ICB/ICRG v4.0 Consensus Programme ICB Project Results
Dublin, Ireland, 2-3 September 2011
2
Session Background
u The ICB team met for approximately 1 hour on Friday 2 September and approximately 6 hours on Saturday 3 September.
u Following the initial plenary session, the ICB divided in three teams: § Structure § DeFinition of Competence § Stakeholder/Competitive Analysis
u The following slides present the output of the ICB working session.
The following provides and overview of the Dublin ICB Development Session. Note: the plenary and ICRG documentation is provided separately.
Evaluating Inputs: Survey Debrief Poster Session Debrief
Sec0on 1
4
Survey Reac0ons
u Alignment is needed with 17025 and 21500. u Need separate documentation for validation. u We need a basis for ICB to guide our progress. u We need to consider a Test Question Database (TQDB). u We need evolution not revolution. u We need to maintain all three types of competencies. u Templates will help. u The ICB and ICRG documents currently overlap and are not clear in their
allocation of content. u Did respondents fully understand the survey. u ClariFication of the document content – consider moving to multiple
documents.
The following list is the result of a brainstorming exercise whereby participants were asked to give their reaction to the survey.
5
ICB Poster Session Debrief
u Hard to asses ethics – need clariFication u Two ways to reach Level A – project management and program management u Still have NCB and ICB u Clustering and grouping the elements u How do we assess behavioral competencies u DifFiculty in roles
§ Different terms used across organizations, sectors, countries § Focus should be on competencies, not on titles/roles.
u ICB is a high level standard u Need the same completeness for Level A in the ICB as he is not a senior
project manager to deal with him/her like a Level B u GITP could help the structuring and alignment of international standards u Managing portfolios and program/project management are different jobs.
Need to split Level A u NCB’s are different across the countries in structure and content
The following list is the result of a brainstorming exercise whereby participants were asked to give their reaction to the poster presentations.
6
ICRG Poster Session Debrief
u Reliability, validity, quality u Measurement – what is a “6”? u Ethics to be addresed u ICRG Measurements according to European QualiFication
Framework u Is one assessor possible? u Improve leveling by exchange of 10% of assessors across MA’s u The unlearned information and application of IPMA certiFication
system
The following list is the result of a brainstorming exercise whereby participants were asked to give their reaction to the poster presentations.
7
ICB&ICRG Poster Session Debrief
u Austrian structure of project report chapter describing project chapter competencies.
u IPMA=project management not project managers. This should be clariFied as it will directly impact decisions on ICB and ICRG.
u Evolution not revolution. More 3.2 than 4.0. Improvement, not major changes.
u Comparison of two certiFication schemes and conclusions. u Need CertiFication names rather than letters. u Map to external scheme of EQF – Ireland has this. u We are focused on the “how’s” and less on the “what’s.” What are
the objectives of ICB and ICRG.
The following list is the result of a brainstorming exercise whereby participants were asked to give their reaction to the poster presentations.
ICB Audience and Competitive Analysis
Sec0on 2
9
Possible Stakeholders/Customers
1. Member associations 2. Assessors 3. CertiFicate candidates
§ All project managers § Persons working in the
pm Field 4. Universities / High schools 5. CertiFication bodies
6. Training organizations 7. Trainers 8. Project OfFice 9. Companies that:
§ have project managers / do projects
§ Are both global and local 10. Industries / Public sector 11. HR professionals
The following list identifies possible stakeholders and customers of the ICB 4.0
10
Purposes of the ICB 4.0 u (1) Describing competence elements u (2) (Framework for certiFicate process) > ICRG u (3) Basic for certiFication content u (4) (Source of knowledge of competence) u (5) Making training programs u (6) Basic for selfassesment u (7) Marketing strategy for product certiFication
§ Trainer / Training companies § IPMA § Project managers as a whole
11
u (8) Instrument for standarisation all over the world § (8.a) Within IPMA § (8.b) Outside IPMA – selection (organisations, project managers)
u (9) Enhance quality of project management § Organisation § Individual
u (10) Preparation for certiFication u (11) Recruiting people u (12) Career planning
Purposes of using ICB
12
4.0: ICB/NCB Interac0on
ICB The core is
constant
ICB u ICB holds most
of the standards. u Team only
looked at the ICB, did not evaluate the IBOK.
u Project Management means everybody working within projects and programmes
NCB u NCB can be
minimally modiFied.
u Description of some elements can be localized.
13
IPMA MAs Cert. Body Candidates market
assessors company -‐paid PM
HR PMO
trainer UNI / schools
priv. training org.
Individuals working in PM
elements for certification
elements for certification
8a 7, 8a 3
3
6, 10, 12 8b
6 6
11 9
5 5
Market: Companies who run projects (spending the money) global and local all sectors - public - industries - NGOs - etc.
ICB 4.0
Main users: • Certification body
• Assessors • Candidates
Secondary users:
• Trainers • Universities
• High schools
Third users: • Human ressources
• Project Management Office • Everybody working in project management
Quality Label
Certified Project Manager
ICB 4.0
14
Goal Structure
Vision
Guarantee Sustainability Improve Quality
Instrument for standardization of certiFication
ICRG ICB
Instrument for standardization on how to run projects (IBoK)
Better global image
15
Compe00on
IPMA Behaviour oriented
Focus on project success
Multi cultural Translation
Local situation No methodology
Doesn’t have BoK Subjective
PMI Lean BoK
Full methodology World Wide toolbox
No Seniors US Focused: doesn’t Fit in
European Standar Process structured No room for other methodology
Prince2
BoK Lot of templates
Process & result oriented
No softs skills Knowledge oriented
Just public sector
AIPM Less expensive Government sanctions
Evidence based Very well documented
Australian
GAPPS
No Analysis Done
No Analysis Done
Working DeFinition of Competence
Sec0on 2
17
Working Defini0on of Competence
Competence is . . .
An individual's demonstrated ability to apply knowledge, skills and appropriate behaviours in their role as deFined by the organisational context.
The following definition was developed by the team for the purposes of having a common definition. This definition was based upon several inputs – comments from the MA/CD survey, ISO 21500, and the current ICB.
Draft ICB Outline
Sec0on 2
19
ICB Key Development Points
The ICB 4.0 Should . . . . u Be relevant for all branches and sectors u Maintain continuity from 3.0 u Address competency elements as part of continuity u Improve the descriptions and use of and consistency of
competency elements across the entire document. Consider ±2 pages per CE.
u Recognize that ISO 21500 is one essential stating point. u Be cross referenced with the 21500, ICB 3.0 u Recognize that competencies needed all roles in the ICB 4.0 shall
be covered with the document.
The ICB team developed the following Key Development Points, which will help drive the initial direction of the ICB development.
20
ICB Key Development Points
The ICB 4.0 Should . . . . u Include the grading system description and scaling. u Include role descriptions. u Provide a description of CE’s that is free of certiFication levels. u Include a model that integrates three key aspects: roles/levels/
competencies.
The ICB team developed the following Key Development Points, which will help drive the initial direction of the ICB development.
21
ICB 4.0 DraL Outline u Chapter 1: Introduction / Purpose of this Document + Target Audience u Chapter 2: DeFinition of Key Concepts Including Role Descriptions u Chapter 3: DeFinition of Competence Element Grouping/Structure u Chapter 4: Description of Competence Elements u Chapter 5: Description of the IPMA CertiFication Concepts and
Taxonomy u Chapter 6: Cross References
§ 6A: ISO 21500 § 6B: Framework for Roles, Competences and Levels § 6C: Taxonomy for Roles, Competences and Levels
u Appendices: § A: Comparison Between ICB 3.0 and ICB 4.0 § B: Glossary and Index
22
Template Recommenda0ons
Item Group Recommendation
1. Number Agreed should keep
2. Name Agreed should keep
3. DeFinition Agreed should keep and improve – current deFinitions not adequate or consistent
4. Possible Process Steps
Agreed useful but not for template. Recommend should move to guidance for ISO25000
5. Topics addressed
Agreed useful but not for template. Recommend should move to guidance for ISO25000
Below are the recommended fields for the Competency Element section of the ICB 4.0. Please find the ICB outline and template in a separate MS word document.
23
Item Group Recommendation 6. Key competence at level
Should move to ICB 4.0 matrix – which it is recommended will be in an appendix/chapter/introduction, etc.
7. Main relations to other competence elements
Recommend remove. Currently not practical, or user friendly, and all competences can be related to each other so unnecessary to highlight.
8. Behavioural patterns
It is recommended that the same template is used for every competence regardless of competence domain, and so this should be removed. This information can be included in sub-‐elements as appropriate.
Template Recommenda0ons (con’t)
24
Addi0onal Considera0ons
Item Group Recommendation
9. Description ICB 3.0 has a mixture of deFinition and description which is unclear. Splitting these out and having deFinition and description as separate sections helps writers of ICB, and users.
10. Sub-‐elements
A list of sub-‐elements is recommended to assist in explaining what evidence you would expect to see as part of the competence.
Below are items that could be included using the Danish and English NCBs:
Project Issues
Sec0on 2
26
ICB Project Issue Log Issue Assigned
To Create Date
Resolve Date
Status
IPMA strategy is unclear.
How much change do we bring to ICB 4.0? How to address sub-‐competencies as a way to deFine observable competencies.
Draft Action Plan: September 2011 – March 2012
Sec0on 2
28
ICB DraL Plan
Please note – the following tasks reFlect the actions generated in Dublin. A full project plan is currently being created, which will provide a more comprehensive set of tasks and deliverables.
29
ICB DraL Plan
Task Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb
Select Model for ICB 4.0
Develop template for participants
Develop position presentations
Conduct Presentation Sessions
Finalize Approach and Model
Develop Competence Element Example -‐ Morton
30
ICB DraL Plan Task Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb
Develop draft criteria for breaking down sub-‐elements -‐ Morton Feedback and review of criteria guidance for sub-‐elements -‐ Zdenko Write text on stakeholders and beneFits / purpose (chapter 1) Pieter Make a simpler picture for the ICB book => Jon Finish comparrison with competitors (check??) => Günther
Review Cycle
Prep for March Session
ICB Project Working Teams
Sec0on 2
32
Audience and Compe00on Team
Team Bogumil Dalkowski Peter Gremmen Jon Örn Jonsson Günther Lauer Hakan Westman
33
Standards Team
Team Sven Huynink Thierry Bonjour Vladimir Voropaev Maria do Rosário Bernardo Zdenko Stanicek Jouko Vaskimo Gianfranco Salamone Pieter Gremmen Michael Gessler
34
Defini0on Team
Team Esther Fry Allan Krüger Jensen John Atkinson Luiz Rocha Raphael de Oliveira Albergorias Lopes
35
Template Team
Team Esther Fry Allan Krüger Jensen Morton Fangel Michael Gessler Raphael de Oliveira Albergorias Lopes Zdenko Stanicek
Note: This ad hoc team comprised members of the other teams that met to deFine the competency element template.