutional thinking and the negative cycle. We want project people to have wings, not a ball and chain.
The tougher question then is how can we have a great ‘positive’ profession, without an institutional cycle, and keep the focus on creating value? That is tough for any profession to accomplish, but lets keep trying, perhaps by getting more involved, ‘positively’.
[sorry it's a long post] Would love to hear more views on this…
I agree that the article is very provocative. It’s a skill to be a Project Manager plus you have to understand how to balance the project priorities. Also you need to understand the project as whole in other words the big picture of the end project.
Very provocative, indeed. I have been in program management, and a professional, for a couple of decades. I really want to agree with the author because I think many program managers simply learn how to fill in R/Y/G “program management coloring books” and think that asking questions of team members like a newspaper reporter and publishing status in the coloring book makes them a program manager. It does not.
The author mentions engineers and medical doctors as professions but says that program management is not a profession because “A profession assumes a codified body of knowledge that can be taught with predictable retention and skill development on the part of the trainee. This means that trained people generally always outperform the untrained ones.” I’m a degreed engineer and I can agree with that statement. However, the author goes on to say that it is different for program management. On that point I would, respectfully, disagree.
Knowledge in the light of experience (demonstrating learning of the trade) is precisely what makes a successful program manager. Having said that, who cares?
There are good engineers and there are bad ones. There are good program managers and there are bad ones. The problem is that inexperienced (and even destructive) program managers can hide under the apparent camouflage of success for much more of their process cycle than an inexperienced engineer. Program managers neither create nor destroy information, they merely process it.
The author says “you need a plan, it is a necessary condition, but just having a plan and a list of risks it not a sufficient condition for success. It’s no guarantee at all” and I think a more true statement would be difficult to find. The skill set to be a successful program manager goes way beyond the body of knowledge and the program management coloring books (see the white paper on the noted web site for more).
The troubling thing with program managers is that they seem so intent on teaching their project teams about their program management tools, when the team not only couldn’t care less, but they realize that no program management tool has ever solved a functional group issue. If an engineer spent time talking about the engineering tools, we would say “that’s great, but what are the results?”. PM’s need to understand that the cross functional team only cares about results. To get results you need the leadership traits of successful program managers. Namely:
1) The courage to decide
2) The ability to prioritize
3) Not thrown off the scent of the critical path
4) The vision to see the goal
5) Can sense danger
6) The skill to be logical
7) The experience to know better
8) Less political, more substantive
9) The passion for “the important” and disdain for “the urgent”
10) Is articulate
11) Does not manage by email
12) Fair, but appropriately forceful
13) Might form hypothesis based on “gut feel”, but decides based on data
14) Understands that leadership is a series of hugs and kicks
15) Deals with people in a “mission first, people always” manner
16) Demonstrates the corollary to “mission first, people always” is “carry the wounded, shoot the stragglers”
17) Can balance confidence and humility
18) Communicates
So, PM’s need to learn to use the tools and talk about the results.
Of course, PM is not an artisan… But this is a talent… Actually, you can pass special PM education, but in reality you will contact with problems you never anticipated… So, you are to be a PROFESSIONAL!
Very provocative, indeed. I have been in program management, and a professional, for a couple of decades. I really want to agree with the author because I think many program managers simply learn how to fill in R/Y/G “program management coloring books” and think that asking questions of team members like a newspaper reporter and publishing status in the coloring book makes them a program manager. It does not.
The author mentions engineers and medical doctors as professions but says that program management is not a profession because “A profession assumes a codified body of knowledge that can be taught with predictable retention and skill development on the part of the trainee. This means that trained people generally always outperform the untrained ones.” I’m a degreed engineer and I can agree with that statement. However, the author goes on to say that it is different for program management. On that point I would, respectfully, disagree. Knowledge in the light of experience (demonstrating learning of the trade) is precisely what makes a successful program manager. Having said that, who cares?
There are good engineers and there are bad ones. There are good program managers and there are bad ones. The problem is that inexperienced (and even destructive) program managers can hide under the apparent camouflage of success for much more of their process cycle than an inexperienced engineer. Program managers neither create nor destroy information, they merely process it. The author says “you need a plan, it is a necessary condition, but just having a plan and a list of risks it not a sufficient condition for success. It’s no guarantee at all” and I think a more true statement would be difficult to find. The skill set to be a successful program manager goes way beyond the body of knowledge and the program management coloring books (see the white paper on the noted web site for more).
The troubling thing with program managers is that they seem so intent on teaching their project teams about their program management tools, when the team not only couldn’t care less, but they realize that no program management tool has ever solved a functional group issue. If an engineer spent time talking about the engineering tools, we would say “that’s great, but what are the results?”. PM’s need to understand that the cross functional team only cares about results. To get results you need the leadership traits of successful program managers. Namely:
1) The courage to decide
2) The ability to prioritize
3) Not thrown off the scent of the critical path
4) The vision to see the goal
5) Can sense danger
6) The skill to be logical
7) The experience to know better
8) Less political, more substantive
9) The passion for “the important” and disdain for “the urgent”
10) Is articulate
11) Does not manage by email
12) Fair, but appropriately forceful
13) Might form hypothesis based on “gut feel”, but decides based on data
14) Understands that leadership is a series of hugs and kicks
15) Deals with people in a “mission first, people always” manner
16) Demonstrates the corollary to “mission first, people always” is “carry the wounded, shoot the stragglers”
17) Can balance confidence and humility
18) Communicates
So, PM’s need to learn to use the tools and talk about the results.
Regards,
Tony Pashigian
http://www.tonypashigian.com