COMMENTARY

By John Schlichter

Georgia, USA

Some people believe the Project Management Institute’s primary purpose should be to advocate the project management profession (the profession of the vast majority of its members) through standards applicable to all projects and certifications that denote competence in those standards, which legitimizes practitioners as professionals. Ancillary activities may include hosting conferences pertaining to all aspects of projects, facilitating networking events that help project management practitioners associate with each other globally, and publishing educational materials that increase knowledge regarding all aspects of project management. This view prioritizes institutionalizing project management throughout society. Alternatively, others believe PMI’s primary purpose should be to ensure the growth of PMI through profitable commercial endeavors whereby PMI provides all manner of professional services in ways that elevate the profile of the institute. That view prioritizes scaling the institute, which some critics argue looks like empire-building. While the latter (scaling the institute) could certainly be used to support the former (institutionalizing project management), which takes priority? In either case, where do we draw the line between PMI’s nonprofit role to do charitable work in the interest of elevating the field of project management to the profession of project management and PMI’s commercial role to dominate profitable ventures to scale the institute? Does PMI undermine itself by offering professional services?

By comparison, other trade associations like the American Medical Association and the American Bar Association largely eschew professional services from their menus. There are some exceptions, instances of professional services corresponding to the unique concerns of members, e.g. risk retention or insurance. But trade associations largely limit their activities to the development of standards, the managemen­t of certifications, and the distribution of educational materials, which is why the AMA is not a healthcare provider and the ABA is not a law firm. PMI’s incoming CEO would do well to mak­e this distinction as PMI engages in the most fundamental question of strategy, namely deciding courageously what not to do, and as leaders ranging from Jack Welch to Jagdesh Sheth have said, doing that by focusing on differentiation, making PMI’s specialization(s) sticky, emphasizing strategy implementation in a way that is transparent and honest. To my mind PMI’s leaders should start by revisiting PMI’s values, beginning with consideration of perceptions that past decisions fomented and the implications for redressing those perceptions by recasting PMI’s values. If PMI’s new CEO were to recast PMI’s values in a way that prioritized institutionalizing project management by focusing exclusively on delivering only those products and services that PMI alone can furnish in its role as the premiere trade association for project management, the chief executive could expect to be celebrated like Alexander the Great upon cutting the Gordian Knot and fulfilling the prophecy that doing so would unite the world.

Popular accounts tell us Alexander encountered the knot early in his campaign and that an oracle had foretold the man to free its intractable yoke would become the ruler of all Asia. Alexander slashed the knot in two with his sword and then conquered the Achaemenid Empire of Persia before proceeding into India’s subcontinent, which the Greeks believed marked the end of the world. Once there, upon defeating an Indian king, Alexander asked the royal how he wanted to be treated, and the proud king invoked the Golden Rule, replying “How would you wish to be treated?” Alexander was so impressed by the king that he returned his lands and title. An alternative history told by some Indians to this day is that Alexander was defeated by the king, whose war elephants literally unseated Alexander, who fell from his horse on the battlefield and broke his back, inspiring Alexander to ask for a halt to hostilities. By that account, the Indian king agreed to his opponent’s plea for peace, as that was the Indian custom, not only invoking the Golden Rule but embodying it. In either case, whether the legacy belonged to the emperor or to the king, a leader had brought peace to the land by invoking values and choosing courageously what not to do. Therein lies a lesson for PMI’s new CEO, which I would enroll the executive to reckon by recounting a more recent history in what follows.

I represent many people involved in the creation of PMI’s foundational standard called OPM3 (Appendix A). It is clear to me that significant differences abound between the facts of what transpired in the evolution of OPM3 and perceptions of those facts, and the implications reach far beyond OPM3 itself, challenging PMI’s identity, its fidelity, and even its viability. Soon after OPM3’s publication, PMI entered the software business, removed the most valuable components of OPM3 from the standard, and sold them at a price orders of magnitude higher than any PMI standard to date as software named ProductSuite, a database version of OPM3. Us­ers were supposed to use ProductSuite to perform assessments of organizations and plan improvements based on those assessments. That is what happened, but what some people made it mean was that PMI valued revenue and control more than promoting goodwill and freedom. Though I doubt PMI believed such a trade-off had occurred, it is clear to me confusion about it resulted from different views of values. And after PMI removed OPM3’s most valuable components from the standard, PMI withdrew those components altogether from the marketplace. Consequently, OPM3’s users could no longer use OPM3 to assess organizations accurately and improve their organizations’ capabilities in the many ways that OPM3 was designed to help them improve their capability to implement strategies through projects successfully, consistently, and predictably. That is what happened, but what some people made it mean was that PMI failed to respect an implicit agreement with volunteers that the fruits of their labor would not be abandoned. PMI acquired its own consultancy as a subsidiary of PMI to provide assessments for hire using a proprietary model which was not OPM3. PMI viewed ProductSuite and this other new model as apples and oranges, not as a replacement of one by the other. That is what happened, but what some people made it mean was that PMI’s noble charter to institutionalize project management had been compromised and that PMI’s charitable functions had given way to profit motives that personified their fears. Eventually PMI decommissioned that acquisition, which brings us to the present. Looking back, PMI’s executives and PMI’s volunteers had shared the goal of supporting project managers and elevating the profession, but there was great division between different camps who envisioned accomplishing that shared goal in very different ways.

I believe that in the case described above an organic sequence of events occurred, driven by a persistent logic that has dominated PMI for the better part of twenty years, a logic that confuses ideas in the minds of many stakeholders about what PMI should do (i.e., institutionalism) with ideas about what PMI can do (i.e., commercialism). I believe some of the people involved may not fully appreciate the distinction. Others may simply believe “institutionalism versus commercialism” is a false dichotomy. Whatever the case may be, different views about PMI’s values appear to have produced different ideas about how PMI should serve society. Recognizing the presence of a plurality of views regarding PMI’s values, we should create the possibility of discussing disagreements about these things publicly to cultivate empathy and alignment, which creates an internal consistency that produces strength, which is called integrity. These are values relevant to PMI’s mission, which I have imagined in the hope that discussing values dispassionately will resolve rampant division and lead PMI away from a ditch that lies dead ahead and into an unimaginably awesome future that transforms the way we live, work, and play as a species.

Ryan Berman, author of Return on Courage, wrote “Values-based, socially responsible, and purpose-driven companies are the ones that are winning today’s business game.” In his book, Berman presents a business model for what he calls “courageous change.” He wants organizations to take thoughtful, calculated risks when developing a new product, implementing an innovative strategy, or simply voicing an opinion that upsets the status quo. Berman’s five-step process, called P.R.I.C.E., is based on his experiences advising prominent brands like Major League Baseball, PUMA and Subway, as well as interviews with leaders from Apple, Google, Dominos, Zappos and other successful companies. The process includes five steps undoubtedly familiar to PMI’s new CEO:

More…

To read entire article, click here

How to cite this article: Schlichter, J.  (2019). Alexander and the Indian King: Part 1; PM World Journal, Vol. VIII, Issue V, June.  Available online at https://pmworldlibrary.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/pmwj82-Jun2019-Schlichter-Alexander-and-Indian-King-Part1-2.pdf

About the Author

John Schlichter

Atlanta, GA, USA

John Schlichter coined the term “Organizational Project Management” or “OPM,” which is the system for implementing the business strategy of an organization through projects. OPM became a global standard and is how companies throughout the world deliver projects valued in billions if not trillions of dollars. “John has contributed greatly to PMI,” Greg Balestrero, CEO, PMI Today, 2002. “In John’s role as the leader of PMI’s OPM3 program, he has immeasurably contributed to the growth of the profession,” Becky Winston, J.D., Chair of the Board of Directors, PMI Today, 2002. Having created OPM3© (an international standard in project, program, and portfolio management), John founded OPM Experts LLC, a firm delivering OPM solutions and a leading provider of maturity assessment services. Industry classifications: NAICS 541618 Other Management Consulting and NAICS 611430 Training. John is a member of the adjunct faculty of Emory University’s Goizueta Business School.

John can be contacted at jschlichter@opmexperts.com or frank.john.schlichter.iii@emory.edu.

To view more works by John Schlichter, visit his author showcase in the PM World Library at https://pmworldlibrary.net/authors/john-schlichter/

Game Changers of New Age

COMMENTARY

By Özüm Öyküm Katli

Ankara, Turkey

Industry 4.0 or 4^th Industrial Revolution, replaces the traditional industry concept with a world of many technological systems and components, including cyber physical systems, intelligent robots (co-robots, collaborative robots), and Internet of Things (IoT, Internet of Things), to increase productivity, quality and flexibility in industry. In summary, Industry 4.0 is the concept of “intelligent production” in which the traditional production approaches change radically through the collective use of technological developments. This revolution gains enterprises the ability of networking with the use of cyber-physical systems.

Thanks to the industrial revolution, the physical and biological worlds are already beginning to unite with the digital world. Many new technologies are emerging and these technologies will be included in every aspect of life. Digitalization is the main reason for collapse of more than half of the companies in Fortune 500 since 2000. This new and dynamic commercial ecosystem, completely different from the current business and market models, is expected to affect nearly 46% of the global trade volume in the next 15 years. According to the Gartner Predicts 2018 Report, by 2020, it is estimated that the Internet of Things technology will be used in 95% of electronic designs, and by 2020 the value of the Internet of Things technologies is expected to exceed $ 3 trillion. In 2025, this value is estimated to exceed $ 11 trillion. Gartner predicts that the number of devices connected to each other in the world will reach 20.8 billion by 2020, which means that nearly 5.5 million new objects are linked together almost daily.

At the corporate level, the impact of the digital revolution will not only be limited in terms of technology and infrastructure, but this change will support the development of new professional groups, new organizational structures and a new management style. The constantly evolving technology world directs its business model approach to rapid adaptation, to get the most accurate decision in the fastest way and to gain continuous change. In this sense, it is an inevitable fact that company employees need new competencies to adapt to this unusual digital world. For this reason, 16 new jobs are expected to occur in only just a few years.

The human dimension of the digital world will be as compelling as its technological dimension. In this new industry model, the huge burden of knowledge, the interconnection of systems, the radically changing of traditional business models, new technologies that overwhelm the old ways of doing business, and increasing globalization are just a few of the challenges that will emerge. Such a working environment, that constantly changes shape makes it necessary for all employees, especially the leaders, to change the way they do business. Technology alone is unlikely to change our world. However, adopting changes that create value according to the requirements of the new age is the most important factor and this makes the role of the project leader even more important.

While some traditional leadership capabilities are still critical to successfully lead in the digital age, new requirements for leaders at all levels of organizations are needed. More free, more flexible and more agile leaders embracing change will be tomorrow’s “game-changer” leaders.

Identifying qualified leaders is the primary source of concern in the 4^th Industrial Revolution. But who are these leaders and what are the required qualifications? What are the basic skills that leaders need in managing the increasingly complex projects in the digital age?

More…

To read entire article, click here

Editor’s note: This article was originally published in Turkish in “Proje Yönetim Dünyası” The link to the full publication (in Turkish only) is available at https://lnkd.in/dYtPb27 with the article at page 54.

How to cite this article: A (2019). Digital Leadership: Game Changers of New Age; PM World Journal, Vol. VIII, Issue V, June. Available online at https://pmworldlibrary.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/pmwj82-Jun2019-Katli-Digital-Leadership-Game-Changers-of-New-Age.pdf

About the Author

Özüm Öyküm Katli

Ankara, Turkey

Özüm Öyküm KATLI graduated from the Hacettepe University with a Bachelor of Science degree in Chemical Engineering and from Middle East Technical University with an MSc degree in Micro and Nanotechnology. As a project manager, she has more than 10 years’ experience in defence projects with customers and partners in Turkey, UK and NATO Europe  gained broader insights and a wealth of experience in international business and successful management of relationships. She became a volunteer in PMI Turkey in 2015. In addition she has worked as director of governance and finance for PMI Turkey between 2016-2018. She is now assistant director of PMI Turkey Marketing. Her main areas of interest are communications management, risk management, strategic planning and leadership.

She is based in Ankara and can be contacted at oykumyurtseven@gmail.com.  Her portfolio is published at the www.linkedin.com/in/özüm-öyküm-katli-297033116.

Excerpt from The Persuasive Project Manager: Communicating for Understanding^[1]

COMMENTARY

By Dr. Bill Brantley

Maryland, USA

Understanding is a topic in epistemology which is the study of knowledge. Don’t worry; I will keep the philosophy brief and to the point. Even though the study of knowledge is ancient, the study of understanding is relatively new (just like the study of project management communication). According to philosophers, there three main ways of understanding.

There is know-what in which I have an understanding of some concept, physical object, or process. For example, I know what a work-breakdown-structure (WBS)^[2] is in the sense of it being a tool in project management. I may have a simple understanding of what a WBS is because I recognize a WBS when I see it. Or my know-what may be that I know WBS exist but, that is all I know. In contrast, I may thoroughly understand WBS including the history of the concept. Know-what is often the first step in creating understanding.

When I can construct a WBS, I have know-how. As you can see, know-how is more involved than know-what. For me to have know-how, I must possess these six attributes:

1. Ability to follow the explanation of the concept, physical object, or process.
2. Ability to explain the concept, physical object, or process.
3. Ability to draw conclusions from the concept, physical object, or process.
4. Ability to conclude opposing conclusions from the opposite of the concept, physical object, or process.
5. Ability to conclude the correct ideas when given the concept, physical object, or process.
6. Ability to conclude the correct opposite ideas when given the opposite of the concept, physical object, or process.

The third way of understanding is know-why. You may know what a WBS is and how to construct the WBS. However, your understanding is incomplete if you don’t know why you need to use a WBS. Know-why may seem the same as know-what, but there is a significant difference. For example, I may be an expert on Monte Carlo^[3] simulations in risk management. I can explain the concept and even create a spreadsheet that uses Monte Carlo simulations for risk management. However, I may not be able to explain why you need a Monte Carlo simulation in your project. I just want to use a Monte Carlo simulation in your simple weekend project to build a deck just because I like building Monte Carlo simulations. I know-what and I know-how but I don’t know-why we shouldn’t use the Monte Carlo simulation in your particular project.

More…

To read entire article, click here

How to cite this article: Author last name, first initial (2019). Title, PM World Journal, Volume VIII, Issue V, June. Available online at https://pmworldlibrary.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/pmwj82-Jun2019-Brantley-What-is-Understanding.pdf

About the Author

Dr. Bill Brantley

University of Maryland
College Park, MD, USA

Dr. Bill Brantley has an MBA in project management, became a certified PMP in 2003, and has taught project management courses for over a decade. He has taught project management communication for the University of Maryland’s Project Management Center for Excellence. During the day, he is a training administrator for the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office where he manages IT projects, training projects, and is an active contributor to the Federal government’s agile project management community. Dr. Brantley can be contacted at bill.brantley@gmail.com

[1] Dr. Brantley’s book The Persuasive Project Manager: Communicating for Understanding was published in 2019; the book is available at https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07NCC7KFN

[2] Work Breakdown Structure (WBS): according to the Project Management Institute, a WBS is a “deliverable oriented hierarchical decomposition of the work to be executed by the project team” A simpler way to define WBS is to think of all the tasks in a project. Now, imagine organizing the tasks into an outline. For example, let’s say you are planning a picnic. One set of tasks will be around packing a lunch. Another set of tasks would be packing games for the picnic. And there is an important set of tasks around driving to the picnic spot and setting up the picnic area. A WBS arranges these tasks in the order that a task must be completed before you can work on another task.

[3] Monte Carlo Simulation: To understand Monte Carlo simulations, imagine you are rolling a pair of dice with friends. In this dice game, each of you takes turns rolling the dice to see who rolls the highest sum for each round. To determine how likely it is you will win a round; you can program a spreadsheet to virtually roll the dice a thousand times to create a graph. This graph will show you the probability for each dice sum from 2 to 12. Monte Carlo simulations are often used to determine the probabilities for more complex project risk events.