2008 PCSPM Q and A

1.What was the launch date of the new standards?

The new AIPM Professional Competency Standards for Project Management were formally released on 7th July 2008. 

2.Why did AIPM change the standards?

The original PM competency standards were developed for AQF 4, 5 and 6 during the mid 1990s and approved as the National Competency Standards for Project Management (NCSPM) in 1996 and reviewed with only minor changes in 2004

Since 2004 some Project Management practices and industry expectations of project management have changed. We have noted a greater degree of definition between organisations on one hand that legitimately only require and deploy relatively unsophisticated project methods, and others on the other hand who have clearly identified the need for more advanced methodologies, processes and tools to support their project delivery.

The AIPM National Council considered it important that AIPM’s standards be maintained to current practices and reflect professional expectations. However, AIPM has taken great care to ensure that the standards continue to reflect practices that would be widely professionally applicable rather than deferring to either the lowest or highest common denominator of practices.

We have noted various industry comments around an expectation that AIPM willfor:

1. Update the standards to represent contemporary best practices
2. Lift the bar for higher levels of Project Manager performance particularly at the executive management level
3. Ensure more consistent assessment practices

It is important to note that AIPM will meet the request for a rigorous standard, and we will do that in the context of the total standards framework, rather than trying to meet all requirements in a single certification level. To do that, for example to frame CPPM at a very high practice level, would potentially disenfranchise a large body of practitioners.

This is a journey to a Project Management Profession – not just a change to the Standards. Our aim, through the standards framework, the CPD program and other AIPM activities and initiatives is to promote and support a view of professionalisation of the discipline.

3.What is the difference between the old to new standards?

Changes have been made to improve the rigour and depth of assessment and AIPM certification against professional project management practices

They are best summarised as a more granular view . In particular, the standards make the difference in each function between:

• the overarching methodology, e.g an agreed risk management methodology,
• the management plan for each function describing how each function is planned and managed during the project, e.g. a risk management plan, and
• the baseline action plans for each function, e.g. a risk register or risk action plans.

At the Project Manager Level (was RPM → now CPPM): we also need to stress the fact that we manage people, processes & systems

1. Most of the evidence requirements will be focussed on Integration evidence around Planning (e.g. evidence of Scope Management Planning, Time Management Planning, Cost Management Planning, …. Risk Management Planning etc…) as this is where the increased granularity of competency comes in.

At the Project Director Level (was MPD → now CPPD):

1. Most of the evidence requirements will be focussed on Program Integration evidence around Planning, as well as team management and leadership, as these areas are where the increased granularity of competency comes in.
2. We will also be ensuring, through structured discussion and questioning, that a CPPD candidate recognises the need to create a program team culture, leadership culture and communications culture, and to integrate that program culture vertically through business and project levels.

4.What are the new post-nominals?

5. Can existing registered QPPs, RPMs and MPDs automatically start using the new post nominals?

Yes (as of 7^th July 08). This is to ensure an ease of reference in the market (no need to maintain two post-nominal streams) and as a courtesy to professional members. The new post-nominals are granted ‘on credit’ - however keeping them after the normal three-year recertification will require the holder to recertify against the new Standards gap (the incremental but significant difference between the old and new AIPM Standards with an Assessor. 

6. If I registered and paid my Assessment fee with AIPM on or prior to 30 June 08, and have not completed my assessment with my assessor, am I assessed under the old standard or new standard?

In this scenario you can be assessed under the old standard (up until the 30^th December 2008). Thereafter you must be assessed under the new Standards. You may of course (in consultation with your assessor) be assessed under the new standards after 1 September 2008.

7. Is there a transition phase?

Yes, your assessor cannot lodge your recommendation for registration under the new standards until 1 September 2008.

8. If I am assessed under the old standards, what do I need to do to upgrade to the new standards?

On the 3^rd anniversary of your RegPM certification (it is valid for 3 years), you will need to go through a partial re-certification process demonstrating that you have met the new requirements added to the AIPM Standards. These will also count towards the Continous Profesisonal Development (CPD) points you need to acquire to maintain your RegPM certification.

An evidence guide will be available before Sep 08 to guide candidates through the additional performance criteria and likely evidence requirements they will need to produce for a partial re-certification.

9. How do I recertify, if I am already assessed under the new standards?

Via the established CPD process (refer to the AIPM website).

 10. How will the assessment processes change under the new standards?

The process of assessment will largely remain the same and should be seamless to candidates.AIPM’s assessor network are in the process of finalising guidelines and producing the tools used for the assessment process.These tools will provide a more robust assessment process without unduly effecting the members being assessed.

Return to Certification Page