PRINCE2 and Principles
Those of you who follow me on Twitter will know this already, but yesterday I passed my PRINCE2 Practitioner Re-registration exam. PRINCE2 has two levels of qualification, Foundation and Practitioner. A Foundation pass lasts forever, and you need to have one before you can take the Practitioner exam. A Practitioner pass needs to be renewed every five years if you want to keep describing yourself as, well, a PRINCE2 Practitioner.
Given that here in the UK PRINCE2 is the de facto standard for project management qualifications, I’m happy to have passed the re-registration exam – it means I can still compete for contract jobs!
But… I have to admit, I wasn’t that thrilled with the exam. More particularly, I wasn’t pleased with the format of it, because I think it reflects a worrying trend from the owners of PRINCE2.
Way back in the mists of time, when I first got qualified, the Foundation exam was a multiple choice exam, which it still is, and the Practitioner exam was essay based, which it no longer is. Now, the Practitioner exam is an “objective testing examination”. Which, as far as I can tell, means it is multiple choice. Complicated multiple choice, granted, but multiple choice all the same.
I’ll admit it, I have a terrible prejudice against multiple choice exams. The last one I had done was the PRINCE2 Foundation exam. Essentially, this was just a memory exercise – it checked you knew what the various PRINCE2 terms were. Which was fine, given the level it was aimed at – it was a first step on the qualifications ladder for project support staff, and others who needed to show they had a basic knowledge of PRINCE2.
But I’ve always thought that to test real understanding of a subject, you need to send someone off with little guidance, to navigate their own way to the solution. And that’s why I liked the essay style Practitioner exam I originally took – the demonstration of understanding was all in your own hands.
That’s not to say that the re-registration exam I took didn’t test understanding. The format of the questions was such that it did require you to have both a knowledge of the PRINCE2 methodology, and an understanding of the processes within it.
However, what it didn’t test was an understanding of the principles of project management, of when it was appropriate to use the various processes the methodology uses, and even more importantly, when it was appropriate not to.
Now, a lot of you will probably be thinking, and quite reasonably, that PRINCE2 is a methodology, so an exam to be registered as a Practitioner of it should only test understanding of the methodology itself. It’s a persuasive argument, but not one I accept.
PRINCE2 is in the interesting position of being the de facto project management standard in the UK and much of Europe. This means, I believe, that it not only should try to spread itself as a methodology, but also to spread an understanding of what project management is, the principles behind it. In my experience, PMI just isn’t well established enough over here to do that job.
To me, the key to working with and using PRINCE2 effectively is a thorough understanding of the principles behind in. Maybe I was lucky in the way I was taught it originally, but the emphasis of the trainers was very much on why certain processes and procedures were used, not how to use them. And the reason for this was that they continually stressed the need to ensure you were applying PRINCE2 in a flexible and light touch way.
I can practically hear the howls from the Agileists out there at the suggestion PRINCE2 can ever be light touch or even flexible. But it really can. If you just took the PRINCE2 manual and tried to apply everything in there to a project, you’d kill all but the largest projects straight away. But PRINCE2 is designed to be scalable – and that’s where it gets tricky.
Because the only way a methodology can be scalable is by using the judgement of the people applying it, by using the experience, understanding, and plain common sense of the project manager to decide what is needed for any particular project. And the ability to do that is something that is very hard to test.
I’d also say it is impossible to test in any sort of multiple choice exam.
And that’s why I preferred the essay based exam. By having the ability to write an open-ended answer, the person being tested can not only demonstrate an understanding of the processes, but also explain how he would apply it in the specific scenario given. He can, in short, demonstrate his abilities as a project manager, not as a PRINCE2 regurgitation tool.
Now, I can understand why the people who look after PRINCE2 would want to move to this “objective testing” exam format. If nothing else, it’s an awful lot cheaper to grade a paper when all you have to do is scan the answer sheet for the right marks in the right places (or, in my case, just have it all done online). And it moves it towards the style used in many other qualification exams.
But I think they are ultimately storing up a huge problem for themselves. There is already a body of opinion out there which thinks PRINCE2 is simply awful, too heavyweight, too inflexible, too much of a pain. I’d argue the real problem these people have come up against is poor project management, poor project managers, where a methodology has been applied without much understanding of the principles behind it.
Worryingly, this style of examination seems, to me, to be encouraging more of this type of project manager. All it will produce is someone who understands the processes very well, but doesn’t really understand the reasons for them. Essay based exams are much harder to grade, but the reason for that is that they need to have a real live human being doing it. And that ‘problem’, of needing a human being, seems to me to be, in fact, the greatest strength of them.
Because a human being is able to read the essay and get a real feel for whether the person writing has understood what is actually happening in the scenario, has understood more than the right cookie cutter to pick up from the PRINCE2 tool box. And being able to assess that seems to me to be incredibly valuable.
If it becomes the common view that all a Practitioner qualified project manager brings you is someone who will blindly apply a methodology with no thought as to whether it is appropriate, all qualified Practitioners will suffer. In short, I worry that this style of exam is, ultimately, going to devalue the PRINCE2 Practitioner qualification.
What do you think? Am I just being snobbish about multiple choice? Am I wrong in thinking a PRINCE2 Practitioner qualification should be about more than memorising the PRINCE2 manual? Is PRINCE2 already seen as too heavy-handed a methodology to ever use? Do you think PMI is in a position in Europe to take up the mantle of spreading awareness of the principles of project management?
PMP is the same. It’s multiple choice. But it’s hard. You won’t pass the PMP certification if you don’t have few years of PM experience and formal training: it’s a pre-req.
For credential maintenance you don’t take a new exam but have to collect point that can be gained through training, practice, publication, lectures…
Maintaining your PMP credential is not trivial. You need to think project management every day!
I am currently preparing a Prince2 vs PMP article. It seems to me that Prince2 is too prescriptive if you compare to PMBok.
Hi Vincent,
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying the PRINCE2 exam is easy. I just think it is concentrating too much on testing the purely mechanistic parts of the methodology. It wasn’t taught to me in that way, and I don’t use it in that way.
(Incidentally, the training course I went on was aimed very much at people who already had experience as a project manager – but as it isn’t part of the pre-requisites, it is often ignored.)
As for PRINCE2 vs PMBoK – well, yes, PRINCE2 is more prescriptive. But that’s because it is describing a methodology, which PMBoK isn’t. They are two different things. It’s like saying a repair manual for a 1997 Vauxhall Vectra is more prescriptive than a textbook on the internal combustion engine – it’s true, but missing the aim of each one.
Of course, my argument is that while the UK market still sees PRINCE2 as the de facto requirement for a project manager, we need to be happy to add more of the theory side, the principles of project management, into the qualification, and move away from the more mechanistic, and yes, more prescriptive side. Sometimes we just have to trust a project manager’s experience, judgement and common sense.
Hi Trevor
Great post. There is always a dilema between testing the undertsanding of a method and testing the competence of a project manager.
As a method PRINCE2 does not cover all of project management as there are aspects that are difficult to codify (e.g. leadership), are culturally oriented (e.g. negotiation) or are context specific and already documented various BOKs(e.g. estimation techniques). Therefore some of the aspects that you cite are beyond the scope of PRINCE2 and therefore not included in the exam syllabus.
That said, PRINCE2 2009 is less prescriptive and now includes a set of principles upon which PMs can use their judgment as to how to apply the method. In particular this emphasises the need to scale the method and use approach specific techniques – such as agile, RUP, Six Sigma etc.
PRINCE2 2009 is being launched on 16th June, and can be purchased from various onlinbe book shops.
Best regards
Andy
PRINCE2 2009 Lead Author
Hi Andy,
Thanks for commenting!
I suppose I’m trying to overload what the PRINCE2 exam is actually testing. This is unfair of me on PRINCE2, really.
I think the main part of my worry is that there is a lack of a widely accepted (in the UK) measurement of project management competence, rather than the measurement of methodology knowledge. But that’s isn’t PRINCE2’s problem, but that of the project management profession in the UK.
Perhaps we should all go out and evangelise for the PMI’s PMP qualification…
Hi Trevor
I’m currently mapping PRINCE2 2009 to IPMA’s competency baseline (often refered to a ICB) – this will show what else competent project managers need to know and do in addition to understanding how to use a method such as PRINCE2.
As a corporate member of the Association of Project Management (APM) I’m perhaps biased, but APM’s alignment to IPMA (and hence the ICB), emphasis on continuing professional development and the move toward Chartered status is a massive step in the professionalisation of project management.
Regards
Andy
Hi Trevor,
I can see your points about the exam.
But what I really want to discuss is the huge difference between PRINCE2 and most other approaches like PMI (IPMA basically follows this) and Agile.
When you discuss what goes wrong in projects (I do that quite often as a trainer), you always hear the same issues:
1. The reason for the project is not clear
2. Roles & responsibilities are not clear
3. It is not clear what the project should deliver
PMI does not go into these issues at all, which I find a damned disgrace!
Most approaches, including PMI, think about project as something only suppliers do. This is a very immature approach and PRINCE2 telles you why. Bevause of the conflicting Business Cases of customer and supplier it is very dangerous to let your supplier manage the project.
So that in short covers issue 1 and 2.
Leaves issue 3 and the product based approach of PRINCE2. Believe it or not but this is also very unique. Obviously this again has a lot to do with supplier driven projects. As a supplier you don’t want too many measurable product descriptions…
So my conclusion: PRINCE2 is on a very much higher maturity level than other approaches. This is also why the approach is seen as perscriptive: less mature organisations and individuals can not use the ideas (yet). They will be far more confortable with PMI. With all the damaging consequences for projects.
Hi,
This article has very useful information, it will be helpful for many certification exam aspirants. Actually one of my friends first read this article and asked me to visit this page.
It’s really amazing to read this description of this article, Thanks for your efforts.