One Project and

Three Teams to Rule them All: What can happen when you fail to communicate



By Pablo Cruz

PMP & Scrum Product Owner

Texas, USA    


You’ve heard the phrase “Communication is so important in a relationship”. This phrase is correct and the reason is that without the ability to communicate how the person feels, whether happy or upset, can create a precarious environment for the relationship, which one can say would be a rocky start. This can be said about projects because without effective communications, a project will be at risk before it starts.

In working on a large complex project using Scrum/Agile as the methodology, the project was split into 3 teams. Each team had its own Project Manager, Product Owner, Scrum Master, IT, and Business Client. The deployment date is the same for all 3 teams but the requirements are all different except that all three teams are dependent on each other’s work. In addition, team 2 and team 3 must agree on which product will be primary and which one will be secondary before product mapping can begin otherwise there will be an inconsistent report between revenue and volumes.

Team 1, completed building requirements, user stories, grooming, and development. They were able to communicate effectively and efficiently with all team members to complete the work 2 months ahead of schedule.

Team 2 scheduled several calls to begin discussing which product would be considered primary and secondary. After 3 meetings which spanned 2 weeks, one member realizes that team 3 is not part of the discussion. Team 3 joins the 4th scheduled meeting but has issues trying to catch up. Team 3 required a 5th meeting to get up to speed. The Project Manager failed to communicate across teams to coordinate an important requirement. The impact to the project was critical due to the release date was three months away.

This project required a dimensional cube for reporting. Although Team 2 is working on volumes and Team 3 is working on revenue, the list of dimensions is the same between teams. Team 2’s Product Owner begins to create user stories to list the dimensions that will be part of the cube but fails to engage Team 3’s Product Owner. Team 3’s Product Owner creates her own version of the user story with different dimensions. It is during the grooming session that it is realized the discrepancy between both teams. This mistake created modifications to the user story and required a second grooming session with all team members. The failure of the Product Owners and Scrum Masters to engage and communicate between each other created confusion and delays.


To read entire article, click here


How to cite this article: Cruz, P. (2018). One Project and Three Teams to Rule them All: What can happen when you fail to communicate; PM World Journal, Vol. VII, Issue VIII – August.   Available online at:


About the Author

Pablo Cruz, PMP

Dallas, TX, USA




Pablo Cruz (PMP, Agile Product Owner) has over 24 years of experience in the Information Systems field which includes Project Management, Network Administration, and System Support. Previous certifications include Microsoft Systems Engineer, Oracle Administrator, Wireless Network Administrator, and Microsoft SQL.

Pablo is a Lead Financial Analyst at AT&T. He is currently working as a team member of the Alliance Business Intelligence Data Warehouse responsible for an enterprise wide effort to provide business intelligence data from a centralized data warehouse.  Pablo lives in Texas with his husband Adam and their loving daughter Karina Ruth.

Pablo Cruz can be contacted at [email protected]



SMART FIFA World Cup 2018



By Mark Reeson

United Kingdom


As always, it seems to have taken forever for the FIFA World Cup to have arrived but when it has we have all become absorbed by what it takes to get through the qualifying groups and then what route it will take to make it to the final.

However, let’s take one step back and consider what has happened before a ball has even been kicked and the achievement, for the sake of this paper, that England have made and are then set to continue with through the tournament.

For those of you that don’t want to use England as your example, please substitute the team of your choice and then you simply have to adapt the path as we work our way towards tournament glory and the ultimate achievement.  Let me just return though to what I just said, and just consider for one moment, what we have already achieved, a seat at the table of the world’s biggest game with thirty-one other teams all trying to compete for the same prize as England.

Yes, just consider it, because although you will always find the doom and gloom merchants of those saying England can’t do this and England won’t so that, I can think of a number of nations, such as Holland, Italy and the United States of America that would swap places with us right now, as they never received the invitation.

The SMART FIFA Strategy of every single Project Team!

So, we are down to the last thirty-two and from that the first thing we have to consider is the size and scale of the project before us.  Well, there are eight groups of four teams and inside the group we have to play each team once.  To put that into perspective now, by qualifying, England, like every other team, is now only seven matches away from winning the tournament.  Sounds simple really, but as we know and have seen through the suffering for many tournaments, there seems to a rule, if you are not German you can’t win.

So, how can we make that change count this time?

Well, having taken the matches into account, England now have the prospect of three weeks in Russia with a number of long haul flights, balanced between the training sessions and of course the small matter of playing the matches.

Prior to arrival, the management team underwent a long sustained thought process to design the right strategy for preparation.  Yes, the strategy was for preparation, not just to win the tournament, there is so much more that goes into event management and tournament management than simply playing the right games at the right time.

England’s choice of warm up matches weren’t simply an exercise in keeping the team fit, playing against Nigeria and Costa Rica was a result of the draw that had placed them into Group G, with their three opponents, Tunisia, Panama and a well versed friend in Belgium.  It was by choosing the stranger opponents in the warm-up matches that allowed England the flavour of what might come when playing teams from nations that typically they wouldn’t compete against on a regular basis.  

Two pre-tournament matches played and two more sets of lessons learned into the knowledge management box of tools and so it was off to Russia and the chance of becoming national heroes and making history.


To read entire article, click here


Editor’s note: Now it is the quarterfinals of the 2018 World Cup that began in Russia in June and England is still alive.  However the individual teams do, the points in this article should survive long after the 2018 World Cup is concluded.

How to cite this article: Reeson, M. (2018). The SMART FIFA World Cup 2018; PM World Journal, Vol. VII, Issue VI – July.  Available online at

About the Author

Mark Reeson, RPP, FAPM, PMP

United Kingdom


Professor Mark Reeson
is a project management specialist with over thirty years’ experience.  A Fellow of the Association for Project Management, he has been involved in many project and programme consultative roles.   Most recently Mark has been working with the Saudi Arabian Municipality of the Eastern Province to change the way that project management is carried out within the region, using his newly recognised SMART Sustainability Modelling for project and business management.

He was appointed a Professor of Project Management at the University of Business and Technology, Jeddah, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia which was a culmination of his work in training and consulting in the region on matters that relate to project management, supply chain management and sustainability modelling.  Having previously held the position of a specialist Sustainability Management Global Advisor, he has moved forward from that position and now regularly supports businesses and projects alike in streamlining their approaches to change and strategic development providing greater longevity in their business planning.

Having started his career in the Royal Air Force, Mark has continued to develop by working and delivering projects in multiple fields of industry ranging from the nuclear environment, into pharmaceuticals, finance and also the international sporting fields.

Mark has developed his role within project management through further experience with the nuclear industry and is now the owner of M R Project Solutions Limited where he has fulfilled the role of Project Management Advisor for the last three and a half years covering every continent.  His role is very much client facing and Mark now almost permanently travels the world meeting clients, developing solutions and providing training for their project families either directly through his own organisation or in support of others.  Mark’s main role is the development and the consultation with many organisations on ensuring they choose the right approach or methodology to deliver their projects and then follows this up with the correct bespoke training programmes for how their company wants to share this learning with their staff members.

Mark has changed the approach to learning by the ongoing development of his original ‘Living Learning’ programme by introducing a new learning experience for all taking the classroom format and making it come to life with his popular and original ‘Applied Learning’ simulation training and coaching technique.  He has taken this forward over the past few years to introduce this training style so that project management learning and behaviour has now started to be delivered into the schools and colleges looking to develop the technical, behavioural and contextual skills and attitudes of their students.

As a regular public speaker Mark now shares his experience, knowledge and commitment with those associations wanting to move forward in a more sustainable and successful manner.

Mark’s next aim is to develop this further and to spread project management knowledge and competency to many more organisations worldwide, having already started with successful deliveries globally.

Mark can be contacted at [email protected]



CPAs, PDCA, and Financial Project Management



By Regina Parks

Texas, USA


Total Quality Management is defined by ISO as a management approach centered on quality and based on the participation of an organizations people and aiming at long term success (ISO 8402:1994). In thinking of all of the quality processes or actions which have been developed in the last few years, there is one which I have found the most interesting. It is interesting because it is a series of simple tasks which lead to big results if followed closely. The process is the known as the PDCA cycle. PDCA stands for Plan, Do, Check and Act. Plan means to design the business process components in order to improve the results of the task (Averson, 1998). Do implements the plan and measures the performance (Averson, 1998). Check assesses the measurements and reports the results to upper management or any project decision makers (Averson, 1998). The final component is act which is the process of deciding on all changes which are needed to improve the project processes (Averson, 1998).

When it comes to quality management, it is important to realize one of the main focus is to “improve the processes” of the projects. It is meant to drive success and deliver a high quality product or service (the deliverable). The PDCA process takes the fundamental requirements and places them in a logical sequence. These are everyday tasks which must be completed in order to accomplish quality regardless of the old or new process. For instance, Six Sigma is a process which incorporates the concept of everyone working together at all levels. PDCA entails the same thing. Six Sigma is a process of “combine the process with the people” and then to foster results. The same holds true for PDCA. Obtaining quality is a process of taking simple steps and performing those steps in an organized manner at the best of the employee’s or organization’s ability with one goal: deliver a quality product or service. There are issues in financial project management with can hinder the success of PDCA.

There is the argument which states more financial-based projects would be successful if a CPA was used as the project manager as opposed to an IT professional (Johnson, 2016). The reason for this theory is simple. CPAs know the nuances of finance and can determine what is business intelligence faster and more accurately then someone who does not have the training in finance or accounting. There is also the factor of finance regulatory needs which must be present in all financial projects.

Financial reconciliation, financial and managerial reporting, and implementation of robotic process automation are factors which can and should be determined by a CPA or a seasoned financial database analyst on projects involving financial data. When financial professionals are not included in the project management process where manipulation of financial data is the scope of the project, this does not fit into the PDCA frame. Planning is often times not done in an effective manner resulting in scope creep, split projects, delays, or cancellations.


To read entire article, click here


How to cite this article: Parks, R. (2018). CPAs, PDCA, and Financial Project Management, PM World Journal, Volume VII, Issue 5 – July. Available online at:

About the Author

Regina D. Parks

Texas, USA




Regina D. Parks (Exec. MBA, Doctoral Student, Mom) has a varied work background. She has worked as a Mental Health Case Worker, Teacher, Retail Manager, and Financial Analyst. Currently, she is working as a Data Governess for financial databases and metadata catalogs. Her undergraduate degree is in Psychology. She also holds an Executive Master’s Degree in Business Administration, and is currently pursuing a Doctorate in Management with a concentration in Project Management. She lives in Texas and has a 14 year old son who is in his sophomore year in a dual credit program earning his High School diploma and Associate Degree. Regina can be contacted at [email protected].



Tinkerbell and the Empire State Building

   Recalling what seems to be forgotten



By Mattias Jacobsson, PhD and Timothy L. Wilson, PhD




“I do believe in fairies! I do! I do!!” (Peter Pan)

In the 1905 play “Peter Pan; or the Boy Who Wouldn’t Grow Up”, Sir James Matthew Barrie described how Peter Pan, through his strong beliefs, brought the fairy Tinkerbell back to life. In this short essay, we aim to initiate discussions on the role of strong beliefs and the so-called “Tinkerbell effect” in upholding taken-for-granted assumptions within the construction industry.

As the basis for the discussion, the essay reports on a recently published journal article in Business Horizons entitled “Revisiting the construction of the Empire State Building: Have we forgotten something?” (Jacobsson and Wilson, 2018). Presently the article is also sold as a case study and teaching case by Harvard Business Review. (The case study can be accessed at and the teaching case at

The Empire State Building

The Empire State Building (ESB) was built in 1930-1931, which was at the beginning of the Great Depression—the worst economic downturn in modern history. Interestingly enough, the construction was completed 40% under budget and 25% faster than anticipated. The construction period was a mere 13 months, which was about 5 months faster than initially anticipated, and the total cost came to about $24.7 million which should be compared with the $43 million initially estimated (Jacobsson and Wilson, 2018). For a project of this size to be both faster and cheaper seems almost unreal, especially when compared with more modern megaprojects such as the Sydney Opera House in Australia (built in 1959-1973), which had a 1,400 % cost overrun, or the Scottish Parliament Building in Scotland (built in 1999-2004), which ended up with a 1,600 % cost overrun (Flyvbjerg, 2014:10).

Based on the observation that the ESB was the fastest erection of a skyscraper to date, we set out to take a retrospective look at the effort that went into the construction by reviewing the existing writings on ESB. In essence, we ask “how the afore mentioned success was possible and if there something we can learn from it?” (Jacobsson and Wilson, 2018:48).

Through the review and analysis, we outline twelve different factors—divided into strategic, operational, and contextual—that appeared to have played a role in the success. The five strategic factors were; objective, financing, approach, leadership and organization. The five operational factors were; equipment, logistics, design, repetition and motivation. And finally, the two contextual factors playing a role in the success were, economy and weather. Reflecting on the results, we highlighted how the ESB avoided some of the previously identified major sources for megaproject failure, factors such as impacts on local environment, laws and regulations related to planning, insufficient funding, late changes in the scope and design of the project, government bureaucracies, etc. (See e.g. Flyvbjerg, 2011; Lundrigan et al. 2015; Plotch, 2015). We concluded, however, that it is too simplistic to say that any single factor individually explains the success, so we argued that it was rather the “interplay among a dozen factors that enabled the observed results” (Jacobsson and Wilson, 2018:454). But there might be more.

A second reflection

Basically, we get down to this—construction is a service, and service theory is based on Grönroos’ expectation/delivery gap, i.e., the degree to which actual service meets expected service (Grönroos, 2007; Jacobsson and Wilson, 2012). Commonly, it is the “actual” terminal of the gap that causes concern. That is, the actual service received is not as good as would be expected. For instance, you might buy a meal out and the food is cold, or the server is slow or rude, then you are not pleased. That judgment is basic, and the nature of service management today is to improve actual performance.

With regard to construction, it is the other terminal of the expectation/delivery gap that is our concern, the expected, or more relevantly, accepted terminal. In the original formulation of our paper (Jacobsson and Wilson, 2015), interest was piqued by a replacement of a two-lane bridge on a bypass. The design was common and because the bridge was a replacement, the site was at least preliminarily prepared. In the particular case, the work was started first of May and scheduled to be done the end of October a year later at a cost of $10.2 million. In the local vernacular, “That’s 18 months and a chunk of change”.


To read entire article, click here


How to cite this article: Jacobsson, M. and Wilson, T. (2018). Tinkerbell and the Empire State Building: Recalling what seems to be forgotten; PM World Journal, Vol. VII, Issue VII – July. Available online at

About the Authors

Mattias Jacobsson, PhD

Umeå, Sweden




Mattias Jacobsson, PhD, is an Associate Professor of Management and Organization at Umeå School of Business, Economics and Statistics, Umeå University, Sweden. Currently he is also working as a Researcher at the School of Engineering, Jönköping University, Sweden. His main research interests are in projects, practice, and temporary organizations and, on four occasions, he was a prizewinner at the Emerald Literati Network Awards for Excellence.

At present, Jacobsson is a Guest Editor of a Special issue on World Views on Projects and Society, in International Journal of Managing Projects in Business. His work has been published in a large number of journals, including Business Horizons, Management Decision, Project Management Journal®, Services Marketing Quarterly, the International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, and Construction Management and Economics. For more information see He can be contacted at [email protected] or [email protected].


Timothy Wilson, PhD

USA and Sweden





Timothy L. Wilson has a PhD in Engineering (Carnegie Mellon University, 1965), a PhD in Marketing (Case-Western University, 1983) and an Honorary Doctorate in Social Sciences from Umeå University (2013). His experience in projects and project management comes from 15 years in fundamental materials research and high technology product development as a graduate engineer. His academic interest in projects dates from the initial IRNOP conference in Lycksele, Sweden. Tim’s research interests are in applied business topics, primarily Swedish and most recently Municipal Public Housing in Sweden.

Wilson is co-author of 23 journal articles on projects with past and present members of Umeå’s Project Group; the most recent appears in the International Journal of Managing Projects in Business with Thommie Burström “The texture of tension: Complexity, uncertainty and equivocality.” He is co-editor with Peter Zackariasson of the monograph The Video Game Industry: Formation, Present State, and Future. Projects in that industry are really interesting and the people even more so. He may be contacted at [email protected]



Where the Bodies of Knowledge Are Buried

& How Blockchain Will Resurrect Them



By John Schlichter

Atlanta, Georgia, USA


Leading thinkers in the realm of project management gathered somewhat secretively in Virginia Beach in the year 2000 at a meeting hosted by NASA as part of an implicit attempt to broker agreement among the developers of the major project management standards across industry. The question was “What constitutes the definitive project management body of knowledge?” Secretive may be too strong a word because it was not a covert meeting per se, but it was named the “Operational Level Committee” precisely to make it sound uninteresting and to avoid attracting attention. More accurately, the “OLC” was the name innocuously given to the group a year earlier at the PMI Annual Symposium in Long Beach, California to reserve a room where plans to recruit a critical mass of intellectual influence peddlers was hatched. The anti-advertising worked, and half a dozen people sat uninterupted by interlopers in an unremarkable room making a remarkable list of invitees.

In Virginia at a much nicer facility, about thirty of those invitees showed up, including David I. Cleland, J. Davidson Frame, Max Wideman, Rodney Turner, Lew Ireland, Olaf Pannenbäcker, Peter W. G. Morris, Christophe Bredillet, and me. I think Hans Knöpfel, Gilles Caupin, and Lynn Crawford may have been there as well, but my memory fails me, and there are many whose names I am forgetting. Described by one attendee as “the new blood,” I was nearly half the age of anyone in this august assembly. I was breathing that rarefied air because I had been recruited to its milieu two years earlier by persons interested in having me develop the philosophical first principles of project management. As it happens I did not develop those principles (we didn’t get further than an initial principle that “A project does not necessarily need a project manager.” An idea ahead of its time?), but I agreed instead to investigate the possibility of creating a maturity model for project management that would be a PMI standard, and that endeavor took off quickly. I recommended to the 1998 PMI Standards Committee that we should create a maturity model for project-based organizations but that its purpose should not be simply to improve the management of projects in organizations. I asserted that its purpose should be to help organizations improve their ability to implement an organization’s strategies through projects (which is quite a different thing), and I coined the term “Organizational Project Management” (OPM) to denote organizational strategy implementation through projects. This was a significant departure from PMI’s direction to date. PMI’s Executive Director asked me to create and lead a team to produce such a model (which I named “OPM3”), marking PMI’s first step toward a “strategy implementation through projects” paradigm. Marketing that paradigm is PMI’s dominant logic today, and countless consultants, academics, and authors have followed suit. Things were moving full steam ahead by the time I arrived at the OLC.

At the outset of the meeting in Virginia Beach, the point was made that the “body of project management knowledge” exists in many places, not least in the minds of practitioners like those gathered in the room and across the world. The best we can do is craft guides, summaries, or abstractions of the inherently dispersed and evolving body of knowledge. An exercise was undertaken wherein the attendees wrote the concepts of project management down on sticky notes, one concept per sticky, filling up a large wall, signifying our attempt at canvassing the project management body of knowledge. I suggested we make a copy of all the sticky notes and break into two groups of people so each group could organize the concepts on its own, and then we could compare results. Somebody near me immediately said “Organize this? That will never work.” I said “Why not? Aristotle did basically the same thing with genus, species, and differentia.” There was a collective shrug, and we set about organizing concepts.


To read entire article, click here


How to cite this article: Schlichter, J. (2018); Where the Bodies of Knowledge Are Buried & How Blockchain Will Resurrect Them; PM World Journal, Vol. VII, Issue VI – June. Online at

About the Author

John Schlichter

Atlanta, GA, USA




John Schlichter coined the term “Organizational Project Management” or “OPM,” which is the system for implementing the business strategy of an organization through projects. OPM became a global standard and is how companies throughout the world deliver projects valued in billions if not trillions of dollars. “John has contributed greatly to PMI,” Greg Balestrero, CEO, PMI Today, 2002. “In John’s role as the leader of PMI’s OPM3 program, he has immeasurably contributed to the growth of the profession,” Becky Winston, J.D., Chair of the Board of Directors, PMI Today, 2002. Having created OPM3© (an international standard in project, program, and portfolio management), John founded OPM Experts LLC, a firm delivering OPM solutions and a leading provider of maturity assessment services. Industry classifications: NAICS 541618 Other Management Consulting and NAICS 611430 Training. John is a member of the adjunct faculty of Emory University’s Goizueta Business School.

For more background information on Mr. Schlichter, click here.

John can be contacted at [email protected] or [email protected].



Stakeholder Management in Project Success

Is it an Object or Subject?



By Ömer Berkay Dağlı

MSc Student, Southampton Business School,

Southampton, UK



A penny has two faces. This fact must be considered in every aspect of the life, including the world of project management. While each stakeholder is a pressure element for the project and can be harmful, they can also be useful in creating opportunities. This dualistic nature of the stakeholders brings a question: “Are stakeholders an object or subject?” This article tries to explain the two sides of stakeholders with the light of their effects on project success. In the first part of the paper the relationship between stakeholders and project success is tried to be illustrated by the definition of these terms. In the second part of the article, an example of a strategy that can be followed for the management of this uncertainty, which is caused by stakeholders, is tried to be explained.


Verma likens projects to team sports and emphasizes the importance of each player (1995). Like team sports’ players, projects have different stakeholders and managing them is significant. Moreover, each stakeholder has their own unique influences on projects which can be both threat and opportunity. This two-sided interaction case leads us to a question that: “Are stakeholders an object or subject?” Below, paper begins by taking a closer look at the impact of stakeholders on the projects’ success in relation to practice. Secondly, paper will broadly examine the definition of success and stakeholders followed by their interaction. Next, the framework adopted by Ward & Chapman on the management of uncertainties will be roughly examined in order to present one of the stakeholder managing strategies. Finally, we will address some of the findings and recommendations regarding the importance of double-sided stakeholders managing practice for achieving success.

Success, Stakeholders and Interactions between Them

Every project consists of different interests, and those who own these interests are called project stakeholders (Olander & Landin, 2005). According to the PMBOK, stakeholder management is one of the factors that increase the success rate of the project (Project Management Institute, 2017). In addition, a survey conducted with 150 project managers from 8 different industries shows that stakeholders’ interest is the largest criterion for project success (Collins & Baccarini, 2004). Stakeholder management might be a challenge to project success in terms of creating disagreements and uncertainties (Johansen, et al., 2014). The great number of researchers demonstrates that especially for complex engineering and global projects which have a large number of interested groups or organizations, have been significantly affected by both internal and external stakeholders in different ways such as arising uncertainty or conflicts (Olander & Landin, 2005; Aaltonen & Kujala, 2010; Aaltonen & Sivonen, 2009; Davis, 2016).

Project management has an important place in all areas of life and business. However, in order to manage something, it is first necessary to see progress and to be able to measure[1]performance due to the most important consequences (Todorović, et al., 2015). How is a project’s success measured in today’s practical world? This question has long been a research topic that academics in project management have been trying to answer. “The Iron Triangle” which consists of time-cost-quality used in the past but recent works have shown that the success of the projects depends on many other factors, unlike The Iron Triangle (Atkinson, 1999; Todorović, et al., 2015). The main reason for this is that each project is unique, and the ability to measure success as a by-outcome or by-process is also specific to the project too. However, the project success and performance are measured in whatever way the comparison of the results with the objectives and identified success criteria is the most important measurement (Project Management Institute, 2017). The project objectives used during this comparison are determined entirely by the interests of the stakeholders directly or in-directly involved in the project (Atkinson, 1999).


To read entire article, click here


How to cite this article:
Dağlı, Ö. (2018). Stakeholder Management in Project Success: Is it an Object or Subject? PM World Journal, Volume VII, Issue 5, May 2018.

About the Author

Ömer Berkay Dağlı

Southampton Business School
Southampton, United Kingdom


Ömer Berkay Dağlı
is currently a Masters Candidate at Southampton Business School, University of Southampton, based in UK for the academic year 2017-2018. Previously, he has served as an Officer on Watch for over 30 months on board chemical tankers, based in different routes around the world where he served as Third and Second Officer. He completed his graduation in Marine Transportation Management dual diploma with honours from both Istanbul Technical University, Turkey and State University of New York Maritime College, USA in 2014. His major fields of study are project management, logistics and inter-modal transportation. His research interests include global project management, leadership, uncertainty management, programme and portfolio management, strategic PM, PM governance, stakeholders, project control and PM in the transportation and logistics industries.  Omer served as a research intern for the PM World Library during January 2018, completing the program in record time.  He can be contacted at [email protected]



A Critique of Two Major Programmes

of the Buhari Presidency in Nigeria



By O. Chima Okereke, PhD

Nigeria and UK



At his swearing-in on May 29th, 2015, President Buhari openly stated: “I belong to everybody and I belong to nobody” [1]. Also, during the Commonwealth Conference on Corruption in London on May 11, 2016, addressing the heads of states and others, he said: “Corruption is a hydra-headed monster and a canker worm that undermines the fabric of all societies. It does not differentiate between developed and developing countries. It constitutes a serious threat to good governance, rule of law, peace and security, …. Our starting point as an Administration was to amply demonstrate zero tolerance for corrupt practices as this vice is largely responsible for the social and economic problems our country faces today. The endemic and systemic nature of corruption in our country demanded our strong resolve to fight it. We are demonstrating our commitment to this effort by bringing integrity to governance and showing leadership by example”. [2]

At the same conference he also stated: “On assumption of office on 29th May 2015, we identified as our main focus three key priority programmes. They are, combating insecurity, tackling corruption and job creation through re-structuring the declining national economy”.

Just two of the three points will be focused on in this research, these are:

  • The federal government anti-corruption programme.
  • Combating insecurity, especially with respect to the Fulani cattle herdsmen

The essence of such a project management status report is to provide an objective analysis of how the observed performance compares with the declared objectives. In addition, one would suggest that a key objective of a critique on a subject of national interest should be to produce actionable set of information that, if implemented, could lead to the achievement of the desired goals of progress envisaged in the programme.

The product of this project should be a report that should facilitate the short and long-term developmental interests of the country. The way forward could be to conduct a balanced desktop research using published materials in the public domain that contain the various shades of views on the performance of the federal government on their programmes. Even this option is fraught with problems and not easy in practice because of the quality and nature of the published materials. To expatiate, some of the materials are down-right hero-worship of the President and his administration but some others are thinly veiled and often undisguised insults. It is therefore difficult and calls for a delicate balancing act to produce a professional report that is a reflection of the true situation in the country. Yet, the true situation may not make interesting reading to everyone. On the other hand, it does not help us as a nation if we fail to face up to our shortcomings and the failings of our present and past leadership. Sweeping dirt under the carpets does not eliminate it but stores it up with its damaging effects. Therefore, we need to discuss our failings and hopefully try to suggest the best way forward. Highlighting the flaws in our national government is one side of the coin, suggesting constructive, corrective actions is the other side which is necessary for our national socio-economic and political development.

As discussed in the foregoing paragraphs, the contents of this report are as follows:

  1. Some reports on the performance of the federal government anti-corruption programme
  2. Brief reports on government activities on insecurity, especially with respect to the Fulani cattle herdsmen
  3. Analysis and Recommendations
  4. Conclusion


To read entire paper, click here


About the Author

Chima Okereke, PhD, PMP

Herefordshire, UK


Dr. O. Chima Okereke, Ph.D., MBA, PMP is the Managing Director and CEO of Total Technology Consultants, Ltd., a project management consulting company working in West Africa and the UK.  He is a visiting professor, an industrial educator, a multidisciplinary project management professional, with over 25 years’ experience in oil and gas, steel and power generation industries. For example, On December 26th 2013, he completed an assignment as a visiting professor in project management; teaching a class of students on Master’s degree in project management in the Far Eastern Federal University, Vladivostok, Russia.  In August and September 2013, he conducted an innovative, and personally developed training programme for seventy six well engineers of Shell Nigeria to enhance the efficiency of their operations using project and operations management processes.

Before embarking on a career in consulting, he worked for thirteen years in industry rising to the position of a chief engineer with specialisation in industrial controls and instrumentation, electronics, electrical engineering and automation. During those 13 years, he worked on every aspect of projects of new industrial plants including design, construction and installation, commissioning, and engineering operation and maintenance in process industries.  Chima sponsored and founded the potential chapter of the Project Management Institute (PMI®) in Port Harcourt, Nigeria, acting as president from 2004 to 2010.

Dr. Okereke has a Bachelor of Science Degree in Electrical Engineering from the University of Lagos, and a PhD and Masters in Business Administration (MBA) degree from the University of Bradford in the UK.  He also has a PMP® certification from the Project Management Institute (PMI®) which he passed at first attempt.  He has been a registered engineer with COREN in Nigeria since 1983.  For many years, Total Technology has been a partner for Oracle Primavera Global Business Unit, a representative in Nigeria of Oracle University for training in Primavera project management courses, and a Gold Level member of Oracle Partner Network (OPN. He is a registered consultant with several UN agencies.  More information can be found at

Chima is the publisher of Project Management Business Digest, a blog aimed at helping organizations use project management for business success.  Dr. Okereke is also an international editorial advisor for the PM World Journal and PM World Library. He can be contacted at [email protected] or [email protected]

To view other works by Dr. Okereke, visit his author showcase in the PM World Library at




Principles AND Processes



By Crispin ‘Kik’ Piney

Southern France



This article has been triggered by the decision by the Project Management Institute (PMI®) to move two of its foundational standards away from their historical approach based on knowledge areas and processes (see also Piney 2018) towards what they describe as a “principle-based approach”. My feeling is that the choice between principles and processes is not a binary one and that the two approaches can – and should – complement each other. These two approaches should therefore be combined in each of the three standards: projects, programs, and portfolios.

Basic Concepts

To avoid misunderstandings, it is always useful to clarify the meaning applied to key terms.


There are two main meanings of principles in common use:

  • Rules of behaviour based on a particular view of reality or on a strongly-held belief. I call these “behavioural principles”;
  • Assumptions raised to the level of fundamental truths (e.g., conservation of energy). I call these “conceptual principles”

It is instructive to see, as explained below, that PMI uses the first definition for the Standard for Portfolio ManagementFourth Edition (PMI 2017c), and the second one for Standard for Program Management – Fourth Edition (PMI 2017d).

To paraphrase the description in section 7.1 of the Standard for Portfolio Management– Fourth Edition, “the purpose of principles is to provide guidance for practitioners in carrying out all of the steps required for managing portfolios in their organization”.

Section 1.1 of the Standard for Program Management – Fourth Edition adopts the second meaning by explaining that principles of program management are assumptions that are held to be true and should be applied in the management of programs.

So, one standard uses principles for behaviour, and the other uses them as a system of belief. Examples from the corresponding standards are provided later in this paper. But, first, where do processes come in?


The definition of a process, from the Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge – Sixth Edition (PMBOK® Guide) (PMI 2017a) is: “A systematic series of activities directed towards causing an end result such that one or more inputs will be acted upon to create one or more outputs.” These outputs can be used as inputs by other processes. In this way, a set of processes can be developed to form a system to provide predetermined services. Because of the interactions and feedback loops between processes, the system of processes can display complex characteristics.

Knowledge Areas

A knowledge area is a consistent set of practices within a domain. It calls on a set of specific skills and competencies

Why Abandon a Process Model

I have heard three different explanations:

  • a number of practitioners and candidates for certification disliked the requirement to learn all of the inputs, tools and techniques, and outputs (ITTOs) involved in each process.
  • the wish to avoid being prescriptive, and
  • the natural complexity of the program and portfolio environments which, apparently, could be better described by a principle-based description.

Each of these objections to processes is analyzed in turn.


To read entire article, click here


About the Author

Crispin (Kik) Piney

South of France



After many years managing international IT projects within large corporations, Crispin (“Kik”) Piney, B.Sc., PgMP is now a freelance project management consultant based in the South of France. At present, his main areas of focus are risk management, integrated Portfolio, Program and Project management, scope management and organizational maturity, as well as time and cost control. He has developed advanced training courses on these topics, which he delivers in English and in French to international audiences from various industries. In the consultancy area, he has developed and delivered a practical project management maturity analysis and action-planning consultancy package.

Kik has carried out work for PMI on the first Edition of the Organizational Project Management Maturity Model (OPM3™) as well as participating actively in fourth edition of the Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge and was also vice-chairman of the Translation Verification Committee for the Third Edition. He was a significant contributor to the second edition of both PMI’s Standard for Program Management as well as the Standard for Portfolio Management. In 2008, he was the first person in France to receive PMI’s PgMP® credential; he was also the first recipient in France of the PfMP® credential. He is co-author of PMI’s Practice Standard for Risk Management. He collaborates with David Hillson (the “Risk Doctor”) by translating his monthly risk briefings into French. He has presented at a number of recent PMI conferences and published formal papers.

Kik Piney is the author of the book Earned Benefit Program Management, Aligning, Realizing and Sustaining Strategy, published by CRC Press in 2018

Kik Piney can be contacted at [email protected].

To view other works by Kik Piney, visit his author showcase in the PM World Library at



Experience of Handling a Team



By Anil Seth

Gurgaon, India


I have no special talents. I am only passionately curious.

~Albert Einstein

Ever since I graduated from university and started my profession career there was an irresistible desire to work for a multinational company like Fluor Corp. The desire was to learn and master the techniques of Project Management being used in Fluor Corp to resolve complex situations.

When I joined Fluor Corp in 2014, I realized that International Project Management gives a wholesome diversified perspective to managing and adds another dimension to resolution techniques. It does not take long to settle and resolve the problem if you have dealt with complex scenarios in the past; however the situation emerging by virtue of problems requires “experience of handling”. This “experience of handling” can be ours or borrowed from peers, mentors, friends or superiors.

I vividly remember one of my assignments where my Project Manager asked me to look into a peculiar scenario wherein the problem was made complex as both the teams (design and fabrication executor) were seeing a new process and hence each one was doubtful on the resolution and approach. To add to it the teams had diversity in culture and execution. I believe every problem has hidden factors/solutions, i.e. there is a synergy between those factors that drives you, once you have found the right direction, your unique excellence shines through and the stage is set for developing solutions and thereafter continuous development. This experience taught me a lesson …. any problem has only three basic steps for recovery and resolution (and how hard we try, we cannot add any other step to this),these are

  1. Identification
  2. Rectification
  3. Modification of Rectification to avoid recurrence in future

The key is to exploit and use synergy to settle the problem on two fronts:

1)     By emotionally engaging the team.

2)     By technically engaging the team. *

*2) to always be successor of 1).

If this sequence is reversed the result is extremely unfavorable. Why? …Because first by engaging the team emotionally, we create “Synergy Aura” to break diversity. This is a strong tool and hence requires penetration efforts at large in the team.

Therefore the first rule is to know your team. Here analyzing the team through principles of SWOT(1) is required. Once the SWOT composition of team is visible, the technical challenges or ASPECT(2)  can be assigned to the right worker for timely solution(s) which in fact is the Step 2 of three basic steps.

The team will always have an arrogant basic nature, i.e. the team will provide multiple solutions. Therefore the task of the leader is to select the direction which favors Step 3 and guides the team utilizing the theory “Ascent with modifications”.

The case study which was published earlier is for those who prefer adventures and likes to nose dive into exploring the complex situation through lucid dreaming.


To read entire article, click here


About the Author

Anil Seth

Gurgaon, India



Mr. Anil Seth is working as Project Manager in Fluor’s Indian office at Gurgaon. Fluor Daniel India Private Limited (Fluor India) provides a full range of engineering, design, procurement, and construction management services to Indian and overseas clients. Fluor India is an established quality provider of engineering, procurement, construction management (EPC) and project management services for Fluor’s energy and chemicals, power, mining, and industrial projects, and is a key support office for Fluor facilities located in North America, Africa, the Middle East, Europe, and Asia Pacific

Earlier to Fluor, was in Larsen & Toubro Ltd. at Faridabad, India and managing the Project Engineering Manager Portfolio for hydrocarbon projects. Before joining Larsen & Toubro Engineering and construction division he has worked for Indian Petrochemicals Corporation Limited. He holds B.E. degree with Honors in CHEMICAL Engineering from Panjab University Chandigarh India and has also done Diploma in Environmental Management. He is certified for Harvard Manage Mentor and specializes in Building High Performance cross functional Task Force as well as Converting Breakeven Projects to Profitable scenario. He can be reached at [email protected] or [email protected]

To see other works by Anil Seth, visit his author showcase in the PM World Library at



Look to 2018: Trends in Project Management


By Yu Yanjuan, Journalist

Project Management Review Magazine



Editor’s note: This article was originally published in Project Management Review in China in January 2018. “Project Management Review” Magazine is sponsored by State Grid Yingda Media Investment Group. The magazine provides an all-dimensional multi-perspective introduction to latest domestic and international project management research advances and application cases. Main columns: Cover Articles, Top Interview, Foresight, Chief Viewpoint, International Perspective, Special Research, Career Pulse, PM+, etc. For more information, please visit:  or contact us at [email protected]

Stacy Goff: past President of IPMA-USA / 2015 IPMA Honorary Fellow / ProjectExperts CEO / Speaker / Author / Consultant 曾任IPMA美国分会主席、IPMA荣誉会员、CEO、作者、演讲者

Chinese way of managing projects. In December 2014, a monumental IPMA Research event, in Tianjin, covered a range of interesting topics that asserted the following: China has five major literary foundations, going back over 2,000 years, for a Chinese way of managing projects, that, while including Western approaches, is rich with more advanced ways of integrating China’s strengths. This is potentially, greater than a trend!

More focus on application rather than certification only. In too many countries, the majority of training in project management for the last 20 years has focused on exam preparation. Because the half-life of learning-not-applied is cited as 2-6 weeks, most of this has little performance improvement in projects. Knowledge alone is inadequate for project performance. Skill (applied knowledge) and mentored application (experience, with coaching), resulting in true competence, is the performance advantage for those who use their learning funding wisely. Smart organizations understand this.

Emphasis on soft skills. While project and program processes (and methods, a subset) are important, their effective delivery depends on the “soft side”. Leadership, interpersonal skills, and team-building have much more to do with project success and business success with projects than all processes and methods. And the smartest organizations not only understand this, but it is their competitive advantage, as they use projects and programs as their change agents to deliver their strategic plans.

Reinhard Wagner: IPMA 2018 Chairman of the Council IPMA2018年主席

Change. The world is changing rapidly, which increases the pressure on organizations to change. Change is performed through projects and programs. The management of a change project means to organise change activities, plan them in regards of time, cost and resources and monitor and control the success of its implementation. Change management activities make sure that the people actually understand the reason for change and what’s in for them, to overcome potential resistance to change through collaboration, communication and coordination between all stakeholders involved.

Agile. A second key trend is the need for agile management, which does not mean a new methodology, but a mindset, which means changing the way of thinking and acting. The governance framework allows the project teams to be more flexible and adaptive to the context of their activities.

Mark Dickson: Chairman of PMI board of Directors PMI 2017年度董事会主席

Project management trends depend to some extent on the industry.

Rise of mega projects. In the infrastructure or construction industries the most significant trend has been the rise of the mega project. Mega projects require more sophisticated project control systems and broader management and leadership skills from the project managers. Project managers can no longer rely on their specialist technical skills and need to be able to understand and communicate across disciplines and even industries and lead large teams.

Rise of agile methodologies. In the information systems and particularly in the software industry the most significant trend has been the rise of agile methodologies.


To read entire article, click here



Using the CIA and AAA Models to Explain Cybersecurity Activities


By Livinus Obiora Nweke

Rome, Italy



Cybersecurity is a broad field that is mainly concerned with protecting the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of computing devices and networks, hardware and software, and most importantly, data and information. Cybersecurity cannot be achieved through technology alone, it also involves the use of procedures, products and people. The goal of this article is to use the CIA model and AAA model to explain the activities of cybersecurity.

Keywords: Cybersecurity, CIA model, AAA models


Cybersecurity refers to protecting the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of computing devices and networks, hardware and software, and most importantly, data and information. Cybersecurity involves times when data or information is in transit, being processed, and at rest. It is achieved through procedures, products and people. Also, it requires knowing who the attackers are, what their motivations are, where the vulnerabilities lie, and how protected the systems are. The security mindset involves thinking about how things can be made to fail. The following explains the CIA model, which refers to the three important goals of cybersecurity and the AAA model, which describes one of the methods through which the objectives of cybersecurity are achieved.

CIA Model

The CIA model describes the three important goals of cybersecurity. The C stands for confidentiality. Cybersecurity requires privacy in data and information. Certain people, devices, or processes should be permitted or restricted from seeing data, files, and items, like username, password combinations, medical records, etc. Confidentiality is concerned with viewing of data or information because if the wrong people see data or information they are not authorized, many problems could arise.

The I in the CIA model stands for integrity. Cybersecurity requires us to feel safe that data transmitted, processed, and stored has not been changed from its original form either accidentally or maliciously. For example, if one bit of a message is change, the whole message could change. Also, the whole message could be corrupted or unreadable.

For the last letter A, it stands for availability. Availability guarantees that with all the cybersecurity measures in place for dealing with hardware, software, people, processes and more, users who are authorized to do their job should be able to do so. It requires that authorized users should be able to access the resources they need to do their job with easy while ensuring that the system have full tolerance and load balancing in the event of cybersecurity incident or disaster.


To read entire article, click here



About the Author

Livinus Obiora Nweke

Sapienza University
Rome, Italy


Livinus O. Nweke
is currently pursuing his Master’s degree in Computer Science at Sapienza University of Rome, Italy and a MicroMasters in Cybersecurity at EDx/RITx. Livinus holds a Bachelor’s of Science degree in Computer Science from University of the People, Pasadena, CA, USA and a Higher National Diploma in Electrical Electronics Engineering from Institute of Management and Technology, Enugu, Nigeria. During five years of professional experience, Livinus has held titles such as Computer Consultant, Senior Technologist, IT Officer, and Customer Care/IT Support Officer.

Livinus may be contacted at [email protected]



A Commentary on Project Classifications


By Alan Stretton

Sydney, Australia



This commentary updates an earlier program/project classification model by the author, and discusses a recent project typology by Lehmann, and how it relates to that model.


A while ago I published a series of four articles in this journal on categorising projects and programs (Stretton 2014f,g,h,i). In particular, I distinguished between types of projects on the one hand (e.g. R&D, IT), and application sectors for projects on the other (e.g. infrastructure, education), and developed a matrix showing representative examples of each, to illustrate how various project types intersected with the many possible application areas, as follows.

The main reason for developing this matrix was that most listings of project types at the time were a mixture of project types and application sectors. However, the real world situation is that most project types are undertaken in most application areas. So, one way of describing a project is to nominate both its type, and the application sector it is being applied in – e.g. an ICT project in the Production Facilities sector.


In Stretton 2014i I added a third dimension to Figure 1, which was intended to cover categorisations based in degree of complexity and/or uncertainty relating to each program/project.

I first incorporated the four dimensions of the NTCP model of Shenhar & Dvir 2007, namely:

  • project Novelty (e.g. market uncertainty),
  • Technological uncertainty,
  • project scope Complexity, and
  • project Pace.

I then added further complexity/uncertainty dimensions to this model, which I labelled:

  • Geographic complexity,
  • Risk-related complexity,
  • Organization complexity,
  • Resources complexity, and
  • Other

The latter were relatively superficial “catch-all” dimensions, as I had not at that stage looked into the nature of project complexity in any depth.

Subsequently, I have looked at sources of project complexity in more detail, as discussed in Stretton 2017b in this journal. Contributions from eight sources were discussed, and broadly aligned against each other, including the contribution from Prieto 2015, who nominated some 66 sources of complexity on giga-programs. I then proposed the following broad groupings to cover all these contributions.


To read entire paper, click here


Editor’s note: Alan Stretton, PhD (Hon), Life Fellow of AIPM (Australia), is a pioneer in the field of professional project management and one of the most widely recognized voices in the practice of program and project management.   Long retired, Alan is still tackling some of the most challenging research and writing assignments; he is a frequent contributor to the PM World Journal. See his author profile below.

About the Author

Alan Stretton, PhD

Faculty Corps, University of Management
and Technology, Arlington, VA (USA)
Life Fellow, AIPM (Australia)



Alan Stretton is one of the pioneers of modern project management. He is currently a member of the Faculty Corps for the University of Management & Technology (UMT), USA. In 2006 he retired from a position as Adjunct Professor of Project Management in the Faculty of Design, Architecture and Building at the University of Technology, Sydney (UTS), Australia, which he joined in 1988 to develop and deliver a Master of Project Management program.   Prior to joining UTS, Mr. Stretton worked in the building and construction industries in Australia, New Zealand and the USA for some 38 years, which included the project management of construction, R&D, introduction of information and control systems, internal management education programs and organizational change projects. He has degrees in Civil Engineering (BE, Tasmania) and Mathematics (MA, Oxford), and an honorary PhD in strategy, programme and project management (ESC, Lille, France). Alan was Chairman of the Standards (PMBOK) Committee of the Project Management Institute (PMI®) from late 1989 to early 1992. He held a similar position with the Australian Institute of Project Management (AIPM), and was elected a Life Fellow of AIPM in 1996. He was a member of the Core Working Group in the development of the Australian National Competency Standards for Project Management. He has published over 180 professional articles and papers. Alan can be contacted at [email protected].

To see more works by Alan Stretton, visit his author showcase in the PM World Library at



Options for the New Project Manager or Inexperienced Project Manager


By Rebecca Winston, JD

Former Vice-Chair, Chair, Fellow – PMI®

Idaho, USA


During my travels, speaking engagements, or even conference calls, I am asked what can the new project manager or inexperienced project manager use to help them do their work or become a better project manager. Many of the current textbooks, books, guidance documents, standards, and other manuals that are available in the marketplace are packed with information from the basic to the complex. There are few documents that contain the information in a simplified, straightforward manner without being burdened by tools, methods, or opinions. Currently, in the marketplace the only documents that are brief and succinct are the ISO documents. For the new project manager or the inexperienced project manager, the ISO 21500:2012 provides a simple road map to project management.

As with any document, it will undergo revisions and updating, but for the time being it is a simple view of the complex environment of the project world. It has applicability to most projects, most of the time in any organizations for any type of project. It allows for the tailoring that project managers should learn and implement.

Are there limitations to the document? Absolutely! However, no matter how many possibilities that one attempts to capture in any one standard, the world of project management is filled with one more exception. For a new project manager or an inexperienced manager the knowledge to be able to determine what is the best information to use found in any of the voluminous materials available is a difficult one. The use of a simplified standard allows the project manager to ask questions, invest the project management team in decision-making, and seek mentorship. If the project manager feels the text of any standard provides the answer to most, if not all situations, it is harder to seek answers from within or outside the project.

Individuals can agree or disagree about the particulars in any standard. No one standard is perfection. It is up to the project manager to use the standard to improve the management of his or her project, but not to blindly enforce the individual lines stated in any standard.

ISO 21500:2012 will undergo a revision in the next couple years, but in the meantime the document provides the roadmap for “what” a project manager should have established, provided, maintained, or by other action caused to happen within the project to provide for the framework of a potentially successful project. The standard provides concepts and for now processes. Part of the revision process may be to eliminate the processes, change the processes into text only, or move the processes into another document that may be a process standard or an implementation guide.   For now, the concepts are paired with the processes. The standard also provides the project manager with simple non-industry specific definitions of the basic project management terms. The standard does not attempt to redefine terms that are adequately defined by a dictionary, for example the term budget. Just adding “project” prior to budget does not change the term itself from the basic term as defined by the dictionary.

Another benefit of the standard is that it provides a view into the overall, generalized environment that the project exists. Thus, it allows the project manager to see how his or her actions and place in that environment fits into the larger organizational environment. This knowledge also allows the project manager to understand to some extent the world that his or her project stakeholders exist.


To read entire article, click here


About the Author

Rebecca Winston, JD

Former Vice-Chair, Chair, Fellow – PMI®
Idaho, USA



Rebecca (Becky) Winston, Esq., JD, PMI Fellow, is a former Chair of the board of the Project Management Institute (PMI®). An experienced expert on the subject of project management (PM) in the fields of research & development (R&D), energy, environmental restoration and national security, she is well known throughout the United States and globally as a leader in the PM professional world. Becky has over 30 years of experience in program and project management, primarily on programs funded by the US government. She is a graduate of the University of Nebraska’s College of Law, Juris Doctorate (1980), in Lincoln, Nebraska and has a Bachelor’s of Science (BS) degree in Education from Nebraska Wesleyan University She is a licensed attorney in the states of Iowa and Nebraska, USA.

Active in PMI since 1993, Rebecca Winston helped pioneer PMI’s Specific Interest Groups (SIGs) in the nineties, including the Project Earth and Government SIGs, and was a founder and first co-chair of the Women in Project Management SIG. She served two terms on the PMI board of directors as director at large, Secretary Treasurer, Vice Chair (for two years), and Chair (2002). She was elected a PMI Fellow in 2005. She has served as a reviewer of the Barrie Student paper for the PMI Educational Foundation for several years and will begin service on the PMI Educational Foundation Board in 2018. She is also a member of the American Bar Association and the Association of Female Executives in the United States.

Ms. Winston periodically serves as an advisor to organizations such as the National Nuclear Security Administration (USA), U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) on topics ranging from Program and Project Management to project reviews, risk management and vulnerability assessments. She served on the Air Force Studies Board for six years and currently serves on the Intelligence Science Technology Engineering Group for the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine.

Since 2008 she has also served in the capacity of Chair of the US Technical Advisory Group and Head of Delegation for Technical Committee 258: Project, Programme, and Portfolio Management, as well as serving on the various Working and Study Groups drafting international guidance standards. She has extensive recent PM experience in the areas of alternative energy, national defense and security, and has worked closely with local, regional and national officials, including Congress and the Pentagon. She is also a global advisor to the PM World Journal and Library.

Becky can be contacted at [email protected]

To view more works by Rebecca Winston, visit her author showcase in the PM World Library at



The Case for Further Advances in Project Management


By Prof Darren Dalcher

Director, National Centre for Project Management
University of Hertfordshire

United Kingdom


This article looks at the some of the key issues and trends that emerge from the book Further advances in Project Management published by Routledge.

‘Normal’ project management discourse is increasingly challenged to accommodate concerns around successful delivery, value realisation, resilience and making change stick. This book attempts to define and refine the boundaries of project management through a series of articles exploring a range of new perspectives and conversations that extend beyond the traditional remit of project management.

The volume brings together leading authorities on topics that are relevant to the management, leadership, governance and delivery of projects. Topics include people, communication, ethics, change management, value realisation, benefits, complexity, decision making, project requirements, project assurance, communication, knowledge management, big data, project requirements, business architecture, stakeholder engagement, strategy, users, systems thinking and resilience.

The main aims of the collection are to reflect on the state of practice within the discipline; to propose new extensions and additions to good practice; to offer new insights and perspectives; to distil new knowledge; and, to provide a way of sampling a range of the most promising ideas, perspectives and styles of writing from some of the leading thinkers and practitioners in the discipline

Let management methods evolve

In 2007 leading US business thinker and strategist, Professor Gary Hamel published his book, The Future of Management making a powerful case for bold management innovation. He argued that while technology has changed how companies operate, they still adhered to out-dated management models, rules and conventions. The current management model, centred on control, efficiency and coordination, no longer holds. It often constrains imagination, blocks creativity and stifles innovation. Hamel contended that bringing management to the Twenty-first century would require challenging and overcoming legacy beliefs.

The old models no longer suffice in a world where increasingly adaptability and creativity drive business success. Hamel therefore maintains that the challenge of developing a management model that is fit for the future would require the development of management innovation and new ways of engaging with mobilising talent, allocating resources, and building strategies.

The added challenge for project managers would be to similarly embrace creativity and innovation and apply them across temporary, unique and transient endeavours…


To read entire article, click here


About the Author

Dalcher, PhD

Series Editor
Director, National Centre for Project Management
University of Hertfordshire, UK



Darren Dalcher, Ph.D. HonFAPM, FRSA, FBCS, CITP, FCMI, SMIEEE, SFHEA is Professor of Project Management at the University of Hertfordshire, and founder and Director of the National Centre for Project Management (NCPM) in the UK. He has been named by the Association for Project Management (APM) as one of the top 10 “movers and shapers” in project management in 2008 and was voted Project Magazine’s “Academic of the Year” for his contribution in “integrating and weaving academic work with practice”. In October 2011 he was awarded a prestigious lifetime Honorary Fellowship from the Association for Project Management for outstanding contribution to the discipline of project management. Following industrial and consultancy experience in managing IT projects, Professor Dalcher gained his PhD in Software Engineering from King’s College, University of London.

Professor Dalcher has delivered lectures and courses in many leading institutions worldwide, and has won multiple awards and prizes. He has written over 200 papers and book chapters on project management and software engineering and published over 30 books. He is Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Software: Evolution and Process published by John Wiley. He is the editor of the book series, Advances in Project Management, published by Routledge and of the companion series, Fundamentals of Project Management. Heavily involved in a variety of research projects and subjects, Professor Dalcher has built a reputation as leader and innovator in the areas of practice-based education and reflection in project management. He works with many major industrial and commercial organisations and government bodies in the UK and beyond.

Darren is an Honorary Fellow of the APM, a Senior Fellow of the Higher Education Academy, a Chartered Fellow of the British Computer Society, a Fellow of the Chartered Management Institute, and the Royal Society of Arts, a Senior Member of the Institute for Electrical and Electronics Engineers, and a Member of the Project Management Institute (PMI), the Academy of Management, and the Association for Computing Machinery. He is a Chartered IT Practitioner. He sits on numerous senior research and professional boards, including the PMI Academic Member Advisory Group, the APM Research Advisory Group, the Chartered Management Institute Academic Council, the British Library’s Management Book of the Year Panel, and the APM Group’s Ethics and Standards Governance Board. Prof Dalcher is an academic advisor for the PM World Journal. He can be contacted at [email protected].

To see other works by Prof Darren Dalcher, visit his author showcase in the PM World Library at



Making the Right Decisions


Are You Making the Right Decisions Right? Cognitive Limitations and Biases in Decision-Making

By David Tain, MSc., P.Eng., PMP

Alberta, Canada


Nothing is more difficult, and yet more precious, than to be able to decide”. 
Napoleon Bonaparte

Making decisions under uncertainty is a daunting task, yet we must face it in our everyday lives. Whether buying an umbrella in a cloudy day or funding a mega-project, individuals must rely on assumptions to supplement incomplete information and make choices based on their values and experiences, setting a strategy to reach a desired scenario.

Information and time are the most crucial variables in decision-making, with direct incidence in costs and returns. In a corporate setting, choices are constrained by a dominant logic enacted by senior management that package decisions in the organizational culture. These decisions are normally tied to “windows of opportunity” circumscribed by preconceived views of future states of nature. In other words, the capability of an organization to generate alternatives and make decisions is dependent on variables that are intrinsic (behavioral) to individuals and are derived from knowledge, perceptions of future states and motivations. This results in suboptimal product of insufficient alternative generation and decision quality based on the narrow ‘tunnel vision” tilted by the dominant logic in the organization.

Rationality is bounded primarily by the limitations of the human mind and the amount of information available, considering a specific objective and the expected cost of making a particular choice [1]. These constraints influence the perceptions of the external environment as a function of the threats and opportunities surrounding the organization and shape the views on how future scenarios may unfold.

To navigate uncertainty and simplify decision-making processes, individuals tend to take mental shortcuts, commonly known as heuristics, as “rules of thumb” based on the “common sense” when attempting to solve a problem. However, heuristics derive from values and perceptions, hence trying to design a “standard way to decide” is a utopia: decision-making processes and frameworks differ across individuals and organizations. An important point to highlight is that individuals tend to confuse decision with outcomes [2]: decisions are just chain of choices. There’s no “good” or “bad” decision, only “good” or “bad” outcomes. Increasing the quality of the decisions that construct a strategy will therefore increase the likelihood of a desired outcome, and that’s where efforts should be invested.

How can we then increase the quality of our choices and create a good strategy? One of the fundamental elements of a robust strategy is the clear understanding of the elements that tilt assumptions towards a particular direction. A seminal work in behavioral science, made by the psychologists Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman [3], identified three heuristics that drive decision-making as well as the most common biases that naturally emerge to distort these “mental shortcuts”:


To read entire paper, click here


About the Author

David Tain

Alberta, Canada


David Tain
, MSc., P.Eng., PMP is the Principal Consultant for Project Management and Strategy Execution at Septentrion LTD. ( . David has worked extensively in the development of industrial facilities in North and South America, holding diverse leadership positions in for international oil operators, engineering and construction organizations. His professional and academic expertise focuses on projects execution, strategic organization, decision analysis, leadership, negotiation and the study of human behavior in project environments

David received a MSc. in Management (Oil and Gas) from the University of Liverpool and completed the Strategic Decision and Risk Management Program at Stanford University. He obtained his Civil Engineering degree in 2001 from Santa Maria University in Venezuela and has progressively advanced his academic knowledge in Project Management, Project Development and Organizational Strategy through multiple programs at several institutions across the globe, remarkably Villanova University in USA and the Institut Français du Pétrole (IFP) in Paris. David is a Professional Engineer (P.Eng.) in Alberta, Canada. He can be contacted at [email protected]

Strategic consultants like Septentrion design and implement customized solutions to guide decisions, with well-defined and structured frameworks to analyze scenarios and ensuring all assumptions are adequately evaluated. This allows extracting the maximum possible value in the organization while progressing towards the strategic goals, embracing adaptation when required and ensuring right decisions are taken right. More at



International Project Management


International Project Management: Could it be another project management specialization that needs consideration?  

By Isaac Nyarwaya

Kenya and Rwanda


I recently started a new job in a regional inter-governmental organization. It is only then that I started to be exposed to the dynamics of transboundary projects; that is, projects that operate in more than one country. As I was thinking about the profession of project management, I started thinking deeply about the concept of international project management. At least I have heard about IT Project Management, Construction Project Management, and so on but I had never heard of International Project Management. Reflecting on the nature of transboundary projects, I thought international project management is an area that needs to be given due importance and consideration going forward.

Dynamics in managing transboundary projects

Let me share with you some the nature and structure of transboundary projects.


The projects may have a Regional Project Coordination Unit with a Regional Project Coordinator (RPC) at the minimum. Some could have a RPC and a staff in charge of Monitoring and Evaluation, An Accountant, a Project Administrator, etc. The number of staff for the Regional Project Coordination Unit will depend on the size of the project and the donor/ partner requirements.

Each country where the project will be implemented will have a national project implementation unit with its own staff. This national unit will have relatively more staff than the regional unit because activities are going to be implemented here and thus, there is more work at the national level. At the minimum, the national project implementation unit will have a National Project Coordinator but depending on the size of the project could have other key staff such as M&E Officer, Project Accountant, Administration Officer, and so on.

In relation to broader governance of the projects, the Regional Project Implementation Unit will be under the institution that requested the funds and is charged with overall oversight in the management of the project. This is a similar arrangement at the National Project Implementation Unit. The Unit will be under another institution that is the regarded as the implementation partner.


The challenges involved in the transboundary projects are immense. Let me point out only a few that I have personally seen.


To read entire article, click here


About the Author

Isaac Nyarwaya

Kigali, Rwanda


Isaac Nyarwaya
is a development and project management practitioner with 16 years of experience. He has worked in leading international NGOs, United Nations Office for Project Services (UNOPS), United Nations Development Program (UNDP), including holding senior management positions in Rwanda’s public service. He currently works as Principal Resource Mobilization Officer at the Lake Victoria Basin Commission; an institution affiliated to East African Community. He holds a Bachelor’s Degree in Management with Distinction from the National University of Rwanda and a Master’s in Business Administration (MBA) in Project Management from the Maastricht School of Management. He holds a foundational PRINCE2 Certification. He has been a member of the Project Management Institute (PMI) since 1997 and a member of PMI- Kenya Chapter. As an International Correspondent for PM World, Isaac will be reporting news and information about projects and project management in Rwanda and will be making commentaries on project management based on his exposure on projects in the East African Region. Isaac Nyarwaya can be contacted at mailto:[email protected]or Tel. +254 740173053



Corruption goes through the big door


By Germán Bernate

Bogota, Colombia


The new Romanian government chaired by Prime Minister Sorin Grindeaunu, who had been in office only a few months ago, promulgated his first Decree. Decriminalize cases of corruption when the amount stolen is less than $ 50,000 (fifty thousand dollars). That is, it is presented in Society to corruption and is accepted to have its own legitimacy. This decree is new: it legalizes the robbery and exempts from all responsibility those who infringe the Laws.

Many Colombians are surprised by this novel way of governing. Some, ironically, wonder when the Executive will consider these lessons from Romania to proceed in a similar way. Or, maybe, it’s not necessary?

Specialists in Project Management observe the so-called ‘Best Practices’. These include, among others: appropriate training for all stakeholders, information management, generation of ideas for improvement, lessons learned from other projects, comparison with work done in other countries with different cultures, audits, observing standards, and many more .

In parallel there are the so-called ‘Bad Practices’. These are not found in the Procedural Manuals of any company, but all citizens know them well. Among the most famous are some used by sellers: a) lie to the customer with false promises about the benefits of the products and services promoted. B) hide from the client: never appears, refuses to answer phone calls. C) delivering poor quality products. D) non-realistic advertising.

But there are other ‘Bad Practices’ that are also present in Romania: bribery and corruption. These are presented most notably in construction and infrastructure. For the award of contracts mechanisms are designed to present the requirements to the proponents and emphasis is placed on transparency. After the elaboration of the contract comes a mandatory management: the obtaining of authorizations of the most varied requirements. Complex and not always useful operation.

Risk appears. This is an important complement to the project’s governance. This, the Risk, provides a series of ‘Best Practices’ that has the mission to control the action and prevent complex situations. Controls include documentation, monitoring and control, communications, monitoring of contracts, among many.

Risk is generous in its support. Your first contribution is the definition of the corresponding procedure: that is, what should be done and what is not allowed. Then it is in charge of identifying them, understanding what is involved and setting priorities. Qualitative and quantitative analyzes are then performed. This to establish the true impact they have. A guideline is established to know what to respond to each risk and how its management is controlled.


To read entire report, click here for (English) or (Spanish)


About the Author

Germán Bernate    

Bogota, Colombia



Germán Bernate
is an Electronic Engineer (Universidad Distrital – 1962) and Master in Project Management (UCI University of Costa Rica 2009). He worked 31 years for IBM in Colombia in managerial and technical positions. He was work with NCR Colombia and served as Program Manager and Project Manager. Founder and CEO of Almagesto  (2004), a company dedicated to consulting and training in the areas of strategic planning and project management. In 1992 he won the first prize in the fourth edition of Doctor Zumel Literary Contest in Madrid Spain. President of the Board of Teatro Colón for five years (2007-2011). Led the Project Management program at Universidad Piloto August 2008 to December 2009. Parquesoft Director during the period from August 2010 to March 2011. Professor at universities Distrital Francisco Jose de Caldas, Nacional, Javeriana, Pamplona, Tecnológica de Bolívar, Andes, Externado, America and Piloto. Co-founder Colombia Chapter PMI (Project Management Institute) and its president for three terms. Co-founder of the Colombian Association ACGePro Project Management IPMA Member Association (International Project Management Association). He has published several books, including ‘El año 2000 al acecho. La crisis del Y2K afectará a su computador, aprenda a controlarla’on the issue of the change of the millennium. In February 2013, published as the book ‘Gerencia de Proyectos: aplicaciones en salud’. Computerworld Editorial Board Member since 1996 and international correspondent for PM World Today eJournal and from 2007-2011. Contact email: [email protected]

To view other works by this author, visit his author showcase in the PM World Library at


Zimbabwe Embracing Project Management


Zimbabwe slowly embracing necessity of Project Management Training and Certification

By Tororiro Isaac Chaza, PMP

Harare, Zimbabwe


Tawanda Kurasa (real name) from Harare Zimbabwe is on cloud 19 having recently certified as a project management professional (PMP). Like many other thousands of professionals worldwide Tawanda has been practicing both locally and abroad for the past 10 years as an Engineer, he has worked in parastatals, private companies and listed companies such as Liquid Telecommunications as a Project Manager, delivering projects worth millions of dollars. In terms of best practice in the field of project management, despite possessing a Bachelor’s degree in Engineering and an MBA qualification, Tawanda was not recognized as a project manager before certification. This is the predicament of thousands of professionals out there not only in Zimbabwe but all over the world.

As the immediate past President of PMZ Mr Henry Mkhwananzi (PMP) puts it, “It is high risk for sponsors in the public and private sector, to entrust large scale projects worth millions of dollars into the leadership hands of uncertified project managers”. PMZ research has shown that the local public sector is fraught with ‘accidental’ project managers as many people are called to undertake project management responsibilities with little or no preparation. These ‘accidental’ project managers are selected for their managerial/technical expertise but lack competency to deliver projects.

In Zimbabwe and, as in most Sub-Saharan African countries the level of project management training and certification is nascent, albeit ominously low, given that these countries undertake massive infrastructural development projects. Hence projects fail due to incompetency in project management and the lack of appropriate project governance thereof, giving rise to opportunistic corruption.

Governments of a number of developed and emerging economies have gone to the extent of mandating enabling policies geared towards the acceleration of project management talent development in the public and private sectors in order to spur economic growth support. A case in point is the UK Government, which innovated by setting up a central Major Projects Authority (MPA) in 2011, by way of a Prime Ministerial Mandate. The reasons for setting up the MPA were cited thus, “There is currently no cross-governmental understanding of the size and cost of Government’s Major Projects portfolio, nor of the cost and viability of the projects within it. This failure will hinder our ability to prioritize and manage these huge costly projects,” (Prime Minister’s Mandate on Major Projects –, 2011). Similar developments have been attested in countries, such as Canada, USA, most EU bloc countries, Pakistan, Bangladesh, etc. where governments have pronounced the setting up of capacity development policies to enhance project management capabilities and attendant governance. Governments are prompting project management implementation to spearhead infrastructure development and innovation for sustained global competitiveness.

Project Management Zimbabwe (PMZ) is the Zimbabwe’s largest association of project managers, among its various mandates, the institute provides guidelines for certification of project managers. There are about 850 000 PMPs worldwide to date, and 50% of this number are in the USA and EU region, while Zimbabwe has less than 100 known PMPs to date. While the PMP certification is the world’s most popular project management credential, there are other equally good qualifications popular in Zimbabwe such as the PGDPM (Post Graduate Diploma in Project Management), CAPM (Certified Associate in Project Management), CPM/DPM (Certificate & Diploma in Project Management) including the PRINCE2.


To read entire paper, click here


About the Author

Eng. Tororiro Isaac Chaza

Harare, Zimbabwe



Eng. Tororiro Chaza is one of the handful of PMPs in Zimbabwe. He has over 30 years of experience on projects in the Telecommunications industry, having worked for General Electric Company in the UK, then for the Zimbabwe Posts and Telecommunications Company, and top Cellular Company Econet Wireless. Tororiro was the General Manager of the Project Management Office (PMO) at Econet Zimbabwe for the last 5 years in charge of managing a large portfolio of telecommunications, banking and construction projects of varying complexities. Tororiro is now a full-time project management trainer and consultant.

Tororiro Chaza can be contacted at mailto:[email protected]

To view other works by this author, visit his author showcase page in the PM World Library at

This article provided by Project Management Zimbabwe

Project Management Zimbabwe (PMZ – Project Management Institute of Zimbabwe) is Zimbabwe’s largest Association of Project Managers, with a membership base of over 1000. The institute has a mandate of policing the elevation of project management standards nationally through mentorship and membership services programmes. PMZ is registered and accredited by the Ministry of Higher & Tertiary Education Zimbabwe. For information, visit or email: [email protected]



Culture in Multinational Projects


By Germán Bernate

Bogota, Colombia


In the decades of the sixties and seventies of the twentieth century there was a boom in projects involving several countries. In the former a customer with branches in several countries hired a company that provides hardware and software to install a novel solution that would allow them to provide their customers with new services. With this strategy they could achieve a leadership position in their marketing segment.

There is a new problem that must be addressed immediately: the difference in the culture of the stakeholders.

In 1965 the International Project Management Association (IPMA) was founded. Your mission: to teach about Project Management. Its emphasis is the development of three competences: technical, behavioral and contextual.

In 1969 the Project Management Institute (PMI) was founded: At one dinner James Snyder, Eric Jennett and Gordon Davis met. Its purpose: to create an organization that will bring Project Managers together so that they can share information and study common problems within their work. Companies that sell hardware and software since the late 1950s and early 1960s had developed methodologies for project management and administration. They were eagerly seeking a common technical language that would allow the exchange of information between regions.

Common Tools and Common Language

The emphasis was on the costs and schedule. The tool available for time management was the Gantt Diagram (GANTT ®) developed by the engineer Henry Gantt (1910). In a later step we worked with the Critical Path Method (CPM®) that resolved the use of predecessor activities and the layout of large networks. In 1957, the Department of Defense’s Special Projects Office of the United States Department of Defense, in its work to build the Polaris submarine, developed the Program evaluation and review technique (PERT®).


To read entire article, click here for (English) or (Spanish)



About the Author

Germán Bernate

Bogota, Colombia



Germán Bernate
is an Electronic Engineer (Universidad Distrital – 1962) and Master in Project Management (UCI University of Costa Rica 2009). He worked 31 years for IBM in Colombia in managerial and technical positions. He was work with NCR Colombia and served as Program Manager and Project Manager. Founder and CEO of Almagesto  (2004), a company dedicated to consulting and training in the areas of strategic planning and project management. In 1992 he won the first prize in the fourth edition of Doctor Zumel Literary Contest in Madrid Spain. President of the Board of Teatro Colón for five years (2007-2011). Led the Project Management program at Universidad Piloto August 2008 to December 2009. Parquesoft Director during the period from August 2010 to March 2011. Professor at universities Distrital Francisco Jose de Caldas, Nacional, Javeriana, Pamplona, Tecnológica de Bolívar, Andes, Externado, America and Piloto. Co-founder Colombia Chapter PMI (Project Management Institute) and its president for three terms. Co-founder of the Colombian Association ACGePro Project Management IPMA Member Association (International Project Management Association).

He has published several books, including ‘El año 2000 al acecho. La crisis del Y2K afectará a su computador, aprenda a controlarla’on the issue of the change of the millennium. In February 2013, published as the book ‘Gerencia de Proyectos: aplicaciones en salud’. Computerworld Editorial Board Member since 1996 and international correspondent for PM World Today eJournal and from 2007-2011. Contact email: [email protected]



The Calm Before the Storm


By Steve Wake

United Kingdom


The announcement of the General Election in the UK for June 8 came like a bolt out of the blue.

So now we have to see what happens with:

  • Our Government
  • The Brexit Negotiation
  • The French election
  • Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland
  • Gibraltar
  • International terrorism
  • Climate Change
  • The money markets
  • US foreign policy
  • Russia
  • China
  • Korea
  • Pink Floyd

If you do risk management then some or all of the above will be factors which will affect our daily lives. What we will be waking up to for the foreseeable future.

The world we live in looks like it’s going to change and it could affect our prosperity by which I mean. Your job, your kids future. Where and how you live.

Now the good news is. Is hasn’t happened yet. Although we don’t quite know what yet.

The bad news is that most of the institutions and sources of guidance which inform our opinions and choices don’t know either.

The degree of uncertainty is unparalleled.

However, the sun will continue to rise and those of us with jobs will continue at least for a while.

It is safe to say that there will be projects. There always are. This profession is a good one to be in. Rain or shine.

So whilst we’re waiting, now is a good time to reflect and rehearse what’s coming and what we can do about it.

The PC manifesto (Project Controls) that is.

The Project Profession has to get and maintain its voice.

We the profession kid ourselves if we think that the first person the Prime Minister or members of the Government or those Civil Servants in Whitehall think of is us.


To read entire article, click here



About the Author

Steve Wake

United Kingdom


Steve Wake
has worked in the print, automotive, aerospace, defence, insurance and IT industries as a project manager and consultant. He is an internationally acknowledged expert on Earned Value Project Management and has written and presented many times. He was chairman of the Board of the Association for Project Management in the UK steering it to Chartered status whilst pursuing a campaign of Listening, Learning and Leading as a way of being as well as doing Diversity properly.

Steve has also had to become an accomplished event organiser and chair with his own EVA conference in its 22nd year as well as continued close involvement in the high profile PMI UK Synergy events, both productions with a reputation for the unusual and innovative. His long passion for all kinds of music is almost matched by his continued appreciation of silence.

Steve Wake can be contacted at [email protected]