This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
An anonymous contributor wrote "Need to compare with real degrees such as MBA, also reads like a PMI Brocure [sic] and is not NPOV" I think the current information is factual, and doesn't express an positive or negative opinion. Stating that a professional certification is not equivalent to a college degree isn't worthy of an encyclopedia entry. Many employers require a PMP certification as a condition for employment or advancement, but do not require an MBA. -- Garrybooker 04:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Good discussion. The fact that PMI has "sold" the PMP to some employers means, what? Also consider comparing PMI/PMP to the backlash from the Agile/Scrum approach, that's not opinion, that's fact. While PMP'ers still have enthusiasm for PMI, in a sense, this is a "bill of goods" being "sold" to the public.
Dear Anonymous Person: The expression "a bill of goods" means something intentionally misrepresented, or something passed off in a deception or fraud (I looked it up). What do you think is intentionally misrepresented, deceptive or fraudulent? While I don't always agree with the PMI processes (I think many small projects require a different approach) I have never seen anything in PMI that is deceptive or fraudulent. It is a very ethics-oriented organization. -- Garrybooker 16:23, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
It's several things. PMI is attempting to establish itself as the gatekeeper to jobs, where a job req is the PMP only issued by PMI. This is a concerted effort. Then they sell the PMP training, books, and charge for the exams. Then the cycle begins all over again. There are many, many alternatives to PMI's PMP, a BBA, an MBA, many colleges have 4 year programs as well as graduate programs that include substantive management course work. There are also other certificate programs, CDP/CCP/CDMP/ISA (granted it's different but the concept is the same). In contrast, the PMP exam is a fairly superficial quiz. While it's better than nothing, it's not substantive. As a hiring manager, I'd be tempted to take off points for a PMP.
"I'd be tempted to take off points for a PMP" Sounds like you had a bad experience w/ PMI...did you fail the test or get passed over for someone w/ the PMP. As for PMI/PMP cycle, it is no different than GMAT and B School and LSAT and Law School (The guys who handle the accreditation of law schools, ABA, also run the LSAT). A degree is dated shortly after you walk across the stage, a cert shows you have the desire and drive to keep learning...
A PMP is an affectation. Sorry, it's not substantive. You also have it backward. A cert like the PMP is about acquiring a few buzzwords; a degree is a reflection of effort to acquire wide ranging and enduring fundamentals. Neither is a substitute for experience. The fact that the PMP asks for experience does not make it a certification of experience or accomplishment. Unfortunately, everyone wants to set themselves up as the gatekeeper, ie, "buy my cert, pay for my classes, give me a portion of your income." Please do not compare the PMP to law school.
The other problem with the PMP is that the "body of knowledge", while OK, good maybe, isn't exactly how projects really work. There is too much emphasis on form, stakeholders, paper deliverables, meetings, and not enough on the hard issues. It's not substantive. What's really telling is that when you drag the internet for examples of PMP success stories, you find the converse.
Comment from Mel...
As someone who has managed projects (IT) for many years, I wish I had discovered PMI years ago. The PMBOK has a great deal of practical advise that took me years to discover by trial and error. Obviously it's not equivalent to an MBA, for example... but it's more relevant to my work experience than my BSc in math. I'm not sure it belongs in Wiki... but don't slam the PMP certification... Mel —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Ve2dc (
talk •
contribs)
17:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
After reading the article, I was shocked to see the claim of 370,000 holders of the PMP certification and only a listed membership of 318K+! I help DPMA's CPM for years and found that it did had little or no impact on my career. I also think that it is extremely odd that PMI either sponsors, charges for, or benefits from a member maintaining their certification. At least DPMA would accept ALL training sources on a one to one credit basis. That is, they did not give more weight to DPMA training versus non-DPMA training as PMI seems to do. Overall, in my opinion, this is a certification for certifications sake only and in my world holds little or no relevence. I have worked side by side with PMP Certified Project Managers, and I use the term very loosely, who couldn't succesfully manage a project to save their own lives. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.43.88.121 ( talk) 13:10, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Is there any more information about PMI's Program Management certification and its differences to the Project Management certification?
I've read all the information PMI has to offer and it seems like Program Management is focused on mid to senior level project managers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ykimva ( talk • contribs) 15:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I believe the article on PMI is of a nature that does not belong in Wikipedia. It expresses more the opinion of an individual instead that it is factual. Such an opinion article may do well in the yellow press, but does not belong in Wikipedia.
I was first surprised to see the article but I agree, the artcle shows the potential issues and is not advertisement. The PMP certification is not comparable with a university diploma but clearly with a test like TOEFL. I am a PMP so I can compare. -- Dr.Bernhardt ( talk) 12:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Some chapters and SIGs are listed as registered Pennslvania non-profit corporations, but PMI itself doesn't seem to be listed. Clarification appreciated! To search the Pennsylvania Department of State business entity registration database, use this link [1]. -- 65.78.213.196 ( talk) 00:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
It looks like PMI itself is in that list; here is their listing: [2]. The whole section on Not-for-Profit Controversy doesn't belong in this article because nonprofit status is a purely legal designation, not a moral one. Nonprofit organizations are entitled to charge fees for service -- they're just not allowed to make a profit. Megan Farrington, DPA ( talk) 15:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Being a purely legal designation and the factual demonstration that PMI is legally listed as a non-profit - this whole section should be removed. This post has been hijacked by someone unhappy with the organization and is just venting. Who will take the intitiative to do the re-write? Reb4179 ( talk) 05:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
This is the most subjective portion of the article and is not supported by citations. It should either be removed or edited accordingly. -- Gordon Jones ( talk) 20:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree that this section should be removed.
Makingprogress19 (
talk)
21:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Since there was a call for more sourcing and information, I wanted to go through this page and make suggested changes, including references. I started at the beginning, however, i believe the Not For Profit Status and Operational Goals sections have some factual mistakes as well. Here are my suggested changes for the current opening, Overview, Membership and Certification sections: The '''Project Management Institute (PMI)''' is a member association and advocacy organization for the project management profession. Overview & Membership <nowiki>PMI was founded by a group of five volunteers in 1969. Currently, the organization has 260,000 members in more than 171 countries. As of January 2008, 70 percent of the membership lived in North America.<ref>http://www.pmi.org/AboutUs/Pages/About-PMI.aspx</ref>
To serve its members and the profession, PMI has created industry standards, such as [[''A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge'']] (''PMBOK® Guide''), which has been recognized by the [[American National Standards Institute]] (ANSI)<ref>http://webstore.ansi.org/RecordDetail.aspx?sku=ANSI%2FPMI+99%2F001%2F2004</ref>. PMI also issues several professional certifications, produces industry and research publications, offers involvement in local chapters and holds four conferences, called “global congresses” around the world each year.
PMI also has representative offices in Washington, D.C., and Beijing, China<ref>http://www.pmi.org/AboutUs/Pages/Representative-Offices.aspx</ref>, as well as Regional Service Centres in Singapore, Brussels, Belgium and New Delhi, India.<ref>http://www.pmi.org/AboutUs/Pages/Regional-Service-Centre-Contacts.aspx</ref> Certification
PMI’s offers five professional certifications<ref>http://www.pmi.org/CareerDevelopment/Pages/Our-Credentials.aspx</ref>:
PMI Risk Management Professional (PMI-RMP)SM
PMI Scheduling Professional (PMI-SP)SM
Program Management Professional (PgMP)SM
Project Management Professional (PMP)®
Certified Associate in Project Management (CAPM)®
Nearly 260,000 people hold the PMP certification<ref>http://www.pmi.org/AboutUs/Pages/About-PMI.aspx</ref>. In 2007, it earned the ISO/IEC 17024 accreditation from the [[International Organization for Standardization]] (ISO)<ref>http://www.pmi.org/AboutUs/Pages/Release_PMI-055-08-07.aspx</ref>. Credential holders do not have to be members of PMI.
To maintain most PMI credentials, holders must earn Professional Development Units (PDUs) which can be earned a variety of ways such as taking classes, attending PMI global congresses, contributing to professional research or writing and publishing papers on the subject.<ref>http://www.pmi.org/CareerDevelopment/Pages/Continuing-Certification-Requirements-(CCR).aspx</ref>
Makingprogress19 ( talk) 04:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
This is a very good suggestion for a re-write. It is NPOV and removes all of the inflammatory rhetoric that was existing. I would only suggest moving the discussion of its founding and membership to follow the listing of the certifications. It makes more sense to me to start out with a discussion of what PMI is and does before discussing its history and size. Reb4179 ( talk) 05:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
i would like to suggest removing the section Not For Profit Status section. It's neutrality has been questioned and it has been marked as vague and is need of valid citations. If there is objection can we discuss ways to make improvements to it so that it is more neutral? Makingprogress19 ( talk) 22:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I think a section on PMI's global congresses would be helpful. Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Makingprogress19 ( talk • contribs) 00:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I am wondering if someone can provide specifics about the questions of neutrality raised on this page. There is no discussion about it. Makingprogress19 ( talk) 15:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
The majority of the sources on this page have been changed. They should now comply with third-party reliable sourcing. Can we remove the warnings on the page? How do you do that? Makingprogress19 ( talk) 12:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Hello. My name is Len O'Neal and I work for PMI as the manager of online strategy and content. I'm a bit puzzled by the neutrality dispute on this page - does anyone know how it came about? Regarding neutrality - of the 21 cited references on this page, only three point to the PMI's Web site, the rest point to third-party sources. We'd be happy to supply alternative sources for the comments on the page regarding standards. And with regard to notability, PMI is a four-decade-old organization that has 265,000 members in 170 countries - well within the range of other organizations whose notability is not disputed on their Wikipedia entries (e.g., the Association for Computing Machinery with 83,000 members and the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers with 365,000 members). Would appreciate any insight on why the neutrality dispute still exists on this page and if it could possibly be resolved. Thanks. ONeallen ( talk) 19:50, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Excellent point. Since I work for PMI, I’d rather not alter the content of this page. Would someone mind adjusting the wording of that first paragraph to read differently? Perhaps it could say something like 'With over 420,000 members and credential holders worldwide, PMI is the largest membership association for the project management profession.' I appreciate you pointing this out. Once this change has been made, does anyone see any reason why the neutrality flag cannot be removed? Are there any other issues with the content of this page? Thanks. ONeallen ( talk) 24 November 2008 (UTC)
The first paragraph has many misspellings or non-sequiturs. Surprisingly poor quality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.225.207.33 ( talk) 22:56, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
I have rewritten the intro of this article, late last year. I am pretty sure this intro doesn't read like an advertisment any more. So I removed the tag (again).
Now if somebody thinks I am wrong, would he please explain, which particular sentences are not ok, so I can do something about it. Just a general tag with no justification makes little sense to me. Thank you. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker ( talk) 01:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I removed the advert- tag for now. I do think think claims of presument advertisment should be explained of on the talkpage, so people can do something about this. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker ( talk) 23:36, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Maybe I haven't made myself quite clear. I have rewritten the intro between 2 and 7 dec 2008, see here, and recreated what I think is an introduction from a neutral point of view. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker ( talk) 00:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I have no problem rewriting the article some more. Just for the record, I am definitly not on the payrole of the PMI instutute. I do have made a sever effort to improve the coverage of project management in Wikipedia lately (late last year, what cost me almost half a week). Now it seems to me the PMI has a similar position in the field of PM as the IEEE in the field of electrical enginmeers. So I will use the IEEE article as the standard:
If we translate this here, we could get something like:
This should give, short of, a Wikipedia standard opening, which should do. Any objections? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker ( talk) 00:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
I just search though the (ANSI) website trying to get prove the PMI is accredited by the ANSI. So far I couldn't find a direct reference here. I did find in: Jan Van Bon (2006). Frameworks for IT Management. Van Haren Publishing. ISBN 9077212906. p.206:
I guess this will do as a acceptable source. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker ( talk) 01:32, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
30 May 2009 00:10 (UTC) the following sections have been removed by Centrx. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker ( talk) 21:54, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
These sections have been removed by Centrx with the argument:
I personally agree with this removal for two more reasons:
I do have my doubts about:
But I do think we owe it to the people. who contributed these sections to explain why, and give them the opportunity to question these removals. So I hope people will respond here. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker ( talk) 21:54, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
To further clean this article from advertisements I have removed the following non-reliable sources:
With the removal of these references I also removed the primary sources tag, about "Primary sources or sources affiliated with the subject are generally not sufficient for a Wikipedia article". -- Marcel Douwe Dekker ( talk) 22:11, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
I would like to propose to remove the adverttag. It seems to me the article has been almost completely rewritten since dec 2008, see here for the difference between then and now. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker ( talk) 22:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
The article hasn't been rewritten a day, or an anom user has changed several phrases in the article.
Now I think:
This may require some more action. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker ( talk) 21:54, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
I removed the history section for now after a firm request at the Talk:Gregory Balestrero#Further comment. I hope to (correct and) restore it as soon as possible. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker ( talk) 11:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Now I still haven't got a clue, what PBS was talking about, see here, when he claimed "there are others that are clear copyright violations. Would you please fix them in the article Project Management Institute#History?"
So I will analyse the whole section from source to source
Bon06
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Now I still don't understand where all those clear copyright violations are? I did learn today here that the initial burden of proof is on the person who alleges plagiarism. Please correct me if I am wrong, but I believe PBS should make clear what he is talking about, and maybe suggest who to reapir it.
I did move the section here as Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Repairing_plagiarism suggested... !? Maybe PBS can just explain what he means...!? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker ( talk) 22:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Marcel! The "burden of proof" has been met in various places you and I have discussed this, by various people. There is a burden of responsibility on the part of editors who begin or contribute to articles, and that is: don't misrepresent other people's words as your own. You persist in demanding that people who have already made themselves clear "should make clear what [they] are talking about." You have made a mess of a lot of pages, by filling them with text that you have admitted is not your own. You have stated on various talk pages your belief (at the time you made your edits) that quotation marks were a matter of "choice" on your part. They are not. As for Philcha's insistence that I failed to live up to the "burden of proof", Philcha was incorrect. I provided proof at the very start of this issue on the Systems Psychology page. The proof was the plagiarized paragraph that you 1)should not have put there to begin with, and which you, 2) when I noted the pov content of the paragraph (not knowing that you had plagiarized it) -- by complaining about me being unfair in my vocabulary in expressing my annoyance at its non-neutral quality, made me think that you had written it, which you hadn't. You put me in the position of unfairly criticizing someone who was entirely uninvolved in the discussion, that is the person who actually had written the (copyrighted) material. That was dishonest of you, and unfair to her. Philcha failed to check the history, in accusing me of not offering "proof". So don't lean so hard on what you "learned today" regarding this burden of proof. You have, on at least one other page, reverted removals of material you plagiarized, thus committing the act twice, and willfully. Your protestations of not understanding the issue are wearing thin. I have many many paragraphs of stuff you have put in many pages that I plan to ask you about, in the relevant talk spaces. The fact is, you have muddied the situation tremendously, making it an extremely difficult and time consuming process to provide the kind of proof that Philcha, I presume, would be satisfied by. But believe me, specifics are on the way. Call me Bacrito. (the guy you thought was "Marrakech". I have a page you may reply on, if you wish. I don't know how to redirect the temporary page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:72.229.55.73 that you posted to before to my current page. Sorry for any confusion. Bacrito ( talk) 05:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
"spearheaded PMI's financial growth from an $8 million budget in 1997 to $30 million in 2001." is directly lifted from the article word for word. If it is not in quotes it is a copyright violation. ... Sorry I still don't understand what I should fix. But I removed the whole Project Management Institute#History section for now to be on the save side. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker ( talk) 10:39, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
|
Sorry guys, the only thing I mean with burden of proof is a listing of possible copyright infrigments. Only one thing has been mentioned so far:
I only like to know waht are those alledged others "clear copyright violations"...??? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker ( talk) 09:42, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I have doublecheked the other contributions I made to this article and I have rewritten some of it. I will leave it with tis for now, maybe rewrite a history section (if nobody else does in the mean-time). Again sorry for the inconvenience. -- Mdd ( talk) 21:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
In order to recreate the history section, I first started collecting some more quotes:
Comments:
Comment:
This is just a start for now. -- Mdd ( talk) 20:09, 9 November 2009 (UTC) -- Mdd ( talk) 20:09, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
In "The Project Management Institute : In the Beginning..." Wideman (1985) explains the background those five volunteers mentioned in Sliger & Broderick (2008):
According to Wideman three of them first met fall of 1967 in Philadelphia, when Engman from Houston visited Snyder and Gallanger at the SK & F laboratories in Philadelphia.
Furthermore according to Wideman (1985):
According to Wideman (1985) "on the evening of the first day [of that two day seminar], October 9th, at the American Hotel in Atlanta, the existence of the Project Management Institute was announced to a group of approximately eighty people. A total of twenty-four "founders" joined the new Institute on the spot".
Interesting in this matter was the New Orleans meeting, February, 1968, five objectives of the institute to come were drawn in the minutes, four out of five already listed by the US NBS (1975):
Now I guess I missed a year here, because according to Wideman (1985) "a news release on October 21, 1969, announcing the launching of the new organizationlaunching of the new organization designed to serve the interests of individuals active in the field of project management"...!? -- Mdd ( talk) 22:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect PMI® and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 15#PMI® until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. BD2412 T 05:07, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
The
Wikimedia Foundation's
Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see
WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see
WP:COIRESPONSE.
|
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
Hi! I'm Acacia, an employee at PMI. I signed up for Wikipedia to request a couple of updates to this article. I read about conflict-of-interest editing, and since this article is about my employer, I will only suggest changes here and won't directly edit the article. Hopefully, the two changes I am seeking will be pretty straightforward.
If there's anything else I can provide, please let me know. Thanks very much!
PMIAcacia (
talk)
20:41, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
Hi! Acacia from PMI again. I'd like to suggest adding a brief mention of our CEO to the article's History section:
References
I won't make this change because of my conflict of interest. Thanks very much! PMIAcacia ( talk) 18:58, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
An anonymous contributor wrote "Need to compare with real degrees such as MBA, also reads like a PMI Brocure [sic] and is not NPOV" I think the current information is factual, and doesn't express an positive or negative opinion. Stating that a professional certification is not equivalent to a college degree isn't worthy of an encyclopedia entry. Many employers require a PMP certification as a condition for employment or advancement, but do not require an MBA. -- Garrybooker 04:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Good discussion. The fact that PMI has "sold" the PMP to some employers means, what? Also consider comparing PMI/PMP to the backlash from the Agile/Scrum approach, that's not opinion, that's fact. While PMP'ers still have enthusiasm for PMI, in a sense, this is a "bill of goods" being "sold" to the public.
Dear Anonymous Person: The expression "a bill of goods" means something intentionally misrepresented, or something passed off in a deception or fraud (I looked it up). What do you think is intentionally misrepresented, deceptive or fraudulent? While I don't always agree with the PMI processes (I think many small projects require a different approach) I have never seen anything in PMI that is deceptive or fraudulent. It is a very ethics-oriented organization. -- Garrybooker 16:23, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
It's several things. PMI is attempting to establish itself as the gatekeeper to jobs, where a job req is the PMP only issued by PMI. This is a concerted effort. Then they sell the PMP training, books, and charge for the exams. Then the cycle begins all over again. There are many, many alternatives to PMI's PMP, a BBA, an MBA, many colleges have 4 year programs as well as graduate programs that include substantive management course work. There are also other certificate programs, CDP/CCP/CDMP/ISA (granted it's different but the concept is the same). In contrast, the PMP exam is a fairly superficial quiz. While it's better than nothing, it's not substantive. As a hiring manager, I'd be tempted to take off points for a PMP.
"I'd be tempted to take off points for a PMP" Sounds like you had a bad experience w/ PMI...did you fail the test or get passed over for someone w/ the PMP. As for PMI/PMP cycle, it is no different than GMAT and B School and LSAT and Law School (The guys who handle the accreditation of law schools, ABA, also run the LSAT). A degree is dated shortly after you walk across the stage, a cert shows you have the desire and drive to keep learning...
A PMP is an affectation. Sorry, it's not substantive. You also have it backward. A cert like the PMP is about acquiring a few buzzwords; a degree is a reflection of effort to acquire wide ranging and enduring fundamentals. Neither is a substitute for experience. The fact that the PMP asks for experience does not make it a certification of experience or accomplishment. Unfortunately, everyone wants to set themselves up as the gatekeeper, ie, "buy my cert, pay for my classes, give me a portion of your income." Please do not compare the PMP to law school.
The other problem with the PMP is that the "body of knowledge", while OK, good maybe, isn't exactly how projects really work. There is too much emphasis on form, stakeholders, paper deliverables, meetings, and not enough on the hard issues. It's not substantive. What's really telling is that when you drag the internet for examples of PMP success stories, you find the converse.
Comment from Mel...
As someone who has managed projects (IT) for many years, I wish I had discovered PMI years ago. The PMBOK has a great deal of practical advise that took me years to discover by trial and error. Obviously it's not equivalent to an MBA, for example... but it's more relevant to my work experience than my BSc in math. I'm not sure it belongs in Wiki... but don't slam the PMP certification... Mel —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Ve2dc (
talk •
contribs)
17:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
After reading the article, I was shocked to see the claim of 370,000 holders of the PMP certification and only a listed membership of 318K+! I help DPMA's CPM for years and found that it did had little or no impact on my career. I also think that it is extremely odd that PMI either sponsors, charges for, or benefits from a member maintaining their certification. At least DPMA would accept ALL training sources on a one to one credit basis. That is, they did not give more weight to DPMA training versus non-DPMA training as PMI seems to do. Overall, in my opinion, this is a certification for certifications sake only and in my world holds little or no relevence. I have worked side by side with PMP Certified Project Managers, and I use the term very loosely, who couldn't succesfully manage a project to save their own lives. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.43.88.121 ( talk) 13:10, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Is there any more information about PMI's Program Management certification and its differences to the Project Management certification?
I've read all the information PMI has to offer and it seems like Program Management is focused on mid to senior level project managers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ykimva ( talk • contribs) 15:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I believe the article on PMI is of a nature that does not belong in Wikipedia. It expresses more the opinion of an individual instead that it is factual. Such an opinion article may do well in the yellow press, but does not belong in Wikipedia.
I was first surprised to see the article but I agree, the artcle shows the potential issues and is not advertisement. The PMP certification is not comparable with a university diploma but clearly with a test like TOEFL. I am a PMP so I can compare. -- Dr.Bernhardt ( talk) 12:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Some chapters and SIGs are listed as registered Pennslvania non-profit corporations, but PMI itself doesn't seem to be listed. Clarification appreciated! To search the Pennsylvania Department of State business entity registration database, use this link [1]. -- 65.78.213.196 ( talk) 00:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
It looks like PMI itself is in that list; here is their listing: [2]. The whole section on Not-for-Profit Controversy doesn't belong in this article because nonprofit status is a purely legal designation, not a moral one. Nonprofit organizations are entitled to charge fees for service -- they're just not allowed to make a profit. Megan Farrington, DPA ( talk) 15:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Being a purely legal designation and the factual demonstration that PMI is legally listed as a non-profit - this whole section should be removed. This post has been hijacked by someone unhappy with the organization and is just venting. Who will take the intitiative to do the re-write? Reb4179 ( talk) 05:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
This is the most subjective portion of the article and is not supported by citations. It should either be removed or edited accordingly. -- Gordon Jones ( talk) 20:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree that this section should be removed.
Makingprogress19 (
talk)
21:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Since there was a call for more sourcing and information, I wanted to go through this page and make suggested changes, including references. I started at the beginning, however, i believe the Not For Profit Status and Operational Goals sections have some factual mistakes as well. Here are my suggested changes for the current opening, Overview, Membership and Certification sections: The '''Project Management Institute (PMI)''' is a member association and advocacy organization for the project management profession. Overview & Membership <nowiki>PMI was founded by a group of five volunteers in 1969. Currently, the organization has 260,000 members in more than 171 countries. As of January 2008, 70 percent of the membership lived in North America.<ref>http://www.pmi.org/AboutUs/Pages/About-PMI.aspx</ref>
To serve its members and the profession, PMI has created industry standards, such as [[''A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge'']] (''PMBOK® Guide''), which has been recognized by the [[American National Standards Institute]] (ANSI)<ref>http://webstore.ansi.org/RecordDetail.aspx?sku=ANSI%2FPMI+99%2F001%2F2004</ref>. PMI also issues several professional certifications, produces industry and research publications, offers involvement in local chapters and holds four conferences, called “global congresses” around the world each year.
PMI also has representative offices in Washington, D.C., and Beijing, China<ref>http://www.pmi.org/AboutUs/Pages/Representative-Offices.aspx</ref>, as well as Regional Service Centres in Singapore, Brussels, Belgium and New Delhi, India.<ref>http://www.pmi.org/AboutUs/Pages/Regional-Service-Centre-Contacts.aspx</ref> Certification
PMI’s offers five professional certifications<ref>http://www.pmi.org/CareerDevelopment/Pages/Our-Credentials.aspx</ref>:
PMI Risk Management Professional (PMI-RMP)SM
PMI Scheduling Professional (PMI-SP)SM
Program Management Professional (PgMP)SM
Project Management Professional (PMP)®
Certified Associate in Project Management (CAPM)®
Nearly 260,000 people hold the PMP certification<ref>http://www.pmi.org/AboutUs/Pages/About-PMI.aspx</ref>. In 2007, it earned the ISO/IEC 17024 accreditation from the [[International Organization for Standardization]] (ISO)<ref>http://www.pmi.org/AboutUs/Pages/Release_PMI-055-08-07.aspx</ref>. Credential holders do not have to be members of PMI.
To maintain most PMI credentials, holders must earn Professional Development Units (PDUs) which can be earned a variety of ways such as taking classes, attending PMI global congresses, contributing to professional research or writing and publishing papers on the subject.<ref>http://www.pmi.org/CareerDevelopment/Pages/Continuing-Certification-Requirements-(CCR).aspx</ref>
Makingprogress19 ( talk) 04:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
This is a very good suggestion for a re-write. It is NPOV and removes all of the inflammatory rhetoric that was existing. I would only suggest moving the discussion of its founding and membership to follow the listing of the certifications. It makes more sense to me to start out with a discussion of what PMI is and does before discussing its history and size. Reb4179 ( talk) 05:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
i would like to suggest removing the section Not For Profit Status section. It's neutrality has been questioned and it has been marked as vague and is need of valid citations. If there is objection can we discuss ways to make improvements to it so that it is more neutral? Makingprogress19 ( talk) 22:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I think a section on PMI's global congresses would be helpful. Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Makingprogress19 ( talk • contribs) 00:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I am wondering if someone can provide specifics about the questions of neutrality raised on this page. There is no discussion about it. Makingprogress19 ( talk) 15:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
The majority of the sources on this page have been changed. They should now comply with third-party reliable sourcing. Can we remove the warnings on the page? How do you do that? Makingprogress19 ( talk) 12:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Hello. My name is Len O'Neal and I work for PMI as the manager of online strategy and content. I'm a bit puzzled by the neutrality dispute on this page - does anyone know how it came about? Regarding neutrality - of the 21 cited references on this page, only three point to the PMI's Web site, the rest point to third-party sources. We'd be happy to supply alternative sources for the comments on the page regarding standards. And with regard to notability, PMI is a four-decade-old organization that has 265,000 members in 170 countries - well within the range of other organizations whose notability is not disputed on their Wikipedia entries (e.g., the Association for Computing Machinery with 83,000 members and the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers with 365,000 members). Would appreciate any insight on why the neutrality dispute still exists on this page and if it could possibly be resolved. Thanks. ONeallen ( talk) 19:50, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Excellent point. Since I work for PMI, I’d rather not alter the content of this page. Would someone mind adjusting the wording of that first paragraph to read differently? Perhaps it could say something like 'With over 420,000 members and credential holders worldwide, PMI is the largest membership association for the project management profession.' I appreciate you pointing this out. Once this change has been made, does anyone see any reason why the neutrality flag cannot be removed? Are there any other issues with the content of this page? Thanks. ONeallen ( talk) 24 November 2008 (UTC)
The first paragraph has many misspellings or non-sequiturs. Surprisingly poor quality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.225.207.33 ( talk) 22:56, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
I have rewritten the intro of this article, late last year. I am pretty sure this intro doesn't read like an advertisment any more. So I removed the tag (again).
Now if somebody thinks I am wrong, would he please explain, which particular sentences are not ok, so I can do something about it. Just a general tag with no justification makes little sense to me. Thank you. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker ( talk) 01:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I removed the advert- tag for now. I do think think claims of presument advertisment should be explained of on the talkpage, so people can do something about this. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker ( talk) 23:36, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Maybe I haven't made myself quite clear. I have rewritten the intro between 2 and 7 dec 2008, see here, and recreated what I think is an introduction from a neutral point of view. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker ( talk) 00:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I have no problem rewriting the article some more. Just for the record, I am definitly not on the payrole of the PMI instutute. I do have made a sever effort to improve the coverage of project management in Wikipedia lately (late last year, what cost me almost half a week). Now it seems to me the PMI has a similar position in the field of PM as the IEEE in the field of electrical enginmeers. So I will use the IEEE article as the standard:
If we translate this here, we could get something like:
This should give, short of, a Wikipedia standard opening, which should do. Any objections? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker ( talk) 00:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
I just search though the (ANSI) website trying to get prove the PMI is accredited by the ANSI. So far I couldn't find a direct reference here. I did find in: Jan Van Bon (2006). Frameworks for IT Management. Van Haren Publishing. ISBN 9077212906. p.206:
I guess this will do as a acceptable source. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker ( talk) 01:32, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
30 May 2009 00:10 (UTC) the following sections have been removed by Centrx. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker ( talk) 21:54, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
These sections have been removed by Centrx with the argument:
I personally agree with this removal for two more reasons:
I do have my doubts about:
But I do think we owe it to the people. who contributed these sections to explain why, and give them the opportunity to question these removals. So I hope people will respond here. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker ( talk) 21:54, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
To further clean this article from advertisements I have removed the following non-reliable sources:
With the removal of these references I also removed the primary sources tag, about "Primary sources or sources affiliated with the subject are generally not sufficient for a Wikipedia article". -- Marcel Douwe Dekker ( talk) 22:11, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
I would like to propose to remove the adverttag. It seems to me the article has been almost completely rewritten since dec 2008, see here for the difference between then and now. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker ( talk) 22:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
The article hasn't been rewritten a day, or an anom user has changed several phrases in the article.
Now I think:
This may require some more action. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker ( talk) 21:54, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
I removed the history section for now after a firm request at the Talk:Gregory Balestrero#Further comment. I hope to (correct and) restore it as soon as possible. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker ( talk) 11:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Now I still haven't got a clue, what PBS was talking about, see here, when he claimed "there are others that are clear copyright violations. Would you please fix them in the article Project Management Institute#History?"
So I will analyse the whole section from source to source
Bon06
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Now I still don't understand where all those clear copyright violations are? I did learn today here that the initial burden of proof is on the person who alleges plagiarism. Please correct me if I am wrong, but I believe PBS should make clear what he is talking about, and maybe suggest who to reapir it.
I did move the section here as Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Repairing_plagiarism suggested... !? Maybe PBS can just explain what he means...!? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker ( talk) 22:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Marcel! The "burden of proof" has been met in various places you and I have discussed this, by various people. There is a burden of responsibility on the part of editors who begin or contribute to articles, and that is: don't misrepresent other people's words as your own. You persist in demanding that people who have already made themselves clear "should make clear what [they] are talking about." You have made a mess of a lot of pages, by filling them with text that you have admitted is not your own. You have stated on various talk pages your belief (at the time you made your edits) that quotation marks were a matter of "choice" on your part. They are not. As for Philcha's insistence that I failed to live up to the "burden of proof", Philcha was incorrect. I provided proof at the very start of this issue on the Systems Psychology page. The proof was the plagiarized paragraph that you 1)should not have put there to begin with, and which you, 2) when I noted the pov content of the paragraph (not knowing that you had plagiarized it) -- by complaining about me being unfair in my vocabulary in expressing my annoyance at its non-neutral quality, made me think that you had written it, which you hadn't. You put me in the position of unfairly criticizing someone who was entirely uninvolved in the discussion, that is the person who actually had written the (copyrighted) material. That was dishonest of you, and unfair to her. Philcha failed to check the history, in accusing me of not offering "proof". So don't lean so hard on what you "learned today" regarding this burden of proof. You have, on at least one other page, reverted removals of material you plagiarized, thus committing the act twice, and willfully. Your protestations of not understanding the issue are wearing thin. I have many many paragraphs of stuff you have put in many pages that I plan to ask you about, in the relevant talk spaces. The fact is, you have muddied the situation tremendously, making it an extremely difficult and time consuming process to provide the kind of proof that Philcha, I presume, would be satisfied by. But believe me, specifics are on the way. Call me Bacrito. (the guy you thought was "Marrakech". I have a page you may reply on, if you wish. I don't know how to redirect the temporary page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:72.229.55.73 that you posted to before to my current page. Sorry for any confusion. Bacrito ( talk) 05:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
"spearheaded PMI's financial growth from an $8 million budget in 1997 to $30 million in 2001." is directly lifted from the article word for word. If it is not in quotes it is a copyright violation. ... Sorry I still don't understand what I should fix. But I removed the whole Project Management Institute#History section for now to be on the save side. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker ( talk) 10:39, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
|
Sorry guys, the only thing I mean with burden of proof is a listing of possible copyright infrigments. Only one thing has been mentioned so far:
I only like to know waht are those alledged others "clear copyright violations"...??? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker ( talk) 09:42, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I have doublecheked the other contributions I made to this article and I have rewritten some of it. I will leave it with tis for now, maybe rewrite a history section (if nobody else does in the mean-time). Again sorry for the inconvenience. -- Mdd ( talk) 21:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
In order to recreate the history section, I first started collecting some more quotes:
Comments:
Comment:
This is just a start for now. -- Mdd ( talk) 20:09, 9 November 2009 (UTC) -- Mdd ( talk) 20:09, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
In "The Project Management Institute : In the Beginning..." Wideman (1985) explains the background those five volunteers mentioned in Sliger & Broderick (2008):
According to Wideman three of them first met fall of 1967 in Philadelphia, when Engman from Houston visited Snyder and Gallanger at the SK & F laboratories in Philadelphia.
Furthermore according to Wideman (1985):
According to Wideman (1985) "on the evening of the first day [of that two day seminar], October 9th, at the American Hotel in Atlanta, the existence of the Project Management Institute was announced to a group of approximately eighty people. A total of twenty-four "founders" joined the new Institute on the spot".
Interesting in this matter was the New Orleans meeting, February, 1968, five objectives of the institute to come were drawn in the minutes, four out of five already listed by the US NBS (1975):
Now I guess I missed a year here, because according to Wideman (1985) "a news release on October 21, 1969, announcing the launching of the new organizationlaunching of the new organization designed to serve the interests of individuals active in the field of project management"...!? -- Mdd ( talk) 22:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect PMI® and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 15#PMI® until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. BD2412 T 05:07, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
The
Wikimedia Foundation's
Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see
WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see
WP:COIRESPONSE.
|
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
Hi! I'm Acacia, an employee at PMI. I signed up for Wikipedia to request a couple of updates to this article. I read about conflict-of-interest editing, and since this article is about my employer, I will only suggest changes here and won't directly edit the article. Hopefully, the two changes I am seeking will be pretty straightforward.
If there's anything else I can provide, please let me know. Thanks very much!
PMIAcacia (
talk)
20:41, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
Hi! Acacia from PMI again. I'd like to suggest adding a brief mention of our CEO to the article's History section:
References
I won't make this change because of my conflict of interest. Thanks very much! PMIAcacia ( talk) 18:58, 21 December 2022 (UTC)