You’re a PMP, but Are You a Project Management Professional?
By Lee Lambert, PMP

In the last several years I have had the opportunity to speak to over 8,000 Project Management Professionals (PMPs) in many of the largest PMI membership chapters in North America. During those sessions I conducted non-scientific polls to determine the depth and breadth of the application of the Global Standard, A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK) to which this group of dedicated professionals had been tested to earn this prestigious certification and take their place among the elite in their chosen field.

Granted, 8,000 is a small sample from the over 350,000 PMPs worldwide, but frankly, I was shocked with the results of my simple survey and what the implications were. Fundamentally, I sought two pieces of input: 1) how many of the PMPs were consistently utilizing the Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) as described and illustrated in The PMBOK on their projects and; 2) how many were implementing the Precedence Diagramming Method (PDM) using the WBS Work Packages to determine logic relationships/work flow based on work content and resource allocation decisions.

When asked to simply raise their hand if their response to my verbal query was affirmative, the data distribution among the 8,000 plus respondents was as follows:

WBS--a total of approximately 1,500 (less than 20%) PMPs raised their hands

PDM--a total of approximately 900 (less than 12%) PMPs raised their hands

Interpretation: As a profession, project management may have a problem! We have far too many individuals who have worked hard, attended the best project management training and invested time and money in earning their PMP credential, but now are admittedly not adhering to the very same standards to which they were tested and for which they should be held accountable.

The reason I chose the WBS and PDM as the basis for my study was that these two fundamental concepts are at the heart of successful project management. Without proper and dedicated attention to developing these two “products” from the myriad tools and techniques available to today’s project management professional in planning and executing a project, the reality is the rest may well be “smoke and mirrors”.

First, let’s examine the potential of the proper use of the WBS.

Most PMPs would admit that one of the biggest challenges facing them in successfully delivering the traditional triple constraint is the lack of clarity of scope definition and/or requirements definition. The careful use of the WBS concept will reduce or eliminate this problem by providing the framework to decompose the work/deliverables to a size that significantly enhances the clarity and articulation of expectations among all involved parties—thus creating the basis for one of the most important components of PM—measurement of status/accomplishment over time. The smaller the work package, the more precisely status can be measured based upon objective indicator milestones with designated completion criteria.

Additionally, the more clarity in the work content/requirements the more effectively “skill set match” can be achieved when assigning human resources, allowing the impacts of skill set mismatch caused by resource capability/availability constraints to be evaluated and the impact on the project’s timing and cost can be calculated using:

Duration Impact = Effort/Productivity divided by Resource Availability

Cost Impact = Effort/Productivity X Resource Rate