The current run of Dilbert cartons (Thursday, Friday, and Saturday) involving Project Management and PMI certified project managers(PMP) has stirred my personal difficulties (and they are persoanl) with the concept of the Project Management Body of Knowledge or officially the Guide to the PMBOK (r).
It has become clear to me that PMBOK and other “bodies of knowledge” are isolated from the actual performance of project management in most of the contexts I work in. As one of the authors has stated "in interesting in the theory of Project Management."
How can this be so? PMBOK and others will asert they represent the core essence of project management processes. But in fact these processes are soulless, since they have no basis of “managing projects” other than to innumerate the mechanical processes involved. This is a very personal opinion I know, and the authors of these BOK’s will most strongly disagree, since they consider their mission noble and important – to convey the core processes of this profession to the masses.
But this is like the architecture student reading books on architecture design “processes.” The student understands the processes but is still not an architect. The student may hold a PMP but may not be a practicing project manager. This does not bode well for us in the profession of project management. Since there is an increasing number of holders of PMP's and no way to connect that certification with the competency needed to actually be a "manager of projects."
There are alternative assessment process, some here in the US some in the EU and Australia. Most are better at classifying experience and professional endorsement than we do here. None provide peer review, professional performance submissions, and "board certifications" the way a Professional Engineer certification does for the likes of structure, control systems and even systems engineers. Until then a PM certificate will just be a piece of paper hanging on the wall with not more credibility than the resume of the holder.
