Letter to PMI BOD 16-Mar-2008

From PMI Pro-Democracy Movement

You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reasons:

• The action you have requested is limited to users in the group: Users.
• This page has been locked to prevent editing.

You can view and copy the source of this page:

Sent March 16, 2008 Dear Dr. Yanping Chen, PhD, Vice Chair, PMI Board of Directors: We thank PMI for hosting a representative from each of our components to serve on the Virtual Communities Project that was started in March 2007 in Philadelphia. All components that could send representatives did and were elated with the beginning statement by the project manager and PMI staff sponsor that the project’s resulting virtual communities would add governance options which the component could migrate to if they chose to do so. We believe this statement was a key factor in having an honest and vibrant discussion on the issues we face as chartered entities of the institute. However, approximately mid year 2007 during a SIG/College phone conference that was updating the officers on the VCP Project, a caller asked the project manager what had happened to adjusting the current model? The project manager said that there would be no newly incorporated SIGs or Colleges nor would there be any discussion about the current model. He said that all current components would have to apply for an “exception” to remain as an incorporated entity. During a subsequent phone conference call that rolled out the designs of the “Model 2” and “Model 3” virtual communities, the project manager said it was expected that all SIGs and Colleges would move to the new models. When pressed on the aforementioned exception process, the project manager stated that the CEO of PMI would determine if a business case was made for a SIG or College to remain as an incorporated entity. He also stated that if the SIG or College did not receive an exception or migrate to a virtual community model, their charter would be pulled by PMI. At the October 2007 Leadership Institute meeting in Atlanta during the SIG officers meeting the project manager and a PMI staff member rolled out the VCP models during a presentation. Mark Langley was present at the meeting and when asked by a SIG officer if this was a “done deal”, Mr. Langley’s answer was “yes”. At that point it was apparent the GOC CEO and COO were firm and resolute on their action. We are deeply concerned at the current state of affairs between the SIGs and Colleges and the Global Operations Center (GOC) of PMI. We have found, much to our chagrin that the Virtual Communities Project (VCP) of the Communities Transformation Project (CTP) continues in a vacuum without input from or viable alternatives for our virtual components. As a good faith gesture we ask that this topic become an agenda item for the PMI Board and that the board appoint a board member who, with SIG/College participation, will review and evaluate the current GOC VCP position. We suggest the review and evaluation result in a declared action by the PMI BOD. We request all VCP Transition process public announcements be suspended until this issue is resolved. We, as defined below, want to continue our self-governance models that our members expect. '''APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING PMI SIG CHAIRS AND PMI FELLOWS:''' College of Performance Management, Aerospace & Defense SIG, Automation SIG, Design-Procurement-Construction SIG, Financial Services SIG, New Product Development SIG, Metrics SIG, Risk SIG, Service and Outsourcing SIG, Students of PM SIG, and Troubled Projects SIG. And the following PMI Fellows: Russell Archibald, Walter Bowman, Elvin Isgrig, Bryan McConachy, Ron Waller, and Max Wideman. Others have shown support but have not yet documented that support. Copies to: PMI Board of Directors Members, PMI Fellows Enclosure: College/SIG Position Attachment == Implementation of Proposed VCP Models and Their Impact on Existing Virtual Communities == === Executive Summary === PMI Global Operations Center (GOC) COO has stated that the goal of the Virtual Communities Project (VCP) is to “normalize values for community members” and to provide a “consistent member experience.”1 As leaders of a majority of the virtual communities, we believe that the “maximizing” of values for members is a better solution than to normalizing values. To that end we strongly urge the PMI BOD and GOC to rule on the need for an “exception” alternative to the currently established Model 2 and Model 3 framework. We feel we must have the flexibility to implement community models that allow SIGs and Colleges, who satisfy acceptable performance metrics, to continue as mostly autonomous corporate entities that elect their officers from within and maintain their own internal finances. Other structural definitions need to be established that would include defining of specific support to be provided by GOC. The support from PMI GOC to Colleges and SIGs has historically been at best “ad hoc.” The larger SIGs have resources that enable hosting Symposiums with subject matter experts (SMEs) presenting cutting-edge project management information. The smaller SIGs have survived by reaching out through their individual websites with virtual technologies. In effect, all College and SIG communities have been significantly impacted by the lack of assistance from PMI GOC. Yet, most have continued to deliver value in some form to its members despite the challenges. In January 2005, PMI’s Board of Directors endorsed the Community Transformation Project to establish a framework for communities within PMI. In April 2005, 17 leaders from the SIGs and Colleges met in Atlanta with the following objective: “Through partnership and collaboration, identify and develop high-value ideas for how PMI Chapters, Colleges, and SIGs can evolve to meet the needs of PMI members worldwide.”2 We do not feel that objective was accomplished. === Issues with the Current VCP Model Framework === ==== 1.What is Member Value? ==== From the start of the meetings in Philadelphia, the term “Member Value” was brought out as an issue to be dealt with by the VCP. How this term was defined is at the crux of GOC deciding to transform the Colleges SIGs from the independent, incorporated PMI components to organizations fully controlled by and dependent on GOC support. GOC’s determination of member value seems to be defined by a component’s ability to satisfy metrics established within a highly complicated Performance Mgmt. Framework recently published that few Chapters, Colleges, or SIGs could satisfy. Is that fair and what are the expectations of when performance metrics satisfaction will be achieved by all three? ==== 2.Inconsistency in Application of Normalizing Value ==== No two communities are alike. As such, the level of service and the quality of member experience will invariably be different from component to component. The larger, more active, robust communities are more able to channel internal energy and drive to develop additional services and benefits to their members. Why then is it not possible to establish logical alliances between Chapters, Colleges, and SIGs so that this increased member value can be more equally shared between components? This approach is within our reach, but may require efforts by GOC to identify opportunities and coordinate the exchange of knowledge and learning opportunities between components. This effort will certainly facilitate normalizing of values between PMI members worldwide. ==== 3.Normalizing vs. Maximizing Member Value ==== The leaders of the virtual communities, as well as those of the locally based chapters, are passionate, dedicated individuals who volunteer their personal time, energy, and funds to expand project management knowledge and to offer learning and member networking opportunities to their respective organizations. The localized chapter members are a mix of industry and knowledge area focuses; therefore their offerings by definition must be rather generic. As the focus of Colleges and SIGs are more specific to their defined areas of interest, their knowledge exchanges and learning opportunities are normally unique to their areas of interest. We believe implementing the current VCP initiative will stifle the virtual component specific entrepreneurial focus into a cookie-cutter processes that will require PMI GOC approval before implementation, which will be of little value to those who need practical and area specific processes and best practices. Also, the Colleges and SIGs may be developing knowledge and learning opportunities that may not be within the existing PMBOK definitions which therefore may be of little interest to PMI GOC. ==== 4.VCP Affects Ability to Determine Self-Governance ==== The implementation plan for the CTP allows the geographically based communities to continue to elect their own leadership teams, who can define independent visions and develop supporting business plans. However, this implementation fails to address the goal of a “consistent member experience.” Therefore the result of the CTP seems to fail in satisfying its charter. The main focus of the proposed VCP solutions (i.e., currently labeled as Models 2 & 3) is to change the governance of the virtual organizations to ones less autonomous, which do not elect their leadership teams and are no longer separately incorporated entities under the umbrella of PMI. If transformed, the virtual organizations’ ability to conduct certain programs or provide interest specific knowledge and learning offerings is very limited. ==== 5.Poor Business Case for VCP ==== The current scope of the VCP is not understood and not published in sufficient detail to justify the expense. Thus, the business case that justifies the current solutions to the VCP initiative has not been clearly/explicitly stated, validated, or communicated sufficiently to all PMI stakeholders and the general membership. Moreover, a Cost/Benefit Analysis is unknown by the impacted stakeholders and the benefits have not been clearly defined. ==== 6.Intellectual Property Rights ==== More troubling are comments that some of the virtual communities leaders heard from some of the PMI staff. Specifically, it was mentioned that the long-range goal is to have one repository for all project management knowledge. To this end, PMI GOC would be able to provide PMI members a “one stop shop” for all project management content. As members of PMI, we can understand and to some degree support this goal. On the other hand, we are very concerned about our respective organizations’ ability to develop and retain intellectual rights to unique knowledge specific to virtual communities’ interests. On the other hand, it is very appropriate for GOC to enable Colleges and SIGs ability to develop unique and specific knowledge of interest of the general PMI membership. SIGs and Colleges, because of their greater understanding of unique knowledge specific to their interests, can provide that knowledge in a form nearly ready for final editing prior to being deposited into the PMI knowledge data base. We believe Colleges and SIGs would cooperate in such knowledge sharing if reasonable criteria were established. ==== 7.Poor Initiative Management ==== It is of concern by a number of virtual community leaders, that the PMI BOD has not provided appropriate due diligence to safe-guard the PMI membership from GOC non-operational activities. Specifically, we perceive an apparent BOD failure to establish what should be considered as strategic direction to the GOC on a proposed effort that will obviously cause unlawful changes to the structure of PMI’s communities. Nor has the BOD seemed to be concerned about ensuring that all key stakeholders are properly and fairly represented on behalf of their membership. However, we recognize the impact of this VCP was not easily recognized from information initially available and the scope of the change seemed to change at the discretion of GOC as the VCP activities progressed. Therefore, we strongly urge a rapid recognition on the need for intervention by the BOD. === The Future of PMI === As leaders of PMI’s virtual communities, we fundamentally believe that the proposed new VCP models will do irreparable harm to the future vitality of our respective organizations, as well as PMI as a whole. Furthermore, we believe that the current models will significantly deteriorate our ability to address the unique and diverse needs of our members, our industries, and our knowledge areas. We think it is imperative the BOD take action on this serious concern. === Next Steps === The leaders of the virtual communities believe that there are more effective solutions than to address the GOC goal as to “normalize value for community members.” While we agree that normalizing value for members is a worthy goal, we believe that maximizing value for members is an even better one. To that end we urge the PMI BOD to consider additional alternatives for the active virtual communities. We don't think this current VCP initiative requires an “either or” decision, but rather an inclusive “and.” Further, we want to work within the PMI family to identify models that fairly represent the virtual community’s members and their needs. == Downloads == [[media:BOD_VCP_Letter_plus_Enclosure_R8_031608.pdf|PDF of this letter to the BOD]] [[media:Diab_Letter_Regarding_VCP-2008-03-20.pdf|PDF of the response to this letter by Philip Diab, dated 20-Mar-2008]]

Return to Letter to PMI BOD 16-Mar-2008.