A time of change

Reflections on my term as APM president



By David Waboso

United Kingdom



Project management and change go hand in hand. The most successful projects – and project managers – are those that embrace change and seek out the new.

During my three years as Association for Project Management (APM) president, the pace of change we have seen in the profession and within APM itself has been truly staggering.

When I took on the role of president in 2016, my ambition was to enhance APM’s status as a body that supports the needs of our profession, to further raise the profile of the profession at home and abroad.

Gaining our Royal Charter in 2017 was a significant step towards realising this ambition. Achieving chartered status is helping us to galvanise the profession and build recognition in the eyes of other professionals, organisations and the wider public. We have seen the creation of nearly 800 Chartered Project Professionals (ChPPs), including 495 within the first five months of the standard being announced in October 2018, according to the latest APM Member Review.

There are also other areas where I feel APM has made a real difference in building the strength of the profession:

  • Improving the delivery of the programmes and change that we manage, especially against the backdrop of increasing organisational and operational complexity.

This has been supported by an increasing range of APM research and thought leadership, development of relevant qualifications and e-learning. In addition, the themes of our recent conferences and events will help ensure APM is increasingly seen as the leading source of knowledge and insights for the project profession.

  • The need to manage the unprecedented rate of technology change sweeping across our personal and working lives across all sectors.

As a profession, we recognise this challenge and the continuing need to adapt. We can therefore provide the professional standards and framework to build a community of credible, capable and trusted professionals, delivering effective change in all sectors to all stakeholders.


To read entire article, click here


Editor’s note: This article appeared as a blog post on the APM website in July 2019.  It is republished here with APM and the author’s approval so the rest of the world can read his comments.

How to cite this article: Waboso, D. (2019). A time of change: Reflections on my term as APM president; PM World Journal, Vol. VIII, Issue VII, August.  Available online at https://pmworldlibrary.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/pmwj84-Aug2019-Waboso-a-time-of-change.pdf



About the Author

David Waboso

United Kingdom




David Waboso served as president of APM from 2016 to 2019. He was awarded an APM Honorary Fellowship in 2011. He is an internationally renowned engineer and project manager who has worked on some of the world’s most prestigious infrastructure programmes including Docklands Light Railway and the Jubilee Line Extension in the UK, projects for the European Rail Agency and World Bank funded infrastructure developments in Africa.

David has a passion for training and education. He has served on committees focusing on the teaching of STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) subjects in schools, speaks regularly to the media and radio/TV, and promotes opportunities for people of all backgrounds to realise their full potential in engineering and other professions.

David was awarded a CBE in 2013 for services to transport in London. He is a Chartered Engineer, a Fellow of the Royal Academy of Engineering, a Fellow of the Institution of Civil Engineers, a Fellow of the Institution of Railway Signal Engineers, and an Honorary Fellow of Association for Project Management.  He also holds a Fellowship to the City and Guilds Institute.



Future PM Trends



by Yu Yanjuan

Journalist, Project Management Review: PMR (China)

Beijing, China



At the end of 2018, this PM Review magazine (http://www.pmreview.com.cn/english/) journalist interviewed more than 20 top experts across the globe to collect their opinions about future PM trends. Based on the results, we summarized their observations into 17 trends.

Trend 1: Redefinition of Project Success

In VUCA era, projects are characterized by Volatility, Uncertainty, Complexity and Ambiguity. Therefore, it is necessary to redefine the criterion of project success. Doctor Harold Kerzner pointed out that we will not merely rely on scope, time and cost to measure project success and that business value creation will be an essential criterion. Professor Wang Xiaojin said, “Faced with rapidly-changing technology and markets, projects, as the means for organizations to embrace changes, will play an increasingly important role. Therefore, measuring project success should focus on the extent to which projects have achieved expected changes for organizations and on the business value created by the changes. When talking about the definition of projects, PMBOK Guide (6th edition) added ‘driving change’ and ‘creating business value’, which aims to remind us not to forget the original reason of doing projects. It’s unreasonable to do projects only for doing projects.” Professor Ou Lixiong emphasized that project success should not merely be measured in terms of delivering the deliverable within agreed framework but in terms of the satisfaction of key stakeholders. Professor Ding Ronggui emphasized that in terms of the criterion of project success we should learn from Eastern philosophy: more synthesis, less decomposition.

Trend 2: From Agile Tools to Agile Mindset

The application of Agile is getting more and more common. It is reported that 75% companies in Netherlands and Belgium adopt agile methods, but many ended up in failure. Relevant surveys show that the most common reason is that corporate philosophy and culture cannot adapt to agile practice. Reinhard Wagner, Chairman of the IPMA Council of Delegates, said, “Agile is an ongoing trend, but the focus should shift from agile methods and tools to agile leadership, mindsets and cultures. Application of agile methods and tools will fail if the embedding organization is not ready for it. Agile projects require the leaders to give more space to maneuver to project teams, to let them self-organize, to enable creativity and innovation. The top-down mentality will disappear over time, otherwise agile project management is a farce.” To embrace this trend, IPMA has initiated Agile Leadership Certification.

Trend 3: From Responding to Change to Embracing Change

In VUCA era, change is constant and inevitable. Since change also means new possible projects and opportunities, project management and change management should go hand in hand. In our interview, it is agreed among experts that we should change our attitude towards change, which means making good use of disruptive technologies to identify opportunities in the course of change rather than passively responding to changes. Professor Ou Lixiong explains, “In light of the VUCA era ushering in an era of change, it also means the opening of doors to a world of new possibilities and opportunities. This also means that the study of ‘how to manage opportunities’ would be an area that is worth researching. Also we previously used to emphasize on ‘responding to change’, however, now we should put emphasis on ‘embracing change’. Previously when encountering changes, we may wonder if there are problems but now faced with changes we should try to identify opportunities. Therefore, for project managers the attitude towards changes needs changing.”

Matti Ahvenharju, former IPMA Vice President, has proposed the concept of Management of Opportunities by Projects (MoP), which I believe will have more room for application in the future.


To read entire article, click here


Editor’s note: This article was first published in PMR, Project Management Review magazine, China.  It is republished here with the permission of PMR. The PM World Journal maintains a cooperative relationship with PMR, periodically republishing works from each other’s publications. To learn more about PMR, visit http://www.pmreview.com.cn/english/

How to cite this article: Yanjuan, Y. (2019). Future PM Trends; PM World Journal, Vol. VIII, Issue VII, August. Available online at https://pmworldlibrary.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/pmwj84-Aug2019-Yanjuan-future-pm-trends.pdf



About the Author

Yu Yanjuan

Beijing, China




Yu Yanjuan (English name: Spring), Bachelor’s Degree, graduated from the English Department of Beijing International Studies University (BISU) in China. She is now an English-language journalist and editor working for Project Management Review Magazine and website. She has interviewed over forty top experts in the field of project management. In the past, she has worked as a journalist and editor for other media platforms in China. She has also worked part-time as an English teacher in various training centers in Beijing. For work contact, she can be

reached via email yuyanjuan2005@163.com  or LinkedIn at https://www.linkedin.com/in/yanjuanyu-76b280151/.



Alexander and the Indian King – Part 3



By John Schlichter

Georgia, USA




Empathy episode #1 led quickly to empathy episode #2. Hocking an abbreviated set of cryptic questions in an appendix of the OPM3 standard as a substitute for the Capability Statements, PMI decided to remove the Capability Statements altogether, which essentially meant removing the original product (i.e. the directory of Capability Statements) from its packaging or from the book written to introduce the Capability Statements. That’s not a criticism of the book or its author. The book was written by a professional writer named Paul Wesman whom PMI hired to turn concepts and language dictated by me and a handful of others into something presentable. Paul and I had a great working relationship: Paul wrote “John directed the original team that developed OPM3 for PMI, and I was the technical writer on the team. John was a creative, visionary thinker in his field.” Paul was a masterful writer. But the book, which a very small number of people were involved in creating, was not the original standard; the directory of Capability Statements was. If PMI’s customers buy a copy of the book that is the OPM3 standard from PMI today, what they will get is the packaging for the Capability Statements but not the Capability Statements themselves. PMI decided to repackage the Capability Statements in software. I was invited to advise PMI on the matter.

The new packaging was software named ProductSuite, a database version of OPM3’s Capability Statements created by Det Norske Veritas (DNV) on behalf of PMI based on the logical data model I had authored. Users were supposed to use ProductSuite to perform assessments of organizations and plan improvements based on those assessments. While I was delighted that ProductSuite was not another OPM3 Online, that ProductSuite based OPM3 assessments on the Capability Statements, and that ProductSuite got OPM3’s logical data model right, I tried to do the job I was asked to do for PMI (to advise them), and told PMI reasons why the software was unnecessarily problematic and why it would probably never result in the most useful and valuable knowledge that one would hope to create through the aggregation of benchmark data, i.e. data comparing the ability of respective organizations to implement their strategies through project, program, and portfolio management (described in terms of the maturity levels and capabilities of those organizations). The GUI was confusing, the workflow was convoluted, and functionality was limited. I would wager if you asked anyone who used ProductSuite whether this is an accurate description, they would affirm that it is, with the possible exception, naturally, of certain persons who worked on creating ProductSuite at PMI and DNV.

I won’t bore you with the details except to say that ProductSuite’s least attractive feature may have been that it was designed so users had to access ProductSuite over the Internet and allow their assessment data to be saved remotely in ProductSuite, which raised privacy issues of the sort that now plague Facebook for the simple reason that requiring customers to aggregate their data in a 3rd party product that is hosted remotely can result in a breach of trust. But Facebook did not exist back then, and PMI was not convinced by such critiques. PMI required users not only to access ProductSuite via the Internet but to save their assessment data in ProductSuite on those remote servers. The user could delete that data later, after exposing secrets to the risk of prying eyes. It came as no surprise that there were instances of corrupted assessment data, which I had warned PMI could happen from the outset. Speaking for myself, I never uploaded assessment data to ProductSuite that reflected the reality of any client’s capabilities. As years went by, PMI never produced any OPM3 benchmark data, and OPM3 users were continuously disappointed by the discovery that the OPM3 Standard did not contain the essential ingredients needed to implement it.

To be clear, I am not aware of any actual privacy breaches that resulted from this risk of one. And to PMI’s credit, ProductSuite was a huge improvement on OPM3 Online. But the OPM3 standard was updated to exclude the essential ingredients (the Capability Statements), and PMI required customers to buy the ProductSuite software to get access to those essential ingredients without clearly warning users of privacy risks and without stating that PMI would not create derivative products or reports based on assessment data without the users’ explicit permission. PMI’s logic justified PMI’s decisions, which plainly reduced PMI’s OPM3 standard to a commercial product in risky ways that gave PMI the power to corner essential aspects of the market for professional services pertaining to the execution of strategies through projects. And this aroused a schism regarding PMI’s purpose.


Unfortunately, you couldn’t buy the ProductSuite software. You had to rent it, which is how empathy episode #2 brings us to empathy episode #3. As of 2006, PMI made users pay thousands of dollars to get certified in the ProductSuite software, which was remarkably user-unfriendly, and then users had to pay thousands of dollars annually in maintenance fees to continue to use it. OPM3 had been designed not to require expensive software, but users were locked in because there was no other way to access the Capability Statements. Full disclosure: I was hired to create the entrance exam for this certification and to pilot the certification classes, but I was outspoken that the Capability Statements should not be excluded from the OPM3 standard, that users should not be required to upload their assessment data to third-party servers, and that the pricing of the certification and software should be reconsidered. PMI’s executives were not convinced by these pleas.

Excepting a small number of consultants, most people I pitched OPM3 to balked at the prospect of paying many thousands of dollars for the certification followed by many more thousands of dollars each year for software PMI had created from the work of PMI volunteers who never intended their work to be commercialized that way. To empathize with PMI, I see this as an organic strategy that was probably simply PMI’s attempt to lead the way by following a path familiar to PMI, noting that PMI had created only one foundational standard to date (the PMBOK Guide) and only one prior certification (the PMP). Choices were made with imperfect knowledge of this new market and how to support it, choices that reflected PMI’s expertise, which pertained more to controlling the IP than to ensuring it was used correctly. The latter would have required expertise from volunteers who had been alienated by past missteps and the risk of a monopoly. Consequently, the individuals comprising the relatively small community of consultants who were certified in ProductSuite were only certified in the functions of the software, i.e. how to start the software, how to open a new assessment project file, how to import Capability Statements into that assessment project file, etc. They were not certified in their knowledge of how to advance through the maturity levels of OPM3 or in their ability to guide an organization through those levels. And frankly, a great many had no idea how to do those things (which I know because PMI hired me to teach the OPM3 certification classes for about the first year of those classes, and I asked all the students). For many, it may have simply been the case that they did not know what they did not know.


To read entire article, click here


How to cite this article: Schlichter, J.  (2019). Alexander and the Indian King: Part 3; PM World Journal, Vol. VIII, Issue VII, August.  Available online at https://pmworldlibrary.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/pmwj84-Aug2019-Schlichter-Alexander-and-the-Indian-King-Part3-1.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/



Continuous Process Improvement

as a Function of Program Management



By Steve Ford

Colorado, USA



Continuous Process Improvement (CPI) is the process of improving processes. While a somewhat esoteric definition, the reality is that CPI is ubiquitous throughout industry and is necessary to improve the manner in which a company develops and implements processes (Eaton, 2013; Carleton, 2016). A robust CPI program can result in overall improvements in the efficiency and effectiveness of both existing and emerging processes, thereby helping to streamline the overall production process, to include the critical path (Eaton, 2013; Carleton, 2016).

Continuous Process Improvement (CPI) also refers to the management effort of improving organizations via a focus on customer satisfaction as a function of organizational effectiveness and efficiency (Eaton, 2013; Carleton, 2016). CPI is not difficult to reconcile within existing practices of program management, as it is now considered mainstream and is therefore commonly accepted as a facet of program management. Indeed, the Project Management Institute (PMI) lists it as a process within the discipline of program management (PMI, 2013). Six Sigma, Lean, Total Quality Management (TQM), International Organization for Standardization (ISO), and Agile techniques all have their established places in program management (Sanchez & Blanco, 2014).

Paradoxically, CPI is both hundreds, if not thousands, of years old and also an emergent trend in program management (Eaton, 2013). CPI includes a philosophy of continually improving one’s processes for production, which is apparent in ancient weapon and pottery production processes (Eaton, 2013). It is also evident in the more recent example of the commonly accepted birth of Lean, the Venetian galley production process in the 16th century. By utilizing Lean concepts such as “standardized processes and interchangeable parts” (Eaton, 2013, p. 4), the Venetians could produce a high-quality, low-cost galley in as little as an hour (Eaton, 2013). In the last 50 years, the Toyota Production System and Motorola’s manufacturing arm showed similar results regarding cost and quality (Carleton, 2016).

As well as being an ancient philosophy, CPI is an emerging trend in program management, only receiving broad acclaim in the last 50 years (Vanwersch et al., 2016). Modern CPI can trace its roots to the work of Shewhart in the 1920’s and his work regarding controls and statistical analysis of systems (Eaton, 2013). However, it was not until Deming and his work with Japanese industry in the 1950s that CPI gained notoriety following the Japanese industrial explosion centered around lower costs and higher quality (Carleton, 2016). Even more recently, CPI techniques such as Just-in-Time (1970s), International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 9000 (1980s), Six Sigma (1980s), Total Quality Management (TQM) (1980s), Lean (1990s), and Agile (1990s) are still currently being adopted and adapted by program managers across all industries (Eaton, 2013; Carleton, 2016; Sanchez & Blanco, 2014).

CPI’s Emergence, Relevance, and Importance

The major CPI initiatives include Just-in-Time (JIT), Six Sigma, Total Quality Management (TQM), Lean, ISO, and Agile (Sanchez & Blanco, 2014). All six of these methodologies existed for some time before being thoroughly vetted and defined. As previously discussed, the Venetians instituted Lean methods in the 16th century. Six Sigma practices can be traced to Shewhart’s work with control charts in the 1920s. In short, all six of these now mainstream methods can be traced back decades, which is why the more recent emergence of formal methodologies in the last 30 years is paradoxical.

Even if the methods existed previously, it was not until the late 1970s that these systems were codified and instituted at a global level. Along with a substantial shift towards efficiency and quality in the manufacturing industry, CPI as a philosophy hit its stride in the 1980s (Sanchez & Blanco, 2014). Since then, CPI has been included in every major program and project management instructional course (Vanwersch et al., 2016). It is now a part of health care initiatives, the service industry, and mainstream to the point that the Environmental Protection Agency recently stood up an office of continuous improvement (Environmental Protection Agency, 2018).

In any case, CPI’s emergence and relevance is, like the methodology itself, a continually evolving mechanism. New methods are introduced continuously, such as Lean Six Sigma being introduced as late as 2001. Tweaks to the Agile process were released in 2011 (Vanwersch et al., 2016). All six primary methods of CPI are undergoing the CPI process, enabling more specific and effective practices, in addition to a near-constant emergence cycle.


To read entire paper, click here


How to cite this paper: Ford, S. (2019). Continuous Process Improvement as a Function of Program Management; PM World Journal, Vol. VIII, Issue VII, August.  Available online at https://pmworldlibrary.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/pmwj84-Aug2019-Ford-continuous-process-improvement-as-function-of-program-management.pdf



About the Author

Steve Ford

Colorado, USA




Steve Ford holds a BS from the US Air Force Academy (2004), an MS in Space Studies from the University of North Dakota (2009), and is currently in the Doctorate of Management- Project Management program at Colorado Technical University (2021). Steve is currently the managing member of Advanced Applied Project Management Solutions (LLC), a project management consultant firm. He holds numerous project management-related qualifications, including Project Management Professional (PMP), Lean Six Sigma Black Belt Professional, Project Management- Lean Process Certified, Lean Supply Chain Management Certified, and Lean Culture Certified. He has more than 18 years of aerospace and construction experience in project management.  He can be contacted at steven.w.ford.jr@gmail.com.



What is the Difference Between DevOps and Scrum?



By Brian Vanderjack

Illinois, USA



As a professor in the graduate program at Illinois Institute of Technology, in the Information Technology Management department, I teach Information Technology (IT) team leadership, mainly via scrum and waterfall. During class discussion last semester, one of my top students asked, “What the difference was between Scrum and DevOps?” This article will capture the answer that I provided to this student and will answer this question for others who have the same question. The outline I will use to address this question is:

  • What Agile is (and what it has to do with Scrum and DevOps);
  • What Scrum is;
  • What DevOps is; and
  • What the difference is between DevOps and Scrum.

This is an important discussion become Scrum is now recognized as a significant contributor to success in the IT space and DevOps is becoming a key component of adding business value in the IT industry. Having IT people read this article could introduce them for the first time to DevOps and Scrum, encouraging even more organizations to employ Scrum and DevOps as competitive weapons in the marketplace.

 What is Agile, and what does it have to do with Scrum and DevOps?

“Agile is credited for ‘dramatically’ increasing the productivity of many (software) development organizations” (Kim, Humble, & Willis, 2016, p. 5). The seminal document that defines the Agile movement, quoted below in its entirety, is hosted on the website AgileManifesto.org (2001):

Manifesto for Agile Software Development

We are uncovering better ways of developing
software by doing it and helping others do it.
Through this work we have come to value:

  • Individuals and interactions over processes and tools
  • Working software over comprehensive documentation
  • Customer collaboration over contract negotiation
  • Responding to change over following a plan

That is, while there is value in the items on
the right, we value the items on the left more.

(authors) Kent Beck, Mike Beedle, Arie van Bennekum,
Alistair Cockburn, Ward Cunningham, Martin Fowler,
James Grenning, Jim Highsmith, Andrew Hunt, Ron Jeffries,
Jon Kern, Brian Marick, Robert C. Martin, Steve Mellor,
Ken Schwaber, Jeff Sutherland, and Dave Thomas

There are a few development methodologies used in IT to achieve the above standards, and Scrum is one of these methodologies.

On the next web page of the Agile Manifesto, there are 12 “principles.” One of these principles opened the door for “DevOps,” which aims to “Deliver working software frequently, from a couple of weeks to a couple of months, with a preference to the shorter timescale” (Beck et al., 2001). I have underscored the words in the relevant principle (above) that can be considered to have launched the DevOps movement.

So, what can you tell me about scrum?


To read entire article, click here


How to cite this article: Vanderjack, B. (2019).  What is the Difference Between DevOps and Scrum? PM World Journal, Vol. VIII, Issue VII, August. Available online at https://pmworldlibrary.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/pmwj84-Aug2019-Vanderjack-what-is-difference-between-devops-and-scrum.pdf



About the Author

Brian Vanderjack

Illinois, USA




Brian Vanderjack, PMP, MBA, PMI-ACP, CSM is a graduate level adjunct faculty member at Illinois Institute of Technology (IIT), a top 100 University in the USA.  For IIT he is a professor of Information Technology Team Leadership (mainly using Scrum and Project Management).  In 2019, he was awarded Adjunct Faculty of the year from his department.  He was a contributing subject matter expert for the creation of AT&T’s class on How to Pass PMI’s Agile Certified Practitioner certification exam; this class has a 100% pass rate.  He has also taught many classes on how-to-pass-the-PMI-PMP-certification-exam.

Brian’s professional certifications are: The Project Management Institute’s (PMI) Project Management Professional (PMP), MBA (earned from DePaul University “with distinction”), Certified Scrum Master (CSM), and PMI’s-Agile Certified Practitioner (PMI-ACP). Brian’s title at the Fortune 10 company which currently employs him during the days as his full-time-day-career is “Senior Scrum Master.”  His track record of success there includes 8 years as a successful Sr. Scrum Master and Agile Coach.  Also, he served as a Project Manager for over 10 years at this Fortune 10 company.

As an award-winning nationally respected speaker, he has spoken at many venues including Microsoft, IBM, AT&T, Abbot Labs, Freddie Mac, IIBA Chapters, and many PMI chapters across the USA on team leadership, communication, emotional intelligence, Scrum, and Project Management.  He has also spoken at the University of Chicago’s Booth Graduate School of Business and Northwestern University’s Kellogg Graduate School of Business.

His ability to share information has resulted in many articles published in the PM World Journal (distribution approx. 15,000), and a book on Agile/Scrum called “The Agile Edge” which was published by Business Expert Press.  He is honored to have received over 1,000 Linkedin “endorsements”, and dozens of LinkedIn “recommendations” for his contributions in leadership and other areas.  At his former university, he was honored to have earned “faculty of the year” for teaching Project Management.

Also, a special thank you to Jeremy Hajek for providing feedback on this article.  Brian can be reached at BVanderjac@gmail.com.


The PNR (Positive to Negative Ratio)


Positive Leadership in Project Management


By Frank Saladis, PMP, PMI Fellow

New York, NY, USA



We all know that there are many leadership styles in the business world and what works for one leader may not work for another. In any case, and in any organization, leaders must be aware of how they interact with people, especially their subordinates, and continuously monitor how people react to the leader’s personal style and behaviors. Most people, when asked about the characteristics of an effective leader, mention the following traits or skills: Effective communicator, ability to motivate, establishes a clear vision, works at a high energy level, highly trustworthy, displays passion,  shows dedication to the team, has the ability to work effectively with people, and so on.  These are all traits commonly associated with leadership.

In my search for information about leadership, I found something else that can have a significant impact on the people who report to leaders: The PNR or positive to negative ratio.  The PNR is described in an article entitled “The Impact of Positive Leadership” by Tom Rath, co-author of the book “How Full is Your Bucket?” The article focuses on the typical positive and negative interactions an employee may encounter on any given day. The PNR is the ratio of bad or unpleasant interactions to the good or positive interactions. An unbalanced ratio can lead to the loss of key employees. The manager should therefore be aware of his or her contribution to the PNR. As Tom Rath states, “ Unless you are actively working, today and every day, to make sure your employee has more positive interactions, you may soon have a disengaged employee on your hands—or worse, you could lose one of your best people.

For the project manager, the PNR, which appears to be connected to, or part of the subject “Emotional Intelligence”, is a factor that must be considered in the course of day to day managerial and leadership activities. Take a good look at your style and how you interact with your project team. What is the PNR? Consider your first hour of work yesterday or today. How many of your interactions were positive and how many were negative? Here’s an example of a negative interaction:

You have a meeting scheduled for 9pm. One of your key project team members is ten minutes late, and when he arrives and takes his seat you make a comment like, “Well, I guess we can get started now.”

This type of comment is fairly common in many organizations and considered by many as “acceptable sarcasm.” This is definitely a negative interaction. How often do you or others on your team make these types of comments? Probably more than you realize. Here’s another:


To read entire article, click here


Editor’s note: This article is one in a series on Positive Leadership in Project Management is by Frank Saladis, PMP, PMI Fellow, popular speaker and author of books on leadership in project management published by Wiley and IIL in the United States. Frank is widely known as the originator of the International Project Management Day, the annual celebrations and educational events conducted each November by PMI members, chapters and organizations around the world.

How to cite this paper: Saladis, F. (2019). The PNR (Positive to Negative Ratio): Positive Leadership in Project Management, series article 2. PM World Journal, Vol. VIII, Issue VII, August. Available online at https://pmworldlibrary.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/pmwj84-Aug2019-Saladis-the-PNR-positive-leadership-series-article2.pdf



About the Author

Frank P. Saladis

New York, USA




Frank P. Saladis, PMP, PMI Fellow is a Consultant and Instructor / Facilitator within the project management profession and has over 35 years of experience in the IT, Telecom Installation and IT Project Management training environment. He is a senior consultant and trainer for the International Institute For Learning Inc. and has been involved in the development of several project management learning programs. Mr. Saladis has held the position of Project Manager for AT&T Business Communications Systems, National Project Manager for AT&T Solutions Information Technology Services and was a member of Cisco Systems Professional Services Project Management Advocacy Organization. His responsibilities included the development of Project Management Offices (PMO) and the development of internal training programs addressing project management skills and techniques.

He is a Project Management Professional and has been a featured presenter at the Project Management Institute ® Annual Symposiums, Project World, PMI World Congress, CMMA, and many PMI Chapter professional development programs. He is a past president of the PMI New York City Chapter and a Past-President of the PMI ® Assembly of Chapter Presidents. Mr. Saladis is a Co-Publisher of the internationally distributed newsletter for allPM.com, a project management information portal, and a contributor to the allPM.com project management website.

Mr. Saladis is the originator of International Project Management Day and has written numerous leadership and project management related articles. Mr. Saladis is also the author of the Project Management Workbook and PMP ® / CAPM ® Exam Study Guide that supplements Dr. Harold Kerzner’s textbook – Project Management, A Systems Approach to Planning, Scheduling and Controlling?, 9th Edition published by John Wiley & Sons and the author of Positive Leadership in Project Management, published by IIL Publishing. He is a member of the International Executive Guild and the NRCC Business Advisory Council. He has also held the position of Vice President of Education for the Global Communications Technology Specific Interest Group of PMI ® and holds a Master’s Certificate in Commercial Project Management from the George Washington University. Mr. Saladis received the prestigious Lynn Stuckenbrook Person of the Year Award from the Project management Institute in 2006 for his contributions to the organization and to the practice of project management.  He can be contacted at saladispmp@msn.com



3. Contexts of projects undertaken

by supplier organisations (SOs) and by owner organisations (OOs)


Series on Project Contexts


By Alan Stretton, PhD (Hon)

Sydney, Australia




This is the third of a series of seven articles which identify and discuss a variety of key contexts which impact on the management of projects. The basic reason for developing this series is that there is far too little attention given to the contexts of projects in the relevant literature – particularly when you consider that, in practice, effective management of projects’ contexts is usually quite critical to achieving overall project management (PM) success.

The first article of this series (Stretton 2019e) identified six key types of project contexts. These were summarised pictorially into a combined model, depicted in skeleton format in Figure 1 to the left.

The second article of this series (Stretton 2019f) was concerned with further discussion of the context of organisational strategic management. This third article is concerned with supplier organisations (SOs) and owner organisations (OOs) as indicated by heavier outlines in Figure 1. It will focus on two groups of extended SO services, and with OOs that create and manage long-term assets.


Some definitions/descriptors of the two types of organisations – SOs and OOs

There are two quite different groups of organizations that plan and execute projects. Taggart 2015 describes them as Supplier Organizations (SOs) and Owner Organizations (OOs). For many years I followed Cooke-Davies 2002 in describing these as project-based and production-based organizations respectively. I borrowed from Archibald et al 2012 (who use different descriptors) in defining them as follows:

  • Project-based organizations [SOs] derive most (if not all) of their revenue and/or other benefits from creating and delivering projects.
  • Production-based organizations [OOs] derive most (if not all) of their revenue and/or benefits from producing and selling products and services. They utilize projects to create or improve new products and services, enter new markets, or otherwise improve or change their organizations.

Lehmann’s list of differences for project management between SOs and OOs

Lehmann 2016 uses the descriptor “customer projects” to describe projects delivered by an SO to an OO, and “internal projects” to describe projects run internally by an OO. I adapted his table of differences as shown below in Figure 2 (originally in Stretton 2017e).

Other differences for project management between SOs and OOs

I added the following observations about such differences:

  • In the SO context the project manager often has to cover a wider range of project life-cycle processes than in the OO context.
  • The extent of the project manager’s responsibility and authority in the SO context is generally far greater than in OOs.
  • In the SO context, our perspective in Civil & Civic (C&C) was that if you were managing a project, you were managing a business, and that that was the project manager’s job, albeit with appropriate support.
  • The project management literature tends to focus on internal OO projects. However, Taggart 2015 suggests that there appear to be more project people working in SOs than OOs, and that bodies of knowledge should give more guidelines that are particular to project management in SOs.



To read entire article, click here


How to cite this paper: Stretton, A. (2019). 3. Contexts of projects undertaken by supplier organisations (SOs) and by owner organisations, Series on Project Contexts, series article 3. PM World Journal, Volume VIII, Issue VII, August. Available online at https://pmworldlibrary.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/pmwj84-Aug2019-Stretton-projects-by-supplier-and-owner-organisations-PM-context-series-3.pdf



About the Author

Alan Stretton, PhD      

Faculty Corps, University of Management
and Technology, Arlington, VA (USA)
Life Fellow, AIPM (Australia)



Alan Stretton is one of the pioneers of modern project management.  He is currently a member of the Faculty Corps for the University of Management & Technology (UMT), USA.  In 2006 he retired from a position as Adjunct Professor of Project Management in the Faculty of Design, Architecture and Building at the University of Technology, Sydney (UTS), Australia, which he joined in 1988 to develop and deliver a Master of Project Management program.   Prior to joining UTS, Mr. Stretton worked in the building and construction industries in Australia, New Zealand and the USA for some 38 years, which included the project management of construction, R&D, introduction of information and control systems, internal management education programs and organizational change projects.  He has degrees in Civil Engineering (BE, Tasmania) and Mathematics (MA, Oxford), and an honorary PhD in strategy, programme and project management (ESC, Lille, France).  Alan was Chairman of the Standards (PMBOK) Committee of the Project Management Institute (PMI®) from late 1989 to early 1992.  He held a similar position with the Australian Institute of Project Management (AIPM), and was elected a Life Fellow of AIPM in 1996.  He was a member of the Core Working Group in the development of the Australian National Competency Standards for Project Management.  He has published over 200 professional articles and papers.  Alan can be contacted at alanailene@bigpond.com.au.

To see more works by Alan Stretton, visit his author showcase in the PM World Library at http://pmworldlibrary.net/authors/alan-stretton/.



The Cooperative Transformation


Project Business Management


By Oliver F. Lehmann

Munich, Germany


“It is the long history of humankind (and animal kind, too) that those who learned
to collaborate and improvise most effectively have prevailed.”
Charles Darwin


The growing trend to cross-corporate projects done as businesses between customers and contractors challenge the ability of organizations and individuals to cooperate. Humans and their organizations are generally able to cooperate, however, the specific setting with its issues on project management level as much as on legal and commercial level makes it particularly difficult. A transformation is necessary to benefit from this trend.

Innovating Innovation

I often think back to the late 20th century, when I was employed in a leading position in a process-engineering company. Processes here in the meaning of classical chemical and physical processes, that were used in industries, such as automotive and aerospace. In my company, we had a Research and Development (R&D) department, internally, of course, that had a red “Entry for authorized personnel only” sign on its doors. The majority of corporate staff was prohibited from entering the rooms, in which the future products of our company were developed, those products that would secure our future. The innovative work was done inside the protective walls of the company, and the walls of the R&D added further protection.

I also remember the Chairman of the board of the company, an elderly, mostly unshaved man, who could spend days playing golf and nights in the R&D lab, mixing chemicals and developing physical processes for their application, and many of them were truly ground-breaking.

He was not formally educated in process engineering (I never found out, what his actual education was) and it was definitively not his ordinary job, but he was a kind of natural-born talent in process invention.

When he showed us in the morning the results of his long nights, everyone was impressed, however the next problem was, that he rarely documented his inventive work, so we had a perfect test tube of chemistry for which there was no recipe. It could not be reproduced, at least not accurately enough to deliver the lab performance.

I also remember that I received by that time an invitation by the University of Stuttgart to speak to their researchers. I was surprised to meet there the CEO of our direct competitor. He spoke before me and then listened to my lecture. We made a decision to sit together in a nearby restaurant after the event and talk about business. He was a man who loved talking, and I could derive a lot about the business situation of his company and where they stood with certain customers. Great information that I communicated home the next day.

The response was not a friendly one. “How could you sit and talk with that man? You are a soldier for the company, and you have to know, who the enemy is!” On that day, I decided to leave the company. I was their employee, not their soldier.

Today, as a trainer, I am a visitor in similar companies for preparatory talks and for in-house seminars. There are still internal R&D departments, of course, but for many of them, the entire working style has been changed. The lion share of the work is no more done internally but by contractors. The R&D department’s job is rather to is to distribute the work among them, to decide, which contractor does what research, and when.

There is not even certainty that the contractor does the work. The contractor may give it to one or more subcontractors, when specific skills are missing in-house, or when the lab capacity is not there to do the work. If the work is passed over, the customer may be aware and accepts it. Sometimes, customer are not aware and would not accept it if they knew.

Figure 1 illustrates, how projects such as R&D-driven innovation projects are no more done inside the more or less cozy world of the organization but extend out to external contractors. This brings new issues that need to be dealt with, such as contractual matters, non-disclosure of corporate secrets and general protection of intellectual property.

From a project management perspective, the traditional cross-functional character of internal projects is getting replaced with a cross-corporate fashion of doing projects, and the question remains, whether project managers are sufficiently prepared for this change.


To read entire article, click here


Editor’s note: This series of articles is by Oliver Lehmann, author of the book “Project Business Management” (ISBN 9781138197503), published by Auerbach / Taylor & Francis in 2018. See author profile below.

How to cite this article: Lehmann, O. (2019). The Cooperative Transformation; Series on Project Business Management; PM World Journal, Vol. VIII, Issue VII, August.  Available online at https://pmworldlibrary.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/pmwj84-Aug2019-Lehmann-The-Cooperative-Transformation.pdf



About the Author

Oliver F. Lehmann

Munich, Germany




Oliver F. Lehmann, MSc., PMP, is a project management author, consultant, speaker and teacher. He studied Linguistics, Literature and History at the University of Stuttgart and Project Management at the University of Liverpool, UK, where he holds a Master of Science Degree. Oliver has trained thousands of project managers in Europe, USA and Asia in methodological project management with a focus on certification preparation. In addition, he is a visiting lecturer at the Technical University of Munich.

He has been a member and volunteer at PMI, the Project Management Institute, since 1998, and served five years as the President of the PMI Southern Germany Chapter until April 2018. Between 2004 and 2006, he contributed to PMI’s PM Network magazine, for which he provided a monthly editorial on page 1 called “Launch”, analyzing troubled projects around the world.

Oliver believes in three driving forces for personal improvement in project management: formal learning, experience and observations. He resides in Munich, Bavaria, Germany and can be contacted at oliver@oliverlehmann.com.

Oliver Lehmann is the author of “Situational Project Management: The Dynamics of Success and Failure” (ISBN 9781498722612), published by Auerbach / Taylor & Francis in 2016 and ofProject Business Management” (ISBN 9781138197503), published by Auerbach / Taylor & Francis in 2018.

To view other works by Oliver Lehmann, visit his author showcase in the PM World Library at https://pmworldlibrary.net/authors/oliver-f-lehmann/



A strategic approach to product stewardship


Advances in Project Management Series


By Dr Helen Lewis

Sydney, Australia




Product stewardship is no longer a discretionary activity confined to businesses that want to ‘do the right thing’. There is growing government and consumer interest in the social and environmental impacts of products, from their supply chain through to end of life. This represents both a risk and an opportunity for businesses that make, sell or recover products.

Most product stewardship programs are a reaction to regulations or pressure from external groups. Responsiveness to stakeholder expectations on issues such as worker safety, hazardous substances and recycling can be beneficial, for example by improving a company’s reputation. A more proactive and strategic approach is to look for opportunities that create ‘shared value’: that simultaneously achieve social and environmental objectives while building long-term competitiveness.[i]

This article presents a strategic, shared value approach to product stewardship. It can be used by companies to reduce the life cycle impacts of their products while building business value, for example by reducing costs, improving access to raw materials or building customer loyalty.

Drivers for product stewardship

While product stewardship is often driven by stakeholder perceptions or expectations about a specific issue in the product life cycle, a more strategic approach also considers the available scientific evidence and how stakeholder concerns interact with business priorities. As Porter and Kramer argue, stakeholder views are important, but:

…these groups can never understand a corporation’s capabilities, competitive positioning, or the trade-offs it must make. Nor does the vehemence of a stakeholder group necessarily signify the importance of an issue—either to the company or to the world.[ii]

In practice most companies are driven to act by a combination of factors, including stakeholder expectations, evidence of product impacts and business goals and priorities. A systematic approach to product stewardship involves careful evaluation of all three drivers to guide decision making within firms (Error! Reference source not found.).

Figure 1: Three steps towards a product stewardship strategy

The following section considers each one of the three drivers for product stewardship individually: stakeholders, product research, and business priorities.


To read entire article, click here


Editor’s note: The Advances in Project Management series includes articles by authors of program and project management books published by Routledge worldwide. Information about Routledge project management books can be found here.

How to cite this paper: Lewis, H. (2019). A Strategic Approach to Product Stewardship, PM World Journal, Vol. VIII, Issue VII, August. Available online at https://pmworldlibrary.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/pmwj84-Aug2019-Lewis-a-strategic-approach-to-product-stewardship.pdf



About the Author

Dr Helen Lewis

Principal, Helen Lewis Research
Sydney, Australia




Dr Helen Lewis runs her own consulting business, providing research and strategic advice to a range of industry and government clients on product stewardship and packaging. She is an Adjunct Professor with the Institute for Sustainable Futures (ISF) at the University of Technology Sydney and a consultant to the Australian Packaging Covenant Organisation (APCO). IN 2017 Helen co-founded the Product Stewardship Cluster to promote knowledge sharing and collaboration between product stewardship organisations.

Helen has written widely on product stewardship and corporate social responsibility including several books. She published Product stewardship in action in 2016 and is a co-author of Packaging for sustainability (2012) and Design + Environment (2001). She has a PhD in product stewardship and is a Fellow of the Australian Institute of Packaging.


[i] Porter, M., & Kramer, M. (2011). The big idea: Creating shared value. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2011/01/the-big-idea-creating-shared-value

[ii] Porter, M., & Kramer, M. (2006, December). Strategy and society: the link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility. Harvard Business Review, pp. 1-16 (p. 8).


Taking responsibility for our actions

The return of stewardship


Advances in Project Management


By Prof Darren Dalcher

Director, National Centre for Project Management
Lancaster University Management School

United Kingdom



Do our actions matter? Can we, or the actions that we take, make a difference beyond our own sphere and influence? Should we therefore consider the global impact of our intentions?

We are often far too occupied with our own interests, preferences, priorities, issues, concerns and tribulations to observe the wider implications and impacts beyond our immediate context. Yet, it increasingly appears that our private little arrangements and engagements can still make a difference to the wider world beyond our immediate and obvious concerns. This article aims to encourage a more responsible and considerate mindset.

Love unchained

Love padlocks, or lovelocks, are padlocks attached to a bridge, fence, gate, post or monument by couples to symbolise and attest their everlasting love. Couples typically inscribe their names or initials onto the lock before affixing it to a public monument or gateway and throwing away the key into a river or waterway to symbolise the unbreakable bond that has been sealed through such action.

For the individuals involved lovelocks are a harmless phenomenon demonstrating an aspiration for a life-long, unbreakable commitment to their partnership. Indeed, one could argue that lovelocks are significantly less obtrusive than carving, daubing or plastering the names onto a bridge, monument, ancient wall, prehistoric ruin, subterranean cave or a natural beauty spot.

Lovelocks appear to have proliferated in many countries and regions since the early 2000s, particularly adorning bridges in the centre of main cities. In Rome, the attaching of lovelocks to the Ponte Milvio bridge was documented in a popular book, I Want You by Federico Moccia published in 2006 and further immortalised when it was adapted into a film in 2007.

Nonetheless, many people associate lovelocks with the Pont des Arts bridge in the centre of Paris. Pont des Arts, also known as Passerelle des Arts, is a popular pedestrian bridge which crosses the River Seine, connecting the Institut de France to the central square of the Palais Du Louvre. It was the first iron bridge built in France, which opened in 1804 as a toll footbridge. In 1991, UNESCO listed the entire Parisian riverfront between the Eiffel Tower and the Ile Saint Louis, including the Pont des Arts, as a World Heritage Site. Since 2008 lovelocks have been appearing on the Pont des Arts bridge. By 2012, the number of locks covering the bridge had become overwhelming with locks being placed upon other locks. In February 2014, Le Monde estimated that there were over 700,000 locks on the bridge. With little free space remaining on the bridge, lovelocks have since spread to at least 11 other Seine bridges, the footbridges on the Canal St Martin, and more recently, to fences and posts in parks and to public monuments all over the city, including the site of the Eiffel Tower.

So, does a personal gesture and intimate bond sealed between two lovers by affixing a lovelock to the side of a bridge impact others?

Well, so it would appear as many little gestures can add up to significant unintended consequences. As a result of the continuous addition of individual locks, the historic bridge at Pont des Arts historic started experiencing new problems. The city of Paris would later remove 1 million locks attached to the Pont des Arts, with a total weight in excess of 45 tonnes. In May 2014 the Paris Mayoress, Anne Hidalgo concerned about the safety of the historic bridge and the wider impact on the city had tasked her First Deputy Mayor with finding alternatives to lovelocks in Paris. A month later, in June 2014, the parapet on the bridge collapsed under the combined weight of the lovelocks (BBC, 2014). Under the added weight, one side of the railing simply crumpled into the water. The railing was replaced and notices were left requesting that people stop the lovelock habit. Still, the love tokens started re-appearing, ultimately forcing the city to replace the railings with protective glass panels in search of an alternative material to which lovelocks could not be attached.

The original bridge had featured in many films and TV shows and had been enjoyed by millions of tourists and locals over the years. It had survived aerial bombardments during the first and second world wars as well as multiple collisions with boats (although it had been replaced after a barge crashed into it in 1977); however, over one million individual acts of demonstrative love overwhelmed the structure and its built-in safety margins and tolerances, causing the side to collapse.


To read entire article, click here


Editor’s note: The PMWJ Advances in Project Management series includes articles by authors of program and project management books published by Gower and other publishers in the Routledge family.  Each month an introduction to the current article is provided by series editor Prof Darren Dalcher, who is also the editor of the Gower/Routledge Advances in Project Management series of books on new and emerging concepts in PM.  Prof Dalcher’s article is an introduction to the invited paper this month in the PMWJ. 

How to cite this paper: Dalcher, D. (2019). Taking responsibility for our actions: The return of stewardship, PM World Journal, Volume VIII, Issue VII, August. Available online at https://pmworldlibrary.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/pmwj84-Aug2019-Dalcher-taking-responsibility-for-our-actions.pdf



About the Author

Darren Dalcher, PhD

Author, Professor, Series Editor
Director, National Centre for Project Management
Lancaster University Management School, UK



Darren Dalcher, Ph.D., HonFAPM, FRSA, FBCS, CITP, FCMI, SMIEEE, SFHEA is Professor in Strategic Project Management at Lancaster University, and founder and Director of the National Centre for Project Management (NCPM) in the UK.  He has been named by the Association for Project Management (APM) as one of the top 10 “movers and shapers” in project management and was voted Project Magazine’s “Academic of the Year” for his contribution in “integrating and weaving academic work with practice”. Following industrial and consultancy experience in managing IT projects, Professor Dalcher gained his PhD in Software Engineering from King’s College, University of London.

Professor Dalcher has written over 200 papers and book chapters on project management and software engineering. He is Editor-in-Chief of Journal of Software: Evolution and Process, a leading international software engineering journal. He is the editor of the book series, Advances in Project Management, published by Routledge and of the companion series Fundamentals of Project Management.  Heavily involved in a variety of research projects and subjects, Professor Dalcher has built a reputation as leader and innovator in the areas of practice-based education and reflection in project management. He works with many major industrial and commercial organisations and government bodies.

Darren is an Honorary Fellow of the APM, a Chartered Fellow of the British Computer Society, a Fellow of the Chartered Management Institute, and the Royal Society of Arts, A Senior Member of the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers, a Senior Fellow of the Higher Education Academy and a Member of the Project Management Institute (PMI) and the British Academy of Management. He is a Chartered IT Practitioner. He sits on numerous senior research and professional boards, including The PMI Academic Member Advisory Group, the APM Research Advisory Group, the CMI Academic Council and the APM Group Ethics and Standards Governance Board.  He is the Academic Advisor and Consulting Editor for the next APM Body of Knowledge. Prof Dalcher is an academic advisor for the PM World Journal.  He is the academic advisor and consulting editor for the forthcoming edition of the APM Body of Knowledge. He can be contacted at d.dalcher@lancaster.ac.uk.

To view other works by Prof Darren Dalcher, visit his author showcase in the PM World Library at http://pmworldlibrary.net/authors/darren-dalcher/.



%d bloggers like this: