English.doc
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Like this? Share it with your network

Share

English.doc

on

  • 684 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
684
Views on SlideShare
684
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
4
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft Word

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

English.doc Document Transcript

  • 1. (1. FEATURED PAPER How to improve the ICB/NCB based on the Systems Model of Project Management V.Voropaev 1,G. Secletova1,M. Voropaeva-Cates2 (2. GASIS, Moscow, Russia) (3. Lenovo, Raleigh, USA) Abstract— The development of the project management profession (PM) and its widespread application in practice demanded the creation of a corresponding professional infrastructure. This paper discusses the necessity of the acceptance of one united methodology, and systematic, structured approach towards the globally accumulated theoretical and practical knowledge, experience and competence of PM experts. The system approach and system methodology of project management, based on developments and experience accumulated by the Russian Project Management Association SOVNET, are discussed. The system model is analyzed, and differentiated from the rest of known visual models. The paper introduces the project management system model as an elaboration of the system model. It then offers a detailed analysis of IPMA Competence Baseline Version 3.0 (ICB 3.0) structure as well as a discussion of its shortcomings. The paper supports an idea of creation of a global PM infrastructure system with ICB as one of its pivotal elements, urges further testing of current ICB version to insure its integrity, and seeks an improvement of its structural logic and better defined systematization of the competency elements. A logically improved structure and composition of knowledge and competency elements for ICB/NCB is introduced. The paper requires broad discussion and further development. Index Terms—project management, systems model, elements of competency, systematic and structural approach to knowledge 
  • 2. 3 1. INTRODUCTION Intense development of the profession of project management (PM) and its widespread application in practice demanded the creation of a corresponding professional infrastructure, which includes such major components as research, standards, education, training, and certification of specialists and organizations. During the last 30 to 40 years the profession of project management and its infrastructure has been developing simultaneously on different continents and in different countries. As a result, today in the world there are several centers of PM development, each with their own views reflecting their corresponding cultures, and different terminology, methodology and practical applications. This accumulated knowledge, experience, and practical application of PM poses a question of the development of the accepted fundamental principles of PM based on unified solutions, and creation of a global infrastructural system for the profession of PM. It will then allow the creation of national infrastructures, which will meet global and national demands. At the core of the realization of initiatives like this one lays the necessity of the acceptance of one united methodology, and systematically structured approach towards the globally accumulated theoretical and practical knowledge, experience and competence of PM experts. This article suggests one of possible approaches to the solution of the given problem, based on developments and experience accumulated by the Russian Project Management Association SOVNET. At the core of this approach lays the view of the project management discipline, profession, and its elements as a complex structure with specific systems and processes, as it has been practiced in Russia for the last 10 years. In a nutshell, this approach consists of: - The whole complex of possible project management processes being studied within the limits of the active complex cybernetics system, which includes objects, subjects and the processes of project management in all their diversity; - PM tasks and procedures discussed as business processes, consisting of: input, process, output, and all kinds of corresponding process components and characteristics (statement of the task, initial information, algorithms of methods and means for solution, results, executors, their competences and potential, end users and their characteristics, etc). The completeness of the inclusion of PM discipline constituent parts and elements, as well as PM processes with their environments and dynamics require the complexity of the approach. This examination includes: - Possible specter of objects and their characteristics, from work packages to project-oriented activity in business, society, state, and other socio-economic formations; - Possible project participants with their competences and tool sets; - The entire gamut and hierarchy of PM processes with their attributes; - Context and environment of the project activity and project management. The discussion of the practical application for the suggested approach is based on analysis of the structure of the new version of international competence requirements for project management specialists developed by the International Project Management Association (ICB IPMA 3.0) [2]. The purpose of the discussion is to formulate suggestions regarding further improvement of the document. The paper is of methodological type, and it requires broad discussion and further elaboration based on research and practical experience. 2. SYSTEM MODEL FOR PROJECT AND PROGRAM MANAGEMENT Analysis of known methodological approaches to project management [1-9], [16] allows to generalization of the achievements in this area, and development of the system approach [10] and system methodology of project management [11]. At the heart of system approach lays the system model [1]. Analysis of its application in practice, in learning courses, and in project management certification programs brought about a conclusion that system methodology provides a solid understanding between project management specialists and participants, based on united terminology and systematization of potential aggregation of possible elements of PM discipline and tasks. The model offered in this paper differs from the rest of known visual models [14] because it is a multi- dimensional, formal and logical model, oriented not only toward visualization of Project and Program Management (PPM), but primarily toward computerized presentation of the model for its practical application. The logic of this model is dictated by the very essence of management, meaning that it consists of all the links from closed circuit of management: • what needs to be managed (management object); • who manages (management subject); • how to manage (management process). The special quality of the suggested model is in its simultaneous realization of systems, project, and process approaches [13]. “If ‘hierarchy’ is chosen as a model of interactions between the given approaches, then the
  • 3. 4 process approach is enclosed in the project approach, and the project approach is enclosed in the system approach. The methodology of interactions between those approaches can be presented as a “matreshka” (a wooden doll in peasant dress with successively smaller ones fitted into it).” [13]. Thus, the system methodological model realizes complex approach, which sets this model apart from the rest of known project management models. The Project Management System Model (PM SM) (Fig.1) discussed in this paper is a result of elaboration of system model [10]. This PM SM model is based on presentation of project management as a cybernetic system, and contains three major blocks, shown by structural decomposition of project management objects, subjects, and processes. Management Objects (Q) Generally, management objects are sets of tasks to be executed on order to achieve desired objectives and results of a project. Accordingly, management objects can be: • Multitude of projects and programs in organizations, companies and other sociological and business formations • Programs, portfolios • Projects • Life cycle phases of management object: conception, development, implementations, and completion • Work packages • Detailed tasks Management objects can be classified, or, based on terminology of Russell Archibald [14], “categorized” based on variety of projects they consist of (vector K from Fig.1) or types of Project-Oriented Activity (POA). Management Subjects (Z) Management subjects are active participants of a project (program, portfolio), interacting while making managerial decisions in a process of the project’s implementation. Management subjects are: • Major stakeholders and their project teams: - Client, - Investor - General contractor - Subcontractors - Others • Project (program, portfolio) team (L): - Project (program, portfolio) manager - Project management team - Functional managers of a project - Team members of project executors - Other team members Project Implementation Management Process The process of project management is presented as a structural decomposition of functional tasks and project management procedures which need to be executed in order to allow management subjects to make an impact on management objects through decisions. Each process (task) of the project management system model can be identified by selected components of the chosen system model elements {Z, L… Q, C, K… F, S, T…} which are logically interrelated between themselves (for example: Z=Z 1, Z2… Z7). Those components can be also called vectors. Those vectors serve as a base for functional task classification through elements of PPM process, and represent main characteristics of objects (Q, C, K…), subjects (Z,L…), and PPM process (F, S, T…), which can be grouped as follows:: • Steps of management process (F), including: - initiation of a project and its parts - planning of project activities - organization and control of execution of project activities - analysis and regulation of project activities • • • - termination of a project and its parts • Functional areas of management (S), including tasks and procedures, as well as tools for their realization: - scope - time - cost - quality
  • 4. 5 - risks - human resources - communications - contracts - change - other functional areas • Time horizons of management (T), depicted as a hierarchy of time periods within which project management tasks related to different management objects and subjects are examined: - strategic level: embraces the entire project and/or product life cycle - annual level: includes project tasks planned for a year - quarterly level: includes project tasks planned for a quarter - operational level: embraces project tasks planned for a month, 10 days, week, twenty four hours, shift, etc.
  • 5. Management subjects (Z) (1.01, 1.02, 3.11, 1.06,1.07,1.08,1.09, 2.01-2.15,3.04-3.06,3.11) 6 Major stakeholders and their project teams 1.Investor 4.Managing company 6.Coexecutors 7.Others 5.Executors 2.Client 3.General contractor Project (program, portfolio) team 1.Project manager and 4. POA managers in 5.Functional managers and project 2.Program manager and 3.Portfolio manager and the PM team an organization team members the PM team the PM team Management objects – project activities (1.03,1.09, 1.11,3.04,3.06,3.07) 1.Проекты 2.Программы Projects and programs (Q) from different categories (К) 1.Projects 2.Programs 3.Portfoio 4.POA in an organization 5. POA in social and business formations 3.01 3.02 3.03 3.05 Life cycle phases of a management object (C )(1.11) 1.Conception 2.Development 3.Execution 4.Close-out 1.11, Management process (1.01,1.09,3.04) Time horizons of management (Т) 1. Strategic 2. Annual 3. Quarterly 4. Operational 1.Month 2.Decade 3.Day 4.Shift 5.Other Functional areas of management (S) 1.Scope 2.Time 3.Cost 4.Quality 5.Risks 6.Personnel 7.Communication 8.Contracts 9.Change 10.Other 1.10 1.11 1.12,1.13.3.100 1.05 1.04 3.08 1.17,1.18 1.12,,1.14 1.15 3.09 Steps of management process (F) 1.Initiation 2.Planning 3.Organization and control 1.16 4.Analysis and regulation 1.16 5.Termination 1.19 1.20 Fig 1. System model of project and program management
  • 6. 7 3. PROPERTIES OF PROJECT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM MODEL In its essence, the project management system model is a flexible classification system for functional project management tasks and the elements vital for the realization of those tasks (methodological, program, informational, technological, organizational, etc). As a base for the classification of PM tasks serve vectors (such as Z=Z1, Z2… Z7) which depict the elements of the three major blocks of the system model. The flexibility of this classification system is ensured by one’s freedom to select the needed vectors and put them in the order that best serves one’s needs. This provides an opportunity for a construction of a structural model (prototype) and a hierarchical tree diagram for PM tasks with predefined configurations, required by the user for each concrete case in his/her practical work. Consequently, the properties of the system model are: • Clear separation of two types of project activity: - Process of product development, defined by the life cycle of a project, such as constructing a building (area of a functional managers’ responsibility). - Process of project management, defined by the steps of project management process , such as management of the process of a construction of a building (area of a project managers’ responsibility). • Presentation of the project and program management system model as a classification system for the multitude of tasks and procedures which can be completed in the process of managing different objects. • The ultimate flexibility of the system model allows integrating and developing a prototype for any specific project management system of the needed configuration. • Each process (task) of the project management system model is identified by selected components of the chosen system model elements (for example: Z=Z1, Z2… Z7). • Hierarchical structure of management objects based on Work Breakdown Structure (WBS). • Hierarchal structure and relational interconnections between management subjects as defined in an Organizational Chart of a project (OC). • Hierarchy of Organizational Breakdown Structure (OBS), including both project team and project management team (management subjects). • Hierarchy of Task Breakdown Structure (TBS), from separate procedures and elemental tasks to the whole complexes of management systems of different purposes (management objects). • The ultimate flexibility of the system model allows developing a prototype for any specific project management system of needed configuration. • Multi-aspect nature of project management tasks depending on the category (K) of a management object and type (Z) of a management subject. The latter property of the model is especially important for assessment of special methods, technology and organization of management, depending on: • different project categories [14] • different interests of various subjects (stakeholders) Projects from different types of project-oriented activity (K) have different characteristics, such as level of uncertainty, used standards, life cycle phases, legal and normative foundations, etc. Those characteristics substantially influence the definition of PM tasks, the models of complexes of operations to be used, algorithms and problem solving methods, software, etc. In total, to ensure efficient and effective management, projects from different categories (constriction, organizational, social-economical, and so on) may require different methods, tools, and techniques. For instance, construction project management and social development project management require different approaches and tools. PM for management subjects (stakeholders) may differ just as drastically. For instance, management of projects in the best interests of an investor is characterized by his/her own notion with regard to the object of management, specific project and product life cycles, task definitions with his/her own criteria of decision evaluation, specific limitations, constraints, and variables. All the above call for the development and application of special methods and techniques for PM problem solutions targeted specifically for the investor. The same very specific quality also applies to other key project management participants/stakeholders: customers, general contractors, authorities, etc. Thus, a separate functional task structure, or PM sub discipline, is based on the system model and designed for a concrete type of object and subject of a project-oriented activity, each with their own specific requirements, if needed, can be established for each project category and each key participant.
  • 7. 8 4. STRUCTURE AND COMPOSITION OF ELEMENTS IN ICB 3.0 In accordance with [2, 16] IPMA Competence Baseline Version 3.0 (ICB 3.0) is mainly intended for individual specialists, and for assessors conducting certifications. This IPMA normative document is recommended as a manual for development of learning materials and research papers, as well as a reference material. ICB contains the body of knowledge, experience, and personal qualities required for managers of projects, programs, portfolios, and employees of project offices. Fig 2. The Eye of Competence ICB contains major definitions, tasks, practices, skills, functions, management processes, methods, techniques, and tools which form the theory and practice of project management. In ICB, the entire PM knowledge system is illustrated by the model called “The Eye of Competence”, which presents technical, behavioral, and contextual competences of project management. The model represents the integration of all the elements of project management seen through the eyes of the project manager when evaluating a specific situation (Fig. 2). ICB describes three areas with interconnected elements of competency: • 20 technical elements of knowledge, which apply to the subject matter of professional project management; • 15 behavioral elements, which apply to interpersonal relationships between individuals and teams working on realization of projects, programs, and portfolios; • 11 contextual elements, which apply to interactions of project team as a part of a permanent organization during its execution of a project (Fig 3). Technical competences Behavioral competences Contextual competences
  • 8. 9 Project management 1.01 2.01 Leadership 3.01 Project orientation success Engagement and 1.02 Interested parties 2.02 3.02 Program orientation motivation Project requirements 1.03 2.03 Self-control 3.03 Portfolio orientation and objectives Project, program, and 1.04 Risk and opportunity 2.04 Assertiveness 3.04 portfolio implementation (PPP) 1.05 Quality 2.05 Relaxation 3.05 Permanent organization 1.06 Project organization 2.06 Openness 3.06 Business Systems, products, and 1.07 Teamwork 2.07 Creativity 3.07 technology 1.08 Problem resolution 2.08 Results orientation 3.08 Personnel management Health, security, safety, 1.09 Project structures 2.09 Efficiency 3.09 and environment 1.10 Scope and deliverables 2.10 Consultation 3.10 Finance Time and project 1.11 2.11 Negotiation 3.11 Legal phases 1.12 Resources 2.12 Conflict and crisis 1.13 Cost and finance 2.13 Reliability Procurement and 1.14 2.14 Values appreciation contracts 1.15 Changes 2.15 Ethics 1.16 Control and reports Information and 1.17 documentation 1.18 Communication 1.19 Start-up 1.20 Close-out Fig 3. Overview of all areas and elements of competence in ICB 3.0 Based on the chosen criteria, the ICB competence elements are divided into the following three groups: • “Technical competences” are the elements connected with objects of managements and management itself, including such sub-systems as human resources, human-machine systems, information systems, and financial resources. • “Behavioral competences” are the elements connected with behavior of subjects in the process of project, program, and portfolio management. • “Contextual competences” are the elements connected with the context of the project and behavior of the people involved with implementation of a project, program, or portfolio1. From the system approach perspective, the chosen criteria lack clarity – they do not assure homogeneity of elements in each given group and their integrity (Fig.1). For example, the “technical competencies” group is very eclectic and contains elements from different blocks of the systems model: the element 1.03 belongs to the “management object” block, and partially the elements 1.10 and 1.11; the elements 1.01, 1.02, 1.06, 1.07, and 1.08 belong to the “management subject” block; and the elements 1.04, 1.05, 1.09-1.20 belong to the “management process”. “Contextual competencies” also contain elements from different blocks of the system model: the elements 3.01-3.03, 3.05-3.07 belong to “management object”; the elements 3.05, 3.06, 3.11 belong to “management subject”, and the elements 3.04, 3.08, 3.09, 3.10 – to the “management process”. “Behavioral competencies” only contain the elements from “management subject”; however they do not reflect the complete composition of elements from this block. It is difficult to evaluate the integrity of each group and completeness of its composition if the evaluation is based on criteria of competency elements classification accepted in ICB 3.0. There is no doubt that the implementation of the accepted ICB element classification system in its new version is indeed a substantial forward movement in comparison to the previous version of ICB [1]. However, in the authors’ opinion, the system is still far from perfect and cannot provide a clear understanding among the certification candidates and assessors, project management specialist, and
  • 9. 10 participants on the basis of generally accepted terminology and systemization of potential aggregation of possible elements of PM discipline and tasks of all project management stakeholders. This may explain why further discussion of structural logic and possible alternative ways to group the competency elements was suggested as a necessary step towards improvement of the elements competency structure in ICB 3.0. 5. ICB ELEMENTS IN THE SYSTEMS MODEL STRUCTURE As was noted above, the system model consists of collapsed hierarchical tree structures, which include all elements of project management grouped into three blocks. Keeping this definition in mind, let us lay out the elements of ICB 0.3 on the elements of the system model and find out how they correlate with one another (Table I).Hans Knoepfel, Comments to SOVNET suggestions for ICB 3.0, 2006. N Sections and elements Blocks and elements of systems model of ICB 1. 4.1 Elements of Technical competences 2. 1.01 Project management success Management subjects 3. 1.02 Interested parties Management subjects 4. 1.03 Project requirements and objectives Management objects 5. 1.04 Risk and opportunity Management process 6. 1.05 Quality Management process 7. 1.06 Project organization Management subjects 8. 1.07 Teamwork Management subjects 9. 1.08 Problem resolution Management subjects 1 1.09 Project structures Management process 0. 1 1.10 Scope and deliverables Management process 1. 1 1.11 Time and project phases Management process 2. Management object 1 1.12 Resources Management process 3. 1 1.13 Cost and finance Management process 4. 1 1.14 Procurement and contract Management process 5. 1 1.15 Changes Management process 6. 1 1.16 Control and reports Management process 7. 1 1.17 Information and documentation Management process 8. 1 1.18 Communication Management process 9. 2 1.19 Start-up Management process 0. 2 1.20 Close-out Management process 1. 2 4.2 Elements of Behavioral competences 2. 2 2.01 Leadership Management subjects 3. 2 2.02 Engagement and motivation Management subjects
  • 10. 11 2 2.03 Self-control Management subjects 5. 2 2.04 Assertiveness Management subjects 6. 2 2.05 Relaxation Management subjects 7 2 2.06 Openness Management subjects 8 2 2.07 Creativity Management subjects 9 3 2.08 Results orientation Management subjects 0 3 2.09 Efficiency Management subjects 1 3 2.10 Consultation Management subjects 2 3 2.11 Negotiation Management subjects 3 3 2.12 Conflict and crisis Management subjects 4 3 2.13 Reliability Management subjects 5 3 2.14 Values appreciation Management subjects 6 3 2.15 Ethics Management subjects 7 3 4.3 Elements of Contextual competences 8 3 3.01 Project orientation Management objects 9 4 3.02 Program orientation Management object 0 4 3.03 Portfolio orientation Management objects 1 4 3.04 Project, program and portfolio implementation Management object 2 4 3.05 Permanent organization Management object 3 4 3.06 Business Management objects 4 4 3.07 Systems, products and technology Management objects 5 4 3.08 Personnel management Management process: 6 4 3.09 Health, security, safety and environment Management process: 7 4 3.10 Finance Management process: 8 The table analysis shows that all the ICB elements indeed correlate with the elements of the system model. At the same time, the ICB groups contain elements which belong to different blocks of the system model. “Technical competences” elements contain 14 elements which belong to the “Management processes” block, 5 elements which belong to the “Management subjects” block, and 3 elements which belong to the “Management objects” block. All “Behavioral competencies” elements belong to the “Management subjects” block. “Contextual competencies” elements contain 6 elements which belong to the “Management process” block, 1 element which belongs to the “Management subjects” block, and 1 element which belongs to the “Management objects” block. Out of those, 3 elements may be simultaneously placed into two different blocks.
  • 11. 12 Fig. 4 demonstrates how the elements of the system model correlate with ICB 3.0 elements. The green color defines the systems model elements which are completely identical to the ICB elements. These squares are numbered with the same numbers that correlate to ICB elements. The yellow color defines the elements which are not localized in ICB, and the content of which is represented in various ICB elements. Their numbers are listed in correlating blocks of the systems model. The blue color defines the elements of the system model which are not represented in ICB. The comparison shows that all the elements of ICB 3.0 are correlated to the elements of the system model, however not all the elements of the system model are represented in the ICB blocks. Notably, there are many elements defined by the yellow color, which show the lack of a clear definition of those elements as well as the lack of a logical structure in the ICB document. This lack of definition will lead to difficulties in training and certification of specialists. On the basis of conducted analysis and in adherence with ICB 3.0 regulations for development of NCB, the authors of this paper suggest a logically improved structure and composition of knowledge and competency elements for ICB/NCB, shown in Table II. The elements of suggested ICB/NCB structure are defined in accordance with ICB 3.0 elements.
  • 12. Management subjects (Z) (1.01, 1.02, 3.11, 1.06,1.07,1.08,1.09, 2.01-2.15,3.04-3.06,3.11) Management subjects (Z) (1.01, 1.02, 3.11, 1.06,1.07,1.08,1.09, 2.01-2.15,3.04-3.06,3.11) Major stakeholders and their project teams 1.Investor 4.Managing company 6.Coexecutors 7.Others 5.Executors 1.Investor 2.Client 3.General contractor 2.Client 3.General 4.Managing 5.Executors 6.Coexecutors 7.Others contractor company Project (program, portfolio) team 4. POA managers in an 5.Functional managers and project 5.Functional managers and project team 1.Project manager and 1.Project manager 2.Program manager and 2.Program manager and 3.Portfolio manager and 3.Portfolio manager and 4. POA managers in team members organization members and the PM team the PM team thethe PM team PM team the PM team the PM team an organization Management objects –– project activities (1.03,1.09, 1.11,3.04,3.06,3.07) Management objects project activities (1.03,1.09, 1.11,3.04,3.06,3.07) Projects and programs (Q) from different categories (К) Projects and programs (Q) from different categories (К) 1.Projects 1.Проекты 1.Projects 2.Programs 2.Programs 2.Программы 3.Portfoio 3.Portfoio 4.POA inin an organization 4.POA an organization 5. POA in social and business formations 3.05 5. POA in social and business formations 3.01 3.01 3.02 3.02 3.03 3.03 3.05 Life cycle phases of a management object (C )(1.11) 4.Closeout 1.11, Life cycle phases of a management object (C )(1.11) 1.Conception 2.Development 3.Execution 1.Conception 2.Development 3.Execution 4.Close-out 1.11, Management process (1.01,1.09,3.04) Management process (1.01,1.09,3.04) Time horizons of management (Т) Time horizons of management (Т) 1. Strategic 2. Annual 1. Strategic 2. Annual 3. Quarterly 3. Quarterly 4. Operational 6.Day 7.Shift 8.Other 4.Month 5.Decade 1.Month 2.Decade 3.Day 4.Shift 5.Other Functional areas of management (S) 1.Scope 2.Time 3.Cost 4.Quality 6.Personnel 7.Communication 8.Contracts 9.Change 10.Other 1.10 1.11 1.12,1.13.3.100 1.05 Functional areas of management (S) 3.08 1.17,1.18 5.Risks 1.12,,1.14 1.15 3.09 1.04 1.Scope 2.Time 3.Cost 4.Quality 5.Risks 6.Personnel 7.Communication 8.Contracts 9.Change 10.Other 1.10 1.11 1.12,1.13.3.100 1.05 1.04 3.08 1.17,1.18 1.12,,1.14 1.15 3.09 Steps of management process (F) 1.Initiation 2.Planning 3.Organization of management process (F) and regulation 1.16 Steps and control 4.Analysis 5.Termination 1.19 1.16 1.20 1.Initiation 2.Planning 3.Organization and control 1.16 4.Analysis and regulation 1.16 5.Termination 1.19 1.20 Fig 4. Correlation of ICB 3.0 elements with the elements of the system model of project and program management
  • 13. TABLE II ICB 3.0 STRUCTURE NOTES SUGGESTED ICB/ NCB STRUCTURE ICB 3.0 elements correlated to the elements of Content correlation to ICB. 03 suggested ICB/NCB structure elements 1. MANAGEMENT OBJECTS AND CONTEXTUAL COMPETENCES 1. Project 3.01. Project orientation identical 2. Program 3.02. Program orientation additional 3. Portfolio 3.03. Portfolio orientation identical 4. Project-oriented activity in organizations, business- and identical socio-formations 5. Project/program/portfolio implementation 3.04. Project/program/portfolio implementation identical 6. Systems, products, and technologies 3.04. Systems, products and technology identical 7. Requirements, objectives, and strategies: 1.03. Project requirements and objectives broader content project/program/portfolio 8. Criteria for assessment of success and failure in project 1.03. Project success identical management 9. Project structures 1.09. Project structures identical 10. Phases and life cycles: project, product, parent 1.11. Duration (time) and project life cycles Time separated, organization the content of life cycles is broadened 11. Project environment: business, permanent 3.05. Permanent (parent) organization broader content organization, etc.) 3.06. Business 2. MANAGEMENT SUBJECTS, THEIR BEHAVIORAL COMPETENCES AND TOOLS 12. Interested parties 1.02. Interested parties identical 13. Permanent / parent organization 3.05. Permanent (parent) organization identical 14. Project teams and their tasks 1.07. Teamwork identical 15. Project/program/portfolio manager additional 16 Project organization 1.06. Project organization broader content 17. Leadership 2.01. Leadership identical 18. Engagement and motivation 2.02. Engagement and motivation identical 19. Self-control 2.03. Self-control identical 20. Assertiveness 2.04. Assertiveness identical 21. Relaxation 2.05. Relaxation identical 22. Openness 2.06. Openness identical 23. Creativity 2.07. Creativity identical 24. Results orientation 2.08. Results orientation identical 25. Efficiency 2.09. Efficiency identical 26. Problem resolution 1.09. Problem resolution identical 27. Consultation 2.10. Consultation identical 28. Negotiation 2.11. Negotiation identical 29. Reliability 2.13. Reliability identical 30. Values appreciation 2.14. Values appreciation identical 31. Ethics 2.15. Ethics identical 32. IT 1.17. Information and documentation broader content 33. Standards and norms additional 34. Legal 3.11. Legal identical 35. Specific qualities of project management competences additional for stakeholders (investor, client, general contractor, managing company, authorities, etc.) 3. MANAGEMENT PROCESSES AND TECHICAL COMPETENCES 35. Initiation 1.19. Initiation (Start-up) identical 36. Planning additional 37. Organization and control 1.16. Control and reports broader content 38. Analysis and monitoring additional 39. Close-out 1.20. Close-out identical 40. Scope 1.10. Scope and deliverables identical 41. Time 1.11. Duration (time) and project phases Time is identical. Phases are separated 42. Cost and finance 1.13. Cost and finance identical 43. Quality 1.05. Quality identical 44. Risk and opportunity 1.04. Risk and opportunity identical 45. Human recourses 3.08. Personnel management broader content 46. Communication 1.18. Communication identical
  • 14. 47. Procurement and contract 1.14. Procurement and contract identical 48. Change 1.15. Change identical 49. Safety 3.09. Health, security, safety identical 50. Conflict 2.12. Conflict and crisis identical 4. GENERAL COMPETENCE 51. System methodology of project management additional 52. Further development of project management in an organization with implementation of maturity models additional 53. Project management history and development tendencies additional As follows from the analysis of the Table II, suggested ICB structure in practically free from the shortcomings indicated above. It contains all the knowledge and competence elements of ICB 3.0. The total quantity of elements is 53. Out of those 53 elements: • 38 are identical to the ICB 3.0 elements; • 6 are have broader content in comparison to the ICB 3.0 elements; • 1 has different content • 7 are additional; out of those seven, 3 elements which are applicable to all competence areas are placed into a separate group called “General competence”. In the model “Eye of competence”, this new group is presented as a “pupil” of the eye (Fig. 5). Fig 5. Proposed model of competences 6. CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS This paper supports an attempt of the creation of a global PM infrastructure system with ICB as one of its pivotal elements, urges further testing of current ICB version to insure its integrity, and seeks an improvement of its structural logic and clearly defined systematization of the competency elements.
  • 15. Analysis of known mythological approaches towards project management [1-9], [18] and the comparison of the logical structure and composition of elements from ICB 3.0 and the system model, which was introduced earlier in this paper, allow us to draw conclusions and suggest improvements: 1. In the authors’ opinion, ICB 3.0 lacks an acceptable general systematic concept of a document structure. Systematization and a structural approach towards the document and the competency elements are still the most vulnerable features of ICB 3.0. Even though in this new edition there is considerable movement towards improvement, the measures taken in this direction do not seem to be adequate. 2. The classification system used in ICB 3.0 does not seem to be homogeneous and clearly defined which leads to the lack of theoretical substantiality, validity, and integrity of competency elements, groups, and their contents. Therefore, the composition of the elements from each group is vague, does not look convincing, and was in the past a subject to constant critique and poorly reasoned modifications. A number of competencies are important in a practical aspect, yet they are dispersed around different elements of system model or are absent all together. 3. The elements inside each group are not regulated, which leads to difficulties in perception and harnessing of the document materials. 4. ICB 3.0 does not clearly distinguish between the two types of project activity processes and related competencies: the product development process (life cycle of a project/product), and project management process (project management stages). This ambiguity leaves room for questioning the document’s validity and integrity. ICB 3.0 focuses on general competencies of project managers and does not reflect the specifics of their competencies in interests of different subjects (stakeholders). 5. The elaborated ICB/NCB structure suggested in Table II can be used as a basis for further work on improvement of ICB 3.0. It can also be used for development of future versions of NCB, in which case we suggest using the "Begin to See Clearly" model of "The Eye" with a pupil (fig. 5) instead of the "Blind" model of the "Eye" without a pupil (fig. 2.) 6. The authors of this paper suggest that the main directions for further research and development in support of the creation of a generally accepted unified terminology, systematization and structured approach to knowledge, experience and competences of PM specialists should be: • Development and acceptance of an international project management glossary; • Development and acceptance of an international project, program, and portfolio management body of knowledge (IPMA P3M BOK); • Development and acceptance of an international project management body of competences (IPMA ICB 4.0); • Development and acceptance of an international standard for practical application of project management
  • 16. 17 REFERENCES [1] ICB - IPMA Competence Baseline. Version 2.0. IPMA Editorial Committee: Caupin G., Knopfel H., Morris P., Motzel E., Pannenbacker O. – Bremen: Eigenverlag, 1999. – pp.112. [2] ICB - IPMA Competence Baseline, Version 3.0 IPMA Editorial Committee:Gilles Caupin, Hans Knoepfel, Gerrit Koch, Francisco Perez Polo, Klaus Pannenbäcker, Chris Seabury. IPMA, 2006, - pp.127. [3] Body of Knowledge. Fifrth Edition – UK: APM Association for Project Managers. England, 2006. – pp.180 ]4[A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK guide). - PMI, 2003 ed. [5]A guidebook of Project & Program Management For Enterprise Innovation. PMCC/ENNA, Japan,2002. [6]Project Management: Professional Body of Knowledge. National Requirements for Professional Competence (edited by V.I. Voropaev). - Moscow.: SOVNET, «Kubs-Group», 2001. – pp.265. [7] ZERT, Zertifizierungsstelle der GPM Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Projektmanagement e.V.: Projektmanagement-Kanon – Der deutsche Zugang zum Project Management Body of Knowledge, Koln, FRG, 1998. [8] AFITEP, Association Francophone due Management de Project: Matrices devaluation en management de project, France, Javier, 1996. [9]PMA Projekt Management Austria: PM Baseline. Wissenselmente zum Projektmanagement und zum Management Projektorientierter Unternehmen, Version 1.0, Austria, September, 1999. [10] V.I. Voropaev, G.I. Sekletova, System Understanding of Project Management. in: Proceedings of the International Symposium: “Project Management: East-West – Brink of Milleniums.” – Moscow, December 1-4, 1999. SOVNET. – M.: SOVNET, 1999. – vol.1 (pp.71-77). [11] V.I. Voropaev, G.I. Sekletova, R.D. Archibald, Project and Program management system methodology. In proceedings of 17-th World Congress on Project Management «PROJECT-ORIENTED BUSINESS AND SOCIETY», Moscow, June 4-6, 2003. [12]S.D. Bushuev. Development of Project Management Bodies of Knowledge and Technologies. Sovnet Journal «Project Management», №1,2005. [13] R. D. Archibald. A Global System for Categorizing Projects: the Need for, Recommended Approach to, Practical Uses of and Description of a Current Project to Develop the System. Sovnet Journal «Project Management», №1,2005. [14]M. R. Wideman.Modeling Project Management. Sovnet Journal «Project Management», №1,2005. [15] H. Knoepfel, G. Koch. IPMA Competence Baseline Version 3.0. Sovnet Journal «Project Management», №1,2005. [16]. Global Performance Based Standards for Project Management Personnel. GPBSPMP Initiative, Exposure Draft for Public Review, August 1, 2005 Vladimir Vorpojev, Ph.D. Professor Vladimir Voropajev, PhD. is President and Chairman of the Board of the Russian Association of Project Management, SOVNET. Dr. Voropajev is a professor of Project Management at the State University of Management, Moscow, Russia. He is also Head of the Program and Project Management Faculty for the Russian State Academy’s Program for Professional Retraining and Professional Skill Development for Executives and Specialists in Investment Fields. He is a full member of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences on Information Science and Cybernetics. From 1991 to 2001, he was Vice-president and a member of the Executive Board of the International Project Management Association (IPMA). During his 40 years of engineering, scientific, teaching and consulting activities, he has published over 250 scientific research works including 7 monographs and 5 textbooks about the organization and planning of construction, information systems, and project management. Vladimir was named a global advisor for PMForum.org in November 2006. Professor Voropajev can be reached at voropaev@sovnet.ru.
  • 17. 18 Galena Sekletova Galena Sekletova, PhD, is a Vice President of the Russian Project Management Association – SOVNET, Russian National Certification Organization SOVNET – SERT Chief. She has a PhD in Technical Science and is an assistant professor for project management on the Faculty of State Academy’s Program for Professional Retraining and Professional Skill Development for Executives and Specialists in Investment Fields. She has published more than 40 scientific research works including 3 monographs and 2 textbooks on the subjects of organization and planning of construction, management of information systems, and project management. Masha Cates Maria (Masha) Voropaeva – Cates is a head of projects for Lenovo web design company. Ms. Cates was born, raised and studied fine arts in Moscow before moving to North Carolina in 1993. Since that time, she has been a fine artist, graphic artist, web designer, web-based training developer, interactive media developer, and director or member of various web design projects for customers and organizations worldwide. Masha has a Fine Arts Degree from V.I. Surikov Art School (1978-1984) and a Master’s Degree in Fine Arts & Graphic Arts from the Academy of Arts, Moscow State Arts Institute (1985-1991). She has Certificates in Computer Art and 3D Computer Animation from the School of Communication Arts, Raleigh, North Carolina, USA (1997-99). Ms. Cates is currently completing an Masters Degree in Business Administration with a concentration in Project Management at Strayer University in Raleigh. Masha Cates can be contacted at mcates@us.lenovo.com.