Abstract
Since 1999 the Project Management Institute (PMI) has maintained records of learning activities submitted by certified Project Management Professionals (PMPs) in compliance with requirements to maintain their certification. Data collected includes number and duration of structured learning activities engaged in annually, topics of learning, sources of learning, and delivery formats of learning. Demographic data of the PMPs includes the size and industry of the organization for which they work, and their geographic location. This paper reports preliminary findings of an ongoing study to identify learning preferences and trends within this population of project management practitioners and providers of project management training.
Background
Since the Project Management Institute (PMI®) introduced the Project Management Professional (PMP®) certification in 1984, the PMP has become the most widely held certification of its type with over 77,000 certificates issued worldwide. To receive certification, individuals must possess a sufficient combination of working experience and education and pass a standardized examination. Certified individuals must also maintain certification by earning a minimum of 60 professional development units (PDUs) every three years. A portion of PDUs may be earned through professional service and work experience, but the primary source of PDUs is formal learning activities. Typically one PDU is equal to one contact hour of formal instruction. In January of 1999, PMI implemented a computerized system to record activities reported by PMPs in compliance with continuing certification requirements (CCR.)
The PMI system was modeled after systems developed by the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada and the American Institute of Architects, and is one of the few among all programs of certification or licensing that actually captures what holders of a certification or license do to meet continuing education requirements. Also in 1999, PMI introduced a complimentary program to identify and give recognition to organizations that offer project management training. PMI Registered Education Providers (R.E.P.) must agree to follow specified good practices and enter their project management courses into a database that is linked to the PMP activity reports database. R.E.P.s issue PDU credits for their courses, which then may be reported by PMPs who attend the courses. While the primary purpose of the PMP and R.E.P. databases is to assist in verifying compliance with CCR, they also provide a potentially rich source of data for research. During 2004, PMI will be analyzing this data for possible insights into learning trends and to create automated reports that may be of value to the training and education communities.
Data Collection
The primary sources of data for analysis are the linked PMP CCR and R.E.P. databases maintained by the PMI Records Office at the University of Oklahoma. Data was collected between 1999 and July 2003, but also includes PMP activities from 1998. Additional data concerning industry areas and location of PMPs was collected from initial PMP candidate application forms. The following are the relevant data fields and the documents from which the data was collected.
- The PMP CCR Activity Form includes the following fields:
- Category within which PDUs have been earned
- Number of PDUs
- Title of course or activity (text box)
- Course number (if provided by R.E.P. – Category 3)
- Knowledge areas addressed (selected from list of choices)
- Process areas addressed (selected from list of choices)
- Application areas addressed (selected from list of choices)
- Satisfaction with reported activity (5 point scale from excellent to poor)
- The R.E.P. Application Form includes the following fields:
- Location of R.E.P.
- Type of R.E.P. (organizations offering training to the public, organizations offering training internally, PMI Components, and non-profit associations with whom PMI has a cooperative agreement)
- The R.E.P. Course Description Form includes the following fields:
- Course title (text box)
- Number of PDUs
- Knowledge areas addressed (selected from list of choices)
- Process areas addressed (selected from list of choices)
- Application areas addressed (selected from list of choices)
- Methods of course delivery
- Methods of evaluation
Statement of Privacy
Analysis of data was conducted on an aggregated basis only. Information concerning individual PMPs or R.E.P.s was not revealed to the researchers and will remain confidential.
Limitations of the Study
The primary limitations to this research includes the following:
- Data was only available for analysis through July of 2004. This reduced the ability to do trend analysis in two ways. First it does not provide a complete year to compare to previous years. Second, many PMPs report their activities toward the end of their three-year cycle. Thus, PMPs whose cycle began January 2000 may be grossly underrepresented. A new dataset including all data collected through 2003 will be analyzed in the next pahse of this study.
- During the analysis, researchers discovered that data on satisfaction with reported learning activities was missing from the database. This important data will be re-entered in order to complete the study.
- Some of the most interesting data, such as titles of courses and self-directed research, is only available as text. A qualitative analysis of this data is planned for next phase of the study.
Definitions of PDU Categories
| Category 1 | PDUs earned through academic courses offering degree credit |
| Category 2 SDL | PDUs earned through self-directed learning activities (documented research) |
| Category 2A | PDUs earned by writing an article in a juried journal |
| Category 2B | PDUs earned by writing an article in a non-juried magazine |
| Category 2C | PDUs earned by presenting at a conference or seminar |
| Category 2D | PDUs earned by presenting at a PMI Chapter meeting |
| Category 2E | PDUs earned by participating on a panel at a conference |
| Category 2F | PDUs earned by writing a textbook |
| Category 2G | PDUs earned by developing a course |
| Category 2H | PDUs earned by providing 1500 hrs of project management services (limited) |
| Category 3 | PDUs earned through participation in a course offered by an R.E.P. organization |
| Category 4 | PDUs earned through participation in a course offered by a non-R.E.P. organization |
| Category 5 | PDUs earned through volunteer service to the profession (limited) |
Preliminary Analysis
The databases analyzed in this phase of the study contained 197,780 reports filed by PMPs. Each report represents one qualifying activity. A total of 1,865,574 PDUs were reported for an average of 9.4 per report. The following tables are representative findings from the first level of analysis, and are presented to encourage discussion on the direction of the next phase of this research project.
Preliminary Findings
PMPs are increasingly earning PDUs through activities delivered by R.E.P.s. (Tables 1, 12, 16) Data for the first half of 2003 indicates that R.E.P.s provide 52% of PDUs (table 12) and 64% of all activities (Table 16.) However, significant regional variations exist. PMPs in North America, Europe, and Asia are more likely to use R.E.P.s than are PMPs in South America, Middle East, Oceania, and Africa (table 5.) This is likely due to a corresponding variation in the number of R.E.P.s in these regions. Financial support for training may also be greater in North America and Europe.
The least used category for earning PDUs is Category 5 – professional service. This is not a surprise since the number of PDUs that may be earned in this category is limited and the assigned values to these activities are low. However, this category seems to be in relative decline in both percent of PDUs (table 12) and activities (table 16.) This decline may be an aberration due to greater rates of increase for other categories, but bears watching, given that one of PMI's strategic positions is to support project management for the good of society.
PMPs appear to be quite active in sharing their knowledge in the project management community. This is indicated by the significant percentage of PDUs and activities reported in Category 2 (table 1). A scan of a random sampling of Category 2 reports indicates that a majority of these activities involve writing articles or making presentations on project management practices. Table 16 does indicate a possible relative decline in use of this category.
According to the data, the majority of learning activities address to some degree all process and knowledge areas (table 2,3,6,7,10,11,13,14.) When PMPs engage in activities that are more narrowly in scope, they are more likely to focus their learning on issues of planning, execution, and controlling, and least likely processes of initiation and closing. This has remained consistent over time and among regions. There is some regional variation in the knowledge areas reported. Specifically North American PMPs are more likely to focus on “communications”, while their colleagues in South America are least likely. South American PMPs are also less likely to learn about human resource management. Learning related to procurement management was relatively low PMPs (table 6,13) with the exception of those in engineering and construction industries (table 10.)
Some interesting variations in areas of application are apparent in the data. (It should be noted that areas of application correspond to PMI Specific Interest Groups.) Several areas appear to be in significant decline, such as design/procurement/construction and telecommunications. Some decline is indicated in environmental management, automotive, manufacturing, new product development, oil/chemical, and utilities (table 15.) There are some regional exceptions. Design/procurement/construction is a very significant focus of PMPs n the Middle East and Asia (table 8.) Information systems was the most often indicated focus of application and seems to be holding steady over time. Application areas with significant increases over time are quality, risk, and troubled projects. Other emerging application areas are configuration management, consulting, international development, and “students.” This latter application area probably represents the increase in the number of degree programs in project management and thee organization of a Students in Project Management SIG within PMI. An interesting regional variation appears in the government application area. PMPs in the Middle East, Europe and Asia are much less likely to report PDUs in this area.
Continued Study
As this study proceeds, additional means of analysis will be conducted including a qualitative review of text fields that contain activity descriptions. Additional questions will be explored as well, and the readers of this preliminary report are invited to pose questions to the authors. One of the main purposes of this research is to develop profiles of PMPs and R.E.P.s that can be updated automatically on an ongoing basis from the PMP and R.E.P. databases. These profiles could be used as benchmarks to assist PMPs planning their professional development and R.E.P.s in developing new and improved programs to serve the project management community.
For more information or to exchange ideas please contact Michael Price at: Michael A. Price, PhD, RA Accreditation Programs Manager, Project Management Institute 4 Campus Blvd. Newtown Square, PA, USA 19063