Published here January, 2007.  

Introduction | Book Structure | What We Liked: Ronald's Perspective
What We Liked: Use of Unique Parameters | Downside | Summary | Postscript
Issues & Responses: Introduction | Issues & Responses: What We Liked
Issues & Responses: Downside | Issues & Responses: Summary

Issues & Responses: What We Liked


"Ronald also says he refers to project management as a discipline and not a profession. Why? As he sees it, for example:

'Engineering is a profession, electrical engineering is a discipline. Accounting is a profession, cost accounting is a discipline. Management is a profession, project management is a discipline.'[17]

In other words, project management is a part of a larger picture. A simple argument, well put, though we feel sure that there are many who would like to think otherwise and present a counter argument."


Yes, in fact there are some companies that argue that PM should be a part of engineering, or at least the primary discipline of the company. That's mainly due to the fact that conducting a program without detailed technical factors and metrics is of little value. Further, this approach allows the company to move the PM into and out of the primary discipline when business dictates a change in a balance of the manpower needs. Some companies advocate an independent structure believing this will give the best of technical and program results. Whenever a confrontation occurs (i.e., schedule/cost versus design) the issue is raised to the next level for resolution.


"Leadership roles:

  1. Coordinator
  2. Supervisor
  3. Manager
  4. Director
  5. Vice President

This is a useful hierarchy, although the importance of the coordinator's role in facilitating development of the project plan during the project's definition and development phase for any size of project should not be overlooked."


I'm not sure I understand your comment. What is being talked about here is leadership roles. In this context the Coordinator has only the authority to see it gets done. He or she has no authority to move or to redefine resources. If things are not getting done or done properly, he can only escalate the issue. As you well know, it is not uncommon to delegate responsibility without authority. That's what I am really talking about. I have the feeling that you are talking about something different.
Issues & Responses: Introduction  Issues &  Responses: Introduction

Home | Issacons | PM Glossary | Papers & Books | Max's Musings
Guest Articles | Contact Info | Search My Site | Site Map | Top of Page