The recent seminar/symposium at Montreal presented a variety of topics, issues, and concerns regarding the present and future state of project management and the role of project managers. One issue receiving attention both from the general membership and the Board of Directors was that of developing standards for project management and the certification of project managers. That the issue is more than simple verbal conversation was evidenced by the Board's action to fund a project during the next year to report on the feasibility of establishing standards and certification.
In view of this action and the general concern regarding this issue, this paper has been developed in order to promote discussion of the topic during the period between annual seminars. For purposes of discussion, it will be helpful to separate out the issue of standards and that of certification, although there may be some strong overlap between the two. Regretably, the concept of standards was not defined during the general discussion but left up to the project team to define. Certification, on the other hand, is generally understood by most persons and hence can be dealt with more immediately. For this reason, the focus here is only upon the concept of certification.
Why Certification?
Why has PMI become interested in the problem of certifying project managers? Is the action by PMI at this time representing a stage in the maturation of organizational growth? That is, does any professional organization after a slow period of initial growth begin to establish some form of legitimacy to its members through some kind of certification process? Is there some force or concern not openly discussed that is bringing forth the issue? Such forces might run the gamut from the exhibition of a certificate to a legal status for the purposes of liability or legal concerns. Is there a concern about protecting a prospective client or customer by using certification as means of demonstrating the competency on the part of the professional? An important point to consider with regard to this latter question is, who does the certifying? We shall return to this point later in the paper. In light of these kinds of questions it would appear very fruitful that the reason for, or purposes of, certification be established early and clearly in order that the process of certification can be developed and implemented. Initiation of actions on the latter without a clear statement of purpose would be a false step.
The Certification Process
While there may be variation from profession to profession, there is a rather general process for certifying persons practicing in that profession. The normal routine is to establish some statement of behaviors, skills, knowledges, that are deemed essential to the performance of the task required by the professional. This is usually done by performing some type of task analysis and/or soliciting opinions and expressions regarding the necessary behaviors from persons currently occupying the role. In our case, we would be doing an analysis of the position of project manager to determine the necessary skills and abilities needed to perform the role. In making the analysis, one must either assume that all of the persons currently occupying the role are “successful” or that one can distinguish between successful performance and unsuccessful performance in the role. That is, there is an ability to distinguish between necessary and sufficient. Having established the required behaviors and knowledges, applicants seeking certification undergo one of two activities. They may submit a statement of credentials outlining their educational background, job experience, a rating of performance, and related information to a board which might then ascertain certification status. A second approach is to require the candidate to take some form of examination to determine his state of knowledge. The development of such examinations is a very extended process and not easily done. Regardless of the general approach used, one is immediately faced with the question of who shall be the certifiers. We immediately therefore run into the “grandfather” problem. The process does not always guarantee those meeting the requirements will be successful. There can be errors of classification in the sense that some will be certified when they should not be and others will not be certified when they should be. One of the major concerns is to reduce these misclassifications to a minimum.
Two Models of Certification
During one of the discussion periods at Montreal, the suggestion was made that there was a need for the user group and the academic community to get together in some way with PMI and develop some mechanism for certification. The view here is that the professional association, in this case PMI, would certify project managers. The standards or criteria for certification would be determined by the user group and the academic community working with the professional association. In order to bring project managers up to the desired level of competence, the user group would engage in in-house training while the academic community would initiate degree programs and carry out continuing education activities. It might well be that the professional association itself would carry out training and education leading to certification. One of the major questions with this model is, what does it mean to be certified by the professional association? That is, what difference does it make to potential users and the academic community whether or not the professional association certifies the project manager? It can only have meaning if the professional association has persuasive abilities with the user group to employ only project managers who are certified or who can force the academic community to initiate programs that lead to certification. It raises the question of what social forces or pressures can be brought upon the academic community and the user group to comply? A recent action by Contract Administration Association with regard to certifying contract administrators has functioned somewhat in this area. They were apparently able to convince the Department of Defense that their certified contract administrators should be involved in any defense contract. It would be interesting to determine how this negotiation was developed.
It was during these same discussions that the author of the paper suggested that perhaps a more useful way to proceed was to involve political action. The basic activity in this model is to have the professional association lobby the legislature to pass appropriate laws requiring that practicing project managers be certified. In turn, a regulatory body would be set up to carry out the function of certification. By its action, the legislature could influence the academic community by setting forth certain educational requirements and standards. Both the academic community and the user group could influence the professional association and give guidance in its persuasive efforts on the legislature. The most common examples of certification involve this political model. Beauticians, barbers, teachers, lawyers, doctors, veterinarians, pharmacists, and many other groups have used this vehicle to certify professional competence. In some cases, the general society has demanded this type of certification while in other cases the professional associations have initiated action in order to protect their own self-interest. It is not likely that there ever could be a national certification, although this is true in the case of pilots. It might be possible to have each state establish certification with some form of reciprocity between states. Some professions have managed to establish this reciprocity so that movement from state to state can be easily made. In other cases, each state has imposed its own peculiar standards upon the professional. In the teaching profession, most states will accept some general education requirements as part of the certification but also insist on specific requirements in order to be certified in the designated state. At some point in time, PMI will have to make some determination as to the general model or some variant of the above two which it plans to follow in certification activities should it decide to move into this area.
Some Problem Areas
The road to certification is fraught with many difficulties. Some of the problem areas that might be encountered and which have negative and positive valences on the final decision to certify or not are listed below.
Task Definition. As noted above, one of the major activities will be that of defining the requisite behaviors, skills, knowledges making up the project manager's job. Some of these will obviously be of a very technical nature and are readily identifiable. On the other hand, the position of project manager requires a variety of behaviors and skills that are not so readily identifiable. Necessary behaviors related to building team commitment, team capacity, morale, and coordination are not so easy specified. Because of this, it may be quite possible that these vital areas may not be adequately assessed or if assessed be at a somewhat superficial level. In short, what weight will be given to the technical versus the social elements of the position?
Instrumentation. Regardless of the set of skills identified, some mechanism or instrumentation will have to be developed to assess the presence or absence of these skills in perspective project managers. This is not an easy task and can require a considerable outlay of resources. It is a time consuming process. A major question is whether or not the benefits would out-weight the costs. As project managers, we should all be aware of the difficulty of arriving at a decision in terms of costs and benefits.
Grandfathers. The problems associated with grandfathers was recently evidence in the State of Ohio where the legislature established an act which specified that all emergency medical personnel had to be certified as of September 30, 1976. The State Department of Education was given the task of certifying these personnel. As the required deadline approached there was inadequate action taken to check the qualifications of persons serving in the position. A public concern developed as to whether or not there might even be emergency personnel available after the deadline date. The problem was essentially solved by simply saying that all those serving in the position as of the deadline date were certified. We shall face a similar problem. Most of us operating as project managers would be in favor of establishing a deadline and letting those who follow us go through a certification process. It would be most interesting to determine how many current project managers would be willing to undergo any examination even at the present time. We still, however, have not eliminated the problem of who will give the examinations.
Training. Should the decision be made to move toward certification, PMI would be forced into developing some kind of educational program and/or institutional relationships which would provide the necessary training to insure competencies necessary to pass certification standards. The nature and the amount of this training cannot be specified at this time since it would depend upon the necessary skills and knowledges needed. The willingness in both user groups and academic institutions to take on this type of training is not easily known. If the user groups and academic communities cannot be counted upon to provide the training, how can PMI supervise the type of educational experience provided by consultants and other training institutions to insure that the needed training is being given? Would we thereby become some form of an accrediting agency for educational programs related to certification?
Organizational Atmosphere. One of the author's chief concerns with regard to the process of certification focuses upon the very nature of PMI itself. This author views the organization as an opportunity to meet with other professional persons to exchange ideas, problems, and concerns with regard to project management, regardless of the particular area of society in which managers function. It is this free and informal interchange which makes the organization attractive for membership. Should PMI begin to move toward a more formalistic structure involving standards and certification and thus become like other professional groups, the appeal might diminish for prospective members. On the other hand, it might be attractive to those persons who like to join closed corporations. It requires that we give careful thinking to the impact upon the future of the organization should the decision be made to move toward certification.
Closing Comment
As stated earlier, the intent of this paper is to initiate a discussion on the problem of certification. It is not meant to be a comprehensive treatment of the problems or processes of certification. If it provokes comments and thus enlarges upon the input to the project charged with developing recommendations on certification, then it will have served its purpose. It is hoped that other readers will challenge and/or question the ideas presented, but with the spirit of positive movement of the issue. Thru this form of discourse, we could soon determine whether the certification of project managers can in reality be done, or if it is just a fantasy.