Hi Folks,
Thanks for the replies. I think in my wife's particular case, she had actually been working as a PM in her software group, even though she didn't have the job title, so I'm pretty confident that she actually had the PM skills even if she didn't have the PMP certification, which she is doing now. I should also mention that both she and I have MBA's but our first qualifications were technical.
If I had to guess I would say that from what I see there are actually very few PM's floating around that have both technical and PMP qualifications. I'm uneasy with the idea that the technical qualifications should be any burden. It seems logical to me that both qualifications should be superior to just the PMP alone. I think this is very true since the PMP certification is a relatively easy qualification to gain. I actually think it was corporate politics at play, since the existing PM's were non technical they didn't want to have to modify their speak or thinking to accommodate someone with both.
But I actually think there is something bigger at play that goes to the heart of most creative industries. The idea that a creative person cannot manage or be articulate I think is extremely prejudiced, and represents a real chip on ones shoulder. Just before I wrote this post I was watching the bloomberg channel and a google engineer seemed to me to speak very well, so I think its a little bit rough to be generalizing in a negative way about engineers as presently happens.
See a good engineer on tv
Cutts Believes Google `Doing the Right Thing' for UsersBut it speaks to the nature of modern management, its not just project management - business schools are teaching that the general management of companies do not need to know their company products. The problem I have is that when you take this view of management you damage the concept of leadership. When you appoint a non-technical project manager you have instantly removed the reward mechanism for engineers who do a good job to be promoted to management. And because these people are seen as undeserving by the people working under them, they no longer really have natural leadership. To lead, instead they must demand respect, which is very unlikely to work effectively. So I would not make a PMP only appointment ever simply for this reason. I would appoint an engineer to a PM post and then send them to do the relatively easy PMP qualification.
I see little point in settling for a PMP only PM when I could have a technical +PMP. And I think there is a real difference. It has also been my experience that many very poor engineers gravitate to PM's as an exit to engineering. Again they cannot command respect or leadership effectively. I have also found that PM jobs attract alot of aligned technical fields - for example I've seen alot of mechanical engineers and chemists in the PM and Quality management fields. Again I think respect and leadership suffer.
An then there is the issue of seniority. although PMP training does recommend that PM's defer technical decisions to experts this has not been my experience. What happens is typically that their is such friction between the PM and the technical team that the PM, who has seniority, exercises it and makes decisions on their own. Sometimes it works sometimes not, but it can't be optimal. Natural leadership appointments would of cured that potential problem.
And finally since PM's have seniority they do have the capacity to make dangerous decisions and the lack of a technical qualification can be fatal. For example I want a chartered engineer PM making the decisions regarding a new undersea channel tunnel or a new aircraft development. These products simply can't be designed by an executive committee that lacks technical qualifications. I think that is common sense.
So there are lots of things that I think business schools and the PMI have gotten very wrong in their efforts to become legitimate professional's. Some of it is very prejudiced and very unfair IMO.