Spread the love

In the past we have written a few posts about the quality of project management training and even the quality of some providers that have been approved by PMI as Registered Education Provider (R.E.P.).

Exhibit 1

Here are examples from an email I received today:
Extract 1 from PMP announcement

  1. Notice the first sentence “Project management is a globally recognized and widely accepted certification program” so now project management is a certification.
  2. Last sentence: “Obtaining a PMP can assist individuals in preparing for the PMI’s certification exam …” so now the PMP come before the exam:(
  3. Last sentence: “… help job seekers gain high salaried positions …” No comment

Exhibit 2

Exhibit 2
Notice the following:

  1. Project life cycle organization
  2. Project human resources integration management

Exhibit 3

I decided to go to this organization website, and here are two exhibits from the details of the course.
Exhibit 3
Notice the following:

  1. No 2 under Project Integration “Develop preliminary project scope statement” this was gone in the 3rd edition (10 years ago)
  2. All the names of the processes are old
  3. Scope verification under Project scope management, this was changed in 5th Edition
  4. The names are also old.


Exhibit 4

Training Provider _ 4
no need to comment

Closing Comments

Obviously, who ever is writing this announcement and who ever have the outline, is likely not experienced project manager and they are picking words and phrases from here and there and grouping them into a message that is not cohesive.
The outline has many mistakes and out of date information.
Now the idea is that part of the requirements of the R.E.P. program by the Project Management Institute is to have a quality program in place to ensure proper marketing, proper development of course content, and proper delivery. Obviously, from what we show above we cannot judge quality of the delivery but how about the first two points? Did PMI see the outline for this course before they approve this provider?
One of the things we asked for, when I was on the PMI REP Advisory Group is more scrutiny of the providers, their websites, and programs. Yet, PMI was not willing to do this for budget reasons. We realize that 300 million US Dollars in assets are not enough to verify the quality of the providers that PMI grant a provider status to – or audit PMP applicants.
What a shame and a sham!

Spread the love