PMCD Report 2004 - Knowledge...

Project Management Competency Development Hong Kong Report

2004

Project Management Institute Hong Kong Chapter

Project Management Competency Development Report

©2004 Project Management Institute Hong Kong Chapter

Table of Contents

1 Executive Summary............................................................................................6

2 Introduction .........................................................................................................7

3 Methodology .......................................................................................................9

4 Demographic Assessment of Participants ........................................................11

4.1 Level of education attained........................................................................11

4.2 Gender.......................................................................................................12

4.3 Age range ..................................................................................................12

4.4 Job experience ..........................................................................................13

4.5 Project management experience ...............................................................14

4.6 Current job description...............................................................................15

4.7 Industry sector ...........................................................................................16

4.8 Project management professional qualifications........................................18

5 Assessment Results for Project Management Processes.................................19

5.1 Initiating .....................................................................................................19

5.2 Planning.....................................................................................................20

5.3 Executing...................................................................................................21

5.4 Controlling .................................................................................................22

5.5 Closing.......................................................................................................23

5.6 Knowledge (Proficiency) Process Summary..............................................24

5.7 Performance (Task) Process Summary.....................................................25

6 Summary of findings .........................................................................................26

6.1 Comparison of PMCD scores between 2004 and 2003.............................26

6.1.1 Section 1 – Knowledge (Proficiency) ..................................................27

6.1.2 Section 2 – Performance (Task) .........................................................29

7 Top responses found during the 2004 survey...................................................31

7.1 Questions with greatest number of ‘High’ Responses ...............................31

7.1.1 Initiating ..............................................................................................31

7.1.2 Planning .............................................................................................31

7.1.3 Executing............................................................................................31

7.1.4 Controlling ..........................................................................................31

7.1.5 Closing ...............................................................................................31

7.2 Questions with greatest number of ‘Low’ Responses ................................32



7.2.1 Initiating ..............................................................................................32

7.2.2 Planning .............................................................................................32

7.2.3 Executing............................................................................................32

7.2.4 Controlling ..........................................................................................32

7.2.5 Closing ...............................................................................................32

8 Comparison with problematic areas found during 2003 survey ........................33

8.1 PM Processes used...................................................................................33

8.2 Risk and Change Management in the 2004 survey ...................................34

8.2.1 Change Management .........................................................................34

8.2.2 Risk Management...............................................................................35

8.3 Documenting Lessons Learnt ....................................................................36

9 Conclusions ......................................................................................................37

Appendix A: PMCD Knowledge (Proficiency) Results 2004.....................................39

Appendix B: PMCD Knowledge (Proficiency) Results 2003.....................................44

Appendix C: PMCD Performance (Task) Results 2004 ...........................................46

Appendix D: PMCD Performance (Task) Results 2003 ...........................................51

Appendix E: PMCD Survey Invitation Letter 2004....................................................53

Appendix F: PMCD Survey Section 3 Questionnaire 2004 ......................................54

Appendix G: Acknowledgements .............................................................................55

References ..............................................................................................................55

List of Tables

Table 1: Industries from the Others section of the survey........................................17

Table 2: Average Knowledge (Proficiency) Scores from 2004 and 2003 .................27

Table 3: Average Performance (Task) Scores from 2004 and 2003 ........................29

Table 4: Results of Knowledge Scores Ranked in Descending Order (2004)..........43

Table 5: Results of Knowledge Scores Ranked in Descending Order (2003)..........45

Table 6: Results of Performance Scores Ranked in Descending Order (2004) .......50

Table 7: Results of Performance Scores Ranked in Descending Order (2003) .......52



Table of Figures

Figure 1: Components of Project Success.................................................................7

Figure 2: Level of education attained chart ..............................................................11

Figure 3: Gender of PMCD respondents..................................................................12

Figure 4: Age range of respondents........................................................................12

Figure 5: Number of people with their years of work experience .............................13

Figure 6: Number of people with their years of project management experience ....14

Figure 7: Number of respondents with specific Job description ...............................15

Figure 8: Number of respondents working in a specific Industry Sector ..................16

Figure 9: Knowledge (Proficiency) area results for Initiating Processes ..................19

Figure 10: Performance (Task) area results for Initiating Processes .......................19

Figure 11: Knowledge (Proficiency) area results for Planning Processes................20

Figure 12: Performance (Task) area results for Planning Processes.......................20

Figure 13: Knowledge (Proficiency) area results for Executing Processes ..............21

Figure 14: Performance (Task) area results for Executing Processes .....................21

Figure 15: Knowledge (Proficiency) area results for Controlling Processes.............22

Figure 16: Performance (Task) area results for Controlling Processes....................22

Figure 17: Knowledge (Proficiency) area results for Closing Processes..................23

Figure 18: Performance (Task) area results for Closing Processes.........................23

Figure 19: Knowledge (Proficiency) Summary for Five PM Processes ....................24

Figure 20: Performance (Task) Summary for Five PM Processes ...........................25

Figure 21: Five PM Processes for Knowledge (Proficiency) area in 2004 & 2003 ...27

Figure 22: Percentage grading for the Knowledge (Proficiency) area in 2004 .........28

Figure 23: Percentage grading for the Knowledge (Proficiency) area in 2003 .........28

Figure 24: Five PM Processes for Performance (Task) area in 2004 & 2003 ..........29

Figure 25: Percentage grading for the Performance (Task) area in 2004 ................30

Figure 26: Percentage grading for the Performance (Task) area in 2003 ................30

Figure 27: Summary of ‘Low’ and ‘High’ responses for five PM Processes .............33

Figure 28: Comparison of Change related questions compared to overall average.34



Figure 29: Comparison of Risk related questions compared to the overall average 35

Figure 30: ‘Documenting Lessons Learnt’ related questions compared to the overall average.............................................................................................................36



1 Executive Summary With the growing competitiveness in a global economy, and increasing pressure on time-to-market, corporations are implementing complex integrated solutions to enable their business strategies. Consistent Project Management Practice is essential, and an individual Project Manager’s competence plays an important part in this. Under the Hong Kong Government’s Professional Services Development Assistant Scheme (PSDAS) initiative, the Project Management Institute (PMI) Hong Kong Chapter invited various Hong Kong based companies to take part in a Project Management Practice Assessment. The objective of the assessments was to identify the baseline application of Project Management Practice by individuals in Hong Kong. The Hong Kong companies selected by PMI Hong Kong Chapter were targeted to include more industry sectors than in 2003, and a greater number of responses, with a much broader spread of occupations, were obtained in 2004. The research concluded that:

• Formal project management practices are used at varying levels by individuals in Hong Kong companies, based on their knowledge and experience

• The overall results for the knowledge dimension were ‘average’, though 34% produced ‘above average’ scores, compared to 49% in the 2003 survey

• The overall results for the performance dimension were found to be average, with 41% achieving a score of ‘above average’, compared to 69% at ‘above average’ in 2003. There was also a lower overall of ‘average’ compared to ‘above average’ in 2003

• It appears that documenting lessons learnt and change management (highlighted as areas of concern from a large survey sample in 2003) have improved during 2004. However, areas such as risk management, cost change systems, configuration management and an integrated change control system for scope, cost, schedule, etc appeared to be used less.

• It must be remembered that only 78 respondents were actually surveyed in 2003, compared to 195 in 2004 (i.e. only 40% of the 2004 total were surveyed in 2003), so this will result in a skew in any comparison

• The 195 respondents sample size is still considered relatively small to provide definitive conclusions, so work will be continued by PMI Hong Kong Chapter in 2005 to increase the number of entries into the database to allow benchmarking.



2 Introduction The Project Management Institute’s first standard to address the theme of ‘Improving the Performance of Project Personnel’ was the Project Manager Competency Development (PMCD) Framework. This has been developed “to provide both individuals and organizations with guidance on how to manage the professional development of the project manager”1. The work took five years to prepare and was first released by the PMI in 2002. The following references were used to develop this framework:-

• PMBOK® Guide – 2000 Edition

• Project Management Professional Role Delineation Study

• Project Management Experience and Knowledge Self-Assessment Manual

• National Competency Standards for Project Management, endorsed by AIPM

• Competency dictionary developed by Lyle and Signe Spencer (1993) The standard provides guidance on defining project manager competence in the three dimensions below, which then forms a basis for project performance (see Figure 1).

• Knowledge

• Performance

• Personal

Individual Project

Management Competence

ProjectPerformance

OrganizationalProject

ManagementMaturity and

Capability

OrganizationalProject

Performance

ProjectSuccess

Project Manager Competency

PMCD Framework

Organizational Maturity

OPM3

Provides a basis for

Provides a basis for

Has a major impact upon

Has a major impact upon

ContingenciesProject types and characteristics,

project life cycles, project structures…

Moderator variables

Figure 1: Components of Project Success2

1 “Project Manager Competency Development (PMCD) Framework”, PMI. 2002. P1 2 “Project Manager Competency Development (PMCD) Framework”, PMI. 2002. P4



The PMCD framework was developed to enable it to be applied generically to all project managers, regardless of the nature, type, size, or complexity of projects that they may be engaged in managing. The PMI organizes the processes necessary to fulfil the aims of project management into the following 5 groups 3

• Initiating – authorizing the project or phase

• Planning – defining and refining objectives into a project plan and then selecting the best way forward to attain those objectives

• Executing – coordinating people and other resources to implement the project plan

• Controlling – ensuring that project objectives are met by monitoring and measuring any variances from the plan, in order to take corrective action

• Closing – formally gaining acceptance of the project or phase.

The processes above are also used in the Project Manager Competency Development (PMCD) Framework to form “competency clusters” 4 when assessing project management knowledge and performance competencies. Therefore, these processes are used to group the responses found in the assessment results to provide a consistent method of analysis.

3 “Project Management Body of Knowledge” 2002 edition, PMI. 2002. P30 4 “Project Manager Competency Development (PMCD) Framework”, PMI. 2002. P6



3 Methodology Following on from work carried out by the PMI Hong Kong Chapter in 2003, and with a second round of Hong Kong Government Professional Services Development Assistant Scheme (PSDAS) backing, the PMCD survey for 2004 was intended to expand the number of people and also develop industry focus into different areas. Rather than using primarily project mangers from the information technology industries in Hong Kong as in 2003, this was expanded in 2004 to include engineering, telecommunications, utilities, etc. The industry background data of the participants was collected wherever possible and a review of this data can be seen in Section 4. A database of results has now been created, which now consists of entries for 200 project managers. This database is intended to provide a snapshot of the current competency of individual project managers in Hong Kong. This database will be further developed in 2005, which additional support from the PSDAS initiative already being secured to finance. The first dimension tested in the assessment was knowledge, which consisted of 234 questions across the five Project Management Processes mentioned in Section 2. These questions are intended to assess the proficiency of the project manager to ascertain their individual skills for successfully delivering project management services. The second area assessed was the performance dimension, which consisted of 35 questions across the five Project Management Processes. These are required for assessment of the major work areas and specific activity tasks. The task statements in the questionnaire described the activities, as well as how and why the activity should be completed. The third section of the survey consisted of 9 questions to ascertain the background of the individuals that were completing the survey. The target respondents were from a wide range of industries in Hong Kong including the following:-

• Construction / Architecture

• Engineering

• Finance & Banking

• Information Technology,

• Logistics

• Telecommunications

• Transportation

• And other sectors such as design & manufacturing, public sector, utilities, insurance, etc.



Also additional demographic information was collected to give an overview of the type and experience of the participants to record the following areas:-

• Highest level of education attained

• Gender and age range

• Years of job experience

• Years of project management experience

• A brief description of their current job

• Whether the participant possessed any project management professional qualifications.

The results and conclusions to both of these dimensions and also the individual project management processes are now provided in the following sections of this report.



4 Demographic Assessment of Participants As an additional part of the surveys carried out in 2004, a Section Three survey form (see Appendix F) was added to help capture some basic details of the project managers taking part in completing the survey. This was entirely voluntary to fill in and hence not all of the 195 people involved completed all of the details. The results from the responses received can be seen in sections 4.1 to 4.8.

4.1 Level of education attained As can be seen from Figure 2 below, a large proportion of the people who completed the PMCD survey in 2004 have been educated to Bachelor degree level or above. Around 42% have also attained a Masters Degree level education.

0

10

20

30

40

5060

70

80

90

100

Bac

helo

rde

gree

Dip

lom

a /

cert

ifica

te

Mas

ter d

egre

eor

abo

ve

Seco

ndar

ysc

hool

Figure 2: Level of education attained chart



4.2 Gender The people who took the survey were mostly male (69%). This is not indicative of the proportion of the gender of project managers in Hong Kong, though should be considered when evaluating the results shown in Section 5, as well as in PMCD data that needs to be collected in Hong Kong in subsequent years.

31%

69%

FemaleMale

Figure 3: Gender of PMCD respondents

4.3 Age range The largest percentage of the respondents to the PMCD survey (59%) was found to be in their thirties. It was also found that 20% were 40 or above and 21% were under 30.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

15-2

4

25-2

9

30-3

4

35-3

9

40-4

4

45-4

9

50 o

rab

ove

Figure 4: Age range of respondents



4.4 Job experience The number of people with years of job experience seemed to increase as the number of years of experience got higher. It can be seen from Figure 5 below that 51% had both 11-15 years and over 16 years work experience. The largest level of work experience was found to be in the range of 7-10 years which was 30%.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1-3 yrs 4-6 yrs 7-10 yrs 11-15 yrs 16 orabove

yrs

Figure 5: Number of people with their years of work experience



4.5 Project management experience The number of people with years of project management experience seemed to decrease as the number of years of experience got higher. As can be seen from Figure 6 below, around 46% of people had between 1-3 years project management experience, with only 2% having 16 or more years experience. It is interesting to compare these results with those in Section 4.4 above, which show a reverse in the level of experience. This may indicate that project management is a relatively new discipline and that the respondents in the Hong Kong survey have only recently started to embrace it as a management discipline.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1-3 yrs 4-6 yrs 7-10 yrs 11-15 yrs 16 orabove

yrs

Figure 6: Number of people with their years of project management experience



4.6 Current job description When the PMCD survey respondents were asked to comment on their day-to-day job function activities, most (46%) advised that they were in a Engineering or Technical field. This was followed by those fulfilling a Management role at 27%.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Con

sulti

ng

Engi

neer

ing

/Te

chni

cal

Fina

nce

/A

ccou

ntin

g

Man

agem

ent

Oth

ers

(ple

ase

spec

ify)

Sale

s &

Mar

ketin

g

Figure 7: Number of respondents with specific Job description



4.7 Industry sector As can be seen in Figure 8 below, most of the respondents from a single Industry Sector were again from the Information Technology industry at 27%. This was, however, less than the 100% IT people who formed the respondents in the 2003 PMCD research.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70C

onst

ruct

ion

/A

rchi

tect

ure

Engi

neer

ing

Fina

nce

& B

anki

ng

Info

rmat

ion

Tech

nolo

gy

Logi

stic

s

Oth

ers

(ple

ase

spec

ify)

Tele

com

mun

icat

ions

Tran

spor

tatio

n

Figure 8: Number of respondents working in a specific Industry Sector

The “Others (please specify)” response drew 32% of the respondents’ answers and the full list of Industry Sectors mentioned by the respondents can be seen in Table 1 overleaf.



Industry No of people Administration 1 Car servicing 1 Design & Manufacturing 2 Education 4 Energy 1 Government 2 Govt. Trade Promotion 1 Hotel Industry 1 Insurance 2 Interior Design 1 Legal 1 Manufacturing 6 Marketing Research 1 Media & Promotion 1 Merchandising 1 Management Consultant 1 MSF Consulting 1 Multi Media 1 Personal care, Health care & e-commerce 1 Power Generation Industry 1 Power Industry 2 Printing 1 Procurement-Public Utility 1 Property Agency 1 Property Development 1 Property Management 1 Public Sector (Government) 2 Public Utility 1 Science 1 Semi-Government 1 Services (Trade Promotion) 1 System/Product Development 1 Trade Promotion 2 Trading 3 Trading Sales & Distribution 1 Urban Renewal Authority 1 Utilities 6

Table 1: Industries from the Others section of the survey



4.8 Project management professional qualifications Nearly all of the project managers that took part did not have a professional project management qualification, though some were in the process of studying for PMI’s Project Management Professional (PMP) qualification. Some of the additional qualifications that a small percentage of respondents advised they had included: CISSP, MCDBA, MCSE and Prince2.



5 Assessment Results for Project Management Processes

5.1 Initiating The individual results for the Initiating processes question during the assessment can be seen in Figure 9 and Figure 10 below. It can be seen from the results that both the Knowledge (Proficiency) and Performance (Task) areas produced a similar spread of results. There were more high responses than low, at 32% and 36% respectively, with medium usage of Initiating PM processes being around 50% in both cases.

18%

50%

32%

LowMedium

High

Figure 9: Knowledge (Proficiency) area results for Initiating Processes

15%

49%

36%

LowMedium

High

Figure 10: Performance (Task) area results for Initiating Processes



5.2 Planning When looking at the results for Planning processes in Figure 11 and Figure 12 below, it can be seen from the results for the two dimensions vary more than was observed with Initiating processes. Knowledge (Proficiency) questions assessed appear to have produced an overall higher number of Low responses at 25% than can be seen in the Performance (Task) area at 18%. The percentage of High responses was also found to be lower at 26% for the Knowledge area compared to 30% for the Performance related area.

25%

49%

26%

LowMediumHigh

Figure 11: Knowledge (Proficiency) area results for Planning Processes

18%

52%

30%

LowMedium

High

Figure 12: Performance (Task) area results for Planning Processes



5.3 Executing It can be seen from the results below that the Performance (Task) responses to the assessment in Figure 14 produced a higher overall response than was observed in the Knowledge (Proficiency) area in Figure 13 for Executing processes. In total, 39% of respondents to the Performance (Task) questions advised a high usage, with a relatively smaller 15% seen for Low usage responses.

24%

47%

29%

LowMedium

High

Figure 13: Knowledge (Proficiency) area results for Executing Processes

15%

46%

39%LowMedium

High

Figure 14: Performance (Task) area results for Executing Processes



5.4 Controlling The Controlling process results in Figure 15 and Figure 16 below have produced a similar spread of results for both Knowledge (Proficiency) and Performance (Task) dimensions respectively. However, there is a slightly higher concentration in the High response for the Knowledge (Proficiency) area.

27%

48%

25%

LowMedium

High

Figure 15: Knowledge (Proficiency) area results for Controlling Processes

27%

49%

24%

LowMedium

High

Figure 16: Performance (Task) area results for Controlling Processes



5.5 Closing The individual results for Closing processes are shown in Figure 17 and Figure 18 below. It can be seen from the results that both the Knowledge (Proficiency) and Performance (Task) areas produced a similar spread of results. However, the Performance (Task) area produced a slightly higher percentage of High responses of 33% compared to 30% for the former.

23%

47%

30%

LowMedium

High

Figure 17: Knowledge (Proficiency) area results for Closing Processes

22%

45%

33%

LowMedium

High

Figure 18: Performance (Task) area results for Closing Processes



5.6 Knowledge (Proficiency) Process Summary When looking at the percentage responses of Low, Medium or High usage of the five PMI Project Management processes in the Knowledge (Proficiency) area, a summary can be seen in Figure 19 below. The following points can be noted:-

• The largest High responses were seen in Initiating and Closing processes at 32% and 30% respectively.

• The largest Low responses were seen in Controlling and Planning processes at 27% and 25% respectively.

• In each case the most frequent response for the five PM processes was Medium, with percentage responses ranging from 47%-50%.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Initiating Planning Executing Controlling Closing

Low %Medium %High %

Figure 19: Knowledge (Proficiency) Summary for Five PM Processes



5.7 Performance (Task) Process Summary A summary of the percentage responses of Low, Medium or High usage of the five PMI Project Management processes in the Performance (Task) area, can be seen in Figure 20 below. The following points were observed from the data:-

• The largest High responses were seen in Executing and Initiating processes at 39% and 36% respectively.

• The largest Low responses were seen in Controlling and Closing processes at 27% and 22% respectively.

• In each case the most frequent response for the five PM processes was Medium, with percentage responses ranging from 45%-52%.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%


Low %Medium %High %

Figure 20: Performance (Task) Summary for Five PM Processes



6 Summary of findings

6.1 Comparison of PMCD scores between 2004 and 2003 In total in 2004, 195 project managers were assessed compared to only 78 in 2003 and the results were tabulated into the tables that can be seen in Appendices A, B, C and D. To enable a comparison, the PMI PMCD score system was used as described in the Project Manager Competency Development (PMCD) Framework. This enables a score to be generated depending on the responses to questions relating to the five PM processes in both the Knowledge (Proficiency) and Performance (Task) areas. The total scores for each individual were assessed using the following scale:-

• 150 or above = Above Average

• 117 to 149 = Average

• 116 or below = Below Average A summary of the knowledge and performance dimensions considered during the assessment are shown below in sections 6.1.1 and 6.1.2.



6.1.1 Section 1 – Knowledge (Proficiency) The average scores obtained in the Knowledge section during the 2004 survey of the assessment are shown below in Table 2. Overall, the resulting grade was seen to be ‘average’. The figures obtained in 2003 are shown for comparison.

Year of Survey

Initiating Score

Planning Score

Executing Score

Controlling Score

Closing Score

Overall Score

PMI Grading

2004 8.5 30.1 59.0 30.8 8.2 136.6 Average

2003 9.2 31.2 64.7 34.1 8.8 148.0 Average

Table 2: Average Knowledge (Proficiency) Scores from 2004 and 2003

It can be seen from Figure 21 below that the average scores obtained from the database created in 2004 were found to be lower in each of the five PM processes of the Knowledge (Proficiency) area. However, it must be remembered that only 40% of the total number of 2004 respondents were surveyed in 2003.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70


2004

2003

Figure 21: Five PM Processes for Knowledge (Proficiency) area in 2004 & 2003



Using the PMI’s information, it can be seen from Figure 22 below that 28% of the respondents in the 2004 database had scores ‘below average’, whilst 34% were ‘above average’.

28%

38%

34%

Below AvgAverageAbove Avg

Figure 22: Percentage grading for the Knowledge (Proficiency) area in 2004

It can be seen from Figure 23 below that in 2003, 49% of those assessed achieved a rating of ‘above average’ in the knowledge area, with 33% achieving ‘average’ and 18% ‘below average’.

Figure 23: Percentage grading for the Knowledge (Proficiency) area in 2003

18%

33%

49%Below AvgAverageAbove Avg



6.1.2 Section 2 – Performance (Task) The full list of scores from each of the 195 respondents from 2004, ranked in order of overall score, can be seen in Table 6 of Appendix C. The average scores in the performance section of the assessment are shown below in Table 3, using the scores obtained from 2003. Overall, the resulting PMI grade was seen to be ‘average’. Year of Survey

Initiating Score

Planning Score

Executing Score

Controlling Score

Closing Score

Overall Score PMI Grading

2004 8.8 30.9 64.0 29.9 8.4 142 Average

2003 9.7 33.6 71.4 33.1 9.2 157.0 Above Average

Table 3: Average Performance (Task) Scores from 2004 and 2003

It can be seen from Figure 24 below that the average scores obtained from the database created in 2004 were found to be lower in each of the five PM processes of the Performance (Task) area. However, it must be remembered that only 40% of the total number of 2004 respondents were surveyed in 2003.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80


2004

2003

Figure 24: Five PM Processes for Performance (Task) area in 2004 & 2003



The number of respondents for the Performance (Task) area seen to be achieving an ‘above average’ grade can be seen from Figure 25 below to be 41%, which is higher than in the Knowledge (Proficiency) area in section 6.1.1.

21%

38%

41%Below AvgAverageAbove Avg

Figure 25: Percentage grading for the Performance (Task) area in 2004

In the figures obtained from 2003, it can be seen from Figure 26 below that 62% of those assessed achieved a rating of ‘above average’ in the performance area, with 27% achieving ‘average’ and 12% ‘below average’.

Figure 26: Percentage grading for the Performance (Task) area in 2003

12%

27%

62%

Below AvgAverageAbove Avg



7 Top responses found during the 2004 survey The following section looks at the top 10 ‘High’ and ‘Low’ responses to help identify project management areas which can be seen to be either well used or poorly utilized in Hong Kong according to the survey. It can also be noted from the top 10 ‘Low’ responses that the majority were from the Planning process area.

7.1 Questions with greatest number of ‘High’ Responses From the database of 195 responses, the following areas within the five PMI processes were found in the top 10 of questions in the survey with ‘High’ responses. These are, therefore, areas where there is a higher usage according to the respondents to the survey in Hong Kong.

7.1.1 Initiating Within the Initiating processes it was observed that defining project phases scored the highest number, with 53% of those surveyed choosing ‘High’. Also within Initiating, it was observed that determining deliverables by creating a scope of work or reviewing requirements and determining project goals in relation to stakeholder needs were also high with 51% and 50% of those polled advising these were carried out regularly during projects.

7.1.2 Planning Top in the Planning process was seen to be the creation of an activity list by breaking down work packages and the development of an estimated schedule of activity durations, both of which rated 51% ‘High’. Identifying links between these activities during activity sequencing was also in the top 10 with 50% of respondents choosing ‘High’ and 47% observe a ‘High’ usage of responsibility relationships between the key stakeholders on the project.

7.1.3 Executing Two questions from the Executing process were in the top 10 of high responses, with monitoring progress to ensure that activities are completed in line with project goals at 49% ‘High’ and determining that the product of the work was completed correctly at 47%.

7.1.4 Controlling None of the Controlling process questions appeared in the top ten of ‘High’ responses.

7.1.5 Closing One question from the Closing process was found in the top 10 of ‘High’ response with obtaining formal approval from project stakeholders receiving a total of 49% ‘High’.



7.2 Questions with greatest number of ‘Low’ Responses From the database of 195 responses, the following areas within the five processes were found in the top 10 of questions in the survey with ‘Low’ responses. These are, therefore, areas where there is a lower usage according to the respondents to the survey in Hong Kong.

7.2.1 Initiating None of the Initiating process questions appeared in the top ten of ‘Low’ responses.

7.2.2 Planning The Planning process was seen to produce the most responses to questions with a rating of ‘Low’, with 7 out of the top 10 questions being from this process. The highest rating of ‘Low’ was seen to be 67% obtained for a question relating to the use of simulations in projects such as Monte Carlo analysis, etc and utilizing simulations to analyze project system performance also due a ‘Low’ rating score of 52%. There were several planning activities relating to cost found in the top 10 questions that drew a response of ‘Low’. These were relating to questions on:-

• whether multiple cost baselines were used to evaluate cost performance over time at a rating of 52% ‘Low’;

• if a cost change control plan was developed at 51% and;

• if a chart of accounts was used to evaluate costs relating to resources required for the project at 48% ‘Low’.

Developing a stakeholder management plan and a cost management plan were also in the top 10 of ‘Low’ rated responses, with 47% and 46% respectively of those surveyed.

7.2.3 Executing One question from the Executing process area was found in the top 10 ‘Low’ responses was found to be relating to warranties, liabilities, insurance, etc related activities at 47% ‘Low’

7.2.4 Controlling The areas of cost and project analysis also scored in the overall top 10 of ‘Low’ responses in the Controlling process area as well. The implementation of a cost change system rated with a 48% ‘Low’ response and the use of Pareto analysis, cause/effect diagrams, trend analysis, etc rated at 47%.

7.2.5 Closing None of the Closing process questions appeared in the top ten of ‘Low’ responses.



8 Comparison with problematic areas found during 2003 survey

From a PMI Hong Kong report produced from the results of a larger scale project management survey carried out in Hong Kong, Beijing & Shanghai in 2003, it was observed that certain areas were not performed very well as follows:-

• All companies were good at Initiating and Executing projects but Planning, Controlling, and Closing formal procedures were less used;

• Most companies initially budgeted projects well but had problems with both risk and change management;

• Documenting lessons learned was not performed after the project was completed;

In the following sections, these 3 points are explored within the results of the 195 entries from the survey in 2004.

8.1 PM Processes used From the data assessed in sections 5.6 and 5.7 previously, it was observed that the survey showed better responses in the Initiating and Executing processes, whilst there were lower responses in Planning and Controlling Processes. Closing was high in the Knowledge area but low in the Performance area. These results suggest a similar overall view of project management process usage in Hong Kong as observed during 2003. This can be confirmed by observing a summary of combined Knowledge and Performance ‘Low’ and ‘High’ ratings for the five processes in Figure 27 below. Initiating, Executing and Closing had the most ‘High’ responses and least amount of ‘Low’ responses. Planning and Controlling processes both produced the most ‘Low’ responses and least ‘High’ responses. This also appears to support the conclusion of PM process usage from 2003.

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%


Low %High %

Figure 27: Summary of ‘Low’ and ‘High’ responses for five PM Processes



8.2 Risk and Change Management in the 2004 survey

8.2.1 Change Management In the survey there were many individual questions concerning various aspects of Change Management, with most relating to Controlling processes. The responses received in the survey are assessed below to investigate whether the initial findings in 2003 could be qualified. As can be seen from Figure 28 below, there were slightly more ‘Low’ responses on Change Management questions at 28% compared with the overall average of 24% and there were less ‘High responses at 24% compared to the overall average of 27%.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Low Medium High

Change relatedquestionsOverall responsesto all questions

Figure 28: Comparison of Change related questions compared to overall average

There were several areas of Change Management that received a larger percentage of ‘High’ responses. These included the determination of the need for change with request documentation being completed gaining 44% and then subsequent change verification at 45%. Both these questions only received 10% of the ‘Low’ response. Change requests received during work processes gained 37% ‘High’ use responses, with assessment for required document changes, project scope changes and determination of the need for schedule changes all at 34%. However, other questions showed that certain areas of Change Management and Configuration Management appeared to be less used. The following questions have been assessed based on the larger percentage of ‘Low’ responses that were received in the 2004 survey. Developing a cost change control plan was the least used with a 51% ‘Low’ total, closely followed by the implementation of a cost change system at 48%. Other large percentage ‘Low’ responses were again seen in the cost area, with integrating costs into the entire change control system at 44% ‘Low’ and revision of cost estimates against baseline and integrating cost changes with other project controls at 36% and 37% ‘Low’ respectively. Finally, the implementation of a contract change system also received a large ‘Low’ response at 45%.



8.2.2 Risk Management In the survey there were also many individual questions relating to the various aspects of Risk Management, with most found in the Planning process area. The responses received in the survey are assessed below to investigate whether the initial findings in 2003 (i.e. that Risk Management was less used) could be qualified. As can be seen from Figure 29 below, there were more ‘Low’ responses on Risk Management questions at 29% compared with the overall average of 24%. There were seen to be less ‘High responses at 21% when compared to both Change Management at 24% and also the overall average at 27%.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Low Medium High

Risk relatedquestionsOverall responsesto all questions

Figure 29: Comparison of Risk related questions compared to the overall average

Overall its was seen that the level of percentage ‘High’ responses for Risk Management questions was lower than for Change Management questions. The highest number of ‘High’ responses at 33% was for identifying possible sources of risk events and quantifying these risk events received 31% ‘High’. To then go on and develop risk responses for the risk events got a ‘High’ rating of 30%. Several areas of the Risk Management questions received larger ‘Low’ scores, though the percentages were slightly lower overall than for Change Management. These included deciding whether risk events warranted a response at 43% ‘Low’ and quantifying risk events for comparison with a risk plan at 39% ‘Low’. Using procurement feasibility as a risk reduction tool received a ‘Low’ score of 41% and communicating the limitations of quantified risks to avoid false impressions of risk assessment reliability received 40% of ‘Low’ responses in the survey.



8.3 Documenting Lessons Learnt In the survey, there were less questions concerning ‘Documenting Lessons Learnt’, though still sufficient to produce some analysis as below. The questions were mainly in the Controlling and Closing PMI process areas. From Figure 30 below, it can be seen that the percentage responses for ‘Documenting Lessons Learnt’ questions were similar to the overall average, though with an increase of 2% in both the ‘Low’ and ‘High’ responses figures.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Low Medium High

DocumentingLessons Learntrelated questions

Overall responsesto all questions

Figure 30: ‘Documenting Lessons Learnt’ related questions compared to the overall average

Looking in more detail ‘Documenting Lessons Learnt’ received a ‘High’ response of 32% and using this for improved project performance got a ‘High’ response of 34%. However, when ‘Documenting Lessons Learnt’ relating to activities such as causes of cost changes a ‘High’ response of only 18% was attained compared to a ‘Low’ figure of 27%. There was a similar situation with ‘Documenting Lessons Learnt’ relating to activities such as causes of schedule changes, which attained a ‘Low’ response of 27%.



9 Conclusions This paper concludes that formal project management procedures are carried out at various levels by the individuals assessed in Hong Kong companies. The use of formal procedures does not necessarily ensure the success of a project, as formal processes may be less important than say the project manager who ensures the project objectives are met. The individuals chosen for the assessment in 2003 were from Hong Kong companies that had seen the successful implementation of projects in the past. In 2004, the number of people and the industries covered was increased, so there is a much greater spread of responses, which will help to provide a more accurate picture in future for benchmarking purposes. It is important to remember that the 2003 results were also only based on 78 respondents to the PMCD survey, compared to the 195 now entered into the database throughout 2004. The survey showed better responses in Initiating and Executing, whilst was lower in Planning and Controlling Processes. Closing was high in the Knowledge area but low in the Performance area. Change requests and verification appear to be handled better than was thought from the survey carried out in 2003. However, cost change systems, configuration management and an integrated change control system for scope, cost, schedule, etc appears to be used less. Documenting lessons learnt, which was also used less in the 2003 survey, appears to be carried out in a lot of the surveyed organizations to some degree, though is lower when related to change management during the controlling process. It can be seen from the results that a relatively high number of respondents achieved an ‘above average’ rating score. A result of 34% in 2004 (49% in 2003) was recorded for knowledge areas that are related to the individuals understanding of the project management processes that can help the successful delivery of projects. This was improved in the performance area, with 41% achieving a score ‘above average’ in performing activities to the meet the expectations required for the success of the project. However, it was noted that the scores with on average lower than that recorded in 2003, though it must be remembered that only 40% of the total number of 2004 respondents were actually surveyed in 2003. These results suggest that the individuals assessed in Hong Kong have developed greater experience to complete project tasks and work activities, but have less knowledge competence in management areas such as the nine areas specified by the PMI for successful project management. This research carried out during 2003 was intended only as a first step into studying the individual project management competence in Hong Kong. In 2004, a larger number of respondents were surveyed and a new database has been created to record the data received from the surveys. Further study and evaluation of Project



Manager Competency Development is now required for the benchmarking in Hong Kong to be more accurate Therefore, in 2005, a third round of PSDAS funding in Hong Kong will again enable further additions to be added to the database of responses created in 2004. It is hoped that in the long term this data could then be used to formulate a baseline for project management usage in Hong Kong to compare with future surveys and assessments. As well as individual assessments, it is now also possible to compare these results with those obtained from performing a PMI Organizational Project Management Maturity Model (OPM3™) study of the organization. This will allow both individuals and organizations to further develop their project management services in conjunction with each other and the PMCD framework.



Appendix A: PMCD Knowledge (Proficiency) Results 2004

Rank Initiating Score

Planning Score

Executing Score

Controlling Score

Closing Score


1 11.9 45.0 86.4 46.5 11.9 201.7 Above Avg 2 10.8 44.0 86.4 46.2 11.9 199.3 Above Avg 3 10.1 42.2 85.7 45.2 11.9 195.1 Above Avg 4 10.8 42.8 84.2 44.9 11.5 194.3 Above Avg 5 11.2 39.5 82.8 44.2 11.9 189.5 Above Avg 6 11.5 40.3 81.4 44.6 11.5 189.3 Above Avg 7 11.5 41.5 81.4 42.6 11.2 188.1 Above Avg 8 10.4 41.3 80.6 42.9 10.8 186.1 Above Avg 9 11.5 40.6 77.0 43.9 11.2 184.2 Above Avg 10 10.8 40.4 79.9 42.9 10.1 184.1 Above Avg 11 9.7 41.0 77.8 43.6 11.9 184.0 Above Avg 12 11.2 41.8 78.5 41.3 10.8 183.5 Above Avg 13 10.4 39.6 75.6 44.9 11.5 182.0 Above Avg 14 9.4 37.0 79.9 42.6 11.9 180.7 Above Avg 15 7.9 40.2 82.1 38.0 10.8 179.0 Above Avg 16 11.2 38.6 79.2 38.3 11.5 178.8 Above Avg 17 9.4 35.0 79.2 43.6 10.1 177.2 Above Avg 18 9.4 36.1 85.0 35.0 11.5 176.9 Above Avg 19 11.2 35.4 76.3 41.9 11.9 176.7 Above Avg 20 10.4 39.4 75.6 40.6 10.4 176.4 Above Avg 21 10.4 40.3 75.6 38.6 10.4 175.4 Above Avg 22 9.7 34.6 75.6 43.2 11.9 175.0 Above Avg 23 9.7 38.2 75.6 40.3 10.8 174.5 Above Avg 24 10.1 35.9 72.7 42.9 11.9 173.5 Above Avg 25 9.4 32.3 77.0 43.2 11.5 173.4 Above Avg 26 9.4 34.7 78.5 39.3 10.1 171.9 Above Avg 27 11.5 38.9 74.9 36.3 9.7 171.3 Above Avg 28 11.5 41.2 74.2 36.3 7.9 171.1 Above Avg 29 10.8 34.2 77.8 38.9 9.0 170.7 Above Avg 30 10.4 34.9 73.4 40.6 10.8 170.2 Above Avg 31 9.7 31.9 76.3 39.9 10.8 168.7 Above Avg 32 10.1 36.4 75.6 36.6 9.7 168.4 Above Avg 33 10.1 34.9 73.4 39.3 9.7 167.4 Above Avg 34 10.4 33.7 73.4 39.6 10.1 167.3 Above Avg 35 9.7 34.9 75.6 37.3 9.4 166.9 Above Avg 36 10.4 37.2 72.0 36.0 11.2 166.8 Above Avg 37 11.2 31.8 74.9 37.6 10.4 165.9 Above Avg 38 9.0 36.0 73.4 38.3 9.0 165.7 Above Avg 39 10.4 35.5 73.4 35.0 10.4 164.8 Above Avg 40 9.0 36.5 71.3 37.6 9.7 164.1 Above Avg 41 9.4 38.0 66.2 38.0 11.5 163.1 Above Avg 42 10.4 38.0 66.2 37.6 10.1 162.4 Above Avg 43 9.4 33.2 69.1 40.3 10.4 162.4 Above Avg 44 9.7 38.6 63.4 38.9 11.5 162.2 Above Avg 45 9.0 34.0 66.2 41.9 10.8 161.9 Above Avg 46 8.6 33.2 71.3 39.9 8.6 161.7 Above Avg




Planning Score

Executing Score

Controlling Score

Closing Score


47 10.4 38.6 67.0 37.0 8.3 161.3 Above Avg 48 10.1 32.2 73.4 33.3 11.9 160.9 Above Avg 49 9.7 35.3 68.4 37.0 9.4 159.7 Above Avg 50 10.1 35.4 69.1 31.7 10.8 157.1 Above Avg 51 8.6 32.3 70.6 35.0 10.1 156.5 Above Avg 52 9.4 29.6 70.6 37.6 9.0 156.2 Above Avg 53 9.7 34.2 64.1 38.0 9.0 155.0 Above Avg 54 10.1 37.2 64.1 34.7 8.3 154.3 Above Avg 55 9.0 32.9 68.4 35.3 8.3 153.9 Above Avg 56 9.7 30.6 69.1 36.0 8.3 153.7 Above Avg 57 7.9 38.2 62.6 36.0 9.0 153.7 Above Avg 58 7.2 30.2 70.6 34.7 10.8 153.5 Above Avg 59 9.7 31.7 69.1 35.3 7.6 153.4 Above Avg 60 8.6 33.1 68.4 35.3 7.6 153.0 Above Avg 61 7.6 32.0 70.6 35.3 7.2 152.7 Above Avg 62 6.8 29.8 72.0 35.0 8.6 152.2 Above Avg 63 10.1 33.1 66.2 33.7 9.0 152.1 Above Avg 64 9.4 31.4 68.4 33.3 9.4 151.9 Above Avg 65 9.4 34.4 68.4 31.7 7.6 151.4 Above Avg 66 10.1 34.7 62.6 35.0 8.3 150.7 Above Avg 67 9.4 27.8 69.1 34.3 8.3 148.9 Average 68 10.1 35.9 63.4 32.3 7.2 148.9 Average 69 8.6 31.8 63.4 35.3 9.7 148.8 Average 70 7.6 29.9 69.8 33.0 8.3 148.6 Average 71 9.4 32.9 64.1 33.3 8.3 147.9 Average 72 7.9 33.5 62.6 34.7 8.6 147.3 Average 73 7.9 31.2 64.8 33.7 9.7 147.3 Average 74 9.4 34.4 59.8 34.0 9.0 146.6 Average 75 9.0 35.5 59.0 33.0 9.7 146.3 Average 76 8.3 31.9 64.8 33.7 7.2 145.9 Average 77 9.0 32.2 63.4 31.4 9.4 145.2 Average 78 8.3 29.6 65.5 33.7 7.6 144.7 Average 79 9.0 31.3 63.4 32.7 8.3 144.6 Average 80 7.9 24.1 69.1 34.7 8.6 144.5 Average 81 8.3 35.2 56.9 34.3 9.4 144.0 Average 82 9.4 32.2 58.3 33.7 8.6 142.1 Average 83 9.4 29.8 62.6 30.7 9.4 141.8 Average 84 8.3 30.0 64.1 32.7 6.5 141.5 Average 85 11.2 33.1 57.6 31.0 7.9 140.8 Average 86 7.2 25.2 64.1 33.7 9.7 139.9 Average 87 7.2 30.4 59.0 33.0 10.1 139.7 Average 88 6.1 28.4 62.6 32.3 10.1 139.6 Average 89 7.9 32.0 59.8 32.7 6.8 139.2 Average 90 8.6 31.6 58.3 30.7 9.7 138.9 Average 91 7.6 28.8 61.9 32.3 8.3 138.9 Average 92 9.0 28.0 55.4 37.3 9.0 138.7 Average 93 8.6 32.2 64.1 26.1 7.2 138.2 Average




Planning Score

Executing Score

Controlling Score

Closing Score


94 6.8 27.1 57.6 35.0 11.5 138.1 Average 95 9.0 30.8 57.6 32.0 8.3 137.7 Average 96 6.8 30.2 59.8 30.7 9.4 136.9 Average 97 7.2 33.1 57.6 31.0 7.9 136.9 Average 98 9.4 29.6 61.2 27.4 9.0 136.6 Average 99 10.1 27.0 56.2 32.7 10.4 136.4 Average

100 9.7 32.5 54.7 31.0 7.9 135.9 Average 101 9.4 29.9 57.6 31.4 7.2 135.4 Average 102 8.3 31.0 58.3 28.7 9.0 135.3 Average 103 10.8 27.4 60.5 27.7 8.6 135.0 Average 104 7.6 28.0 56.2 35.3 7.6 134.6 Average 105 8.6 26.8 56.2 34.3 8.6 134.5 Average 106 10.1 31.2 54.7 29.4 9.0 134.4 Average 107 8.6 29.3 58.3 30.0 7.9 134.2 Average 108 7.9 29.0 57.6 31.4 8.3 134.2 Average 109 9.4 28.7 56.9 30.0 7.9 132.9 Average 110 7.6 28.4 61.2 28.1 7.6 132.8 Average 111 8.6 29.3 57.6 26.1 10.8 132.4 Average 112 7.9 28.7 57.6 30.7 7.2 132.1 Average 113 7.2 29.9 59.0 27.4 8.3 131.8 Average 114 7.6 28.7 56.2 31.0 7.9 131.3 Average 115 8.6 34.2 51.1 29.7 7.6 131.2 Average 116 7.2 25.7 58.3 31.4 8.3 130.8 Average 117 7.2 27.5 58.3 29.4 7.6 129.9 Average 118 10.8 32.3 50.4 29.7 6.5 129.7 Average 119 7.2 27.4 60.5 26.4 7.9 129.4 Average 120 6.1 26.3 59.0 28.4 9.0 128.8 Average 121 6.8 28.9 56.9 28.1 7.9 128.6 Average 122 7.9 26.2 59.0 25.1 10.1 128.3 Average 123 8.6 29.5 53.3 27.7 7.6 126.7 Average 124 8.3 23.6 56.9 28.7 7.6 125.1 Average 125 9.4 35.6 48.2 22.4 9.0 124.7 Average 126 9.0 32.4 44.6 30.4 7.9 124.3 Average 127 5.8 26.9 56.9 26.7 7.9 124.2 Average 128 7.6 27.7 52.6 28.4 7.6 123.8 Average 129 7.6 23.3 55.4 29.0 8.3 123.6 Average 130 8.3 30.7 46.8 29.7 7.9 123.4 Average 131 7.6 30.1 47.5 29.0 7.9 122.2 Average 132 8.6 32.3 46.8 26.4 7.9 122.0 Average 133 10.8 32.0 49.7 24.4 5.0 122.0 Average 134 6.5 29.6 52.6 24.8 7.6 121.0 Average 135 8.6 27.0 54.0 25.4 5.8 120.8 Average 136 8.3 27.8 52.6 24.8 7.2 120.6 Average 137 6.5 24.2 54.7 26.7 7.9 120.1 Average 138 7.2 26.0 51.1 26.7 8.6 119.7 Average 139 7.2 27.5 51.8 25.4 7.6 119.5 Average 140 9.0 28.9 49.7 24.4 6.5 118.5 Average




Planning Score

Executing Score

Controlling Score

Closing Score


141 8.3 24.5 54.0 23.4 6.5 116.7 Average 142 7.6 31.4 50.4 20.5 5.4 115.3 Below Avg 143 7.2 21.1 54.7 25.7 6.1 114.9 Below Avg 144 8.6 28.1 45.4 25.1 7.2 114.4 Below Avg 145 7.6 27.8 49.7 24.4 4.7 114.2 Below Avg 146 7.2 24.6 51.8 25.1 5.4 114.1 Below Avg 147 8.3 24.8 44.6 28.4 7.9 114.1 Below Avg 148 7.6 25.4 48.2 25.4 6.1 112.8 Below Avg 149 7.9 24.5 43.9 27.1 7.2 110.6 Below Avg 150 7.6 25.6 43.9 26.1 6.8 110.0 Below Avg 151 7.2 23.0 43.9 28.1 7.6 109.8 Below Avg 152 4.7 20.0 48.2 27.4 8.3 108.6 Below Avg 153 6.1 23.5 46.8 25.1 6.8 108.4 Below Avg 154 6.8 21.5 53.3 21.1 5.0 107.8 Below Avg 155 7.2 26.5 46.8 22.1 5.0 107.7 Below Avg 156 5.0 22.6 49.0 24.8 6.1 107.4 Below Avg 157 6.1 22.9 47.5 24.4 5.8 106.7 Below Avg 158 7.6 23.8 49.7 20.8 4.7 106.5 Below Avg 159 9.7 28.3 43.2 19.1 5.8 106.1 Below Avg 160 7.2 24.1 46.1 23.1 5.4 105.9 Below Avg 161 7.6 29.5 38.9 23.4 5.4 104.8 Below Avg 162 9.4 26.2 40.3 22.1 6.5 104.4 Below Avg 163 6.5 25.2 43.2 24.4 4.3 103.6 Below Avg 164 6.5 24.6 41.8 25.4 5.0 103.3 Below Avg 165 8.3 27.1 41.0 22.4 4.3 103.2 Below Avg 166 7.6 22.7 46.8 20.1 5.0 102.2 Below Avg 167 7.6 20.9 46.1 21.1 6.1 101.8 Below Avg 168 5.8 24.0 43.9 22.1 5.8 101.6 Below Avg 169 6.8 23.5 43.2 21.8 5.4 100.7 Below Avg 170 6.5 21.7 41.8 23.1 7.2 100.3 Below Avg 171 7.9 22.4 41.0 22.1 6.5 100.0 Below Avg 172 8.6 22.7 41.0 20.8 6.5 99.6 Below Avg 173 6.5 22.1 43.2 22.1 5.0 98.9 Below Avg 174 5.8 21.5 41.8 22.1 6.1 97.2 Below Avg 175 8.3 24.1 38.9 20.5 4.7 96.4 Below Avg 176 7.9 30.5 33.1 18.2 6.5 96.2 Below Avg 177 6.1 20.9 44.6 18.8 4.7 95.1 Below Avg 178 5.8 20.6 35.3 25.1 6.8 93.6 Below Avg 179 8.6 18.2 42.5 19.5 4.3 93.2 Below Avg 180 5.8 21.8 41.8 17.2 6.1 92.6 Below Avg 181 5.8 19.9 39.6 20.5 6.1 91.9 Below Avg 182 6.1 19.1 40.3 20.5 5.8 91.7 Below Avg 183 6.5 21.2 38.2 20.1 5.4 91.4 Below Avg 184 6.5 20.8 38.9 19.5 5.8 91.4 Below Avg 185 7.9 19.7 42.5 16.5 4.0 90.5 Below Avg 186 6.8 25.4 35.3 18.2 4.7 90.4 Below Avg 187 6.1 21.0 37.4 19.5 5.8 89.8 Below Avg




Planning Score

Executing Score

Controlling Score

Closing Score


188 7.6 25.0 35.3 17.8 4.0 89.6 Below Avg 189 6.8 21.8 36.0 19.8 5.0 89.5 Below Avg 190 5.8 18.7 40.3 18.8 4.3 87.9 Below Avg 191 6.1 22.0 33.1 21.8 4.7 87.7 Below Avg 192 5.8 18.1 38.9 17.8 4.7 85.3 Below Avg 193 6.1 20.4 36.0 16.8 4.7 84.0 Below Avg 194 4.7 17.5 36.7 17.2 6.5 82.6 Below Avg 195 5.4 19.3 33.1 18.8 4.3 81.0 Below Avg

Average 8.5 30.1 59.0 30.8 8.2 136.6 Average

Table 4: Results of Knowledge Scores Ranked in Descending Order (2004)



Appendix B: PMCD Knowledge (Proficiency) Results 2003


Planning Score

Executing Score

Controlling Score

Closing Score

Overall Score

PMI Grading

1 11.9 44.4 86.4 46.5 11.9 201.09 Above Avg 2 11.2 44.3 86.4 45.2 11.9 198.93 Above Avg 3 11.9 43.9 85.0 45.9 11.9 198.51 Above Avg 4 10.1 43.0 86.4 45.9 11.5 196.8 Above Avg 5 11.9 43.3 85.7 44.2 11.2 196.3 Above Avg 6 10.8 38.8 85.7 46.2 11.9 193.3 Above Avg 7 11.5 39.5 82.8 46.5 11.9 192.2 Above Avg 8 10.8 40.2 84.2 44.6 11.2 190.95 Above Avg 9 10.8 39.8 80.6 43.9 11.2 186.33 Above Avg

10 10.8 37.7 79.9 45.9 11.5 185.8 Above Avg 11 11.5 34.3 80.6 46.2 11.9 184.56 Above Avg 12 10.4 39.0 81.4 41.3 11.2 183.2 Above Avg 13 11.5 41.4 74.2 44.6 10.8 182.43 Above Avg 14 10.4 40.4 72.7 43.9 11.9 179.4 Above Avg 15 9.7 39.0 77.0 41.9 11.2 178.83 Above Avg 16 10.4 39.5 76.3 39.6 11.2 177.0 Above Avg 17 10.8 39.1 77.0 39.3 10.4 176.67 Above Avg 18 10.8 36.5 76.3 41.6 11.2 176.3 Above Avg 19 10.8 37.0 65.5 44.2 11.5 169.0 Above Avg 20 9.4 35.8 72.7 38.9 10.8 167.58 Above Avg 21 10.4 33.7 73.4 39.6 10.1 167.3 Above Avg 22 10.4 35.8 67.7 40.3 10.8 164.94 Above Avg 23 9.7 32.3 72.7 39.3 7.6 161.6 Above Avg 24 10.1 32.2 73.4 33.3 11.9 160.9 Above Avg 25 10.8 30.7 71.3 38.6 9.4 160.8 Above Avg 26 10.8 34.1 71.3 36.0 8.3 160.4 Above Avg 27 9.0 33.7 67.7 41.3 8.6 160.3 Above Avg 28 10.8 37.8 64.8 36.6 10.1 160.11 Above Avg 29 10.1 32.2 66.2 39.6 10.4 158.5 Above Avg 30 10.1 35.4 72.0 34.7 5.4 157.5 Above Avg 31 9.0 28.2 74.2 36.3 9.4 157.0 Above Avg 32 9.7 34.2 64.1 38.0 9.0 155.0 Above Avg 33 9.0 32.9 68.4 35.3 8.3 153.9 Above Avg 34 9.4 30.7 69.1 34.7 9.7 153.6 Above Avg 35 9.4 32.9 66.2 36.0 9.0 153.5 Above Avg 36 7.6 32.0 70.6 35.3 7.2 152.7 Above Avg 37 8.6 33.1 68.4 34.7 7.6 152.4 Above Avg 38 10.1 28.9 67.0 35.3 10.1 151.4 Above Avg 39 7.6 29.9 69.8 33.0 8.3 148.6 Average 40 9.4 31.0 65.5 33.7 9.0 148.5 Average 41 10.1 31.9 61.2 34.7 10.4 148.29 Average 42 8.6 28.4 70.6 31.7 8.6 148.0 Average 43 8.3 29.3 70.6 29.7 9.4 147.18 Average 44 7.9 27.6 70.6 31.7 9.0 146.8 Average 45 9.4 27.1 63.4 33.7 9.0 142.5 Average 46 9.7 32.3 61.2 29.7 9.4 142.3 Average




Planning Score

Executing Score

Controlling Score

Closing Score

Overall Score

PMI Grading

47 10.4 29.5 59.8 32.0 8.6 140.37 Average 48 8.6 30.2 60.5 32.3 7.9 139.6 Average 49 9.0 28.2 61.9 31.4 9.0 139.5 Average 50 10.1 27.0 56.2 32.7 10.4 136.4 Average 51 7.6 22.4 65.5 33.3 6.8 135.7 Average 52 7.6 22.4 65.5 33.3 6.8 135.7 Average 53 7.6 29.3 61.9 29.4 7.2 135.3 Average 54 7.6 29.9 58.3 33.0 5.8 134.5 Average 55 9.7 28.3 58.3 28.7 7.2 132.3 Average 56 9.4 27.1 56.2 29.7 9.0 131.34 Average 57 7.9 27.0 54.0 31.4 7.9 128.2 Average 58 8.3 28.1 53.3 27.1 7.2 123.9 Average 59 8.6 26.5 54.0 26.7 7.9 123.81 Average 60 8.6 27.2 50.4 28.7 8.6 123.6 Average 61 8.3 26.3 53.3 28.4 6.5 122.7 Average 62 8.6 31.6 48.2 28.1 5.8 122.3 Average 63 9.0 28.9 49.7 24.4 6.5 118.5 Average 64 8.3 24.5 54.0 23.4 6.5 116.7 Average 65 7.6 25.3 50.4 25.7 5.8 114.8 Below Avg 66 7.6 21.6 49.0 29.0 6.8 114.0 Below Avg 67 7.6 26.0 47.5 25.7 6.8 113.7 Below Avg 68 7.6 23.2 49.0 26.4 7.2 113.3 Below Avg 69 7.2 24.7 46.8 25.4 6.8 111.0 Below Avg 70 8.3 18.7 49.7 28.1 5.0 109.8 Below Avg 71 8.3 25.3 48.2 19.1 7.9 108.9 Below Avg 72 7.6 21.5 48.2 22.4 5.8 105.5 Below Avg 73 6.5 23.3 44.6 23.4 7.6 105.4 Below Avg 74 7.6 21.4 46.1 21.5 6.1 102.57 Below Avg 75 7.6 22.6 46.8 20.1 5.0 102.1 Below Avg 76 7.9 22.1 41.8 19.1 5.8 96.7 Below Avg 77 5.8 21.7 38.9 19.8 5.0 91.2 Below Avg 78 5.0 18.7 37.4 19.8 5.4 86.4 Below Avg

Average 9.2 31.2 64.7 34.1 8.8 148.0 Average

Table 5: Results of Knowledge Scores Ranked in Descending Order (2003)



Appendix C: PMCD Performance (Task) Results 2004 Rank Initiating

Score Planning

Score Executing

Score Controlling

Score Closing Score


1 12.0 43.9 86.0 45.6 12.0 199.5 Above Avg 2 12.0 43.9 86.0 43.7 12.0 197.6 Above Avg 3 11.6 43.9 86.0 43.7 12.0 197.2 Above Avg 4 11.6 41.8 86.0 45.6 12.0 197.0 Above Avg 5 12.0 43.9 86.0 41.8 11.2 194.9 Above Avg 6 10.8 39.7 86.0 45.6 12.0 194.1 Above Avg 7 11.2 43.9 86.0 41.8 11.2 194.1 Above Avg 8 12.0 43.9 86.0 39.9 12.0 193.8 Above Avg 9 11.6 41.8 86.0 41.8 12.0 193.2 Above Avg 10 11.6 39.7 86.0 41.8 12.0 191.1 Above Avg 11 11.6 43.9 86.0 39.9 8.8 190.2 Above Avg 12 11.6 43.9 86.0 36.1 12.0 189.6 Above Avg 13 11.6 39.7 86.0 39.9 12.0 189.2 Above Avg 14 11.2 43.9 80.2 41.8 11.2 188.3 Above Avg 15 11.2 39.7 86.0 39.9 11.2 188.0 Above Avg 16 10.8 39.7 86.0 39.9 11.2 187.6 Above Avg 17 10.8 37.6 86.0 41.8 11.2 187.4 Above Avg 18 11.2 43.9 86.0 34.2 12.0 187.3 Above Avg 19 11.2 41.8 80.2 41.8 12.0 187.0 Above Avg 20 11.2 35.5 86.0 41.8 12.0 186.5 Above Avg 21 10.8 41.8 80.2 41.8 9.6 184.2 Above Avg 22 12.0 41.8 80.2 38.0 12.0 184.0 Above Avg 23 11.2 35.5 80.2 45.6 11.2 183.7 Above Avg 24 12.0 37.6 86.0 38.0 9.6 183.2 Above Avg 25 9.6 41.8 80.2 39.9 11.2 182.7 Above Avg 26 11.2 35.5 86.0 41.8 8.0 182.5 Above Avg 27 11.6 41.8 80.2 38.0 10.4 182.0 Above Avg 28 10.8 43.9 74.4 39.9 11.2 180.2 Above Avg 29 12.0 35.5 86.0 36.1 10.4 180.0 Above Avg 30 11.2 41.8 74.4 39.9 12.0 179.3 Above Avg 31 11.2 39.7 80.2 36.1 12.0 179.2 Above Avg 32 12.0 37.6 86.0 32.3 11.2 179.1 Above Avg 33 11.6 39.7 80.2 38.0 9.6 179.1 Above Avg 34 11.2 37.6 80.2 39.9 9.6 178.5 Above Avg 35 10.8 37.6 74.4 43.7 11.2 177.7 Above Avg 36 8.8 33.4 80.2 43.7 11.2 177.3 Above Avg 37 11.2 33.4 86.0 34.2 12.0 176.8 Above Avg 38 11.2 39.7 74.4 39.9 10.4 175.6 Above Avg 39 11.2 37.6 80.2 36.1 10.4 175.5 Above Avg 40 10.0 41.8 74.5 39.9 8.8 175.0 Above Avg 41 10.0 35.5 86.0 32.3 9.6 173.4 Above Avg 42 10.0 29.3 86.0 36.1 12.0 173.4 Above Avg 43 10.4 35.5 74.4 41.8 11.2 173.3 Above Avg 44 10.8 39.7 74.4 38.0 9.6 172.5 Above Avg 45 10.4 33.4 80.2 38.0 10.4 172.4 Above Avg 46 10.8 39.7 68.6 43.7 9.6 172.4 Above Avg




Planning Score

Executing Score

Controlling Score

Closing Score


47 8.4 33.4 86.0 34.2 8.8 170.8 Above Avg 48 9.6 35.5 80.2 34.2 11.2 170.7 Above Avg 49 10.4 37.6 80.2 32.3 9.6 170.1 Above Avg 50 9.2 39.7 74.4 36.1 10.4 169.8 Above Avg 51 9.6 29.3 86.0 32.3 12.0 169.2 Above Avg 52 10.4 39.7 74.4 34.2 9.6 168.3 Above Avg 53 10.0 33.4 80.2 34.2 10.4 168.2 Above Avg 54 11.6 37.6 74.4 34.2 10.4 168.2 Above Avg 55 8.4 29.3 80.2 38.0 12.0 167.9 Above Avg 56 9.6 35.5 74.4 38.0 9.6 167.1 Above Avg 57 10.8 37.6 68.6 38.0 11.2 166.2 Above Avg 58 12.0 33.4 68.6 41.8 9.6 165.4 Above Avg 59 9.6 35.5 74.4 34.2 11.2 164.9 Above Avg 60 9.2 29.3 86.0 30.4 9.6 164.5 Above Avg 61 8.0 33.4 80.2 34.2 8.0 163.8 Above Avg 62 8.4 31.4 80.2 36.1 7.2 163.3 Above Avg 63 9.2 37.6 74.4 30.4 11.2 162.8 Above Avg 64 9.6 37.6 74.4 32.3 8.8 162.7 Above Avg 65 9.6 31.4 74.4 38.0 8.8 162.2 Above Avg 66 7.2 27.2 80.2 36.1 10.4 161.1 Above Avg 67 7.2 29.3 80.2 32.3 10.4 159.4 Above Avg 68 9.6 31.4 80.2 26.6 11.2 159.0 Above Avg 69 9.6 29.3 80.2 34.2 5.6 158.9 Above Avg 70 8.0 39.7 68.6 34.2 8.0 158.5 Above Avg 71 8.8 39.7 80.2 20.9 8.8 158.4 Above Avg 72 10.0 35.5 74.4 32.3 5.6 157.8 Above Avg 73 10.8 33.4 74.4 26.6 10.4 155.6 Above Avg 74 8.0 27.2 74.4 38.0 8.0 155.6 Above Avg 75 11.6 27.2 80.2 28.5 7.2 154.7 Above Avg 76 9.2 33.4 68.6 34.2 6.4 151.8 Above Avg 77 10.0 35.5 74.4 24.7 7.2 151.8 Above Avg 78 9.2 31.4 74.4 28.5 8.0 151.5 Above Avg 79 8.0 35.5 62.9 36.1 8.0 150.5 Above Avg 80 8.8 33.4 62.9 34.2 10.4 149.7 Average 81 8.0 31.4 74.4 28.5 7.2 149.5 Average 82 8.4 29.3 68.7 34.2 8.0 148.6 Average 83 9.2 29.3 68.7 32.3 8.8 148.3 Average 84 9.2 31.4 68.6 32.3 6.4 147.9 Average 85 9.2 29.3 68.6 30.4 9.6 147.1 Average 86 10.8 33.4 62.9 28.5 11.2 146.8 Average 87 10.4 39.7 57.0 30.4 8.0 145.5 Average 88 11.6 33.4 62.8 30.4 7.2 145.4 Average 89 8.4 37.6 62.8 28.5 8.0 145.3 Average 90 11.6 37.6 62.9 22.8 10.4 145.3 Average 91 8.0 29.3 68.6 30.4 8.0 144.3 Average 92 8.0 31.4 68.6 26.6 8.8 143.4 Average 93 8.0 31.4 62.8 32.3 8.8 143.3 Average




Planning Score

Executing Score

Controlling Score

Closing Score


94 10.8 31.4 68.7 24.7 7.2 142.8 Average 95 8.8 31.4 62.8 30.4 8.8 142.2 Average 96 9.2 33.4 57.0 34.2 8.0 141.8 Average 97 9.6 27.2 62.8 32.3 9.6 141.5 Average 98 9.6 31.4 74.4 19.0 6.4 140.8 Average 99 10.4 31.4 57.1 30.4 11.2 140.5 Average

100 10.4 33.4 68.6 20.9 6.4 139.7 Average 101 8.0 29.3 68.6 24.7 8.8 139.4 Average 102 8.0 29.3 57.0 36.1 8.0 138.4 Average 103 7.6 20.9 74.4 24.7 10.4 138.0 Average 104 6.8 18.8 86.0 19.0 7.2 137.8 Average 105 7.6 27.2 68.7 28.5 5.6 137.6 Average 106 8.4 31.4 62.8 26.6 8.0 137.2 Average 107 8.0 29.3 57.0 34.2 8.0 136.5 Average 108 8.0 31.4 57.0 32.3 7.2 135.9 Average 109 10.4 33.4 57.1 26.6 7.2 134.7 Average 110 9.2 20.9 68.6 26.6 8.8 134.1 Average 111 7.6 27.2 62.8 28.5 8.0 134.1 Average 112 9.2 31.4 57.0 28.5 8.0 134.1 Average 113 8.0 31.4 57.0 30.4 7.2 134.0 Average 114 8.4 27.2 57.0 32.3 8.0 132.9 Average 115 6.8 31.4 57.1 30.4 7.2 132.9 Average 116 8.0 29.3 57.0 30.4 8.0 132.7 Average 117 9.2 31.4 51.3 30.4 10.4 132.7 Average 118 11.6 31.4 62.9 19.0 7.2 132.1 Average 119 8.0 33.4 57.0 24.7 8.8 131.9 Average 120 7.6 33.4 57.0 24.7 8.8 131.5 Average 121 8.0 27.2 57.0 30.4 8.0 130.6 Average 122 8.0 27.2 57.0 30.4 7.2 129.8 Average 123 8.8 25.1 62.8 26.6 6.4 129.7 Average 124 11.2 37.6 45.6 26.6 8.0 129.0 Average 125 8.4 29.3 51.3 32.3 7.2 128.5 Average 126 5.6 33.4 57.0 26.6 5.6 128.2 Average 127 8.8 29.3 57.1 24.7 8.0 127.9 Average 128 7.2 25.1 57.0 30.4 8.0 127.7 Average 129 6.8 33.4 57.0 22.8 6.4 126.4 Average 130 7.6 27.2 57.0 26.6 8.0 126.4 Average 131 8.0 29.3 57.0 24.7 7.2 126.2 Average 132 7.2 27.2 57.0 26.6 8.0 126.0 Average 133 7.6 25.1 51.4 30.4 10.4 124.9 Average 134 11.6 41.8 51.3 15.2 4.0 123.9 Average 135 7.2 20.9 57.0 34.2 4.0 123.3 Average 136 8.8 27.2 57.1 22.8 7.2 123.1 Average 137 7.6 31.4 51.3 24.7 8.0 123.0 Average 138 9.2 33.4 39.9 32.3 8.0 122.8 Average 139 10.4 25.1 51.3 26.6 8.8 122.2 Average 140 7.6 20.9 62.8 20.9 9.6 121.8 Average




Planning Score

Executing Score

Controlling Score

Closing Score


141 9.2 33.4 45.6 24.7 8.8 121.7 Average 142 8.8 27.2 45.6 30.4 9.6 121.6 Average 143 8.0 29.3 51.3 26.6 6.4 121.6 Average 144 9.2 31.4 51.3 20.9 8.8 121.6 Average 145 8.0 29.3 57.0 22.8 4.0 121.1 Average 146 6.4 25.1 57.1 22.8 8.8 120.2 Average 147 8.0 29.3 51.3 24.7 6.4 119.7 Average 148 6.8 25.1 51.3 26.6 9.6 119.4 Average 149 8.8 25.1 45.6 34.2 5.6 119.3 Average 150 7.6 25.1 57.1 22.8 6.4 119.0 Average 151 8.0 25.1 57.0 20.9 8.0 119.0 Average 152 6.8 27.2 51.3 24.7 7.2 117.2 Average 153 7.2 20.9 57.0 24.7 7.2 117.0 Average 154 6.8 25.1 51.3 22.8 10.4 116.4 Average 155 7.6 25.1 51.3 24.7 7.2 115.9 Below Avg 156 8.4 27.2 45.6 26.6 8.0 115.8 Below Avg 157 7.6 25.1 51.3 22.8 7.2 114.0 Below Avg 158 5.6 18.8 57.0 24.7 7.2 113.3 Below Avg 159 8.0 18.8 57.2 20.9 7.2 112.1 Below Avg 160 9.6 29.3 45.6 22.8 4.8 112.1 Below Avg 161 8.0 25.1 51.3 22.8 4.8 112.0 Below Avg 162 5.6 20.9 57.0 22.8 5.6 111.9 Below Avg 163 6.4 23.0 45.6 28.5 7.2 110.7 Below Avg 164 8.8 27.2 45.6 22.8 5.6 110.0 Below Avg 165 6.8 20.9 51.3 22.8 6.4 108.2 Below Avg 166 6.8 25.1 45.6 24.7 4.8 107.0 Below Avg 167 7.6 25.1 51.3 15.2 7.2 106.4 Below Avg 168 5.6 16.7 57.0 17.1 7.2 103.6 Below Avg 169 8.4 23.0 45.6 19.0 6.4 102.4 Below Avg 170 6.8 20.9 39.9 24.7 9.6 101.9 Below Avg 171 5.6 25.1 39.9 22.8 4.8 98.2 Below Avg 172 6.0 20.9 39.9 24.7 6.4 97.9 Below Avg 173 5.2 20.9 45.6 20.9 4.8 97.4 Below Avg 174 7.2 23.0 39.9 20.9 6.4 97.4 Below Avg 175 7.2 18.8 45.6 20.9 4.8 97.3 Below Avg 176 4.8 18.8 45.6 20.9 7.2 97.3 Below Avg 177 4.0 18.8 51.3 17.1 4.0 95.2 Below Avg 178 5.6 18.8 45.6 19.0 5.6 94.6 Below Avg 179 4.8 20.9 45.6 17.1 5.6 94.0 Below Avg 180 6.4 18.8 45.6 17.1 4.8 92.7 Below Avg 181 6.0 25.1 34.2 19.0 8.0 92.3 Below Avg 182 4.8 16.7 45.6 20.9 4.0 92.0 Below Avg 183 7.6 27.2 34.2 15.2 6.4 90.6 Below Avg 184 5.2 18.8 34.2 24.7 7.2 90.1 Below Avg 185 7.2 20.9 39.9 17.1 4.8 89.9 Below Avg 186 5.2 20.9 39.9 17.1 4.8 87.9 Below Avg 187 6.8 20.9 34.2 20.9 4.0 86.8 Below Avg




Planning Score

Executing Score

Controlling Score

Closing Score


188 4.4 16.7 40.0 19.0 4.8 84.9 Below Avg 189 5.6 27.2 28.5 15.2 4.0 80.5 Below Avg 190 8.0 18.8 28.5 19.0 5.6 79.9 Below Avg 191 4.8 16.7 34.2 15.2 4.8 75.7 Below Avg 192 5.2 16.7 28.5 17.1 8.0 75.5 Below Avg 193 4.0 20.9 28.5 15.2 4.8 73.4 Below Avg 194 4.0 16.7 28.5 15.2 4.0 68.4 Below Avg 195 4.0 14.6 28.5 15.2 4.0 66.3 Below Avg

Average 8.8 30.9 64.0 29.9 8.4 142.1 Average

Table 6: Results of Performance Scores Ranked in Descending Order (2004)



Appendix D: PMCD Performance (Task) Results 2003


Planning Score

Executing Score

Controlling Score

Closing Score

Overall Score

PMI Grading

1 12.0 43.9 86.0 45.6 12.0 199.5 Above Avg 2 12.0 43.9 86.0 45.6 12.0 199.5 Above Avg 3 12.0 43.9 86.0 45.6 12.0 199.5 Above Avg 4 12.0 43.9 86.0 45.6 12.0 199.5 Above Avg 5 12.0 43.9 86.0 45.6 12.0 199.5 Above Avg 6 12.0 43.9 86.0 43.7 12.0 197.6 Above Avg 7 12.0 41.8 86.0 43.7 12.0 195.5 Above Avg 8 12.0 39.7 86.0 45.6 12.0 195.3 Above Avg 9 11.6 43.9 86.0 41.8 12.0 195.3 Above Avg

10 12.0 41.8 86.0 41.8 12.0 193.6 Above Avg 11 12.0 43.9 80.2 43.7 12.0 191.8 Above Avg 12 11.6 41.8 80.2 45.6 12.0 191.2 Above Avg 13 11.2 43.9 86.0 38.0 12.0 191.1 Above Avg 14 12.0 39.7 86.0 39.9 9.6 187.2 Above Avg 15 10.4 41.8 80.2 41.8 11.2 185.4 Above Avg 16 11.6 37.6 86.0 38.0 12.0 185.2 Above Avg 17 10.8 41.8 80.2 41.8 10.4 185.0 Above Avg 18 10.8 39.7 86.0 38.0 9.6 184.1 Above Avg 19 9.6 39.7 86.0 36.1 12.0 183.4 Above Avg 20 10.8 39.7 86.0 34.2 11.2 181.9 Above Avg 21 10.8 39.7 80.2 38.0 10.4 179.1 Above Avg 22 10.0 35.5 86.0 38.0 8.0 177.5 Above Avg 23 10.8 41.8 74.4 38.0 11.2 176.2 Above Avg 24 11.2 37.6 80.2 36.1 10.4 175.5 Above Avg 25 10.0 41.8 74.5 39.9 8.8 175.0 Above Avg 26 10.0 39.7 80.2 34.2 10.4 174.5 Above Avg 27 10.4 39.7 74.4 38.0 12.0 174.5 Above Avg 28 10.4 39.7 74.4 38.0 10.4 172.9 Above Avg 29 10.4 35.5 80.2 36.1 10.4 172.6 Above Avg 30 10.4 37.6 80.2 32.3 10.4 170.9 Above Avg 31 10.4 35.5 80.2 34.2 9.6 169.9 Above Avg 32 10.0 37.6 68.6 41.8 11.2 169.2 Above Avg 33 9.2 35.5 74.4 36.1 9.6 164.8 Above Avg 34 9.2 33.4 68.6 41.8 9.6 162.6 Above Avg 35 9.6 18.8 86.0 41.8 5.6 161.8 Above Avg 36 10.0 37.6 80.2 24.7 8.0 160.5 Above Avg 37 7.2 29.3 80.2 32.3 10.4 159.4 Above Avg 38 8.0 31.4 80.2 32.3 7.2 159.1 Above Avg 39 8.4 33.4 80.2 28.5 8.0 158.5 Above Avg 40 8.8 39.7 80.2 24.7 4.8 158.2 Above Avg 41 9.6 29.3 74.4 34.2 9.6 157.1 Above Avg 42 10.4 35.5 62.8 36.1 11.2 156.0 Above Avg 43 10.8 35.5 74.4 26.6 8.0 155.3 Above Avg 44 10.0 27.2 86.0 22.8 8.8 154.8 Above Avg 45 8.8 29.3 74.4 32.3 8.8 153.6 Above Avg 46 9.2 29.3 68.6 38.0 8.0 153.1 Above Avg




Planning Score

Executing Score

Controlling Score

Closing Score

Overall Score

PMI Grading

47 10.8 33.4 68.6 30.4 8.8 152.0 Above Avg 48 10.4 35.5 68.6 28.5 7.2 150.2 Above Avg 49 8.8 33.4 62.9 34.2 10.4 149.7 Average 50 8.0 31.4 74.4 28.5 7.2 149.5 Average 51 9.2 29.3 68.7 32.3 8.8 148.3 Average 52 8.8 29.3 74.4 28.5 6.4 147.4 Average 53 9.2 29.3 68.6 30.4 9.6 147.1 Average 54 8.4 27.2 74.4 28.5 7.2 145.7 Average 55 9.2 27.2 63.0 30.4 11.2 141.0 Average 56 8.8 25.1 68.6 28.5 8.8 139.8 Average 57 10.0 31.4 68.6 22.8 6.4 139.2 Average 58 6.4 29.3 68.6 22.8 8.8 135.9 Average 59 7.2 29.3 62.8 28.5 7.2 135.0 Average 60 8.4 29.3 57.0 32.3 8.0 135.0 Average 61 8.4 23.0 68.6 28.5 6.4 134.9 Average 62 11.6 31.4 62.9 19.0 7.2 132.1 Average 63 7.2 20.9 68.6 26.6 6.4 129.7 Average 64 7.6 29.3 57.0 22.8 8.0 124.7 Average 65 7.2 25.1 57.0 28.5 6.4 124.2 Average 66 7.2 27.2 62.9 20.9 5.6 123.8 Average 67 9.2 33.4 39.9 32.3 8.0 122.8 Average 68 8.0 27.2 45.6 30.4 8.0 119.2 Average 69 7.6 25.1 57.1 22.8 6.4 119.0 Average 70 7.6 23.0 57.1 22.8 4.8 115.3 Below Avg 71 8.4 20.9 57.1 19.0 8.8 114.2 Below Avg 72 10.8 23.0 51.3 20.9 8.0 114.0 Below Avg 73 8.0 25.1 39.9 26.6 11.2 110.8 Below Avg 74 7.2 25.1 45.6 24.7 6.4 109.0 Below Avg 75 5.6 16.7 62.9 15.2 4.0 104.4 Below Avg 76 8.4 23.0 45.6 19.0 6.4 102.4 Below Avg 77 11.2 37.6 0.0 36.1 10.4 95.3 Below Avg 78 5.2 16.7 39.9 19.0 6.4 87.2 Below Avg

Average 9.7 33.6 71.4 33.1 9.2 157.0 Above Avg

Table 7: Results of Performance Scores Ranked in Descending Order (2003)



Appendix E: PMCD Survey Invitation Letter 2004 Program: Project Management Competency Assessment Objectives To assess the competency level of project management professionals in Hong Kong and China by using a Project Management Competency Development (PMCD) Framework developed by Project Management Institute (PMI), with the eventual goal of assisting individual project managers with their professional development, as well as creating industry PM reference indexes. Key Deliverables of the Program A profile report of PM competency of professionals from the Construction, Information Technology, and Logistics sectors in Hong Kong and China will be produced. The eventual goal is to further develop the profile data into a permanent data repository from which industry-specific project management reference indexes can be established. Benefits Individual Project Professionals

• Establishment of PM competency benchmark will enable project management professionals in Hong Kong to measure their own level of competency in their profession. This will benefit their professional development and consequently increase their competitiveness in Greater China region and beyond.

• Each participant will receive an individual report grading their results against benchmark data gathered from North America.

Organizations

• Organizations participating in this survey will benefit in two aspects. First they can easily apply the same assessment to their team of project professionals at any point in time and have a better understanding of their PM capabilities compared against the benchmark data. Second, organizations can plan for the professional development of their workforce based on the assessed data, leading to a more competent project workforce, which will eventually benefit their employers.

• Organizations with more than ten participants will receive a report profiling their staff’s competency in project management. The report will be anonymous and contains no individual names. The report provides a snapshot of an organization’s existing project management skill levels, and serves as a guide for their staff’s future development.

Contact For organizations interested to participate in the survey, please contact Kevin Chui ([email protected]) for more information.



Appendix F: PMCD Survey Section 3 Questionnaire 2004



Appendix G: Acknowledgements The Project Management Institute (PMI) Hong Kong Chapter wishes to acknowledge the contributions and support of the following people during the collection of the survey data and the compilation of this report:-

Kevin Chui (PMI Hong Kong Chapter) Mark Ellison (PMI Hong Kong Chapter) Alex Sin (PMI Hong Kong Chapter) Lily Yang (PMI Hong Kong Chapter)

References

1. Project Management Institute, (2000), A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge: PMBOK® Guide 2000 Edition, Pennsylvania: Project Management Institute Inc

2. Project Management Institute, (2002), Project Manager Competency Development Framework, Pennsylvania: Project Management Institute Inc

3. Project Management Institute, (2002), Project Management Experience and Knowledge Self-Assessment Manual, Pennsylvania: Project Management Institute Inc

PMCD Report 2004 - Knowledge...

Documents

Transcript of PMCD Report 2004 - Knowledge...