5 responses

  1. Dr Paul D. Giammalvo
    May 26, 2013

    Hi Shim,
    Overall, I think Prof Brent is definitely on the right track. Until or unless we get both legal and professional ACCOUNTABILITY, not only for project managers, but for cost estimators and schedulers, we will NEVER get any improvements.

    Look at medicine and civil engineering in the USA. While yes, there are incompetent, incapable doctors and engineers, overall the level of both medicine and engineering in the USA is generally considered to be very good. And why is that? Because the legal process has held BOTH of these professions accountable legally and financially for their “errors and omissions”.

    And not to drift too far afield, one of the “bright line tests” of any occupation being a profession is the ability to make INDEPENDENT decisions, with the flip side being legal accountability (“professional negligence”) if those decisions are somehow wrong, neither of which apply to project management or cost estimating or scheduling right now.

    See here for more details on what is needed to raise the professional standing of cost estimators, schedulers and project managers http://pmworldjournal.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/PMWJ2-Sep2012-GIAMMALVO-CompetencyofCostEstimators-SecondEdition.pdf

    One last item which you touched on that I think needs clarification. You were talking about ACCURACY of cost estimates. Unfortunately, that is an incomplete construct. Estimates must meet three criteria- they must be ACCURATE, RELIABLE and PRECISE. This graphic explains very nicely the nuances between these three terms http://www.gmat.unsw.edu.au/snap/gps/gps_survey/chap2/241relb.htm. So when we talk about any estimate, we need to talk about three dimensions of that estimate- Is it ACCURATE? Is it RELIABLE and how PRECISE is it. To do otherwise is missing some important dimensions.

    Dr. PDG, Jakarta, Indonesia

    • Shim Marom
      May 27, 2013

      Hi Paul, which RAND study do you refer to in your paper?

  2. Dr Paul D. Giammalvo
    May 26, 2013

    Here is another comment on Prof. Bents paper. He cited that “The 2011 Oxford Handbook of Project Management identifies a “third wave” in project management research characterized by a positioning of the management of projects as a vital part of general management (Morris, Pinto, and Söderlund 2011:3). With projects taking center stage as delivery model for products and services in most organizations, project management can no longer be seen as a specialist subcategory of management brought to bear on special cases, but must instead be seen as a core business activity, vital to organizations as a whole.”

    But when you look at the “end to end” processes using projects as the means to create new assets, (products or services) as described in AACE’s Total Cost Management Framework (TCMF) http://www.aacei.org/aaceonly/tcm/ which integrates Asset Management + Portfolio Management + Program Management + Project Management into a single methodology, haven’t we in fact come full circle to General Management? (Just as Drucker described in his 1973 “Management: Tasks, Responsibilities and Practices”?)

    Dr. PDG, Jakarta, Indonesia

Leave a Reply




Back to top
mobile desktop