PM Taxonomy
Posted by Richard E. Renshaw on 8 December, 2011 - 18:28
I should appreciate members viewpoint if there would be a benefit for creation or update where such exist of a PM Taxonomy which would also if you see appropriate to include PM methodology (most popular on a global basis is PRINCE2), PM organizational maturity model (I suggest P3M3) and Portfolio, Programme and Project Offices (P3O).
From my perspective what makes a taxonomy more useful than a mere term list or glossary is the presence of relationships between its terms. Relationships between pairs of terms are bidirectional (reciprocal). Broadly speaking there are three kinds of relationships:
1. Equivalence: between preferred and non-preferred terms
2. Hierarchical: between broader and narrower terms
3. Associative: between related terms
The most basic controlled vocabularies and authority files have at least the equivalence relationship. Classification and categorization schemes, thesauri, and nearly all taxonomies have hierarchical relationships and usually associative relationships as well.
Relationship types are often denoted by labels, with the corresponding abbreviations or codes, between pairs of terms or preceding the various related terms for a selected term. The following is a list of the most common such labels, although you may in my opinion choose a different designation in each case.
- Equivalence: USE/ UF (use/ used[d] for)
- Hierarchical: BT/ NT (broader term / narrower term)
- Associative: RT (related term)
Thoughts on a PM Taxonomy which could encompass the various documents described above would be appreciated. Comments, suggestions and thoughts most welcome.
PMI have been working on this for a decade and have a multi-lingual ‘Lexicon’. It is also a topic being considered by the ISO Technical Committee focused on Project, Program and Portfolio management.
For a Taxonomy to be effective it needs to be unbiased, international and multi-lingual; anything less and you simply end up with multiple different opinions about what words mean. If the ISO committee don’t take this on in the short term, it really needs to be an IPMA initiative.
Pat, thank you for the insight which was appreciated. From my viewpoint the advances in technonology in recent years open up new opportunities in the near future to have possibilities at your fingertips for a rich wealth of choices in respect infomation availability on any topic. Such in context still leaves fundamentals, should we use an Oxford dictionary or a Websters dictionary wherein the meaning of words is understood across both dictionaries but the spelling is different. Same too in respect of measurement, in your car you can read what speed you are travelling in km per hour or miles per hour i.e. you can relate in your mind how fast you are going.
The tablet devices and the subsequent further advancement of funtionality in Smart mobile phones would I envisage enable to potentially auto relate relevant PM Taxonomy for that particulary country using that country's national language. Potentially the PM Taxonomy could include the purpose of each of the different types of PM documents.
Thanks again
Richard
Sunny Jeddah
The technology is largely irrelevant the issues are:
1 Project management is an international process.
2 Many English words have no translation in other key languages (eg, Execute in Japanese = kill).
3 many words have multiple meanings (eg, plan = architectural drawing or a compound document describing how the project will be undertaken or the process of developing a schedule, or……).
4 Even between so called English speaking countries words have quite different meanings.
The last thing project management needs is another layer of confusion designed to solve a problem from one limited aspect. Once the hard work is done developing a proper international framework, then disseminating the information widely and simply is important.
I am part of WG1 on the ISO 21500 development team. Our role is terminology and translatability so I’ve been sensitised to the issues big time. This is a critically important area to resolve given 90% of the legal cases around projects world-wide embed a disagreement over the meaning of words which amounts to $billions in uncertainty.
Pat, thank you all good points. At this time I am aware APM has circa 800 definitions:
http://www.apm.org.uk/Definitions.asp
In due course after the launch of ISO21500 by the end of next year I am sure APM shall give due consideration of APM's existing definitions as a compare and contrast exercise and where appropriate after approval of APM's Executive amend some of the definitions for alignment to reflect an advancement in the discipline of Project Management.
From an International perspective as an APM member I use the above definitions and I am aware that periodically as APM's Body of Knowledge document is refreshed thereon the definitions shall then be updated to align. The next edition of the APM BoK is edition No. 6 which shall be released next year and thereon in short order shall be the related update of the APM Competence Framework.
Keep up the good work and warm wellness wishes for the festive season.
Kind regards
Richard