Editor’s note: The text below was contained in an email from Eric Jenett to a number of PMI and professional leaders around the world, including the editor of PM World Today, in response to a series of emails on the subject of PMI commercialization, and an interview with PMI’s CEO in BusinessWeekAsia.com in early April. This letter to the editor is published herein with the author’s permission.
22 April , 2007
Dear David,
I have for some time been concerned about the aspect of membership participation input and transparent access related to workings and actions of PMI (the organization or entity not the concept). It is perhaps unfortunate that this concern has been, and increasingly seems to be, in large measure assignable to the decisions of the PMI BoD and the actions of the PMI Administration, presumably, only (??) in execution of BoD direction and guidelines. I have been upset and yet also sad about the fact that the organizations actions apparently require that the term "member-centric" be repeatedly invoked/applied. On the occasion(s) of the invoking/application of that term there seems to be little to no justification or connection made; and for me at least the path or tie to the justification or connection ain't obvious. I have at times been saddened by the changes in nature and apparent direction of the organization that I perceive for they give a rather different "cast" to the organizations "guts".
I think I also recognize that the pressure to change is pretty much a given with not only explosive growth of but also the change in the attributes (demography?) of the membership as a whole. This last in its maturity, concern for the "community of PM practitioners", what I perceive as increasing lack of exposure to the entirety of the concepts and principles, of the whole of PM and to real experience in PM.
I have been concerned also with the explosion of SIGs. As I see (in SIG titles) and hear (in seminar symposiums), I am more and more convinced that what is happening is being generated largely by the coalescing of individuals in groups to more fully differentiate the individuals. My perception, based also in part on the SIG titles, is that these are groups formed by individuals who are PMI members but are looking for the "easy up"; resulting in valuing immediacy and prominence/differentiation today without a full grasp (haven't had explained and demonstrated?) that there are universal and fundamental principles and concepts of PM which in large measure markedly challenge and flatten the NIH and NIMBY syndromes driving much of the proliferation in SIGs. I perceive a growing trend, dangerous to a healthy PM practitioner community and almost sowing the seeds for the fragmentation of the PM practitioner community into a set of practitioner-inhabited silos. The results seem to me to be ideal for the growth of mental hemophilia. This growth of the fragmentation of PM seems to me to be, in the broadest sense, has been made easy by using the "umbrella, resources and credibility" of PMI to avoid forming appropriate separate organizations aligned with and dedicated solely to the perceived needs; which directly results in silo-building within PMI.
Now that I've had my turn at the "bully pulpit" in what some will view as venting, and only that, let me proceed to the more constructive portions of this e-mail, offering what I believe to be a viable solution to the current situation and a way forward worthy of serious, open-minded and problem-acknowledging discussion AMONG the membership. In order to cast a proposed "modus operandi" in executing this discussion and its handling its results. This also serves to provide at least one framework for estimating and evaluating the time, cost and desirability aspects of such a discussion.
My suggestion for the study (not initial, not probing, not "for further discussion") structure to accomplish analyzing and recommending would go straight at the chapter level. The unvarnished results rising and either endorsed and passed up or returned (with reasons) to the originating level. At all stages, I would maintain that the opportunity of presenting a minority opinion - some call it a white paper or minority opinion - as represented by at least 25% of those voting - be offered. Such "white papers" as are generated should be circulated at the appropriate level(s).
In addition EACH such be, without judgment or editing of any sort, placed on the PMI website available to ALL members. My preferred/suggested structure for this effort would be: Chapters, Regional or National organizations as existing -OR CONVENED (dragooned?) to cover perceived gaps, and a reconstituted COUNCIL OF CHAPTER PRESIDENTS.
That last level would then present a set of INSTRUCTIONS, EXPLICIT on both content and mechanisms, to the BoD to IMPLEMENT (not study or review or comment on or pigeonhole but to act on) as representing the polled consensual wishes of the then existing totality of PMI membership. For those that think I am cabbaging onto/of some prior activities, efforts and presentations (some rather fire-brand in nature), YOU ARE CORRECT. But one significant difference: a model for achieving resolution o9n much of the conflict and its perceived source, is offered.
ALL THIS MUST NOT BE DELAYED FOR OR BY ANY UUNDERWAY OR STARTING OR PLANNED CHANGES IN PMI STRUCTURE RESULTING
FROM THE CURRENTLY UNDERWAY "COMMUNITY TRANSFORMATION PROJECT".
I guess this whole thing came together for me as a result of the ongoing if sporadic flow of letters and e-mails on some of which I have been copied. It goes back at least two years so it is hardly a new topic.
While some of this exchange certainly speaks of frustration, yet there remains a kernel of truth; a rather large kernel. There was an article, I think in Fast Company, some time ago about a company called MOZILLA. While I couldn't find the article I remember, I do attach a composite file (.doc) for several articles etc. I found via the INTERNET. The organizational model they chose is, it seems to me, outstandingly suited also to PMI. They have a true not- for-profit with a membership they respond to and serve. They have also established a commercial enterprise devoted solely to commercializing the efforts of the non-profit for the aims or ends that the non-profit assigns to them. The majority of the NET profit this "commercial arm" generates must be directed to the non-profit which enabled their existence and "work" in serving its members.
It seems to me that this very adequately and even elegantly admits that a non-profit "to do good" for the constituency it serves or wishes to serve, does indeed need funding. Short of appealing for donations (at least beyond dues which Mozilla does not impose or collect) they appear to have a reasonable and virtually "duh" no-conflict-of-service-versus-commercialism solution. That dilemma is exactly the situation PMI currently faces.
The Mozilla foundation approach (tailored for the "project management community") serves both what it is supposed to do - the no-conflicting pressures serving members’ interests well as covering adequately the efforts many of us see as "commercial" and not serving or directed to the professional/membership aspects where most of the PMI saleable input is generated.
In my view, Greg Balestrero would make an outstanding, motivated, well oriented and very "believable" managing director for the for-profit end (which probably could be named PMI Inc.). PMI the "Institute" would then need a new "charismatic, believable and a little altruistic" Leader-of-Institute for strategic planning, services development and INSTITUTE operation; institute is capitalized because under this set up, I believe we could in reality live up to what "institute" conveys in the philosophical sense.
PMI was founded - at least that was and remains my drive and perception of the founding - as a FORUM for professional/craft exchange between what I like to call "practitioners". In this sense I viewed it (and still do) as a FORUM - a teaching place. Providing for an exchange of thought and philosophy, of teaching and for self learning of the less experienced from the experience of both the "wiser ones" and those with "specialized know how/what" in certain applications or executions of PM; one could say the "old-timers and the gurus". This, is my founding concept and still today valid for my position. It deals with the fundamental concepts and aspects of the practice of PM while also allowing, in addition, for smaller groups addressing peculiarities of their practice.
Please note my intentional use of the wording "also allowing, in addition,". This choice was/is intentional so that what I call silos are heavily DIScourged and exchange on the fundamentals (some call them principles) of PM AND ITS PRACTICE is not only Encouraged but even "forced or guided". Without practice, and only principles, PM is, in my view best left to the academics.
Let's go back to history and see if we can find an analogy. In talking with my son (in the venture capital and strategic planning business) about the article on Mozilla that I had originally sent to him, he observed that their problem seemed remarkably similar to what I had told him about the stresses and "fissures" within PMI. In discussing the two conflicting (?? - I would vote yes) approaches to providing "practice value" to a community and still receive/generate adequate funding to provide that value and nurture its further creation and update, it came clearly to me that PMI had been founded as a/to provide a FORUM. It had morphed into an AGORA.
Let me use some simple definitions from Collins English Dictionary. While certainly more erudite - and likely less contrasting - definition could likely be found, for my purposes now, consider the following: forum (Latin) - "a meeting or assembly for the open discussion of subjects of public interest". Substitute "practice or profession or community of" for "public" and you have the early PMI and it's founding concepts and thrust.
Now let’s turn to the agora (Greek) - "the market place in Athens used for popular meetings. Or any similar place of assembly in ancient Greece". Here comes the commercialism. It also is very likely that the discussion at any meeting conducted there dealt less with concepts, principles, truths, practices than with talk of a social, political
and commercial import - those items impinging on self interest rather than of the interest of "the public".
Bingo!! PMI has morphed from a FORUM to an AGORA. None of it deliberately nasconded but rather the trend was not picked-up-on clearly in/as to the full impact and consequences of the trend. In the brilliance of hind sight, an analogy and an article in a magazine, I believe you will find that "even" the ancients knew there was a difference and that they should be kept separate. Interestingly, I believe the "funding" needed to implement the decisions on the public interest reached in the FORUM was extracted as taxes on the activity of individuals in the AGORA, in part because the agora's strength and ability to function profitably came from the decisions/actions in the forum and their impacts.
Sound a bit like the "Mozilla concept" ??
Eric Jenet
PMI Fellow and Founder (one of five)
Houston, Texas, USA
