English.doc

Abstract— The development of the project management profession (PM) and its widespread application in practice demanded the creation of a corresponding professional infrastructure. This paper discusses the necessity of the acceptance of one united methodology, and systematic, structured approach towards the globally accumulated theoretical and practical knowledge, experience and competence of PM experts. The system approach and system methodology of project management, based on developments and experience accumulated by the Russian Project Management Association SOVNET, are discussed. The system model is analyzed, and differentiated from the rest of known visual models. The paper introduces the project management system model as an elaboration of the system model. It then offers a detailed analysis of IPMA Competence Baseline Version 3.0 (ICB 3.0) structure as well as a discussion of its shortcomings. The paper supports an idea of creation of a global PM infrastructure system with ICB as one of its pivotal elements, urges further testing of current ICB version to insure its integrity, and seeks an improvement of its structural logic and better defined systematization of the competency elements. A logically improved structure and composition of knowledge and competency elements for ICB/NCB is introduced. The paper requires broad discussion and further development.

Index Terms—project management, systems model, elements of competency, systematic and structural approach to knowledge

(1. Lenovo, Raleigh, USA)

FEATURED PAPERHow to improve the ICB/NCB based on the Systems Model of

Project Management V.Voropaev 1，G. Secletova1，M. Voropaeva-Cates2

(2. GASIS, Moscow, Russia)(3. Lenovo, Raleigh, USA)

1. INTRODUCTION

Intense development of the profession of project management (PM) and its widespread application in practice demanded the creation of a corresponding professional infrastructure, which includes such major components as research, standards, education, training, and certification of specialists and organizations.

During the last 30 to 40 years the profession of project management and its infrastructure has been developing simultaneously on different continents and in different countries. As a result, today in the world there are several centers of PM development, each with their own views reflecting their corresponding cultures, and different terminology, methodology and practical applications.

This accumulated knowledge, experience, and practical application of PM poses a question of the development of the accepted fundamental principles of PM based on unified solutions, and creation of a global infrastructural system for the profession of PM. It will then allow the creation of national infrastructures, which will meet global and national demands.

At the core of the realization of initiatives like this one lays the necessity of the acceptance of one united methodology, and systematically structured approach towards the globally accumulated theoretical and practical knowledge, experience and competence of PM experts.

This article suggests one of possible approaches to the solution of the given problem, based on developments and experience accumulated by the Russian Project Management Association SOVNET. At the core of this approach lays the view of the project management discipline, profession, and its elements as a complex structure with specific systems and processes, as it has been practiced in Russia for the last 10 years.

In a nutshell, this approach consists of:- The whole complex of possible project management processes being studied within the limits of the

active complex cybernetics system, which includes objects, subjects and the processes of project management in all their diversity;

- PM tasks and procedures discussed as business processes, consisting of: input, process, output, and all kinds of corresponding process components and characteristics (statement of the task, initial information, algorithms of methods and means for solution, results, executors, their competences and potential, end users and their characteristics, etc).

The completeness of the inclusion of PM discipline constituent parts and elements, as well as PM processes with their environments and dynamics require the complexity of the approach.This examination includes:

- Possible specter of objects and their characteristics, from work packages to project-oriented activity in business, society, state, and other socio-economic formations;

- Possible project participants with their competences and tool sets;- The entire gamut and hierarchy of PM processes with their attributes;- Context and environment of the project activity and project management.

The discussion of the practical application for the suggested approach is based on analysis of the structure of the new version of international competence requirements for project management specialists developed by the International Project Management Association (ICB IPMA 3.0) [2]. The purpose of the discussion is to formulate suggestions regarding further improvement of the document.

The paper is of methodological type, and it requires broad discussion and further elaboration based on research and practical experience.

2. SYSTEM MODEL FOR PROJECT AND PROGRAM MANAGEMENT

Analysis of known methodological approaches to project management [1-9], [16] allows to generalization of the achievements in this area, and development of the system approach [10] and system methodology of project management [11].

At the heart of system approach lays the system model [1]. Analysis of its application in practice, in learning courses, and in project management certification programs brought about a conclusion that system methodology provides a solid understanding between project management specialists and participants, based on united terminology and systematization of potential aggregation of possible elements of PM discipline and tasks.

The model offered in this paper differs from the rest of known visual models [14] because it is a multi-dimensional, formal and logical model, oriented not only toward visualization of Project and Program Management (PPM), but primarily toward computerized presentation of the model for its practical application.

The logic of this model is dictated by the very essence of management, meaning that it consists of all the links from closed circuit of management:

what needs to be managed (management object); who manages (management subject);

3

how to manage (management process).The special quality of the suggested model is in its simultaneous realization of systems, project, and process

approaches [13]. “If ‘hierarchy’ is chosen as a model of interactions between the given approaches, then the process approach is enclosed in the project approach, and the project approach is enclosed in the system approach. The methodology of interactions between those approaches can be presented as a “matreshka” (a wooden doll in peasant dress with successively smaller ones fitted into it).” [13]. Thus, the system methodological model realizes complex approach, which sets this model apart from the rest of known project management models.

The Project Management System Model (PM SM) (Fig.1) discussed in this paper is a result of elaboration of system model [10]. This PM SM model is based on presentation of project management as a cybernetic system, and contains three major blocks, shown by structural decomposition of project management objects, subjects, and processes.

Management Objects (Q)Generally, management objects are sets of tasks to be executed on order to achieve desired objectives and

results of a project. Accordingly, management objects can be: Multitude of projects and programs in organizations, companies and other sociological and business

formations Programs, portfolios Projects Life cycle phases of management object: conception, development, implementations, and completion Work packages Detailed tasksManagement objects can be classified, or, based on terminology of Russell Archibald [14], “categorized”

based on variety of projects they consist of (vector K from Fig.1) or types of Project-Oriented Activity (POA).Management Subjects (Z)Management subjects are active participants of a project (program, portfolio), interacting while making

managerial decisions in a process of the project’s implementation. Management subjects are: Major stakeholders and their project teams:

- Client,- Investor- General contractor- Subcontractors- Others

Project (program, portfolio) team (L):- Project (program, portfolio) manager - Project management team- Functional managers of a project- Team members of project executors - Other team members

Project Implementation Management ProcessThe process of project management is presented as a structural decomposition of functional tasks and

project management procedures which need to be executed in order to allow management subjects to make an impact on management objects through decisions.

Each process (task) of the project management system model can be identified by selected components of the chosen system model elements {Z, L… Q, C, K… F, S, T…} which are logically interrelated between themselves (for example: Z=Z1, Z2… Z7). Those components can be also called vectors. Those vectors serve as a base for functional task classification through elements of PPM process, and represent main characteristics of objects (Q, C, K…), subjects (Z,L…), and PPM process (F, S, T…), which can be grouped as follows:: Steps of management process (F), including:

- initiation of a project and its parts- planning of project activities- organization and control of execution of project activities- analysis and regulation of project activities

termination of a project and its parts Functional areas of management (S), including tasks and procedures, as well as tools for their realization:

- scope - time - cost - quality

4

- risks- human resources- communications- contracts- change- other functional areas

Time horizons of management (T), depicted as a hierarchy of time periods within which project management tasks related to different management objects and subjects are examined:- strategic level: embraces the entire project and/or product life cycle- annual level: includes project tasks planned for a year- quarterly level: includes project tasks planned for a quarter- operational level: embraces project tasks planned for a month, 10 days, week,

twenty four hours, shift, etc.

5

Management subjects (Z) (1.01, 1.02, 3.11, 1.06,1.07,1.08,1.09, 2.01-2.15,3.04-3.06,3.11)

1.Проекты 2.Программы

Time horizons of management (Т)

Major stakeholders and their project teams

Project (program, portfolio) team

4. Operational

Management objects – project activities (1.03,1.09, 1.11,3.04,3.06,3.07)

Projects and programs (Q) from different categories (К)

Life cycle phases of a management object (C )(1.11)

5. POA in social and business formations

1.Conception 2.Development 3.Execution 4.Close-out 1.11,

1.Investor 2.Client

5.Executors

7.Others3.General contractor 4.Managing company

1.Project manager and the PM team

5.Functional managers and project team members

Management process (1.01,1.09,3.04)

Functional areas of management (S)

1. Strategic 2. Annual 3. Quarterly

1.Month 2.Decade 3.Day 4.Shift 5.Other

Steps of management process (F)

1.Initiation1.19

2.Planning 3.Organization and control 1.16 4.Analysis and regulation 1.16 5.Termination 1.20

1.Scope1.10

2.Time 1.11

3.Cost 1.12,1.13.3.100

4.Quality1.05

5.Risks1.04

6.Personnel 3.08

7.Communication 1.17,1.18

8.Contracts1.12,,1.14

9.Change1.15

10.Other 3.09

2.Program manager and the PM team

3.Portfolio manager and the PM team

4. POA managers in an organization

3.Portfoio3.03

4.POA in an organization3.05

1.Projects3.01

2.Programs3.02

Fig 1. System model of project and program management

6.Coexecutors

6

3. PROPERTIES OF PROJECT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM MODEL

In its essence, the project management system model is a flexible classification system for functional project management tasks and the elements vital for the realization of those tasks (methodological, program, informational, technological, organizational, etc).

As a base for the classification of PM tasks serve vectors (such as Z=Z1, Z2… Z7) which depict the elements of the three major blocks of the system model. The flexibility of this classification system is ensured by one’s freedom to select the needed vectors and put them in the order that best serves one’s needs. This provides an opportunity for a construction of a structural model (prototype) and a hierarchical tree diagram for PM tasks with predefined configurations, required by the user for each concrete case in his/her practical work. Consequently, the properties of the system model are: Clear separation of two types of project activity:

- Process of product development, defined by the life cycle of a project, such as constructing a building (area of a functional managers’ responsibility).

- Process of project management, defined by the steps of project management process , such as management of the process of a construction of a building (area of a project managers’ responsibility).

Presentation of the project and program management system model as a classification system for the multitude of tasks and procedures which can be completed in the process of managing different objects.

The ultimate flexibility of the system model allows integrating and developing a prototype for any specific project management system of the needed configuration.

Each process (task) of the project management system model is identified by selected components of the chosen system model elements (for example: Z=Z1, Z2… Z7).

Hierarchical structure of management objects based on Work Breakdown Structure (WBS). Hierarchal structure and relational interconnections between management subjects as defined in an

Organizational Chart of a project (OC). Hierarchy of Organizational Breakdown Structure (OBS), including both project team and project

management team (management subjects). Hierarchy of Task Breakdown Structure (TBS), from separate procedures and elemental tasks to the whole

complexes of management systems of different purposes (management objects). The ultimate flexibility of the system model allows developing a prototype for any specific project

management system of needed configuration. Multi-aspect nature of project management tasks depending on the category (K) of a management object

and type (Z) of a management subject.

The latter property of the model is especially important for assessment of special methods, technology and organization of management, depending on:

different project categories [14] different interests of various subjects (stakeholders)

Projects from different types of project-oriented activity (K) have different characteristics, such as level of uncertainty, used standards, life cycle phases, legal and normative foundations, etc. Those characteristics substantially influence the definition of PM tasks, the models of complexes of operations to be used, algorithms and problem solving methods, software, etc. In total, to ensure efficient and effective management, projects from different categories (constriction, organizational, social-economical, and so on) may require different methods, tools, and techniques. For instance, construction project management and social development project management require different approaches and tools.

PM for management subjects (stakeholders) may differ just as drastically. For instance, management of projects in the best interests of an investor is characterized by his/her own notion with regard to the object of management, specific project and product life cycles, task definitions with his/her own criteria of decision evaluation, specific limitations, constraints, and variables. All the above call for the development and application of special methods and techniques for PM problem solutions targeted specifically for the investor. The same very specific quality also applies to other key project management participants/stakeholders: customers, general contractors, authorities, etc.

Thus, a separate functional task structure, or PM sub discipline, is based on the system model and designed for a concrete type of object and subject of a project-oriented activity, each with their own specific requirements, if needed, can be established for each project category and each key participant.

7

4. STRUCTURE AND COMPOSITION OF ELEMENTS IN ICB 3.0

In accordance with [2, 16] IPMA Competence Baseline Version 3.0 (ICB 3.0) is mainly intended for individual specialists, and for assessors conducting certifications. This IPMA normative document is recommended as a manual for development of learning materials and research papers, as well as a reference material. ICB contains the body of knowledge, experience, and personal qualities required for managers of projects, programs, portfolios, and employees of project offices.

Fig 2. The Eye of Competence

ICB contains major definitions, tasks, practices, skills, functions, management processes, methods, techniques, and tools which form the theory and practice of project management. In ICB, the entire PM knowledge system is illustrated by the model called “The Eye of Competence”, which presents technical, behavioral, and contextual competences of project management. The model represents the integration of all the elements of project management seen through the eyes of the project manager when evaluating a specific situation (Fig. 2).

ICB describes three areas with interconnected elements of competency: 20 technical elements of knowledge, which apply to the subject matter of professional project

management; 15 behavioral elements, which apply to interpersonal relationships between individuals and teams

working on realization of projects, programs, and portfolios; 11 contextual elements, which apply to interactions of project team as a part of a permanent

organization during its execution of a project (Fig 3).

8

Technical competences Behavioral competences Contextual competences

9

1.01Project management success

2.01 Leadership 3.01 Project orientation

1.02 Interested parties 2.02Engagement and motivation

3.02 Program orientation

1.03Project requirements and objectives

2.03 Self-control 3.03 Portfolio orientation

1.04 Risk and opportunity 2.04 Assertiveness 3.04Project, program, and portfolio implementation (PPP)

1.05 Quality 2.05 Relaxation 3.05 Permanent organization 1.06 Project organization 2.06 Openness 3.06 Business

1.07 Teamwork 2.07 Creativity 3.07Systems, products, and technology

1.08 Problem resolution 2.08 Results orientation 3.08 Personnel management

1.09 Project structures 2.09 Efficiency 3.09Health, security, safety, and environment

1.10 Scope and deliverables 2.10 Consultation 3.10 Finance

1.11Time and project phases

2.11 Negotiation 3.11 Legal

1.12 Resources 2.12 Conflict and crisis1.13 Cost and finance 2.13 Reliability

1.14Procurement and contracts

2.14 Values appreciation

1.15 Changes 2.15 Ethics1.16 Control and reports

1.17Information and documentation

1.18 Communication1.19 Start-up1.20 Close-out

Fig 3. Overview of all areas and elements of competence in ICB 3.0

Based on the chosen criteria, the ICB competence elements are divided into the following three groups: “Technical competences” are the elements connected with objects of managements and

management itself, including such sub-systems as human resources, human-machine systems, information systems, and financial resources.

“Behavioral competences” are the elements connected with behavior of subjects in the process of project, program, and portfolio management.

“Contextual competences” are the elements connected with the context of the project and behavior of the people involved with implementation of a project, program, or portfolio1.

From the system approach perspective, the chosen criteria lack clarity – they do not assure homogeneity of elements in each given group and their integrity (Fig.1). For example, the “technical competencies” group is very eclectic and contains elements from different blocks of the systems model: the element 1.03 belongs to the “management object” block, and partially the elements 1.10 and 1.11; the elements 1.01, 1.02, 1.06, 1.07, and 1.08 belong to the “management subject” block; and the elements 1.04, 1.05, 1.09-1.20 belong to the “management process”. “Contextual competencies” also contain elements from different blocks of the system model: the elements 3.01-3.03, 3.05-3.07 belong to “management object”; the elements 3.05, 3.06, 3.11 belong to “management subject”, and the elements 3.04, 3.08, 3.09, 3.10 – to the “management process”. “Behavioral competencies” only contain the elements from “management subject”; however they do not reflect the complete composition of elements from this block. It is difficult to evaluate the integrity of each group and completeness of its composition if the evaluation is based on criteria of competency elements classification accepted in ICB 3.0.There is no doubt that the implementation of the accepted ICB element classification system in its new version is indeed a substantial forward movement in comparison to the previous version of ICB [1].

10

However, in the authors’ opinion, the system is still far from perfect and cannot provide a clear understanding among the certification candidates and assessors, project management specialist, and participants on the basis of generally accepted terminology and systemization of potential aggregation of possible elements of PM discipline and tasks of all project management stakeholders. This may explain why further discussion of structural logic and possible alternative ways to group the competency elements was suggested as a necessary step towards improvement of the elements competency structure in ICB 3.0.

5. ICB ELEMENTS IN THE SYSTEMS MODEL STRUCTURE

As was noted above, the system model consists of collapsed hierarchical tree structures, which include all elements of project management grouped into three blocks. Keeping this definition in mind, let us lay out the elements of ICB 0.3 on the elements of the system model and find out how they correlate with one another (Table I).Hans Knoepfel, Comments to SOVNET suggestions for ICB 3.0, 2006.

NSections and elements of ICB Blocks and elements of systems model

1.4.1 Elements of Technical competences

2. 1.01 Project management success Management subjects3. 1.02 Interested parties Management subjects4. 1.03 Project requirements and objectives Management objects5. 1.04 Risk and opportunity Management process

6. 1.05 Quality Management process

7. 1.06 Project organization Management subjects8. 1.07 Teamwork Management subjects

9. 1.08 Problem resolution Management subjects

10. 1.09 Project structures Management process11. 1.10 Scope and deliverables Management process

12. 1.11 Time and project phases Management process Management object

13. 1.12 Resources Management process

14. 1.13 Cost and finance Management process

15. 1.14 Procurement and contract Management process

16. 1.15 Changes Management process

17. 1.16 Control and reports Management process

18. 1.17 Information and documentation Management process

19. 1.18 Communication Management process

20. 1.19 Start-up Management process

21. 1.20 Close-out Management process

22. 4.2 Elements of Behavioral competences23. 2.01 Leadership Management subjects

24. 2.02 Engagement and motivation Management subjects

11

25. 2.03 Self-control Management subjects

26. 2.04 Assertiveness Management subjects

27

2.05 Relaxation Management subjects

28

2.06 Openness Management subjects

29

2.07 Creativity Management subjects

30

2.08 Results orientation Management subjects

31

2.09 Efficiency Management subjects

32

2.10 Consultation Management subjects

33

2.11 Negotiation Management subjects

34

2.12 Conflict and crisis Management subjects

35

2.13 Reliability Management subjects

36

2.14 Values appreciation Management subjects

37

2.15 Ethics Management subjects

38

4.3 Elements of Contextual competences

39

3.01 Project orientation Management objects

40

3.02 Program orientation Management object

41

3.03 Portfolio orientation Management objects

42

3.04 Project, program and portfolio implementation Management object

43

3.05 Permanent organization Management object

44

3.06 Business Management objects

45

3.07 Systems, products and technology Management objects

46

3.08 Personnel management Management process:

47

3.09 Health, security, safety and environment Management process:

48

3.10 Finance Management process:

The table analysis shows that all the ICB elements indeed correlate with the elements of the system model. At the same time, the ICB groups contain elements which belong to different blocks of the system model.

“Technical competences” elements contain 14 elements which belong to the “Management processes” block, 5 elements which belong to the “Management subjects” block, and 3 elements which belong to the “Management objects” block.

All “Behavioral competencies” elements belong to the “Management subjects” block.“Contextual competencies” elements contain 6 elements which belong to the “Management process”

block, 1 element which belongs to the “Management subjects” block, and 1 element which belongs to the

12

“Management objects” block. Out of those, 3 elements may be simultaneously placed into two different blocks.

Fig. 4 demonstrates how the elements of the system model correlate with ICB 3.0 elements. The green color defines the systems model elements which are completely identical to the ICB elements.

These squares are numbered with the same numbers that correlate to ICB elements. The yellow color defines the elements which are not localized in ICB, and the content of which is

represented in various ICB elements. Their numbers are listed in correlating blocks of the systems model. The blue color defines the elements of the system model which are not represented in ICB.

The comparison shows that all the elements of ICB 3.0 are correlated to the elements of the system model, however not all the elements of the system model are represented in the ICB blocks. Notably, there are many elements defined by the yellow color, which show the lack of a clear definition of those elements as well as the lack of a logical structure in the ICB document. This lack of definition will lead to difficulties in training and certification of specialists.

On the basis of conducted analysis and in adherence with ICB 3.0 regulations for development of NCB, the authors of this paper suggest a logically improved structure and composition of knowledge and competency elements for ICB/NCB, shown in Table II. The elements of suggested ICB/NCB structure are defined in accordance with ICB 3.0 elements.

13

1.Проекты 2.Программы

6.Coexecutors

Management subjects (Z) (1.01, 1.02, 3.11, 1.06,1.07,1.08,1.09, 2.01-2.15,3.04-3.06,3.11)

Time horizons of management (Т)

Major stakeholders and their project teams

Project (program, portfolio) team

4. Operational

Management objects – project activities (1.03,1.09, 1.11,3.04,3.06,3.07)

Projects and programs (Q) from different categories (К)

Life cycle phases of a management object (C )(1.11)

5. POA in social and business formations

1.Conception 2.Development 3.Execution

4.Closeout 1.11,

Management subjects (Z) (1.01, 1.02, 3.11, 1.06,1.07,1.08,1.09, 2.01-2.15,3.04-3.06,3.11)

1.Investor 2.Client

5.Executors

7.Others3.General contractor

4.Managing company

1.Project manager and the PM team

5.Functional managers and project team members

Management process (1.01,1.09,3.04)

Time horizons of management (Т)

Functional areas of management (S)

1. Strategic 2. Annual 3. Quarterly4.Month 5.Decade 6.Day 7.Shift 8.Other

Steps of management process (F)

1.Initiation1.19

2.Planning 3.Organization and control 1.16

4.Analysis and regulation 1.16 5.Termination1.20

1.Scope1.10

2.Time 1.11

3.Cost 1.12,1.13.3.100

4.Quality1.05 5.Risks

1.04

6.Personnel 3.08

7.Communication 1.17,1.18

8.Contracts1.12,,1.14

9.Change1.15

10.Other 3.09

2.Program manager and the PM team

3.Portfolio manager and the PM team

4. POA managers in an organization

3.Portfoio3.03

4.POA in an organization3.05

1.Projects3.01

2.Programs3.02

Fig 4. Correlation of ICB 3.0 elements with the elements of the system model of project and program management

Management objects – project activities (1.03,1.09, 1.11,3.04,3.06,3.07)

Projects and programs (Q) from different categories (К)

Life cycle phases of a management object (C )(1.11)

5. POA in social and business formations

1.Conception 2.Development 3.Execution 4.Close-out 1.11,

1.Investor 2.Client

5.Executors

7.Others3.General contractor 4.Managing company

1.Project manager and the PM team

5.Functional managers and project team members

Management process (1.01,1.09,3.04)

Functional areas of management (S)

1. Strategic 2. Annual 3. Quarterly

1.Month 2.Decade 3.Day 4.Shift 5.Other

Steps of management process (F)

1.Initiation1.19

2.Planning 3.Organization and control 1.16 4.Analysis and regulation 1.16 5.Termination 1.20

1.Scope1.10

2.Time 1.11

3.Cost 1.12,1.13.3.100

4.Quality1.05

5.Risks1.04

6.Personnel 3.08

7.Communication 1.17,1.18

8.Contracts1.12,,1.14

9.Change1.15

10.Other 3.09

2.Program manager and the PM team

3.Portfolio manager and the PM team

4. POA managers in an organization

3.Portfoio3.03

4.POA in an organization3.05

1.Projects3.01

2.Programs3.02

6.Coexecutors

TABLE II

SUGGESTED ICB/ NCB STRUCTUREICB 3.0 STRUCTURE NOTES

ICB 3.0 elements correlated to the elements of suggested ICB/NCB structure

Content correlation to ICB. 03 elements

1. MANAGEMENT OBJECTS AND CONTEXTUAL COMPETENCES

1. Project 3.01. Project orientation identical2. Program 3.02. Program orientation additional

3. Portfolio 3.03. Portfolio orientation identical4. Project-oriented activity in organizations, business- and socio-formations

identical

5. Project/program/portfolio implementation 3.04. Project/program/portfolio implementation identical6. Systems, products, and technologies 3.04. Systems, products and technology identical7. Requirements, objectives, and strategies: project/program/portfolio

1.03. Project requirements and objectives broader content

8. Criteria for assessment of success and failure in project management

1.03. Project success identical

9. Project structures 1.09. Project structures identical10. Phases and life cycles: project, product, parent organization

1.11. Duration (time) and project life cycles Time separated,the content of life cycles is broadened

11. Project environment: business, permanent organization, etc.)

3.05. Permanent (parent) organization3.06. Business

broader content

2. MANAGEMENT SUBJECTS, THEIR BEHAVIORAL COMPETENCES AND TOOLS

12. Interested parties 1.02. Interested parties identical13. Permanent / parent organization 3.05. Permanent (parent) organization identical14. Project teams and their tasks 1.07. Teamwork identical15. Project/program/portfolio manager additional16 Project organization 1.06. Project organization broader content17. Leadership 2.01. Leadership identical18. Engagement and motivation 2.02. Engagement and motivation identical19. Self-control 2.03. Self-control identical20. Assertiveness 2.04. Assertiveness identical21. Relaxation 2.05. Relaxation identical22. Openness 2.06. Openness identical23. Creativity 2.07. Creativity identical24. Results orientation 2.08. Results orientation identical25. Efficiency 2.09. Efficiency identical26. Problem resolution 1.09. Problem resolution identical27. Consultation 2.10. Consultation identical28. Negotiation 2.11. Negotiation identical29. Reliability 2.13. Reliability identical30. Values appreciation 2.14. Values appreciation identical31. Ethics 2.15. Ethics identical32. IT 1.17. Information and documentation broader content33. Standards and norms additional34. Legal 3.11. Legal identical

35. Specific qualities of project management competences for stakeholders (investor, client, general contractor, managing company, authorities, etc.)

additional

3. MANAGEMENT PROCESSES AND TECHICAL COMPETENCES35. Initiation 1.19. Initiation (Start-up) identical36. Planning additional37. Organization and control 1.16. Control and reports broader content38. Analysis and monitoring additional39. Close-out 1.20. Close-out identical40. Scope 1.10. Scope and deliverables identical41. Time 1.11. Duration (time) and project phases Time is identical. Phases are

separated42. Cost and finance 1.13. Cost and finance identical43. Quality 1.05. Quality identical44. Risk and opportunity 1.04. Risk and opportunity identical

45. Human recourses 3.08. Personnel management broader content46. Communication 1.18. Communication identical47. Procurement and contract 1.14. Procurement and contract identical48. Change 1.15. Change identical49. Safety 3.09. Health, security, safety identical50. Conflict 2.12. Conflict and crisis identical

4. GENERAL COMPETENCE

51. System methodology of project managementadditional

52. Further development of project management in an organization with implementation of maturity models additional

53. Project management history and development tendencies additional

As follows from the analysis of the Table II, suggested ICB structure in practically free from the shortcomings indicated above. It contains all the knowledge and competence elements of ICB 3.0. The total quantity of elements is 53. Out of those 53 elements: 38 are identical to the ICB 3.0 elements; 6 are have broader content in comparison to the ICB 3.0 elements; 1 has different content 7 are additional; out of those seven, 3 elements which are applicable to all competence areas are placed into a separate

group called “General competence”. In the model “Eye of competence”, this new group is presented as a “pupil” of the eye (Fig. 5).

Fig 5. Proposed model of competences

6. CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS

This paper supports an attempt of the creation of a global PM infrastructure system with ICB as one of its pivotal elements, urges further testing of current ICB version to insure its integrity, and seeks an improvement of its structural logic and clearly defined systematization of the competency elements.

Analysis of known mythological approaches towards project management [1-9], [18] and the comparison of the logical structure and composition of elements from ICB 3.0 and the system model, which was introduced earlier in this paper, allow us to draw conclusions and suggest improvements:

1. In the authors’ opinion, ICB 3.0 lacks an acceptable general systematic concept of a document structure. Systematization and a structural approach towards the document and the competency elements are still the most vulnerable features of ICB 3.0. Even though in this new edition there is considerable movement towards improvement, the measures taken in this direction do not seem to be adequate.

2. The classification system used in ICB 3.0 does not seem to be homogeneous and clearly defined which leads to the lack of theoretical substantiality, validity, and integrity of competency elements, groups, and their contents. Therefore, the composition of the elements from each group is vague, does not look convincing, and was in the past a subject to constant critique and poorly reasoned modifications. A number of competencies are important in a practical aspect, yet they are dispersed around different elements of system model or are absent all together.

3. The elements inside each group are not regulated, which leads to difficulties in perception and harnessing of the document materials.

4. ICB 3.0 does not clearly distinguish between the two types of project activity processes and related competencies: the product development process (life cycle of a project/product), and project management process (project management stages). This ambiguity leaves room for questioning the document’s validity and integrity.

ICB 3.0 focuses on general competencies of project managers and does not reflect the specifics of their competencies in interests of different subjects (stakeholders).5. The elaborated ICB/NCB structure suggested in Table II can be used as a basis for further work on improvement of ICB 3.0. It can also be used for development of future versions of NCB, in which case we suggest using the "Begin to See Clearly" model of "The Eye" with a pupil (fig. 5) instead of the "Blind" model of the "Eye" without a pupil (fig. 2.) 6. The authors of this paper suggest that the main directions for further research and development in support of the creation of a generally accepted unified terminology, systematization and structured approach to knowledge, experience and competences of PM specialists should be:

Development and acceptance of an international project management glossary; Development and acceptance of an international project, program, and portfolio management body of knowledge

(IPMA P3M BOK); Development and acceptance of an international project management body of competences (IPMA ICB 4.0); Development and acceptance of an international standard for practical application of project management

REFERENCES

[1] ICB - IPMA Competence Baseline. Version 2.0. IPMA Editorial Committee: Caupin G., Knopfel H., Morris P., Motzel E., Pannenbacker O. – Bremen: Eigenverlag, 1999. – pp.112.[2] ICB - IPMA Competence Baseline, Version 3.0 IPMA Editorial Committee:Gilles Caupin, Hans Knoepfel, Gerrit Koch, Francisco Perez Polo, Klaus Pannenbäcker, Chris Seabury. IPMA, 2006, - pp.127.[3] Body of Knowledge. Fifrth Edition – UK: APM Association for Project Managers. England, 2006. – pp.180]4[A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK guide). - PMI, 2003 ed.[5]A guidebook of Project & Program Management For Enterprise Innovation. PMCC/ENNA, Japan,2002.[6]Project Management: Professional Body of Knowledge. National Requirements for Professional Competence (edited by V.I. Voropaev). - Moscow.: SOVNET, «Kubs-Group», 2001. – pp.265. [7] ZERT, Zertifizierungsstelle der GPM Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Projektmanagement e.V.: Projektmanagement-Kanon – Der deutsche Zugang zum Project Management Body of Knowledge, Koln, FRG, 1998.[8] AFITEP, Association Francophone due Management de Project: Matrices devaluation en management de project, France, Javier, 1996.[9]PMA Projekt Management Austria: PM Baseline. Wissenselmente zum Projektmanagement und zum Management Projektorientierter Unternehmen, Version 1.0, Austria, September, 1999.[10] V.I. Voropaev, G.I. Sekletova, System Understanding of Project Management. in: Proceedings of the International Symposium: “Project Management: East-West – Brink of Milleniums.” – Moscow, December 1-4, 1999. SOVNET. – M.: SOVNET, 1999. – vol.1 (pp.71-77). [11] V.I. Voropaev, G.I. Sekletova, R.D. Archibald, Project and Program management system methodology. In proceedings of 17-th World Congress on Project Management «PROJECT-ORIENTED BUSINESS AND SOCIETY», Moscow, June 4-6, 2003.[12]S.D. Bushuev. Development of Project Management Bodies of Knowledge and Technologies. Sovnet Journal «Project Management», №1,2005.[13] R. D. Archibald. A Global System for Categorizing Projects: the Need for, Recommended Approach to, Practical Uses of and Description of a Current Project to Develop the System. Sovnet Journal «Project Management», №1,2005.[14]M. R. Wideman.Modeling Project Management. Sovnet Journal «Project Management», №1,2005.[15] H. Knoepfel, G. Koch. IPMA Competence Baseline Version 3.0. Sovnet Journal «Project Management», №1,2005.[16]. Global Performance Based Standards for Project Management Personnel. GPBSPMP Initiative, Exposure Draft for Public Review, August 1, 2005

Vladimir Vorpojev, Ph.D.

Professor Vladimir Voropajev, PhD. is President and Chairman of the Board of the Russian Association of Project Management, SOVNET. Dr. Voropajev is a professor of Project Management at the State University of Management, Moscow, Russia. He is also Head of the Program and Project Management Faculty for the Russian State Academy’s Program for Professional Retraining and Professional Skill Development for Executives and Specialists in Investment Fields. He is a full member of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences on Information Science and Cybernetics. From 1991 to 2001, he was Vice-president and a member of the Executive Board of the International Project Management Association (IPMA). During his 40 years of engineering, scientific, teaching and consulting activities, he has published over 250 scientific research works including 7 monographs and 5 textbooks about the organization and planning of construction, information systems, and project management. Vladimir was named a global advisor for PMForum.org in November 2006. Professor Voropajev can be reached at [email protected].

18

Galena Sekletova

Galena Sekletova, PhD, is a Vice President of the Russian Project Management Association – SOVNET, Russian National Certification Organization SOVNET – SERT Chief. She has a PhD in Technical Science and is an assistant professor for project management on the Faculty of State Academy’s Program for Professional Retraining and Professional Skill Development for Executives and Specialists in Investment Fields. She has published more than 40 scientific research works including 3 monographs and 2 textbooks on the subjects of organization and planning of construction, management of information systems, and project management.

Masha Cates

Maria (Masha) Voropaeva – Cates is a head of projects for Lenovo web design company. Ms. Cates was born, raised and studied fine arts in Moscow before moving to North Carolina in 1993. Since that time, she has been a fine artist, graphic artist, web designer, web-based training developer, interactive media developer, and director or member of various web design projects for customers and organizations worldwide. Masha has a Fine Arts Degree from V.I. Surikov Art School (1978-1984) and a Master’s Degree in Fine Arts & Graphic Arts from the Academy of Arts, Moscow State Arts Institute (1985-1991). She has Certificates in Computer Art and 3D Computer Animation from the School of Communication Arts, Raleigh, North Carolina, USA (1997-99). Ms. Cates is currently completing an Masters Degree in Business Administration with a concentration in Project Management at Strayer University in Raleigh. Masha Cates can be contacted at [email protected].

19