agilethinking.net Blog

Gregory Balestrero’s much-awaited keynote speech at the Scrum Gathering was something of an anti-climax.  It was safe and generic, offering neither resistance nor support for Scrum beyond the usual “let’s all work together” rhetoric.  Even so, it had a little more punch than the earlier talk by CMMI guru Dr. Mark Paulk, which was overly long and sadly dull.  Dr Paulk would have done well to talk more about his research and less about what Scrum is.  The phrase ‘teaching your grandmother to suck eggs’ comes to mind.

Having both CMMI and PMI representation at the gathering was an odd choice, and given the energy and creativity often found at Agile conferences these guys had much to do to impress.  No easy task, especially given the resistance from many (including this blogger) to their very presence. It seems reasonable that when in enemy territory, so to speak, a person would tread with caution.  Fair enough, but reasonable people rarely inspire and that was the case here.  Nevertheless Gregory Balestrero’s talk was not without value.

In describing the work of the PMI Mr Balestrero mentioned that the new version of the PMBok has a chapter on iterative development and incremental delivery.  Bear in mind that IID has actually been practiced in software companies since the 1970s.  That it has only come to the attention of the PMI recently is odd, to say the least.  IID is not the same as Agile, of course, it is one small part.  Still, progress is progress, and credit to the speaker for seeking alignment between Scrum and PMI values.

The one thing that jumped out at me from the talk was Mr Balestrero’s announcement that since he took over as CEO of the PMI seven years ago the organization has become more focused on value.  This is good news, as Agile is, and has always been focused on value, so we can all see alignment there.  Of course, the question this raised for me was “what was the PMI focused on before that time?”  I decided to ask.  As there was limited time in the session for questions I waited to speak with Mr Balestrero after the keynote was complete.  With all the powerpoint events of the morning I was hungry for some actual dialog.  In the event my question turned into an hour-long conversation about the nature of management.

Raffi Simonian (CSP), Alan Cyment (CST), Jesse Fewell (PMP) also took part in the discussion.  Raffi’s particular interest was on how a CSP could fast-track his way to becoming a PMP, given that there was some cross-over of skills, and to their credit the two PMI representatives didn’t shoot this idea down, but instead offered Raffi a number of direct contacts with which to further explore the idea of how CSP and PMP could dovetail.  The gesture offers potential for open dialog, for collaboration.  All good.

— As an aside, Gregory Balestrero publicly congratulated Raffi and his co-worker Anu on the excellent PMO set up at their organization, saying it was one of the best there was.  In fact, Raffi and his team have been slowly working over the past few years to remove this same PMO as it is actually considered an impediment.  —

Back to my question, what was the PMI focused on before it decided to focus on value?  Gregory Balestrero explained that the PMI was originally set up to focus on value (of course it was, what else would its purpose be?) but over the years lost that focus and became transaction-orientated, focusing on delivering certification to the individual rather than supporting organizations in successful outcomes.  This seems to have resulted in a large group of people with impressive knowledge of how to manage projects, but perhaps with some loss of focus as to why they needed to do this.  Seven years is a long time, and many of us in this community do not yet see that focus on value over certification.  Big ships take a long time to turn around.

Mr Balestrero went on to say that when he joined the PMI he asked the question “do we need project management?”.  Good question.  Apparently the answer was “Duh, yeah!”  I challenged that answer.  Perhaps the “duh yeah” applies when the processes we use cry out for management.  Upfront requirements, definition, work-breakdown structures, dependency charts, critical path analysis, efficient assignment of resources… all of this needs to be managed.  Sure.

But what about an agile process?  I suggested that management, as we know it, is inappropriate, and that instead projects need support and guidance through a process of visioning, reflecting, facilitating and inspiring.  Does the PMI teach that, I asked.  The answer was vague.

I felt that Gregory Balestrero didn’t understand Scrum beyond the concept of iterative development and possibly collaboration, so in the short time we talked Alan, Raffi and I introduced some of the underlying values of Scrum to him.  He listened (he appeared to listen).  What if we took away the names PMI and Agile and Scrum, I asked, what if we went right down to underlying values and principles: openness, trustfulness, visibility, courage, self-organization, collaboration, beauty, inspiring visions… early delivery of working software.  Are we seeking the same thing?

I think this is a question that Gregory Balestrero will need to consider if he is serious about PMI and Scrum collaboration.  The sense I had from our discussion is that perhaps he will.  Time will tell.

Jesse Fewell captured (and captioned!) the discussion.  Take a look.