PM & PMI: past and present

IN THE BEGINNING

The Project Management Institute (PMI) dates back to January 29, 1968, when the first letter of invitation to form an organization addressed to “project management” was sent to some five other people by E.A. (Ned) Engman. At that time Ned was the Houston-based National CPM Marketing Representative for McDonnell Automation Company. That first letter was sent to Mr. Jim Snyder of Smith Kline & French, Dr. J. Gordon Davis of Georgia Tech, Mr. John King of AT&T Mr. Russ Archibald of Booz, Allen & Hamilton, and Mr. Eric Jenett of Brown & Root.

This meeting call resulted from individual discussions and conversations going back to early 1967 between Engman and several of the listed individuals as he made his business calls selling the McAUTO CPM and related software packages and services [1]. On February 15 and 16, 1968, a meeting was held at the Roosevelt Hotel in New Orleans to “form a Project Management Organization.” It was attended by all the above invited except Russ Archibald, who had a schedule conflict. The outcomes were reflected in a set of meeting minutes and a set of decisions. The highlights of the decisions were:

1. Proposed name “American Project Management Institute (APMI).”
2. Six original founders to submit names of individuals, proposed to augment the “founders,” to Engman for selection of 24, based on geographic and industry sector representation, to serve as founders; obligations asked of founders included a donation of (only) $20.
3. Assigned Snyder the responsibility for developing a Constitution and Bylaws to be signed by the 6 original founders plus the 24 selected founders.
4. Set plans for the first national meeting in early October in St. Louis. Responsibilities were: Engman - general arrangements, Davis - program, Jenett - publicity, King -keynote speaker.

I have no further information in my records, nor at this time any memories, as to how those efforts progressed. The next record I have shows that the “national meeting” finally came into being as a meeting at Georgia Tech in 1969. It is probable that the originally planned 24 founders never materialized and that the costs for putting on a meeting in St. Louis in October 1968 became more than could be financed by the 6 original founders. What records I do still have mention 5 of the 6 original founders in the May 1969 incorporation papers and explain why two people, Gallagher and Homyak, not previously involved appear on those papers. (The State of Pennsylvania required the signers all be residents of the state.)

My recollection about the role of Georgia Tech in getting PMI kicked off and running is as follows. Gordon Davis was giving a series of short courses on PM and CPM through the Georgia Tech Extension Service. Jim Snyder, who had taken some graduate work in industrial engineering under Davis, persuaded Gordon to let the original founders piggyback the activation of a project management organization on one such session by co-sponsoring it. Thus, in return for providing some speakers and sessions to be held at Georgia Tech's facilities immediately after one of Gordon's sessions, we were able to use Georgia Tech's facilities and mailing, registration, and other services. The registration list shows some 66 attendees, 5 speakers, 3 panelists and 8 seminar staff members, for a total of 82 attending. The agenda from that meeting identifies, as a part of the program, a social hour and dinner at which Jim Snyder presented “PMI - An Organization Profile.” The actual activation of PMI by a meeting of the Trustees is covered in minutes of that initial meeting. These minutes also refer to the initial invitation to join and the announcement of the existence of the Project Management Institute to some 80 people at the dinner meeting on October 9, 1969, at the American Hotel in Atlanta, Georgia. Twenty-six individuals joined that evening, paying dues of $15. So much for the founding and early history.

THE INSTITUTE: Past & Present

In order to talk most meaningfully about change as it relates to PMI, it is convenient to use some statistics (see Table 1). In addition to the Special Report of the Ethics, Standards, and Accreditation (ESA) Project in 1983, the PMBOK document was developed and approved in 1987, and an updated version is due to be approved in 1994.

That's hardly the picture of a static, or even mature, professional organization.

But there has been some SAMENESS.

An encouraging SAMENESS is the willingness and dedication of hard-working, competent professionals to put their effort and experience at the service of PMI in conducting the Institute's business, whether at the National or Chapter level and whether elected or appointed.

A personal and very rewarding SAMENESS has been the level and quality of networking possible with other PMI members on virtually any professional subject that would be appropriate. This opportunity has been of great and real assistance in a number of situations and I'm convinced that (1) I never could have made the contacts or (2) the response would not have been so full and forthcoming had my PMI membership not opened the way.

Jim Snyder [announced] the existence of the Project Management Institute to some 80 people at the dinner meeting on October 9, 1969, at the American Hotel in Atlanta.

The annual meetings and Seminar/Symposia are still places where “significant others” feel welcome and come to understand that:

1. Their partner's apparent insatiable curiosity about the practice and multiple aspects of project management is far from unique and
2. PMI believes “all hard and technical work and no play makes Jack a dull boy (and Jane a dull girl).”

The active participation of women as members, officers, speakers, and in all aspects of the organization has become a more salient feature. Their contributions have been significant to both the Institute and the profession. Recognizing that, we have voted to have a non-gender-specific Constitution and Bylaws.

Table 1.25 Years of PMI

In the line of SURPRISES, I've been caught quite unawares by the intensity of two movements–the activities of the Council of Chapter Presidents (CCP) and the growth of the Specific Interest Groups (SIGs). The CCP has grown into a very active and powerful voice in the conduct of the business of PMI. The SIGs, while offering potential for outreach, have the potential of isolating its members from the cross-fertilization of ideas that has been the hallmark of PMI for the last 25 years. Care must be taken to ensure that this energy is focused in a constructive manner, considering the best long-term interests of the chapters, SIGs and PMI.

THE PEOPLE IN PM

In my early days of our incipient profession, and here I'm talking 1955-1965, the term “project manager” was not widely used in industry. It was much more common to hear project engineer, project coordinator, construction manager, etc. The manager of the leading or dominant function on the project was sort of designated to act in the role of project manager. Those given the role of PM were typically older than the current crop of PMs that I encounter today.

Another … SAMENESS is the willingness and dedication of hard working, competent professionals to put their effort and experience at the service of PMI.

There have been CHANGES in the background of those functioning in a PM role. There is an increasing representation of individuals with college degrees in business administration, construction management or project-oriented options to more conventional degree programs such as architecture and engineering. Often the project slant is generated in a second or advanced degree. And those changes have not been confined to PMs but have also been true of the full range of personnel making up the project team. A measure of the pressure and thrust for this change can be found in the number of colleges and universities that offer PM degree course material. That number now stands at over 85 from less than about 5 in the 1960s–and those mostly PM-related. PMI provided a strong impetus with its first accreditation of graduate study in PM at Western Carolina University in 1987.

Other, and perhaps more profound, CHANGES have come in the extent, variety and depth of training courses available to the PM practitioner in such subjects as cost, schedule, communications, procurement, risk and human resource management. In the old days, there was little to no training available other than OJT, baptism under fire, and an almost trade/craft/guild-style apprenticeship.

A CHANGE that was both interesting and transient, for it recentl_y (read last 3-5 years) seems to be phasing down somewhat, is the significant and almost self-assumed role as educators and trainers (cross-fertilizers really) played by the vendors of project management and related software. It is an effort for which the purveyors have never received adequate recognition and thanks. Their role has been seminal in encouraging sound project management while encouraging useful application of the computer, and equally important, of some of the newer management concepts it enabled.

CHANGE has also come about in the way that those tagged with PM responsibility have handled their authority, power and obligations. It seems to me that both the literature and the practice have gone from the former hands-on/doing/have done approach and attitude of the PM and the PM staff to a position where the same things are now rnanaged/empowered/enabled/facilitated/monitored. Perhaps part of the change can be attributed to the trend wherein many PM practitioners are now managing processes and activities they themselves have never performed. I think this is a dangerous CHANGE that cannot lead to improved PM or increased respect for and positive recognition of PM and PMs. I think the profession needs to get back to more emphasis on doers–as in those who can do/have done— and less hosannahs and adulation for those who can only manage and lead.

We have also gone through CHANGE in what are conceived to be the hallmarks of an up and coming, or fully arrived, PM. Previously, successful experience was about the only hallmark a person could usefully and effectively claim. The statement, “Well, he worked under/for/with Mr. X” was sufficient, or at least useful. Certification, specialty training, short-course diplomas, academic degree programs just didn't exist. The norm has now shifted to at least 6-8 years, if not more, spent in an undergraduate and advanced degree level academic program, often without much real-life OJT or even summer experience in PM required, or even very actively encouraged.

CHANGES are also to be seen in the contractual status, technical and operational work content, and execution style required of PM practitioners. An increasing number of PM team members, and even project managers, have been employed through outsourcing or a project-based contract as opposed to being on employee status and only assigned to the current project.

As far as the technical work content is concerned, 25 years ago a fair number of technical decisions, or at least choices, were actually made by the people acting as project managers for the current phase. Currently, those technical decisions are often made without directly involving the individual having the title PM. The PM title earner likely will impose the time and budget restraints to be respected but is no longer likely to actually participate in the technical decision making.

Operationally, this reduced involvement with the technical aspects of the project were in part forced by, and in part replaced by, concerns about aspects more closely allied to general management fields. Examples are public relations, care and feeding of significant stakeholders, calls to get involved in the “softer aspects” of PM such as human resources and project communications.

CHANGE came, in part as a response to these additional demands and in part as a result of growing pressures in the general practice of management, to the style expected of the successful, sought after PM. The prized style seemed to shift from one that was doing, aggressive, forceful, pushy, rough-riding, determined, to one that emphasized empowering, encouraging, nurturing, assisting, building.

Along with this change I saw a SURPRISE develop. There came a growing swell of emphasis on something called leadership-and it seemed everybody should be considered a leader. Acknowledging that each project can benefit from having a leader, I'm at a loss to understand how a collection of leaders (at least as I understand the word) is ever going to get the work done, the project finished and closed down, and then put to rest. I had expected, from my experience in PM, and the early contacts through PMI, that developing a smooth-running team, the ability to accept and execute decisions, and enhanced abilities in the effective management of execution in the PM style would see increasing attention and emphasis. The current emphasis on what I choose to call “leadership for all” has been a surprise to me.

Another SURPRISE to me has been the growth in the rank of consultants and the number of specialist consultants the profession seems to be able to support. While some of the growth has undoubtedly been forced by such popular concepts as right-sizing and flattening the structure and encouraged by the outsourcing of PM participant functions, I am just dumbfounded at the explosion of consultants and seminars from 1969 to today.

One other aspect of the practice of consultancy-prudency audits—came as a SURPRISE and has spread from its origin in the nuclear power field with almost wildfire rapidity. It seems to me a less elegant but equally correct description would be “the remunerated exercise of hindsight.” In the ‘60s and early ’70s there were certainly project postmortems by the better project managers and their teams. The goal then, however, was improved performance and learning from mistakes, largely by those committing them. Now we appear to be supporting a large practice in hindsight with goals ranging from contracted remedy to providing grist for the legal system of remedies. A very small part of this practice (contracted efforts) appears to be directed at improving the performance of the parties involved, or at finding the needed eliminations that TQM says are the only real answer. There are some good things being generated in all these efforts, but there is also a lot of muddy water being generated.

[Project management software vendors have] been seminal in encouraging sound project management while encouraging useful application of the computer.

A further CHANGE is found in the selectier-dapproval process for the personnel to be engaged in the project execution effort. Previously the overwhelming practice had been acceptance by the client of the choices of the provider for all levels of assignment—although a client-review-and-approval step was allowed. At the proposal stage it had been more or less understood by client and provider that any resume submittals were to be considered as potentials only, illustrative of the kind and caliber of talent to be offered for final selection on project award. Upon award, it was not unusual to have the proposed project manager interviewed and signed off by the client but the provider's choices in the other key and secondary level personnel were considered acceptable.

In the late ’70s and early ’80s a CHANGE started with the preponderance of awards for PM services involving insistence by the client, with (sometimes reluctant) agreement by the provider, on interviewing the key people and getting the key people accepted at the proposal stage. With the recent severe economic crunch on providers of PM services, there seems to be growing resistance to an extended, absolute commitment to provide the specific individuals interviewed at the proposal stage and also to the level to which that is carried.

TECHNOLOGY & ART

Let us now move on to the twin-and inexorably intertwined—areas of TECHNOLOGY & ART. As we step our way through this segment, please keep clearly in mind that PM has been, correctly, described as The Art of The Possible.

There has been a tremendous impact from technology on the CAPABILITY/POTENTIAL to perform significantly improved PM more effectively, in reduced time and with greater assurance of a validated choice in the solution. Regretfully, I must maintain that the correct words remain capability/potential rather than execution/reality. Almost from its inception in the early ’50s, the practitioners of PM have been either untrained, unable or unwilling to apply more than about 35-50 percent of the capabilities of the existing— but continually developing and expanding— products and technology available.

One other aspect of the practice of consultancy came as a SURPRISE … the prudency audit.

This consistent and long-standing failure to utilize the available technology by more than a very small fraction of the PM team members has been a source of great puzzlement and disappointment to me. And I'm not talking here of either razzle-dazzle graphics or desktop publishing accomplishments or NASA-type real-time data acquisition and decision support systems. It has been, and still is, simply a matter of doing what's possible (even easy) within the existing software and hardware capabilities in order to execute and ensure sound PM.

The hardware and the software WILL NOT—repeat WILL NOT-do it for you but they'll durn sure implement, massage and provide the ability to apply ANYTHING any bright, skilled, imaginative and caring PM has ever dreamed of or up. The technological potential offered to the art of PM practice by individual practitioners is simply tremendous!!

I guess one of my biggest disappointments has been the uniform (and virtually global) poor and underutilization of the power of the computing hardware and software. When you add the technologies of LAN and satellite communications (all here today—even 12 months ago) we are facing a substantial and damaging utilization gap. I know it can be bridged because I've done most of it on various jobs and with/for various elements of a PM team. The lack of commitment of the corporations, their staff disciplines and even, I'm sorry to say, many PMs has so far successfully inhibited widespread utilization of the power that is ready and just sitting there. When you add the recently developed PC screen projection devices that can project a computer screen in fill color and real time, we are faced with a tremendously powerful tool for real-time simulation and results display for all sorts of real-life PM situations and challenges. This, to me, is an example where the ART— which must be driven by each individual practitioner—falls far short of what the TECHNOLOGY—which is/can be developed by the PM discipline/industry—has to offer and CAN deliver.

Add 3D CADD and the walk-through capability of some (not low-end but not the highest either) of these programs and you have a tremendous tool. All that really is needed to make it come alive and perform brilliantly on any (read your) project is just a touch of free thinking on the ART part of PM by you on your very next project. Try it. It will delight, and refresh, both you and your spirit for PM.

CHANGE has come about—and significant it is—not only in the technology but also in the manner of interaction between the technology and the PM practitioners. The contrast is marked in attributes of space, location, speed, dedication and flexibility. In addition, the floppy disk can now be used to provide multiple and remote sites with the same picture of the project, the proposed solutions and the full impacts of such solutions that the PM team faces.

Along with this ease and universality of the power of the computer in analyzing, sorting, comparing, manipulating and calculating has come CHANGE in the ease of global communications and electronic data exchange. The first efforts in the development of Expert Systems/Artificial Intelligence (ES/AI) in PM is encouraging. Fuzzy logic also has great potential in early detection and identification of trends, both adverse and favorable, in many areas of activity important to PM.

But, it is interesting to note that while many of the same problems surface in the ART area as were present 25 years ago, the problem definition or view has changed from due to or caused by people to an environment or modus operandi cause expressed as due to or caused by the SYSTEM. And this latter is a whole lot tougher to solve and then correct!!!

One of the most encouraging CHANGES has been the trend towards an earned value approach along the lines of the CSCSC used by several elements of the government.

Another CHANGE that is making significant headway is the use, in some cases misuse, of the WBS concept as a framework to define the entirety of the project, often stated as “so we'll know when we're done.” The most significant effect so far has been in the solid marriage required of cost and schedule at the activity or work package level. In the extreme, all charges must be against an activity that is at the lowest level on that particular branch of the WBS. The approach, while not difficult to explain in concept, appears to be difficult to execute meaningfully in reality.

Along with the change in the content has come the CHANGE in reporting medium or method. The war-room-type environment with chart-plastered walls is giving way to the floppy disk, to the PC screen, or PC screen projection. Computer graphics are making progress and there are currently organizations offering, in effect, only graphics packages for use with your input. In this connection, it was interesting to see recently (PMNETwork, June 1993) the use of a war-room-like concept in the Dodge Viper project for full network display on a wall section.

In addition to those CHANGES intrinsic to or made by the PM field, developments have occurred in all manner of fields and sectors that relate to or are included in PM. Two examples of the latter are the swelling interest and growing diversity in the generic concepts of managing QUALITY and RISK. The application of TQM to a project through the PM team has been the subject of increasing (and increasingly heated) debate. At the moment, I'd say that allegiance is the predominant response in PM. It remains a touchy and murky area as far as the position, role, responsibility of the PM team for quality on the project.

I see a trend to place more and more of the risk management, not just insurable risks and insurance decisions but also economic viability risk, political risk, currency risks, and even stakeholder-induced or -encouraged risks, at the door of the PM. The change is that many, if not all, of these risk areas (each with their own arcane history, technology and decision systems) had previously been handled pretty much across the corporation by specialized corporate staff personnel and at a level external to the project. Typically the project's involvement had been restricted principally to following instructions and performing data gathering missions, both issued by corporate offices.

THINGS THAT HAVEN'T CHANGED

The first item I view as unchanged, or worsened, is the stress level for most PM team members. I haven't much hope for immediate change. Some relief is possible—if the sufferer will only seek it—in the networking made possible through the local and national PMI meetings. Also, if the source of stress can be identified, the literature published by PMI may offer some clues, either in assuring you that you are not alone or in offering some experience-proven remedies and reliefs. It appears that the lesson to be learned from over 25 years of progress in PM is that technology will improve the potential for improved operation and speed of response but it seldom helps the stress level, and sometimes increases it.

[The] consistent and long-standing “failure to utilize” the available technology by more than a very small fraction of the PM team members has been a source of great puzzlement and disappointment to me.

One of the activities most needing improvement and one that has long been targeted in all sorts of surveys as terribly inefficient is that of meetings and their conduct. My own experience, what I hear from others, and the evidence of articles, books and seminars on the topic all point to the fact that meeting efficiency has improved only marginally if at all. If you doubt that, just look at the number of seminars offered on effective meetings. A ray of hope is offered in the recent book Shared Minds by Michael Schrage, which offers some fascinating, and illuminating, insights into the potential for future uses of what could be called collaborative thinking. If you observe a typical two-week period, or even one project meeting, you'll undoubtedly come away convinced (1) that not much has changed, (2) nobody has heeded advice that has been offered, and (3) there's just got to be a better way to run a railroad. I believe, you could say fervently that this is an area that needs your urgent attention. If you and I fail to act and to activate the other PM participants, the rising trend of teleconferencing will only widen the damage zone created by dumb meeting conduct.

I am proud of my chosen profession…. [and] delighted with the opportunities and I resources PMI has I provided me as an individual and professional.

Another thing that hasn't really changed much is the grossly misutilized, as well as underutilized, computer programs and gaming; concepts embodied in the many available computer programs. These include GERT GPSS, PERT, CPM with resources profiling or scheduling to resources, the Monte Carlo aspects of uncertainty and probability distribution, etc., etc. In part I lay the blame at the feet of the theoreticians and academicians who have made it very onerous and unrealistic to play the game to their rules. They largely seem to solve trivial or theoretical problems where the generation of input data and characteristics/scenarios doesn't have to stand the baleful glare of, for example, a 50-year-old construction superintendent with 30+ years of solid, real-world experience. There are more imaginative approaches available to entice participation by experience through what can be viewed as a series of approximations both to reality and to a rigorous solution, but these seem to get little attention or use either from the academicians or from these who practice the ART of project participant.

Scope and Communications continue to show up as the principle PMBOK-type problems for the PM team members-and they are areas of real and major problems. This is no change from the early days. They do not seem to be so viewed by the PMs and PM management personnel during at least the early execution stages of the project when they are easiest to identify, define, set up, and correct. They do surface as significant contributors when problems arise and an investigative audit is done. Typically, these two show up as the problems identified by PM team members in postmortem meetings, but are not clearly identified or discussed. They are only brought up at the time a project is in serious trouble, or in the postmortem stage for a merely less-than-satisfactory project. The wisdom of the PMBOK and a whole raft of literature, including specific surveys published by PMI, apparently is being disregarded in letting these items appear again and again. It may well be that the fact that Scope and Communications do exist in some form or other on a project blinds those who need the clear vision of the shortcomings of what's available and practiced on the project.

AND IN CONCLUSION

One common characteristic of most of the CHANGES I've been discussing is that they place an increasing burden on the speed, correctness, reliability, thoughtfulness and all-encompassing nature of the PM team response and their corrections to scope, course or direction, execution strategy, timing and resource commitments. There is, however, one element in the whole setup that hasn't changed that much, the basic unit of the people of PM. We still have only one head, two hands, two feet and a need to sleep at least 5-6 hours per night on average. But there is hope!! We now have the PMBOK to look to, the PMNETwork and PMJ to call on, other publications of PMI, the Annual S/S Proceedings, the survey articles, and the published surveys and bibliographies

Lest the reader feel that my closing is gloomy, my vision of PM and PMI promises dark and foreboding, let me close formally by speaking forthrightly and from both heart and mind. I am proud of my chosen profession. I am reasonably pleased (as with a child) of the progress it has made and the relationships it has established. I am delighted with the opportunities and resources PMI has provided me as an individual and as a professional. And, lastly, I am sure my profession is like a good port wine in that it improves both with time and with the drinking.