You’re a PMP but are you a Project Management Professional? Part 2
Recently I have had the opportunity to speak to more than 2,000 Project Management Professionals (PMP’s).
During those sessions I conducted non-scientific polls to determine the depth and breadth of the application of the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK®) standards to which this group had been tested for this prestigious professional certification.
Frankly, I was shocked with the results of my simple survey. Fundamentally, I sought two pieces of input:
1. How many of the PMPs were consistently utilising the Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) on their projects as described in the PMBOK® Guide?
2. How many were implementing the Precedence Diagramming Method (PDM) using the WBS Work Packages to determine logic relationships/work flow?
When asked to simply raise their hand if their response to my verbal query was affirmative, the data distribution among the 2,000 plus respondents was as follows:
1. WBS: a total of 31 (less than 2%) PMPs raised their hands
2. PDM: a total of 19 (less than 1%) PMPs raised their hands
In my last posting I covered the interpretation of the WBS statistics. Now I will interpret the PDM statistics.
About the Precedence Diagramming Method
Now, let’s examine the benefits associated with the appropriate use of the PDM concept.
The only way to reliably determine the duration of any project is to develop a realistic work flow built upon the WBS work package output. The PDM allows the project manager to articulate the output-input relationships of all work content. Once the basic logic of the work flow is established, estimated durations are assigned to each work package (based on the resources assigned or the best resource assignment assumptions), thus enabling a forward pass/backward pass to be completed. PDM is not a bar chart. Bar charts are created as an output of a well developed PDM!
After the foundational logic network is created, it’s much easier to optimise work flow relationships and assess the impacts of resource “bait and switch” decisions. Also, the modification of logic relationships–such as overlapping or fast-tracking–is obvious.
Additionally, the impacts of the work package’s actual status as a project evolves and can be taken into consideration. Then, a meaningful cause and effect analysis can be accomplished to determine the need for further optimisation or corrective action to assure the project’s schedule remains achievable. These actions include decisions regarding the determination of float utilisation and the assessment of the potential for any given float path to become a new critical path.
Additionally, the Enterprise advantage of being able to significantly improve the ability to manage a fixed resource base in a multi-project, shared-resource and/or constrained resource environment that results from the “merging” of individual project PDM information into an Enterprise-wide resource utilisation data base.
Summary
Using the WBS and PDM tools of our trade is not an option! If we are to provide the perceived (expected) benefits associated with the earning of the PMP® designation, then we must practice what we preach. We must become proactive in proving the value of using the tools of the trade—not just talking about them.
PMPs must lead the way in transforming great training into even greater action on their projects. The PMP® must make a concerted effort to educate up the organisation to assure the critical decision makers are aware of the substantial benefits to be realised from using the fundamental tools of the profession – the WBS and PDM.
With such low percentages, does it not also imply that in many cases this level of analysis is considered overkill or not appropriate? I would like to think that Project Managers also possess the skill of knowing when to draw the line, and the capability to adapt methodologies/techniques to suit individual projects.
A very clear and “real-life” Wake-up call! This reflects partly my experience as PMO. In my experience to get Project Leaders to use the tools (e.g. WBS, PDM) from the ESI/PMBOK training the following must happen:
1) Get using them fast – memory and enthusiasm are (very) short-lived
2) Keep it practical – keep it (very) simple.
3) Aside from the rational benefit of collective tool deployment, show the human benefit (e.g. team-building/forming in working on the WBS with flip-charts and Post-Its all together in one room).
4. Share successful deployment of tool use between project teams (e.g. Risk Register/Inventory and Risk Mitigation sessions). Can be as simple as sharing photos of the session giving a humand impression of how it looked (i.e. not that daunting or technical).
5. Be consistent in use: Require the tools and methods in project review committees and presentation templates e.g. risk management plan, stakeholder register, etc.
6. Sessions should not set out to be text-book perfect. Project Leaders should: “take the risk [of not being perfect in front of colleages] to reduce the risk [of not delivering their project]“. Consider it like diving into cold-water – once in you feel glad you took the plunge!
Bonne Courage!
Are we getting tied up in nomenclature here?
I suspect that most PMPs are intuitively using WBS and PDM techniques, but they are doing it directly in a scheduling tool such as MS Project®, without documenting it separately from the schedule.
To begin with, they probably enter high level summary tasks, which they then decompose into subtasks and eventually small work packages, but represented as tasks in the schedulting tool. Isn’t this virtually the same as a WBS?
They may then attach some notes to these tasks about quality, description, etc., and they may assign resources to the task. Isn’t this virtually the same as a WBS Dictionary?
They may then link the tasks together with dependences, and set constraints as to earliest start / finish dates, to arrive at an overall project schedule. Isn’t this serving the same purpose as the PDM, but also producing a Gantt chart (which I find is more intuitively understood by those who have not had PM training than a PDM diagram) at the same time?
I suspect that this is the way that a lot of PMs work in real life, but that because the WBS and PDM are implicit in the structure of the schedule they may not have realised (unless prompted) that they were using the WBS and PDM principles.
I also agree with other commenters that no-one raises their hand in front of a large group if they can help it, as you never know if you will get “picked on” by the presenter ;-)
Your blog is so informative … ..I just bookmarked you….keep up the good work!!!!