Should we as a profession consider adopting an approach to protect the use of the title ‘Project Manager’ ?

Hi Philip

In 1992 there was a House of Lords debate in which Lord Benson proposed that there are 9 obligations of a profession to the public (listed below). The 6th test would seem to be relevant to your question if it could be established that the public needed protection from those who called themselves project managers without the 'the requisite training, standards and disciplines.'

• First, the profession must be controlled by a governing body which in professional matters directs the
behaviour of its members.
• Secondly, the governing body must set adequate standards of education as a condition of entry and
thereafter ensure that students obtain an acceptable standard of professional competence. Training and
education ... continue throughout the member's professional life.
• Thirdly, the governing body must set the ethical rules and professional standards which are to be
observed by the members. They should be higher than those established by the general law.
• Fourthly, the rules and standards enforced by the governing body should be designed for the benefit of
the public and not for the private advantage of the members.
• Fifthly, the governing body must take disciplinary action, if necessary, expulsion from membership
should the rules and standards it lays down not be observed or should a member be guilty of bad
professional work.
• Sixthly, work is often reserved to a profession by statute - not because it was for the advantage of the
members but because, for the protection of the public, it should be carried out only by persons with the
requisite training, standards and disciplines.
• Seventhly, the governing body must satisfy itself that there is fair and open competition in the practice
of the profession ...
• Eighth, the members of the profession, whether in practice or in employment, must be independent in
thought and outlook [ ... ] They must not allow themselves to be put under the control or dominance of
any person or organization which could impair that independence.
• Ninth, in its specific field of learning, a profession must give leadership to the public it serves.

It is really great to see such a healthy debate - get it... healthy... surgeons... sorry, couldn't resist!

An interesting concept, should only qualified people be able to use a certain title? What level of training is required and deemed acceptable? I assume surgeons need to have years of experience as well, so do not just roll out of training as a ‘surgeon’ and go onto to perform life saving operations.

So, how would one discern what is sufficient training and what level of experience is required?

A good reply from David and shows how much of this for PM lines up with the RPP/Chartered debate.

If the Privy Council gives the go ahead then we can start down the road of establishing the credibility of APM to be a body that could make such a call.

But I think its worth looking at what has happened to the same debate in the world of engineering. Back in the seventies we had the Finnieston Report that called for greater professionalism in engineering and also talked about reserving the word "engineer" to differentiate from mechanics and technicians.

And what has happened?

Very little from a public perception perspective. The word engineer is still in common usage in non-professional settings. Chartered Engineers always had a good name and the number of people with that designation has gone through the roof. But we tend to call themseves professional or chartered engineers rather than just engineers.

For project managers I guess the fact that we are not even going to call ourselves chartered project managers really means that we don't have a leg to stand on. Its hard to stop other people calling themselves project managers when we call ourselves project professionals.

Hi John

Some years ago APM was actually called the Association of Project Managers rather than the current Association for Project Management. The name was changed as it was felt that the former name excluded those who were active in the profession but were not called project managers i.e specialists (risk managers, programme managers, portfolio managers etc), academics and project administrators.

This thinking was also applied to APM Registered Project Professional. I guess there are parallels with engineer / mechanic / technician as you describe but one of the main aims of RPP is that there is a published standard for what can be expected in terms of competency of somebody with that designation.

The medical profession would also seem to have a number of specialities within their overall field that they deal with by having protected titles i.e midwife, dentist, doctor etc. and perhaps this represents a level of maturity that our profession is yet to reach?

Once you have a recognized standard (such as chartered status) that can be used to give confidence to buyers of services, everything else is just protectionism, for which the golden age passed many decades ago. Surgeons and others got on the reserved bus a long time ago; engineers missed it (at least in the UK) and have been moaning about it ever since.

Here in Canada, it's illegal to call yourself an engineer if you are not registered with the professional engineering association for the province you're in. Is the public any safer than in the UK where every domestic appliance repairer calls himself an engineer? I doubt it. I do know that it turns your professional body into a disciplinary outfit, which is really a different relationship - I wouldn't want to see the APM go that way.

Thank you David for the excellent post on the nine obligations of a profession, the whole Lords debate is enlightening but the original query is not a true comparison.  Also, the role of project manager does not carry the same level of accountability as when a professional engineer signs off a drawing.  APM has always, to its credit, recognized the difference in accountability between a project sponsor and a project manager.  Upto and including the 5th edition of APMBOK, it stated that project management was more concerned with project efficiency and project sponsorship more concerned with project effectiveness.  We cannot legally protect the title of project manager, the same way we cannot legally protect the title of sponsor.

Even if a convincing arguement could be made for this, and I am not yet convinced, its implementation would be long and difficult, and we would probably have to do the same for programme managers -  which those in media (programme makers etc.) would simply love.

Not that being difficult is a reason for not doing a thing, but the profession would need to consider the implications of such a move.

Oh and yes, the PMI would just love this, another piece of ammunition for their current chartered status obfuscation. Although I can think of a response; gaining the necessary status and qualifications from other geographies could qualify - there are plenty of precedents for this.

I guess what I am really saying is:

- is this justified?

- if it is how do we achieve it?

- AND how do we implement it?

WOW..........just like a change programme!

The whole issue re- direct us to the notion of whether project management is a job or profession. In my own experience I have come to realise that project management is often taken as a career or job with total disregard for the profession or body that regulates or stipulates the requirements of a project manager. However, I believe the roadmap to chartered status and the newly introduced project management apprenticeships will breathe more depth and insight into one of the oldest professions whose minimum qualifying requirements are unknown to date. Another daunting question emanates from what exactly constitute a project. On one of my bus journeys into work a worthwhile colleague once echoed that, the process of  getting up in the morning and getting ready for work might constitute a project based on a partial scope definition and presence of time line, but should I be misguided to call this enthusiastic orator a project manager. The answer is no.

I also feel that using "Project Professional" somewhat adds to the confusion, but to counter this I believe the RPP process tests competency from project administration through project management and programme management and on to programme or projects director plus the size and complexity elements and levels. It does not just test for project management skills, in the smaller sense, but tests across the whole BoK. So what is the answer; well I don't know and so it is good to see the debate and I hope someone wiser than me might be able to provide an answer that satisfies our whole community including our American 'based' friends and of course the honoured members of the Privy Council.

I am though not sure if the argument as to if project management is a career or progression is helping move us all forward and would suggest that it is actually about Accountability and Responsibility which applies to both.

I would like to express a view that whilst Accountability remains with the project (or programme) sponsor, the Project Manager (smaller or larger sense) can hold tremendous Responsibility, for example, when working in medical, transport or some defence environments (and there are many more) where screwing up with poor or late delivery means lives on the line; very high levels of Integrity are, of course, also needed to make sure on all fronts that substandard work does not get through despite pressures of time and cost. Whilst I agree that not all project managers have this level of Responsibility, some do, and therefore would ask so how does this differ from say a certified aircraft engineer or a doctor or a nurse?

Anyhow some thoughts that might, I hope, provoke some further valuable discussion in this thread.