Yesterday I travelled to the Aston University Business School to attend the ‘To PRINCE2 or not to PRINCE2’ debate which was hosted by the Centre for Project Management Practice.
The CPMP hosted within their excellent facilities what they billed as one of the most hotly disputed topics in current project management research and practice today, this being especially pertinent with the forthcoming launch of Prince2 2009. The debate was hosted by Naomi Brookes with Andy Murray (Lead author of PRINCE2) speaking in support of the motion, and Dr
Image from Leap Kye via Flickr
Harvey Maylor (Director of the International Centre for Programme Management at Cranfield School University) speaking against.
The motion was based around the impact of PRINCE2 on an organisation rather than the individual practitioner, though at times there was inevitably a cross over.
First to the floor was Andy Murray who took us through his argument for the ongoing championing of the Prince2 method. Andy from his position of knowledge not only using the historical versions of Prince as reference points but also referencing the changes included in the impending update. His support centred around the fact that he positioned it as universal, practical (based on many man years of experience) and ubiquitous (how can over 300,000 certified practitioners be wrong?). With the new release enhancing its usability and providing principals to further enhance its position as “the method for managing a project”.
Dr Harvey Maylor then took to the floor to speak against the motion based of course on the current version of Prince. His well structured argument was built around his assertion that Prince is driven by training and certification bodies as a revenue generating product and as a body of work it lacks evidence that it works, whilst also failing to address the reasons for failure. In addition he proposed that it is an easy choice, tick in the box solution for many organisations which allows them to be seen to be addressing the issue of project management, whilst in reality being PINO (Prince In Name Only).
After a question and answer session a final vote was taken against the CPMP ‘Big Ballot’ rather than directly against the motion of ‘To PRINCE2 or not to PRINCE2’. After minor technical difficulties with the electronic voting system the results saw a swing towards the undecided and doubters about the real value of Prince2 to an organisation.
An excellent event and no doubt the first of many such debates and discussions which will once again question the validity / position of Prince2 as the project management community evolves as a profession and organisations strive to achieve competitive advantage through excellence in project delivery.
Image ©Leap Kye and used with permission
In my 20 years experience the primary principles of PRINCE2 provide as good as any being provided by any other method.
The PRINCE2 processs if actually tailored and the project managed accordingly should significantly improve the chance of success. The main problem is too many people managing using PINO and not the spirit and principles of PRINCE2.
The jury maybe out and doubters look like they are in the ascendency but what alternatives are there? Please don’t say PMI Book of Knowledge because that is disjointed, increasingly bureaucratic and has no basis for success(as a method)
Should it not be, as with any practice, that the underlying concept of Prince2 provides frameworks and tools for use in project management? It is never the case that any methodology provides a completely rounded and appropriate solution, but an experienced and competent PM should be able to use a selection of tools to give a project the best chance of success.
In response to Davids comments, personally I do not believe that we need to look for an alternative to Prince as the method contains many useful and easily applied tools and approaches. No method yet published is a 100% fit for all situations which we may face when delivering projects, which is why Project Management is such a great profession. Nor can they guarantee success.
If I were to use the analogy of a joiner, he can have many chisels in his toolbox and then hopefully uses accumulated knowledge and experience to select the most appropriate one(s) when faced with a task. Likewise, as an active project manager I am happy to take best practice from the Prince method along with PMI, APM and others. Then as Matt suggested, use my experience to identify and use a selection of appropriate tools to give my project the best chance of success.
Whatever the method, their success rate is ultimately governed by the competence of the project manager steering the ship?