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.