Can we talk about the PMBOK?

At a recent speaking engagement, I made a comment about the PMBOK and it's limited usefulness. To my surprise, their were a surprising number of head nods in affirmation.

As a practitioner for the past decade & a half, and now as a scholar, I've had a hard time reconciling the role the PMBOK? (PMI's Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge) plays with actual project management. Now, as a full-time faculty and part time speaker, it's even more difficult to explain the 900 pages spread across 2 books (PMBOK? + the agile practice guide) to students and non-practitioners. It's my opinion that the perception of bureaucracy is not helped by the stack of materials that sits on my bookshelf.

I'm not sure of the source or attribution, but I appreciate the comparison between PMBOK and dictionary.

A dictionary is not an instruction manual for how to write a book; however, it is incredibly helpful should you choose to embark on that challenge.

Likewise, the PMBOK? is not an instruction manual for how to manage a project; it is a helpful reference for things you could do to help you manage your projects though.

I was hired as a consultant to develop a boot camp for passing the PMP? exam that contained useful (practical) information. Going through the PMBOK? 6th edition, it has been a real challenge trying to provide value beyond passing the exam. For example, in project schedule management, the concept of meetings is covered in a single paragraph. Authors have written entire books on how to have successful meetings, and most professionals would agree that meetings may be the single biggest waste of time they experience. So the question is, why not develop a little more space in the PMBOK? to cover how to have successful meetings?*

*For the record, my three rules might be 1) have an agenda 2) leave with clear action items 3) aim for 18 productive minutes. Meetings without agendas are rudderless - have a reason for being there. If action items are not clearly identified, no one will do anything before the next meeting. And I find that email and calendar programs contribute to the problem with the default setting of 30 minutes. Attention spans won't allow for a 30 minute meeting anymore (if they ever did).

The PMBOK? is full of interesting examples illustrating my thesis that it contributes to the perception of bureaucracy. Sometimes a process, tool, or artifact is described in great and useful detail. Others, briefly mentioned. The converse can also be found, where a tool is discussed in great detail - inverse to its usefulness (I'm looking at you, Monte-Carlo analysis). An interesting article by Besner and Hobbs (2006) I recently found the same via empirical study. "Less than very limited use" items of decision tree, Pareto diagram, and Monte-Carlo analysis seem to have a disproportionate amount of coverage in the PMBOK?, compared to how to conduct a lessons learned meeting, which seems to be the most used tool with the highest potential to improve project performance. Compared to the almost seven pages devoted to Monte-Carlo, lessons learned only earns a few sentences across the PMBOK?.

Project management practitioners should be challenged to embrace the PMBOK? for its intended purpose. Too often, PMs (or those who hire PMs) treat it like a holy document for how to run projects. Instead, it should be one of several books on the shelf (tools in the box?) that project managers draw from in order to deliver consistent project success. Each project is different and so the approach taken to manage any project should be unique, a custom methodology drawing on as many references as possible to create something that is light-weight and value-add to the project team and to the broader organization. Don't rely on 900 pages of best practice to guide your project, determine for yourself what should be used.