Talk:Project Management Body of Knowledge/Archives/2009

Proposed Addition
I'd like to add the following paragraph of history:

In 1987, PMI published the first Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK®) in an attempt to document and standardize generally accepted project management information and practices. The current edition, A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK® Guide), Third Edition (2004), is a basic reference for anyone interested in project management. It provides a common lexicon and consistent structure for the field of project management.

Any objections? Richman9


 * No, sounds good, so I will be bold and copy it to the article now, with a reference to see her so you can be properly credited, since I am just the messenger. I will assume that you have forgotten about this since it is nearly a year old. Spalding 14:17, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

PMI's certifications
I removed these sections, because PMI's certifications are part of neither the project management body of knowledge nor the Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge®.

CAPM and PMP
The Project Management Institute (PMI) is the publisher of PMBOK and offers two levels of certification:


 * 1) A Certified Associate in Project Management (CAPM) has demonstrated a common base of knowledge and terms in the field of project management. It requires either 1500 hours of work on a project team or 23 contact hours of formal education in project management. Candidates must also pass a comprehensive 150 question exam.
 * 2) A Project Management Professional (PMP) has met specific education and experience requirements, has agreed to adhere to a code of professional conduct and has passed an examination designed to objectively assess and measure project management knowledge. In addition, a PMP must satisfy continuing certification requirements or lose the certification.

As of 2006, PMI reported over 220,000 members and about 200,000 Project Management Professionals (PMPs) in 175 countries. Over 40,000 PMP certifications expire annually. A PMP must document ongoing project management experience and education every three years to keep their certification current

PgMP
In 2006, PMI added a credential in program management to its inventory of certifications. According to the PMBOK, a program is a set of related projects that are managed in a coordinated fashion to achieve goals the projects could not achieve individually. PMI has positioned the Program Management Professional (PgMP) to complement and to extend the CAPM and PMP, but individuals do not have to earn the CAPM or PMP as a pre-requisite to earning the PgMP. Candidates for the PgMP must pass a series of evaluations, including:


 * 1) Application Review by PMI staff and a Panel of Program Managers
 * 2) Multiple-choice Exam
 * 3) Multi-rater Assessment

PMI provides an FAQ page for interested parties on their homepage. .

clean-up
I've attempted to clean this up a bit - it was full of unsourced statements, jargon that means nothing to the general reader etc etc. --Fredrick day 19:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Page name
The actual title of this book is A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK® Guide). I would like to suggest renaming the page to reflect the correct title. Makingprogress19 (talk) 14:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Good point. Let's move it. ComputerGeezer (talk) 17:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't have the move option. can someone help me do this?Makingprogress19 (talk) 18:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposed action
I would like to suggest moving the history of the opening and into its own section and moving the ISO certification information to the opening. It seems to be more relevant. Also in the last sentence of that section it says:

PMI realized the necessity of modifying PMBOK to be coherent with other standards especially Program, Portfolio, Organisational Project Management Maturity Model (OPM3), and Unified Project Management Lexicon standards.

It should be The Standard for Program Management and The Standard for Portfolio Management

I would also like to suggest a section on standards development.

Any objections? Makingprogress19 (talk) 21:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

October 2009 cleanup
I ran across this page and was stunned at the amount of unsourced information and the amount of information sourced solely to self-published sites. In keeping with WP policy, I to a reliable source and tagged the article on 6 October.

On 7 October, User:Pm master reverted with the edit summary of "no need to stubify the article."

I'm reverting back again. If an editor wants to discuss this, great! Here's why I made each change:
 * Lead:
 * The book name should be in bold italics at the start of the article.
 * PMBOK Guide should be in italics at the beginning, not in bold, as it's not part of the article's name.
 * I think it's worth mentioning that the book is self-published, as that says something about the book's credibility.
 * I think the book should be officially cited—after all, that's what the article is about, yes?
 * I could be convinced that the IEEE Std reference should be included. I don't think I could be convinced that it needs to be included twice. However, given that that particular standard was withdrawn on 26 January 2009, I don't think it should be included at all (see http://standards.ieee.org/cgi-bin/status?1490-2003).
 * History:
 * We don't need to use the full name of the book again, given that the introduction already introduced a shorthand version of it.
 * I removed the Jay Holzman reference (found at http://www.pmihrsig.org/Resources/PP_ArticlesUpTo.pdf) because it says nothing about a 1987 white paper.
 * I believe that we should stick with one method of capitalization. It's confusing the jump between "Third Edition" and "first edition." I went with all lower-case as that's what the article used first and appeared to use most.
 * Contents:
 * This section had no references at all, so I tossed it. If you want to put it back, please do not do so without verifiable third-party reliable sources.
 * See also:
 * It's not clear from the article what it has in common with these other articles.
 * External links:
 * PMI's Web site does not need to be here; if someone wants that info, they can go read the (already-linked) PMI article.
 * As mentioned above, the IEEE Std reference does not need to be here.
 * The link to pmhut.com is a blog post/book review. Why should be included as an external link?
 * Categories:
 * This article is about a book, so it should be categorized as a book.

As I said, I'm absolutely open to discussion, and if anyone wants to add sourced information, go for it! But don't just revert without discussion. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 02:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * --- You removed all the content, leaving just the introduction. The PMBOK article is concise as it is right now and there's no need to revert again... Should you wish to edit some stuff, then please add your opinion on this page (I will check it for the next few days).


 * PMI, in case you don't know, are the people behind the PMBOK, the link is valid.
 * I agree about the IEEE reference, it is now obsolete.
 * The pmhut thing about the difference between the versions is helpful for project managers (you would know if you're a Project Manager).


 * PMBOK is not merely a book, it defines standards in waterfall Project Management. Please if you're not a Project Manager don't go and vandalize established articles just for the sake of fixing what is not broken (you call it cleanup). Do not revert back to the older version, please let's avoid stubbornness. Again, you saying that the PMI link does not need to be there and referencing the PMBOK as merely a book with no credibility tells a lot about your experience in Project Management.


 * As a seasoned Project Manager I can assure you the content is verifiable, please leave the article as it is.


 * I have been a Wikipedian since 2006 and this is the first time I see this.Pm master 04:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Noticed your comment about the "See Also" section. PRINCE2 is the competing methodology to the one defined by the PMBOK. PRINCE2 is mainly used in the UK and some European countries (as well as Australia), while the PMBOK is leading in most other countries (including the US and Canada). Again, your edits to articles that you obviously don't know enough about are not helpful. Pm master 04:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I believe that we're at an impasse here, and that this article should be put up for a Third opinion. Here's how I would describe our current positions:
 * {|class="wikitable" border="1"

! | ! width="45%" | User:DoriSmith (invited to edit this at 01:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC))
 * width="45%" style="text-align:center;" | User:Pm master
 * -valign="top"
 * Overall opinion
 * On Wikipedia, articles need to follow policies and guidelines—Editing policy in particular.

An article with no sources isn't an article at all.
 * -valign="top"
 * References
 * This particular article contains few to no references; the content that does exist is unsourced, and much of that is irrelevant and tangential.
 * This particular article contains few to no references; the content that does exist is unsourced, and much of that is irrelevant and tangential.

The references this article had were all bad (as described earlier on this page). I've added a cite book, but more are needed.
 * -valign="top"
 * Tags
 * This article should have several tags on it, particularly refimprove/unreferenced, primarysources, and expand.
 * -valign="top"
 * -valign="top"
 * Contents section
 * If it's unreferenced, it shouldn't be in the article. This entire section is unreferenced, so it goes.
 * -valign="top"
 * See also section
 * Based on WP:SEEALSO, linked articles should either be obviously relevant to the article's topic, or should contain an explanation of why they are relevant. In this case, obvious See also's would be to comparable & related books, such as A Guide to the Business Analysis Body of Knowledge.
 * -valign="top"
 * See also section
 * Based on WP:SEEALSO, linked articles should either be obviously relevant to the article's topic, or should contain an explanation of why they are relevant. In this case, obvious See also's would be to comparable & related books, such as A Guide to the Business Analysis Body of Knowledge.

For PMP in particular, it's not at all clear why a link to a dab page is a good idea—which of the 13 definitions is the appropriate one?
 * -valign="top"
 * External links section
 * External links should comply with Wikipedia policy. The PMI link is duplication as their article (Project Management Institute) is already linked. The pmhut.com link is inappropriate as it's simply a book review on a blog.
 * -valign="top"
 * Categories
 * This article is about a book, and therefore, should be placed in book-related categories such as econ-book-stub and Category:Business books.
 * -valign="top"
 * Style
 * Per Manual of Style (capital letters), if we refer once to the "first edition," it's incongruous for the article to switch capitalization schemes with the "Third Edition" and "Fourth Edition."
 * -valign="top"
 * Style
 * Per Manual of Style (capital letters), if we refer once to the "first edition," it's incongruous for the article to switch capitalization schemes with the "Third Edition" and "Fourth Edition."

Per Manual of Style (titles) and WP:BOLDTITLE, the book's title should be in bold italics in the first paragraph.
 * }
 * Obviously, I've guessed at your thoughts above, so if you could you edit that column to accurately reflect your opinions, I think we'd be set to list this at WP:3O. Does that work for you? Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 01:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Obviously, I've guessed at your thoughts above, so if you could you edit that column to accurately reflect your opinions, I think we'd be set to list this at WP:3O. Does that work for you? Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 01:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Table above originally contained what I perceived to be User:Pm master's opinions. I thought he would quickly update it with his actual opinions. As he hasn't, and he's objected to my characterization of him, I've blanked that column. User:Pm master, again, please feel free to add how you see this. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 19:33, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Dori,


 * You have too much time on your hands, I don't. I've added the references tag for people to add references on the subject. Please don't remove/add stuff to the article. Your points about the Manual of Style are valid, and they're OK for me. Please don't hide behind Wikipedia standards to prove that you're right in editing the content of an article you clearly have no clue whatsoever what it's about. What you're saying means that a 5 year old kid can edit an article written by a nuclear scientist about the atomic bomb, and the kid's edit of gibberish will prevail, merely because the kid, who doesn't know anything about the subject, is following Wikipedia standards. Again, please stop wasting my time on this, and yours, and move over to another specialized article where your helpful blanking of the page will be welcome. Subject experts are the ones who build solid articles on Wikipedia, thanks for respecting that.Pm master 01:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Whether I have time on my hands or expertise is irrelevant, so I'm not sure why you continue bringing up either. But as you didn't object, I've added it to the queue at . And of course, you're still feel free to add your thoughts and opinions to the table above. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 21:48, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Dori, I can't see anywhere where I agreed to have a 3rd opinion, apparently you over-analyze (similar to the over-analysis in the table above). Yes your expertise on the matter does matter, because me, as well as every other Project Manager, don't want this article to turn into rubbish. Yes, you're still wasting my time. The best investment of your time is to find some decent references instead of blanking it. Instead of wasting my time and your time trying to blank the page, you could have found some decent references to add. But you just want to prove a point, don't you? Making the article better is secondary for you, you'd rather blank it than see yourself wronged. Complete waste of time, but I'm here, and I'll keep protecting this article..Pm master 00:54, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Third opinion
A number of substantive questions have been raised above and I'll try to address them all here. But, at the outset, let me make it clear that, per wikipedia practices, sourcing is extremely important. To quote from the reliable sources guideline, if an article topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. Of course, this has to be tempered by what is common knowledge and what is not but this is a good guideline to bear in mind. At this point, I assume that style is not a major issue. The article is quite clearly about a book about project management so both categories are fine. However, failing reliable sources, I must question whether we should have this article at all or not. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 03:09, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) overall opinion Yes. In general. an article with no sources should probably not be an article at all. If no one else has talked about the subject then we shouldn't be doing so either. This is an encyclopedia, i.e., a compendium of established work, and not a venue for new ideas. Also, by the very nature of wikipedia, it is impossible to figure out who is an expert and who is claiming to be an expert. So, declared expertise is something that should be considered very carefully. Finally, if a person is an expert in a field, then that person should find it easy to find reliable sources to back up his or her claims. In the unlikely event that the person is the only expert in the field, the likelihood is that the topic is a fringe one.
 * 2) That an article does not need references is not correct. We report knowledge that is contained in secondary sources. No secondary sources usually means no article.
 * 3) Tags placed on an article should be explained on the talk page. It is better to get other opinions before removing tags, provided that the article deficiencies and problems are properly explained.
 * 4) Contents section. It is best to explain who these experts are and why they are experts. As I say above, in an anonymously edited encyclopedia, expertise is unverified.
 * 5) See also. It is unclear why the dab page is useful. The PRINCE2 seems ok since it is a project management method but it does leave open the question as to why only one method adds value to this article.
 * 6) External links. "Experts understand ...." is not a reason to include links. Experts must be identified through reliable sources to have any meaning. (Though the PMI link seems ok since PMI is the publisher of the book in question.)


 * Thanks! But due to User:Pm master's opinion, above, I'm now seeing if we can get somewhere at WP:WQA. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 04:56, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I will also add my opinion here: Yes, unverified and unsourced information should be removed. It's very well to claim how important the book is, and that it is not "merely" a book, but this must be backed up with sources. If no suitable sources can be found at all this should be taken to AfD, although a quick google search seems to suggest it may possess notability. --Taelus (talk) 15:14, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Give me a week or so, I will add some references. Extremely busy at the moment, thanks. PS: This article was nominated for deletion on 28 June 2007. The result of the discussion was Keep. Pm master 17:57, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * This article was nominated for deletion under another name over 2 years ago... It doesn't mean very much here. We should focus on the state of the article currently rather than historic AfD results anyway. --Taelus (talk) 08:32, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The user Dori is starting to take this very personal. I am calling for help on this issue: WP:WQA Pm master 21:17, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: I added a separator and moved User:Pm master's comment down here so that it wouldn't get lost. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 03:24, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Was there a reason why you chose to skip WP:3O, thereby not following the dispute resolution process? Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 03:24, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Supporting this Article's Assertions
This article may be strengthened by a inline or external reference that supports its assertions about ITTO, processes, process groups, and knowledge areas. MrOllie and PM Master, you are invited to view the content at [ www.jospar.com Visual PMBOK(r) Guide]. Your feedback on the relevance of this freely available content to support this article's assertions are welcome. Davidjosparcom (talk) 02:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Editors should note that www.jospar.com is a site apparently owned by the above editor, which requires one to sign up to view content. This of itself would not invalidate it as a source, but it does not appear to be offered as a source here. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)