Share this
Mister Wong
Digg
Del.icio.us
Slashdot
Furl
Yahoo
Technorati
Newsvine
Googlize this
Blinklist
Facebook
Wikio
Hear this text
Export PDF
Print
E-mail
Is project management a profession, a system, a process, or a job? A rejoinderIn the December edition of The Project Manager, the article titled “Project Management: Profession, Process, System or Job?”, sought to introduce readers to the questions and debate regarding the professional status attributed to the project management role. It touched on some of the themes being debated heavily in project management circles around the world, and reflected the viewpoints of several local project people. It also referred briefly to the research done by Dr Paul D. Giammalvo, who made this very subject the topic of his doctoral thesis. After being contacted for permission to refer to his research in the December article, Giammalvo requested the opportunity to expand on the many areas pertinent to the debate which were not covered in the original article. In this follow-up, he and contemporary Danelle Jones from the University of Melbourne in Australia unpack and analyse the main points presented in the previous article, offering their vast insight and recommendations.
While we think the paper was well written and presented a relatively fair and balanced discussion of the pros and cons, we believe there were some specific areas that were not elaborated on as fully or completely as they could or should have been, or that were looked at superficially – possibly resulting in false or misleading conclusions.
I am writing this rejoinder in collaboration with Danelle Jones, University of Melbourne, to clarify, elaborate or expand on those areas we think the original article was weak in addressing.
For quick background information on myself, I started out in the trades (union carpenter) back in the 1960s, when “construction managers” were usually grizzled and experienced construction master tradesmen, generally in their 50s or 60s.
About the time I became intent upon becoming a construction project manager, was the time when the transition was happening where instead of working one’s way up through the trades, one had to have a degree in Civil Engineering or Architecture to become a construction manager.
This transition is what prompted me to get a degree at night in Civil Engineering, majoring in construction project management, while working as a carpenter during the day. Based on that background, I consider my TRADE to be Carpentry, my PROFESSION to be Civil Engineering.
Because the process of construction management was exactly the same, whether looking at it from the perspective of a tradesman or an engineer, I began to feel very uncomfortable when the Project Management Institute (PMI) began making claims that project management was a profession.
It was this apparent disconnect that led me to pursue my PhD on this topic: “Is Project Management a Profession? And if not, what is it?” (Full copy can be downloaded at www.build-project-management-competency.com/download-page)
Danelle started out as an architectural student, but before her undergraduate degree was completed, she had made a decision to pursue a career in project management.
Having moved to Melbourne, she undertook a Master’s in Project Management within the Engineering department of the University of Melbourne and in parallel, began practising as a project manager.
Danelle is a ‘project manager by design’, a young person who has chosen to pursue project management as a discipline, without the usual induction via an alternative trade or profession.
She first became interested in the professionalisation debate as a passionate advocate for professionalisation, however, upon investigating in further detail, she has swung to oppose professionalisation as the end in itself because it conflicts with what she believes to be the truer goals of a culture of professionalism in, and a paradigm for, project management.
Although Danelle and I share many of the same core beliefs, because she is young and I am old, she female and I male, she comes from a background in Architecture while I come from the Trades and Engineering: we often have a different perspective on the same topic, even though we share fundamental beliefs that project management is not and should not be a profession.
To clearly distinguish between our thoughts, my comments begin with [PDG] and Danelle’s with [DJ].
Construction project management as a profession
[PDG] On page 12 of the aforementioned article, the author states: “others, from the project-driven industries such as construction, may wonder if [construction project management] was ever NOT considered to be a profession”.
As least in the United States, this is a false or at least misleading statement. Despite over 50 years of being recognised as a unique occupational job title, complete with undergrad, graduate and postgraduate degrees being conferred, construction project managers have yet to be able to achieve the same professional standing or formal authority on a project as that held by either the architect or engineer.
As noted above, up until the 1950s, “construction project managers” almost always came from the trades – in most cases, carpentry. It was only from the late ‘50s onward that project management began to be taught in the universities, usually under the school of Civil Engineering or Architecture.
As an active member in the Construction Management Association of America (CMAA), as of the last organisational meeting in July 2009, consensus was clear that we have yet to reach parity with either architecture or engineering professionals – and despite occasional grassroots efforts to license construction project managers in the US, as licensing is generally looked upon unfavourably as a form of “restraint of trade” – that is unlikely to happen, at least in North America.
[DJ] I cannot comment on construction project management in this instance, other than to say it is not recognised as a profession within Australia nor New Zealand, to the best of my knowledge.
It may be timely at this early stage to assert that you can be a professional, without membership in an established profession: much of the angst we encounter among practitioners is a sense that in stating “project management is not a profession”, we are saying, too, that the individual is not professional (adj), or not a professional (n).
This is absolutely not the case. It is extremely important to separate the discussion of profession from the emotion of professionalism.
Most project managers I meet are professionals in every sense of the word – they exhibit the qualities of a professional in their advanced education and expertise in their chosen occupation as a project manager; their commitment to continual professional development and learning; their sense of responsibility to the wider public; and at a purely mechanical level, their membership to professional organisations (for project managers) and implicit adoption of that organisation’s Code of Ethics.
However, although there is a correlation between professional individuals and project management, there is not causation that project management is
a profession.
For more, review carefully Paul’s Tiger Woods example (explained in further detail at the end of this rejoinder).
Project management having been around a long time
[PDG] In the first column of page 13, the author speaks of the Pyramids and Great Wall of China. But let us go back even further: to the taming of fire and the invention of stone then metal tools, or to the invention of the wheel. Would/could we all agree that these were “projects”?
If yes, can it be much of a stretch to consider that “doing projects” is hard-wired into the human psyche? That is, if we did not have projects to do, that we would INVENT them? (Don’t believe me? I don’t know about you, but I have a LONG list of “Honey Do’s” posted by my wife on the refrigerator...)
Why else would we continue to strive to build taller buildings, longer bridges or wider highways? Or send people further into outer space? Or create new software?
Or invent new drugs? Or try new medical procedures? Or perhaps the consummate “project” – fighting wars against one another?
This brings up the question of a process or methodology. Knowing that each of the projects alluded to above requires not one but an interface between MULTIPLE different trades and professions, and assuming each of the above very different trades or professions shares more or less common approaches, procedures or methodologies – how can we conclude that a process or methodology or way of thinking defines a profession? How can we pretend to build a profession around a more or less common process that is embedded into so many different undertakings, from taking the family on the next holiday to putting a man (or woman) on Mars?
[DJ] Certainly, a long track record should provide a piece of the puzzle in constructing an argument for professional status.
However, I would like to take up on Paul’s point that project management is a process, as this word can invoke a specific response in people and we may need to be clear about our use thereof.
Using the word “process” in this sense does not preclude the use of ‘soft skills’ or people skills as part of that process. The “process” of project management is about taking a journey from start to finishing an undertaking; and while we could not dictate within that process how to interact with an individual, we could certainly see that “stakeholder management” forms an integral part of the process to deliver the undertaking.
Discretion and judgment
[PDG] Also in the first column on page 13, the author asserts that project management requires “consistent exercise of discretion and judgment”.
How many project managers have control over the budgets? How many project managers have control over the schedules or completion dates? How many project managers have control over the scope of work? How many project managers can hire and fire the people on their teams?
How many project managers have the authority to make the decision to outsource work, or not? How many project managers have the formal authority commensurate with their responsibility? How many project managers are obligated to put the needs, wants and expectations of the consuming public first and foremost over all other stakeholders?
When you compare the “consistent exercise of discretion and judgment” enjoyed by a project manager against that of a doctor, lawyer or airline pilot, it becomes apparent that most project managers do NOT enjoy a professional level of latitude in decision-making.
Two of the leading forefathers of project management – Henri Fayol, a French mining engineer from the late 1800s to early 1900s; and more recently, Clarence “Kelly” Johnson of Skunk Works fame – both listed the need for full and complete authority commensurate with responsibility as being a key success factor.
So where is that in most organisations that declare project management to be a “core competency”? As a consultant, it is the rare organisation I see which affords its project managers this kind of authority.
On the flip side of the same coin, project managers are not held to the same level of professional accountability to which engineers, doctors, lawyers, commercial pilots or accountants are held. One of those professionals screws up, and his/her licence to practise is on the line. They make a mistake in discretion or judgment, and they are held legally and financially liable.
To put the import of this in perspective, how many project managers reading this article would be willing to put your life savings, your house and your retirement fund on the line should the project on which you are currently working “fail”?
Well, that is what you get when you achieve “professional” status. Is this really what you want? Be careful of what you wish for...
[DJ] The question of discretion and judgment, for me, brings up the point of fiduciary responsibility – a discussion that I think was neglected seriously in the original article.
It is important because fiduciary is the “what’s in it for me?” for our clients and the general public – those stakeholders outside project management who also may have opinions about the deservedness or otherwise of professional status.
A fiduciary responsibility is a key element in defining a profession by attributes, (Body of Knowledge, Code of Ethics, education etc.), but also defining a profession in the legal sense because it is tied closely with professional versus ordinary negligence (another piece to Paul’s response above when he asks us to put our life savings on the line).
A fiduciary responsibility is a legal or ethical relationship between two or more parties. In our case, we shall say a project manager (a professional) and his/her client.
A fiduciary (n) is someone who has undertaken to act for and on behalf of another in a particular matter in circumstances that give rise to a relationship of trust and confidence1. Examples include doctor/patient, lawyer/client, or teacher/student.
Specifically, it is about doing what is best – not for our own interests, but what is best for those who rely on us.
It is also about conducting oneself “at a level higher than trodden by the crowd”2 – certainly sounds noble enough, and analogous to what many would consider to be professional conduct.
Where this ideal potentially impacts our bottom line, is in a court room, where a professional may be judged under professional negligence (our work or actions reviewed by peers) rather than judged by ordinary negligence (the ‘common man’ is allowed to judge our performance). Being judged under professional negligence requires expert testimony because it is deemed that the ‘ordinary man’ could not understand the complexities of decision-making or judgment and discretion used, without receiving training as a professional in that field.
Furthermore, a professional who may be asked to review his/her peer in a case of professional negligence, must be from a similar geographic location and possess the same specialisation (a dentist cannot judge a surgeon in the medical profession) to make a valid judgment as to the conduct of the individual in question.
Currently, it appears that project managers are not acknowledging this important criteria in the professionalisation puzzle; and yet, at the same time, we are beginning to see project managers becoming subjected to these negligence issues (evidenced in the first instance by the emergence of professional indemnity insurances). We ignore this implication of professionalisation at our peril.
Licensing
[PDG] As a follow-up, the author also mentions licensing. There is no shortage of solid research that shows that licensing does NOT result in the protection of the consuming public through the “elimination of charlatans, frauds or incompetents”.
In particular, the prestigious Pew Report3 finds that the PRIMARY impact of licensing is increased costs to the consumer, with little or NO discernible improvement in quality. So here again, we are trying to build a profession based on a weak or faulty foundation of half truths and wishes.
I find it interesting that the United Kingdom’s Association for Project Management (APM) is lobbying the Privy Council to recognise project management as a profession by creating a Royal Chartered Institute of Project Managers.
What is interesting is not so much that APM is lobbying, but that the PMI is fighting it.
This tells us that the real root-cause issues are not about protecting the consuming public from fraud and incompetents but, as noted sociologist Andrew Abbot4 professed, about “turf wars”. It is about MONEY and POWER, and nothing more. (See Haga5 for a scathing view on professional organisations and their motivations.)
[DJ] I tend to agree with Paul that the licensing issue is being seen as a catch-all for any concerns over the quality of project managers’ conduct.
As an individual, I would stand to benefit greatly from licensing laws and a clear demarcation of project management’s ‘patch’ – and it does seem like a silver bullet to silence those who call themselves project managers because they “organise their tasks in a day”.
But I think it a little premature to try and mark out that area when we as a practitioner community still are having discussions around the definition of a project and how one may measure project performance objectively.
I am skeptical that licensing would produce better outcomes for our clients, or at least better value for money in the outcomes we deliver for them.
Body of Knowledge
[PDG] On page 14 of the December article, under the heading “Indicators of a Profession”, the author lists among other attributes “a substantial Body of Knowledge”. Here again, we have a partial or incomplete definition or interpretation that may result in overly simplistic conclusions.
The concept of requiring a Body of Knowledge (BoK) as the basis for a profession is the only attribute common in both the Intrinsic and Extrinsic approaches to defining a profession. However, in order to be able to build a profession around a “Body of Knowledge”, it needs to meet or fulfil two critical criteria:
It must be “complicated, unique, esoteric, abstruse or secret” and;
It must lend itself to being CONTROLLED by the practitioners, including the ability to control the use of the title.
So let us start by making a quick comparison between the Body of Knowledge for project management (PMBOK) against the Body of Knowledge of, say, medicine, law or commercial aircraft piloting.
The BoK associated with project management is far from being “complicated, unique, esoteric, abstruse or secret”. It is nothing more than an agglomeration of general management philosophies, most of them dating from late 1800s to mid-1950s – “recombined” or “restated” to fit the temporary nature of projects.
Look at the teachings of Fayol, who wrote not as a project manager but as an operations manager for a mining operation in France.
Or the parents of Earned Value Management, Frank and Lillian Gilbreth, who created the concept of “earned time” way back in the early 1900s – not for project managers, not to measure projects, but as a way to compensate factory workers using “piecework”.
These are but a few examples to help us realise that the BoK associated with project management is largely indistinguishable from that of general management (See also Drucker6).
This can be confirmed by comparing any credible textbook on operations management against the PMBOK or the Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering International’s Total Cost Management Framework (AACE’s TCMF), and we see EXACTLY the same BoK – with the only major difference being that project management has a defined end, while operations does not.
Nor is the BoK associated with project management controllable. Not only does it form the basis for ALL management disciplines and applications, but it is written in virtually all major languages, making it accessible to anyone willing to invest in a book on the subject.
Compare that to the BoKs of medicine or law, which are written in Latin or Greek, for the sole and only purpose of preventing the ‘ordinary man’ from being able to access it, much less understand their BoK.
And for anyone who is a pilot, the arcane terms and acronyms form a barrier to the ‘average’ man or woman from becoming a pilot, until or unless they have been initiated into the jargon.
And to make the control issue even more nebulous, not only is project management somewhat derisively known as the “accidental profession” – with anyone able to call him/herself a “project manager” – but as evidenced by Max Wideman’s highly regarded Comparative Glossary of Project Management Terms, with something in excess of 20 different definitions of “project” and 15 or more for “project manager”, even within our own ranks we are unable to agree on who we are or what it is we do.
[DJ] I have nothing further to add to Paul’s clarification of the requirement for a BoK for a profession.
My profession was architecture, where the esoteric was an ability to depict the built form graphically, and we worked from first principles in designing sections, plans or details.
Although not readily visible in the BoK that we have collected thus far for project management, I do believe that “project managers are born” to a certain extent – there is a je ne sais quoi that truly excellent PMs have, however, I am as yet unable to put that into words.
(And I am also yet to be convinced that this esoteric is unique to project management and not shared by other management or leadership professionals.)
Constraints
[PDG] On page 16, Mr Mabelo identified three major constraints or obstacles to project management not being perceived as a profession:
* Lack of proper training;
* No formal career path; and
* Project management is a process built into all trades, professions and occupations.
Lack of proper training: FORMAL training in construction project management has been around since the 1900s and even enjoys its own occupational title, yet it still has to be recognised to be equal to either the architects or engineer from whence it was created.
Given that construction projects “fail”7 with such alarming regularity, “proper training” does not seem to be a likely constraint. The real problem seems more than likely to be unrealistic expectations of clients and sponsors. People who want or expect project managers to work miracles.
The only solution to this problem will come when project managers develop the cojones to push back, rejecting “Death March”8 projects.
No formal career path: Here again, if we look to construction project management, there has been a career path that has evolved over the centuries, harking back to the Guilds of the 16th and 17th centuries.
In the ‘old days’, up until the 1950s, “construction project managers” came up through the trades, and it was unusual to see a construction project manager any younger than 45, and most were in their 50s and 60s.
Today, we see “project managers” in their mid to late 20s. Is it possible for people with only three or four years of working experience to not only have mastered their trade or craft, but also developed the kind of people skills to be able to manage large complex projects?
[DJ] I am evolving a career path, as any other young professional in his/her chosen area. Part of what I truly love about project management is the lack of a formalised career path – although I began in construction, I have since progressed to information technology and telecommunications systems integration, transferring those skills I learned along the way.
I suspect that in hindsight, the career path will have looked like a progression from small to large, single to multiple, relatively simple to complex/complicated projects. I also would hope that the variety of industries and opportunities would be a key component of any perceived path.
In particular, I would suggest that the formalised career path for PMs in future would look similar to the education / mentorship / partnership type models exhibited in engineering and architecture, however, this could well be my own bias and training coming through.
Project management is a process: Of all the arguments against project management being a profession, this is perhaps the most intractable one.
Assuming we can agree that project management is a process, and that process is embedded into just about everything we do – both personally and in our day to day working world – then how can we expect to make any argument about building a profession around a process, when the process is the same only in the most general sense of the word?
For example, flying a plane from city A to city B is, by nearly any definition, a “project”. Not only does it have a defined start and a defined finish, but it consumes resources, has a deliverable that is measurable and requires multiple tasks that have to be done in some rational and orderly sequence, requiring co-ordination
and direction.
More specifically, flying a plane requires that a flight plan be filed and that it be closed out at the completion of each flight, lest it trigger a search-and-rescue effort for a plane gone missing.
So given we can agree that piloting a plane from city A to city B is a project, then which would you rather require from your pilot? Someone who is PMP® [Project Management Professional] or PRINCE2® Practitioner certified? Or a licensed commercial pilot?
Now, perhaps you may say “both”, but practically speaking, the process of obtaining your pilot’s licence means you have demonstrated COMPETENCY in the PROCESS of flying a plane from point A to point B.
Explained another way, the process is embedded into the trade, profession or occupation, and not something separate.
And even if one were, by dint of having a pilot’s licence AND one’s PMP AND PRINCE2, would that qualify one to perform open heart surgery, which also meets the definition of a project?
I think the absurdity of this readily can be seen. Given that project management is a process – and that process is embedded in every trade, profession and even into the threads of our personal life – to try to pretend that simply being competent at the process of project management, without the surrounding contextual skills and knowledge, is irresponsible at best and downright dangerous at worst.
[DJ] I refer to my earlier comments that “process” does not exclude the need for interpersonal, negotiation, persuasion and other skills. As project managers, we can learn through a combination of both academic and behavioural learning, and we can be guided by a process (perhaps relatively high level) as we move through initiation to closure. But it is a process; it is a journey that we undertake.
Conclusions
[PDG] First, as the article noted, the “professionalisation” of an occupation is not a black or white, yes-or-no issue. It is subject to many shades of grey. However, it is not the practitioners nor the professional organisations that purport to represent the practitioners who have the privilege to determine what is and what is not perceived to be a profession.
As can be seen by the “professionalisation” of chiropractic medicine or the acceptance by the general medical community of Chinese herbal medicine, those occupations that consistently produce favourable, cost-effective RESULTS to the consuming public, winning their trust and respect in the process, is the ONLY way to raise the professional image of what we do.
Simply repeating the mantra “project management is a profession” over and over again will not make it so.
So what can or should we do, starting IMMEDIATELY, to raise the professional image of the practice of project management?
First and foremost, STOP referring to project management as a profession9.
With failure rates described by the Standish Group’s “Chaos Report” or FMI’s research on “Construction Project Management Failures” ranging between 50% to 80%, project management is today where medicine was back in the 17th century.
Until or unless we are able to improve on our track record significantly, we will not have EARNED the respect of the consuming public.
Accordingly, until such time as we can improve on the delivery of projects, consistent with most professional codes of ethics, we should be appropriately modest, not making false or misleading claims.
Thus, we would be more appropriate in saying we are still PRACTISING the art and science of project management. Until we CONSISTENTLY can deliver projects on time, within budget, in substantial conformance to specifications, while substantially fulfilling the purpose for which they were undertaken, we have not earned the RIGHT to call what we do a profession and are embarrassing ourselves by continuing to do so; OR, perhaps more importantly, in allowing the professional organisations who purport to represent us to do so. (Both PMI and the International Professional Managers Association, as the two largest and most influential professional organisations, are guilty of making these kinds of blatantly false and misleading claims.)
Secondly, practitioners are asking the wrong question. We should not be asking: “Is project management a profession?” but rather: “How can each of us be more professional at what we do?” That means saying NO to clients or bosses or sponsors who expect us to do the impossible, with little or insufficient authority or input.
A good start would be to compare PRINCE2, the PMBOK, AACE’s TCMF and other BoKs or methodologies against Fayol’s 14 principles and six functions of management10 and/or Johnson’s 14 Rules of Management11, then using them to modify the BoK and/or methodologies to be consistent with what has been proven to work.
Thirdly, change the Codes of Ethics to incorporate the fundamental principle that starts off the Hippocratic Oath adopted by all doctors: “Do No Harm”.
Given the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and Basil II, I am surprised that no project managers have yet to be sued by unhappy shareholders over projects undertaken by their organisation that has “failed”.
Perhaps legal action is what we need to push us into recognising that true professionals have, or should have, the ability to use DISCRETION and PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT in making INDEPENDENT decisions; recognising that right or wrong, we are subject to the CONSEQUENCES of our decisions – financial success and continuation in business if we are right, and financial and/or legal penalties for being wrong.
Fourthly, another change to the Code of Ethics which would help “professionalise” the practice of project management, would be to reflect on what the Society of Corporate Compliance and Ethics (SCCE) has adopted as part of its Code of Ethics11.
In Paragraph R1.4, page 312, it says effectively that if the professional has made an honest and legitimate attempt to inform his/her bosses or sponsors or clients of an ethical matter, and the boss fails to listen and the organisation fails to support the ethics professional, then the professional is obligated to RESIGN from the organisation.
If and when project managers are willing to prove their fiduciary responsibility to the consuming public and shareholders over those of their bosses, sponsors or clients, then we may see us earning the respect we feel we deserve.
Fifthly, simply say NO to matrix management. The Old Testament, the Torah and the Holy Qur’an are all consistent in stating that no man (or presumably woman?) can “serve two masters at the same time and serve them well”. This theme is reiterated by Fayol and Johnson.
We need to INSIST that we have the right to select our team and that the team reports to us, and ONLY to us, for the duration of the project or the time they are required on that project. Do not expect project managers to be held accountable without the authority to put together their own team – along with the authority to REWARD those who contribute and FIRE those who do not.
Finally, stop pretending that project management is STRATEGIC13. Unless you are a contractor or in PMI parlance a “seller”, defined to be a person or entity who makes money by planning, executing, controlling and closing projects, project management is not strategic but TACTICAL.
In an owner organisation (“buyer” in PMI speak), project management is a “necessary evil” – an expense or investment, a cash outflow intended to produce a product or service with which the organisation MAY be able to make money or receive other benefit.
So while project managers in an owner organisation may very well be working on STRATEGIC PROJECTS, our role is NOT one of formulating strategy, but focusing on TACTICS: get the project done on time or faster, if at all possible; bring it in at or under budget; substantially conforming to specifications. And IF “management” or “the client” has done his/her job of defining what it is he/she requires or wants, the project MAY have half a chance of fulfilling all or at least some of the benefits it was created to produce.
In an owner organisation, the real heroes are OPERATIONS or ASSET MANAGERS, and not the project manager.
To conclude, the concept of a “profession” in terms of anything but the individual is meaningless today14. We see doctors, lawyers, accountants, businessmen/women, priests and politicians – some of whom are world-class professionals in every sense of the word; while others are figuratively, and in some cases literally, criminals.
The only thing that matters is not whether what we DO is a profession, but that we are professional at what we DO.
Given the recent events happening in the life of golfer Tiger Woods, it is worth revisiting the central theme of my PhD dissertation that was published in the original article:
Tiger Woods is unquestionably a talented golfer. One would be very hard-put to dispute the obvious, which is that he is very competent at what he does, perhaps one of the best ever. Therefore, he meets the first test of being a professional (n) – skill and competence.
In fact, he is sufficiently competent that he makes a very handsome living performing for pay for what most of us consider a hobby; hence, applying the second criterion, he meets the ‘earnings test’ to be considered a professional (n). He is not an amateur.
Having met both tests (highly competent and earning a living at what most do for a hobby) entitles him to be termed a professional (adj.) golfer.
However, simply because Tiger Woods meets the criteria to be called both a professional (n) and a professional (adj) golfer, golf does not qualify as a profession, although Woods may call it his profession (his paid job).
It is no wonder that many in the community of practice of project management confuse what it means to belong to a profession.
There is the tendency to make the connection that if they are, in fact, professional (extremely competent) in the way they work, then what they do must, by association, be considered a profession. This is false logic, and a semantic trap easily fallen into.
Given the recent revelations of Woods’ personal life and the public apologies he has made, resulting in the cancellations by many of his sponsors, only serves to drive (pun intended) home the point that being a professional has everything to do with competency, personal integrity and values and has little or nothing to do with the occupation from which one makes one’s money.
As project managers, we must reflect on and internalise this “lesson learned”.
[DJ] In addition to Paul’s suggestions, I would add:
* Understand and conduct ourselves cognoscente of the fiduciary responsibility we should hold to our clients and other stakeholders. The underlying message here is to think less about our own needs as a practitioner community and more about the needs of those we serve: build trust and respect.
* As Paul suggests above, that we should ask: “How can each of us be more professional in what we do?”, this is about getting the culture right – even with all the rules and regulations in place, we all know that if the culture is not right, the rest will not follow. Culture crosses boundaries – it is not limited by gender, age, race, religion, geographic location, ethnic, social or political background. Culture can be shared and understood, adopted or relinquished by all; it binds people together in common focus. To survive in the modern world, we need to learn to understand how culture differs from other factors in a person’s makeup.
* Finally, never forget the pursuit of paradigm – our guiding principles that govern what we do and how we do it. Just as engineers have their first design principles, project managers, too, I believe, have a paradigm waiting to be unearthed completely. Developing this core for the occupation should lead to a much reduced anxiety about our place in the world, and a sense that the imposters around us cannot topple our resolve.
References
1. Bristol & West Building Society v Mothew [1998] Ch 1 at 18 per Lord Millett
2. Meinhard v. Salmon (1928) 164 NE 545 at 546
3. Finochio, Dower, Blick and Gragnola, Pew Research Center’s Task Force on Health Care Workforce Regulation (1998) “Strengthening consumer protection: Priorities for health care workforce regulation.”
4. Abbott, Andrew, “The system of professions: An essay on the division of expert labor”. 1988
5. Haga, W. J. “Perils of professionalism” Management Quarterly (1974)
6. Drucker, Peter F, “Management: Tasks, Responsibilities and Practices”, Harper Business, 1973
7. See FMI research, downloadable from http://www.build-project-management-competency.com/download-page
8. Yourdon, Robert, Death March Project Management, 2nd Edition
9. The International Council of Systems Engineers (INCOSE) offers what I believe to be the best or better definition of “project management”. See http://www.incose.org
10. http://www.12manage.com/methods_fayol_14_principles_of_management.html
11. http://www.wvi.com/~sr71webmaster/kelly1.htm
12. http://www.corporatecompliance.org/Content/NavigationMenu/Resources/ProfessionalCode/SCCECodeOfEthics_English.pdf
13. For an excellent explanation of strategy as it pertains to the role of project management, see “4 Levels of Strategic Planning” about halfway down the page. http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/What_Is_Strategy%3F_Why_Study_Strategy%3F
14. Blueprint for improving the civil justice system 12. (1992). Polelle: American Bar Association Working Group on Civil Justice.
