There is a vocal discussion about competency based assessment of Project Managers. The discussion goes like this...
The Project Management Institute's Project Management Professional (PMP) is being diluted and the ASAPM approach is better.
Forgetting for the moment the commercial based, anti-PMI rhetoric of the self-proclaimed thought leaders pushing alternative approaches, there is merit in the competency based assessments.
Here's a sample of the competency based education program.
This approach defines 3 tiers of project and program managers and the acquisition personnel that support them. The motivation here is simple...
“A well-trained acquisition workforce is necessary to ensure that agencies accomplish their mission goals effectively and responsibly. Skilled program and project managers are critical in developing accurate government requirements, defining measurable performance standards, and managing contractor activities to ensure that intended outcomes are achieved.”
Federal acquisition subject to OMB Exhibit 300 or equivalent are considered "Major capital Investments."
FAC-P/PM Experience and Training Requirements, summarize the experience and training requirements for each of the three certification levels – Entry/Apprentice, Mid-level/Journeyman, and Senior/Expert. A discussion of required competencies by level follows the table. Each FAC P/PM certification level is independent of the others – i.e., applicants for the Senior/Expert level need not have been certified at the Midlevel/Journeyman or Entry/Apprentice levels.
I can hear the counter arguments from the anti-PMI competency folks now. But NASA, NAVAIR, and other federal agencies have similar requirements for their PMs. These are deployed on real programs, with univeristy grade training.
But these approaches are applied "on top of" PMI and AACE certifications, so the suggestion there is only one way to skin the cat is a bit miss placed.
