Global Performance Based Standards for Project Management Personnel

Transcription

1 Global Performance Based Standards for Project Management Personnel Working Report No 1 Report from Working Session February, 2003 Lille, France

2 The copyright of this document is held by the Secretariat, Global Performance Based Standards for Project Management Personnel. All rights reserved. This document is intended to provide a basis for discussion and debate and may be circulated widely with that intent. All or any part of the contents may not be used for any commercial or proprietary purpose. While use of the content of this document and the framework proposed are encouraged for non-commercial purposes, any such use or reference should cite the following: Global Performance Based Standards for Project Management Personnel (2003) Working Paper No 1: Report from Working Session February, 2003, Lille, France. Sydney: UTS. ISBN Acknowledgements The contribution of all attendees at the Lille Working Session, 24 to 26 February, 2003, to the content of this report is acknowledged. Special appreciation is expressed for the contributions of Alicia Aitken, Eleanor Baker, Lynn Crawford, and Janice Thomas in writing the report, to Yusuf Azad, Raju Raghava Potturi and Nasser SHAH for their assistance, and to ESC Lille for their hospitality. Please provide feedback on the contents of this document This document is intended as a basis for discussion and debate and recipients are encouraged to: - circulate the document widely to interested parties - read and review the document and the proposed Units and Unit Descriptions and provide feedback as an input to further development Feedback on the contents of this document and any questions relating to this initiative should be directed to the Secretariat, Global Performance Based Standards for Project Management Personnel: Secretariat@globalPMstandards.org Web site: Working Paper No 1: Report from Working Session February, 2003, Lille, France 2

3 Table of Contents List of Acronyms... 4 Executive Summary Introduction Background Development of Guides and Standards for Project Management Purpose and Justification for a framework of Global Performance Based Standards for Project Management Personnel Definition of a Framework Project Management Standards Performance Based Competency Standards Purpose and format of Performance Based Competency Standards Levels Structure and Terminology Content and Coverage Process of the Lille Working Session Results of the Lille Working Session Role of the Project Manager Functional Analysis Commentary on Unit definition Further Development Next meeting Feedback...22 List of References Appendix A: GPBSPMP List of Subscribing Organisations Appendix B: Lille Working Session February 2003 List of Attendees Appendix C: List of Standards and Guides presented in Figure Appendix D: List of 48 Concepts / Topics Appendix E: Unit Descriptors List of Figures Figure 1: Most widely recognised, distributed and used project management guides and standards (see Appendix C for full details of guides and standards included in this diagram)...10 Figure 2: Standards and/or Guidelines selected for use in this review *NQF = National Qualifications Framework...11 Figure 3: Equivalent levels of standards and guides selected for review...15 Figure 4: Comparative structure and terminology of standards selected for review *Note: The level of detail of the Units of the ECITB standards is nearer to that of the Elements / Specific Outcomes in the other standards and guides...15 Figure 5: Units developed from 48 Concepts / Topics Units considered to be applicable only to some Project Managers in some contexts are shown shaded...19 Working Paper No 1: Report from Working Session February, 2003, Lille, France 3

4 List of Acronyms ANTA APM AQF BSTA CISC ECITB ESSC ICB IPMA JPMF MCI NCSPM NQF NVQ/SVQ NZQA OSCEng PMCC PMSGB QCA SAQA SETA Australian National Training Authority Association for Project Management (UK) Australian Qualifications Framework Business Services Training Australia (also referred to as BST) Construction Industry Standing Council Engineering and Construction Industry Training Body (UK) Engineering Services Standing Council IPMA Competence Baseline International Project Management Association Japan Project Management Forum Management Charter Initiative National Competency Standards for Project Management (Australia) National Qualifications Framework National Vocational Qualifications / Scottish Vocational Qualifications (UK) New Zealand Qualifications Authority Occupational Standards Council for Engineering Project Management Professionals Certification Center Project Management Standards Generating Body Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (UK) South African Qualifications Authority Sector Education and Training Authority (South Africa) Working Paper No 1: Report from Working Session February, 2003, Lille, France 4

5 Executive Summary This report presents the results of a three day Working Session held in Lille, France, from 24 th to 26 th February, 2003 with the aim of progressing the development of a framework of Global Performance Based Standards for Project Management Personnel. The Working Session was attended by 21 people representing a wide range of stakeholder perspectives and a considerable breadth and depth of project management experience. Feedback on the contents of this document is invited (secretariat@globalpmstandards.org). Performance based standards are defined as those standards and / or guidelines that are developed in the context of nationally endorsed qualifications frameworks such as those of Australia, Mexico, New Zealand, South Africa and the United Kingdom. These standards provide a platform for criterion based assessment of workplace performance. The definition has been extended to include other frameworks that are written in a similar format, but with a view to providing a guide to development, rather than a basis for assessment. The Project Management Institute s Project Manager Competency Development Framework falls into this latter category. The Working Session was supported by extensive research including identification, review and mapping of the most widely distributed guides and standards for project management knowledge and practice. Four sets of standards or guidelines were identified for specific reference at the Lille Working Session. These are the government endorsed performance based standards for project management of Australia, South Africa and the United Kingdom, and the Project Management Institute s Project Manager Competency Development Framework. From detailed examination of these standards and guides, as well as selected knowledge guides, 48 concepts / topics were identified as being represented in one or more of the documents under review. In order to ensure that development of a global framework reflected the content of existing standards and guides, these 48 concepts / topics were used as a starting point at the Lille Working Session. Over three days of intense discussion and interaction, Working Session participants reviewed and synthesized these base concepts and came to agreement on: - A definition of the role of the Project Manager - Identification of 13 Units describing significant functions that need to be performed by most Project Managers in most contexts Working Paper No 1: Report from Working Session February, 2003, Lille, France 5

6 1 Introduction The Lille Working Session was an initiative of a project to develop a framework of Global Performance Based Standards for Project Personnel. This project, in turn, was initiated by the Global Working Group: Standards, established by the International Project Management Association (IPMA), in February 1999, along with other Global Working Groups in areas of Education, Certification, Accreditation / Credentialing and Research. Following the inaugural meeting in February 1999, the Global Working Group: Standards subsequently met independently and in association with Global Forums, with participation by representatives of over 20 countries. The working group identified a number of global standards initiatives of which the most promising was the development of global performance based standards for project management personnel. Since the early 1990s performance based standards have been developed as part of national qualifications frameworks in the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand and more recently, South Africa. These nationally endorsed standards share a similar format, and are directly related to workplace performance and use of project management practices. Development of global performance based standards for project management, through the joint initiative of governments, project management professional associations and corporations provides an opportunity to: - respond directly to the expressed needs of industry, - enhance the profile and effectiveness of project management throughout the community, both global and local, - increase support for project management as a field of practice and emerging profession and - enhance the value and recognition of the performance based standards approach. In May 2000, representatives of industry, professional associations, educational institutions and national training / qualifications organisations met in London, confirming the importance of global standards and agreeing to proceed with development of a framework for global performance based standards for project management. Further meetings were held in September, November, and December 2000 and in January, March, June 2001 and June Working Paper No 1: Report from Working Session February, 2003, Lille, France 6

7 Two Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) have been developed, one for national qualifications / standards bodies and the other for professional associations. An initial Global Steering Committee meeting comprising representatives of signatories to these MOUs plus industry representatives and a number of other interested parties was held in London on Friday 23rd August 2002, hosted by the Services SETA (Sector Education and Training Authority) of South Africa. At this meeting it was agreed that a three day Working Session would be held over three days, from 24th to 26th February ESC Lille offered to host the Working Session. The Global Steering Committee decided to fund the initiative, in the short term, by asking each organisation supporting the initiative (eg professional associations, standards / qualifications organisations, educational institutions, corporations) to make a contribution (subscription) of US$1,600 to cover fixed costs of preparation for the Lille Working Session including: Research and preparation of background materials to enable work on the framework to result in real outcomes from the February 2003 workshop Project establishment (incl. project URL and website) Printing of materials Administrative support at the workshop venue for 2.5 days and to gather, collate and disseminate proceedings Services SETA, South Africa, offered to provide general secretariat services at no cost to the project. Business Services Training Australia offered to act as trustee for receipt and distribution of funds. ESC Lille offered the meeting venue in Lille at no cost to the project. At the Lille Working Session it was agreed that any organisation wishing to receive copies of the research reports and materials prepared to support the Session, and/or be represented in future Working Sessions of the initiative, would be required to pay a subscription fee of US$1600 or an amount that may be decided by the current subscribers from time to time. The subscription fees will be used to fund ongoing research and support for the initiative and may be considered as a form of syndicated research. Lists of organisations subscribing to this initiative, and of attendees at the Lille Working Session from 24 to 26 February 2003, are included as Appendix A and Appendix B to this report. Working Paper No 1: Report from Working Session February, 2003, Lille, France 7

8 2 Background 2.1 Development of Guides and Standards for Project Management Defining a body of knowledge and developing guides and standards for practice as a basis for education, training and associated certification or qualification programs are activities generally associated with the formation of a profession. It is therefore not surprising that, associated with growing interest in and application of project management, professional associations such as the Project Management Institute (PMI ), International Project Management Association (IPMA), Association for Project Management (APM, UK), the Australian Institute of Project Management (AIPM), and the Japan Project Management Forum (JPMF) have taken an active role in this area. Responding to the needs of industry, governments in the United Kingdom, South Africa and Australia have resourced the development of standards for project management as part of their national qualification frameworks. Project management professional associations have also taken an active interest in the development of standards underpinning such qualification frameworks. In Australia, the AIPM actively lobbied the government for funding of the development of performance based competency standards for project management. As an indication of the interest of industry in these standards, which are included in the Business Services Training Package, they have also been made part of training packages for the National Public Services (PSP99), Information Technology (ICA99) and Local Government (LGA00). Enterprises have drawn on these guides and standards, developed by both project management professional associations and governments, as a basis for shared project management terminology, corporate project management methodologies and internal accreditation schemes. 2.2 Purpose and Justification for a framework of Global Performance Based Standards for Project Management Personnel With growth in interest in project management, and its adoption by an increasing number of organisations across a range of industries as a preferred management approach, there is associated interest in practice standards that provide practitioners and organisations with guides to levels of acceptable workplace performance and certification and qualification processes that provide employers with some assurance of the competence of staff. Many of those organisations that are adopting project management approaches operate globally, and many project management practitioners aspire to career mobility. Hence industry and practitioners are interested not only in Working Paper No 1: Report from Working Session February, 2003, Lille, France 8

9 the assurance of the appropriate competency levels but also in the transferability of standards and associated qualifications across national boundaries. Governments, concerned with ensuring an internationally competitive workforce are also interested in mutual recognition and transferability of qualifications. The purpose of this initiative is therefore to develop an agreed framework for Global Performance Based Standards for Project Management Personnel that can be used by organisations, academic institutions, professional associations and government standards and qualifications bodies globally. It is proposed that these standards form a basis for review, development and recognition of local standards that map to a global framework and therefore provide a sound basis for mutual recognition and transferability of project management qualifications. 2.3 Definition of a Framework For the purposes of working towards a framework of Global Performance Based Standards for Project Management Personnel, a framework is defined as a structure that describes elements and relationships, enabling stakeholders with divergent views and vested interests to achieve a common understanding and enter into productive dialogue. It is intended that this dialogue will lead to agreement on a framework of global performance based standards for project management personnel that will provide a basis for mutual recognition of professional qualifications. 3 Project Management Standards Interest in project management from a global perspective has been evident for some time. In October 1995, twenty-nine countries were represented at a Global Project Management Forum held in association with a PMI Seminar / Symposia in New Orleans (Pennypacker, 1996) and the primary topic of interest was the possibility of achieving globally recognised project management standards and certification. Subsequent Global Forums, held in association with project management conferences, have continued to address standards and certification. The IPMA initiated a series of Global Working Parties at a meeting in East Horsley, England in February The working parties considered Standards, Education, Certification, Accreditation / Credentialing, Research and the continuation of the Global Forum process. The Global Working Group on Standards has continued to meet and has accepted a framework for their work that identifies those areas in which they consider project management standards to be relevant, namely: Working Paper No 1: Report from Working Session February, 2003, Lille, France 9

10 Projects: knowledge and practices for management of individual projects Organisations: enterprise project management knowledge and practices People: development, assessment and registration/ certification of people The most widely known, distributed and used guides and standards for project management are presented in Figure 1 below, indicating their general focus: projects, organisations or people. They can be further classified as either focusing on knowledge or on description of practices, the latter being primarily in the form of performance based competency standards or frameworks intended specifically for development and assessment of project management practices in the workplace. APMBoK PMBOK Guide IPMA Competence Baseline (ICB) Projects BS 6079 BS P2M 6079 M ANCSPM PMI PM CDF People Organisations OPM 3 SAQA ECITB OSCEng Figure 1: Most widely recognised, distributed and used project management guides and standards (see Appendix C for full details of guides and standards included in this diagram) The research conducted to support the Lille Working Session in Lille in February 2003 includes review and comparison of knowledge guides as well as performance based standards and guidelines. However, the primary focus has been on those standards and / or guidelines that are developed in the context of nationally endorsed qualifications frameworks as a basis for criterion based assessment of workplace performance, namely those of Australia, South Africa and the United Kingdom. The PMI s Project Manager Competency Development Framework has also been included as its format is similar to that of the government endorsed performance based standards. Hence, the documents that are of primary interest to this initiative are those Working Paper No 1: Report from Working Session February, 2003, Lille, France 10

11 categorized as applicable to People in Figure 1 above and presented in Figure 2 below. The IPMA Competence Baseline is shown in Figure 1 as relating both to Projects and People as it is intended as a basis for assessment of individuals and includes a section (Chapter D) on application at different levels of performance. However, the IPMA Competence Baseline is essentially a knowledge guide and is not written in the format for performance based competency standards. As such, it has not been included in the documents for detailed reference in this review. It was included in review of knowledge standards and guides. Abbrev. Details # of NQF* Levels NCSPM ECITB PMSGB / SAQA National Competency Standards for Project Management (Revised Draft Version 1.1 February 2003) Business Services Training Australia National Occupational Standards for Project Management (Pre-launch Version September 2002) Engineering and Construction Industry Training Board, UK National Certificate in Generic Project Management (Project Administration and Co-ordination) at NQF Level 4 South Africa PMI PMCDF Project Manager Competency Development Framework (2002) Project Management Institute Figure 2: Standards and/or Guidelines selected for use in this review *NQF = National Qualifications Framework N/A Working Paper No 1: Report from Working Session February, 2003, Lille, France 11

12 4 Performance Based Competency Standards 4.1 Purpose and format of Performance Based Competency Standards Performance based competency standards describe what people can be expected to do in their working roles, as well as the knowledge and understanding of their occupation that is needed to underpin these roles at a specific level of competence. A valuable aspect of such standards is that they are specifically designed for assessment purposes. At the same time, they are developmental in their approach, with assessment being undertaken by registered Workplace Assessors, within a well defined quality assurance process. Such standards have been developed within the context of government endorsed standards and qualifications frameworks in Australia (ANTA), New Zealand (NZQA), South Africa (SAQA) and the United Kingdom (QCA). Performance based inference of competence is concerned with demonstration of the ability to do something at a standard considered acceptable in the workplace, with a focus on threshold rather than superior performance. The definition of Competency, within the context of performance based or occupational competency standards, is considered as addressing two questions: - What is usually done in the workplace in this particular occupation / profession / role? - What standard of performance is normally required? The answers to these questions are written in a particular format. Units and Elements of Competency / Specific Outcomes Development of performance based competency standards begins with an overview of the competency of the overall profession or occupation with an emphasis on the competency levels of particular interest. The overall competency of a profession or occupation is then subdivided into manageable components that are meaningful to practitioners and will be observable in the performance of individuals in the workplace. This first subdivision reflects significant functions of the profession and is generally referred to as a Unit. Working Paper No 1: Report from Working Session February, 2003, Lille, France 12

13 Each Unit of Competency describes a broad area of professional or occupational performance. As a Unit is likely to be too large to be practically demonstrable or assessable for the purposes of recognition of competence of individuals in the workplace, Units are usually further subdivided into what are referred to in the Australian system as Elements of Competency and in the South African system as Specific Outcomes. Elements of Competency or Specific Outcomes constitute the building blocks of each Unit of Competency, describing in more detail what is expected to be done in the workplace for each Unit. Performance or Assessment Criteria While Units and Elements or Specific Outcomes describe what is done in the workplace, Performance Criteria (Australia) and Assessment Criteria (South Africa) describe the standard of performance that is required. Performance Criteria / Assessment Criteria specify the type of performance in the workplace that would constitute adequate evidence of competence. They describe what a competent practitioner would do, expressed in terms of observable results and/or behaviour in the workplace. Performance or Assessment Criteria specify the evidence from which competent performance in an Element of Competency or Specific Outcome would be inferred. Range Statements Range Statements (Australia and South Africa) describe the circumstances or context in which competent performance is expected. They add definition to the Unit by elaborating critical or significant aspects of the performance requirements of the Unit. The Range Statement establishes the range of indicative meanings or applications of these requirements in different operating contexts and conditions. The term Scope is used in the recently endorsed UK ECITB standards to refer to the same concept. Underpinning Knowledge and Understanding (UKU) The Australian standards recognize the need for performance to be underpinned by relevant knowledge and understanding (ie underpinning knowledge and understanding). This is referred to in the South African standards as embedded knowledge. The UK (ECITB) standards refer to both underpinning knowledge and understanding and specific knowledge required for this Unit. Working Paper No 1: Report from Working Session February, 2003, Lille, France 13

14 Key Competencies and Critical Cross-Field Outcomes The South African standards include Critical Cross-Field Outcomes. These are outcomes that are useful for, and result from, all teaching and learning. In the Australian context, standards include reference to key competencies, defined as generic skills or competencies considered essential for people to participate effectively in the workforce. Key competencies apply to work generally, rather than being specific to work in a particular occupation or industry. The Finn Report (1991) identified six key areas of competence which were subsequently developed by the Mayer committee (1992) into seven key competencies: collecting, analysing and organising information; communicating ideas and information; planning and organising activities; working with others and in teams; using mathematical ideas and techniques; solving problems; and using technology [ Evidence Guides Some standards provide indicative lists of the types of workplace evidence that might be suitable to support assessment against the Assessment or Performance Criteria. 4.2 Levels The concept of levels, relating to different roles and levels of responsibility in the workplace, as well as to different levels of academic or workplace achievement, is fundamental to government endorsed performance based competency standards and qualifications frameworks. From a government viewpoint, the standards and qualifications frameworks are generally intended to - Provide pathways for skill development for individuals - Facilitate recognition of current competence - Increase skill and qualification levels of the national workforce - Encourage and facilitate multi-skilling - Give workers access to nationally recognised qualifications Levels are important in the context of government endorsed qualifications frameworks and Figure 3 provides a summary of the approximate equivalency of levels or roles addressed by standards and guides referenced in this review, Working Paper No 1: Report from Working Session February, 2003, Lille, France 14

15 Standard / Guide NCSPM (Australia) ECITB (UK) PMSGB / SAQA (South Africa PMI PMCDF Project Team Member (A) Project Manager (B) Project / Program Director (C) AQF Level 4 AQF Level 5 AQF Level 6 NQF Level 4 NVQ Level 4 NVQ Level 5 Project Manager Figure 3: Equivalent levels of standards and guides selected for review 4.3 Structure and Terminology Status Govt. endorsed standard Govt. endorsed standard Govt. endorsed standard Competency development guideline only The typical structure and terminology used in performance based competency standards has been described in Section 4.1. As outlined in Section 4.2 above, there are strong similarities between the structure and intent of the performance based standards and guides selected for review. There are, however, some differences in this structure and in the terminology used to describe the various parts of the structure. A summary of the equivalent structural units of each of the four standards / guides selected for review is therefore presented in Figure 4. NCSPM (Australia) ECITB (UK) PMSGB/SAQA (South Africa) PMI - PMCDF Terms adopted for use in Working Session Unit Unit Unit Unit Competency Cluster Element Unit* Specific Outcome Element Specific Outcome Performance Criteria Assessment Criteria Performance Criteria Performance Criteria Range Statement Scope Range Statement Range Statement Evidence Guide / Underpinning Knowledge & Understanding (UKU) Specific Knowledge required for this Unit Embedded knowledge Peformance / Knowledge Competencies Underpinning Knowledge and Understanding (UKU) Key Competencies Critical Cross Field Outcomes Personal Competencies Figure 4: Comparative structure and terminology of standards selected for review *Note: The level of detail of the Units of the ECITB standards is nearer to that of the Elements / Specific Outcomes in the other standards and guides 4.4 Content and Coverage Review and comparison of the content and coverage of project management standards and guides in general and of the four standards / guides selected for review, in particular, was the primary Working Paper No 1: Report from Working Session February, 2003, Lille, France 15

16 focus of the research team in preparing this material to support the Lille Working Session in February Two main research approaches have been taken. First, the content of the standards / guides was mapped at the Specific Outcome level and above to identify those concepts or topics that are covered in all or some of the standards / guides. Secondly, detailed text analysis was carried out on the full text of the documents under review, using Wordsmith Tools Version 3.0 (Scott, 1999). In this way it was possible to identify concepts / topics that were not identified at the topic level of knowledge standards / guides or at the Specific Outcome level of the performance based standards / guides but were significantly represented throughout the text of the documents. The concepts / topics derived from literature review, mapping and text analysis were then used as codes and the full text of all documents was coded using AtlasTi 1 for interactive use during the Lille Working Session. Full results of comparative analysis of knowledge and practice standards and guides is documented in the Background and Preparatory Material for Working Session February, 2003, Lille, France. This report, plus guides showing mapping of each of the references standards and guides to the 48 concepts / topics identified, are available to organisations that subscribe to the Global Performance Based Standards for Project Management Personnel (contact secretariat@globalpmstandards.org for subscription details). The list of 48 Concepts / Topics identified is included as Appendix C to this report. 5 Process of the Lille Working Session Facilitation of the Lille Working Session was carefully planned to draw upon the knowledge and experience of expert participants assist the expert participants in developing a shared understanding of the nature of performance based standards and the processes involved in their development provide a platform that would enable the participants, representing a wide range of interests and world views, to interact productively, reach new insights and achieve agreement ensure that the content of existing standards and guides was recognised in, and could be mapped to, the outcomes from the Working Session Working Paper No 1: Report from Working Session February, 2003, Lille, France 16

17 6 Results of the Lille Working Session 6.1 Role of the Project Manager The first step in development of performance based standards is to identify and prepare a profile of the occupation or role to be addressed. The focus of attention at this Working Session was the occupation or role of the Project Manager. The role of the Project Manager will vary considerably across organisations, industries and application areas. The attendees at the Lille Working Session developed a generic description of the role of MOST Project Managers in MOST contexts: This role includes individuals who are directly accountable for project execution and outcomes in an organizationally complex environment involving multiple, significant groups of stakeholders 6.2 Functional Analysis Having described the occupation or role to be addressed, the next step is to conduct a functional analysis that involves identifying the work that people in this role or occupation are expected to be able to do. Using the 48 concepts / topics, derived from research and representing the content of existing standards and guides, Working Session participants, through a carefully facilitated process, developed and agreed on 13 groupings of the concepts / topics that represented significant functions that need to be performed by most Project Managers in most contexts. These are presented as the first level or Units of a proposed global framework of performance based standards for project management personnel. Four concepts / topics (Integration Management (13), Project Context / Environment (27), Estimating (9) and Project Life Cycle / Phasing (29)) were considered to be applicable across all Units). Program / Programme Management (24) was considered to be applicable to a higher level role such as that of Program / Programme Manager. One concept / topic, Marketing (16) and two groupings of concept/topics, formed into Units titled Strategic Alignment and Product Functionality Management, were considered to be Units of work outside the definition of the role of the most Project Managers in most contexts although they would be done by some Project Managers in some contexts. 1 Working Paper No 1: Report from Working Session February, 2003, Lille, France 17

18 Draft Unit descriptors, with cross referencing to the content of existing standards, are provided in Appendix F. Working Paper No 1: Report from Working Session February, 2003, Lille, France 18

19 Information and Communication Management (12) Reporting (35) Documentation Management (8) Stakeholder Management (41) Benefits Management (1) Team Building / Development (44) Goals, Objectives, Strategies (11) Project Initiation / Start-up (28) Success (Criteria & Factors) (43) Integration Management (13) Project Context / Environment (27) Estimating (9) Project Life Cycle / Phasing (UKU) (29) Project Start-up (28) Relationship Management (41) Leadership (14) Problem Solving (22) Teamwork (44) Conflict Management (5) Negotiation (17) Cross Unit Outcomes Interpersonal Program / Programme Management (24) Project Manager Role Units 01/03/ v13 Resource Management (37) Project Planning & Control Project Evaluation and Improvement Performance Management (19) Scope Project Scope Management (48) Product Scope Time Management (40) Cost Management (6) Resource Management (37) Procurement (23) Project Organisation (32) Personnel / Human Resource Management (20) Quality Management (33) Project Monitoring and Control (31) Change Control (3) Project Planning (30) Organisational Learning (18) Project Evaluation and Review (21) Project Management Quality Product Quality Requirements Management (36) Marketing (16) Configuration Management (4) Technology Management (46) Product Functionality Design Management (7) Value Management (47) Strategic Alignment (42) Project appraisal (25) Strategic Alignment (42) Business case (2) Financial Management (10) Legal Issues (15) Risk Management (38) Finalisation Project Closeout / Finalisation (26) Testing, Commission, Handover, Acceptance (45) Legal Issues (15) Regulations (34) Safety, Health & Environment (39) Figure 5: Units developed from 48 Concepts / Topics Units considered to be applicable only to some Project Managers in some contexts are shown shaded Working Paper No 1: Report from Working Session February, 2003, Lille, France 19

20 6.3 Commentary on Unit definition The use of the 48 concepts / topics as a starting point for development of Units representing significant functions that need to be performed by most Project Managers in most contexts was intended to ensure that the content of existing standards and guides could be mapped to the new Unit structure. The Lille Working Session participants therefore took a fresh look at the building blocks of the Project Manager role and ways in which they might be coherently combined in meaningful functional units. Participants worked in three separate teams to come up with groupings of concepts / topics into proposed Units. Although each team took a slightly different approach, their was considerable agreement. Creative negotiation, involving in depth discussion of rationale behind the groups led to the final draft Unit definition. The Unit definition resulting from the work of participants at the Lille Working Session provides some interesting new insights. Without any specific attempt to avoid the adoption of the high level structure of any of the existing standards or guides, a structure emerged that bears some resemblance to existing models but has some very interesting points of difference. Relationship Management is a term that can be found in the Japanese P2M but is not generally used in the other standards and guides for knowledge and practice (refer Figure 1). This Unit represents an holistic approach to interactions with and between stakeholders, as it brings together Stakeholder Management (41), Information / Communication Management (12), Reporting (35), Documentation Management (8), Benefits Management (1) and the Team Building / Development aspects of concept / topic No. 44. This immediately raises the visibility and importance of relationships and interface management on projects. A separate Unit has been identified, encompassing Interpersonal skills or competencies, raising the visibility of aspects of the Project Manager role that are often assumed or included with other skill sets. The recognition of Interpersonal competencies was considered important as the attendees at the Lille Working Session considered that they are fundamental to the successful performance of the Project Manager role. The creation of a Unit titled Resource Management, encompassing the identification, planning, acquisition, scheduling, control and release of all resources including human resources, plant and equipment, money, and materials also represents a change from existing models. Concepts / topics included within Resource Management are Resource Management (37), Personnel / Working Paper No 1: Report from Working Session February, 2003, Lille, France 20

21 Human Resource Management (20), Project Organisation (32) and Procurement (23). This combination provides a more holistic approach to Resource Management. It is likely, however, that when the model is developed to a greater level of detail that it will be necessary to split Contract Management out as a separate Unit, which in its entirety, may only be required to be performed by some Project Managers in some contexts. Notably, Team Building and Development which in some models is included with Personnel / Human Resource Management, has been included in this model in the Unit Relationship Management. The Lille Working Session participants discussed at length the identification of Legal Issues as a Unit in its own right. One view was that Legal Issues (15), including Regulations (34), Safety, Health and Environment (39) must be complied with by all Project Managers in all contexts and across all Units and it should therefore be included as a Cross Unit Outcome. Another view was that it was important to raise the visibility of Legal Issues as a key aspect of the performance of the Project Manager. This view prevailed at the Lille Working Session. Integration Management (13), Project Context / Environment (27), Estimating (9) and Project Life Cycle / Phasing (29) have not been included in any of the Units. The decision of the Lille Working Session participants was that these functions would need to be performed across all Units. Project Life Cycle / Phasing (29) was considered to be more in the nature of required underpinning knowledge and understanding that a need for specific performance. There is a very strong relationship between the Units Project Planning and Control and Project Evaluation and Improvement. Feedback to Organisational Learning (18), which was discussed primarily in the context of capture and re-use of project learning; Project Evaluation and Review (21) and Performance Management (19), rely heavily upon inputs from Project Planning and Control. This may need to be revisited in future drafts. There is also potential overlap between Project Planning and Control, which is integrative by nature, and the separate Units for Scope Management (48), Time Management (40), Cost Management (6), Quality Management (33) and Risk Management (38). Such overlaps will need to be resolved as the framework is developed in further detail. 7 Further Development The Units identified in Figure 5 represent a first draft of the proposed Global Framework of Performance Based Standards for Project Management Personnel. Using the 48 underlying Working Paper No 1: Report from Working Session February, 2003, Lille, France 21

22 concepts / topics the coverage of existing standards can be mapped to the Global Framework to assess comparative breadth of coverage. Feedback is now sought on the draft Units and Unit Descriptors (Appendix E). The participants at the Lille Working Session, in order to develop their understanding of the nature of performance based standards and enable them to approach the development of a Unit based framework, considered the nature of the activities that need to be performed by most Project Managers in most contexts and began developing more detailed statements of Specific Outcomes and Performance Criteria. Once feedback has been received on the Unit based framework, further work can proceed in terms of development of Specific Outcomes within each of the agreed Units. A further decision can then be made as to whether a globally agreed framework of performance based standards for project management personnel needs to be developed to the Performance Criteria level. To date, only the Project Manager role has been addressed. Further work may include the development of the framework to include other Project Management roles. 7.1 Next meeting A further meeting to progress the work presented here, towards development of a framework of global performance based standards for project management personnel, is proposed to be held in Sydney, Australia, in October 2003 (tentative dates 8-11 October 2003). Any organization or individual interested in attending this meeting to contribute to the development process should contact the Secretariat secretariat@globalpmstandards.org. 7.2 Feedback All comments and feedback on this document, on the draft Units and Unit Descriptors and other aspects of the overall initiative for development of a framework of Global Performance Based Standards for Project Management Personnel (such as potential uses, funding, ownership, management, maintenance, development and dissemination) should be directed to the Secretariat secretariat@globalpmstandards.org. Working Paper No 1: Report from Working Session February, 2003, Lille, France 22

23 List of References Finn, B. (1991) Young People's Participation In Post-Compulsory Education And Training, Canberra: AGPS. Mayer Committee (1992) Key competencies : report of the Committee to advise the Australian Education Council and Ministers of Vocational Education, Employment and Training on employment-related key competencies for postcompulsory education and training, Melbourne: Australian Education Council and Ministers of Vocational Education, Employment and Training. MCI (1997) Manage Projects: Management Standards - Key Role G, London: Management Charter Initiative. Office of Government Commerce (OGC) (2002) Successful delivery skills framework, Version 1.0, OSCEng (1996) OSCEng Level 4. NVQ/SVQ in Project Controls, England: Occupational Standards Council for Engineering. OSCEng (1997) OSCEng Levels 4 and 5: NVQ/SVQ in (generic) project management, Occupational Standards Council for Engineering. Pennypacker, J.S. (1996) The Global Status of the Project Management Profession. Upper Darby, PA: Project Management Institute. Scott, M. (1999) Wordsmith Tools Version 3, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Themistocleous, G. and Wearne, S.H. (2000) Project management topic coverage in journals. International Journal of Project Management 18 (1):7-11. Working Paper No 1: Report from Working Session February, 2003, Lille, France 23

24 Appendix A: GPBSPMP List of Subscribing Organisations Athabasca University Australian Institute of Project Management Business Services Training Australia Cambridge International Examinations ESC Lille Guangdong Provincial Financial Bureau, World Bank Projects Management Office of Guangdong Province NASA, Academy of Project and Program Leadership PMSA (Project Management South Africa) Project Management Professionals Certification Center, Japan Project Management Institute Project Performance Group Services SETA Society of Project Managers, Singapore University of Technology, Sydney Appendix B: Lille Working Session February 2003 List of Attendees Name Subscribing Organisation 1 Aitken, Alicia Australia Project Performance Group 2 Azad,Yusuf France ESC Lille 3 Baker, Eleanor Australia University of Technology, Sydney 4 Bredillet, Christophe France ESC Lille 5 Crawford, Lynn Australia University of Technology, Sydney 6 Duncan, Bill USA University of Technology, Sydney 7 Fahrenkrog, Steve USA Project Management Institute 8 Ho, Bernard Singapore Society of Project Managers, Singapore 9 Ishikura, Masayuki Japan Project Management Professionals Certification Center 10 Jensen, Jens Peter Denmark Cambridge International Examinations 11 Lilly, Megan Australia Business Services Training Australia 12 Mabuza, Themba South Africa Services SETA 13 Moussa, Neveen Australia Australian Institute of Project Management 14 Potturi, Raju Raghava France ESC Lille 15 Rider, Lesley South Africa Services SETA 16 Rodrigues,Bruce South Africa PMSA 17 Ross, Sarah France ESC Lille 18 San, Chung Choon Singapore Society of Project Managers, Singapore 19 SHAH, Nassar France ESC Lille 20 Thomas, Janice Canada Athabasca University 21 Violette, Dave USA Project Management Institute Working Paper No 1: Report from Working Session February, 2003, Lille, France 24

25 Appendix C: List of Standards and Guides presented in Figure 1 Projects IPMA Competence Baseline (ICB) IPMA (1999) ICB: IPMA Competence Baseline. Caupin, G., Knopfel, H., Morris, P., Motzel, E. and Pannenbacker, O., (Eds.) Germany: International Project Management Association. APMBoK Association for Project Management (APM) Body of Knowledge Dixon, M. (2000) APM Project Management Body of Knowledge, Fourth edn. Peterborough, England: Association for Project Management. PMBOK Guide Project Management Institute (2000) A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK Guide), 2000 BS 6079 British Standards Board (1996) Guide to project management: BS6079: 1996, London: British Standards Board. P2M ENAA (2002) P2M: A guidebook of project & program management for enterprise innovation: Summary translation. Revision 1, Japan: Project Management Professionals Certification Center (PMCC). OPM3 Organisations Project Management Institute. (Organizational Project Management Maturity Model (OPM3) [Web Page]. Available at (Accessed 18 August 2002). PRINCE 2 Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency (CCTA) (1998) PRINCE 2 Handbook, Contact website: People ECITB ECITB (2002) National occupational standards for project management: Pre-launch version September 2002, Kings Langley: Engineering Construction Industry Training Board. SAQA South African Qualifications Authority, General Notice No of 2001: Notice of publication of unit standards-based qualifications for public comment: National Certificate in Project Management - NQF Level 4. Government Gazette Vol. 437, No , 21 November 2001 PMI PM CDF Project Management Institute (2002) Project Manager Competency Development Framework, Newtown Square, PA, USA: Project Management Institute. Working Paper No 1: Report from Working Session February, 2003, Lille, France 25

26 NCSPM AIPM (Sponsor) (1996) National Competency Standards for Project Management, Sydney: Australian Institute of Project Management (available at Or Australian National Training Authority (ANTA). (1996)(BSX90) Project Management [Web Page]. Available at (Accessed 18 August 2002). For copies of latest draft of revised standards, refer or Working Paper No 1: Report from Working Session February, 2003, Lille, France 26

27 Appendix D: List of 48 Concepts / Topics List of Concepts / Topics identified in Performance Based Standards / Guides 1 Benefits Management 2 Business Case 3 Change Control 4 Configuration Management 5 Conflict Management 6 Cost Management 7 Design Management 8 Document Management 9 Estimating 10 Financial Management 11 Goals, Objectives and Strategies 12 Information / Communication Management 13 Integration Management 14 Leadership 15 Legal issues 16 Marketing 17 Negotiation 18 Organisational learning (inc. Lessons Learned) 19 Performance measurement 20 Personnel / Human Resource Management 21 (Post-) Project Evaluation Review 22 Problem solving 23 Procurement 24 Program / Programme Management 25 Project Appraisal (Options / Modelling Investment/Evaluation/Analysis) 26 Project Closeout / Finalisation 27 Project Context / Environment 28 Project Initiation / Start-up 29 Project Life Cycle / Project Phases 30 Project Planning 31 Project Monitoring & Control 32 Project Organisation 33 Quality Management 34 Regulations 35 Reporting 36 Requirements Management 37 Resource Management 38 Risk Management 39 Safety, Health and Environment 40 Time Management/Scheduling/Phasing 41 Stakeholder / Relationship Management 42 Strategic alignment 43 Success 44 Team Building / Development /Teamwork 45 Testing, commissioning & handover/acceptance 46 Technology Management 47 Value Management 48 Work Content and Scope Management Working Paper No 1: Report from Working Session February, 2003, Lille, France 27