GIS and Web 2.0/ 3.0

It is new generation of internet with focus on people and social networking.

Web 3.0 - Mobile Websites, Text Campaigns and Smartphone Applications

Web 3.0 is all of the above with web experience that is no longer limited to desktop and laptop computers. It’s the Internet on the go fueled by mobile phones and tablets. Websites must be designed to be easily read on mobile devices. Group text campaigns function like e-mail newsletters in Web 1.0 which will drive traffic to your mobile website. Smartphone Applications enable content to be published and shared easily while on the go.

GeoWeb 2.0 – Consumer Mapping, Blogs, Wikis, and Social Networking sites

"If an essential part of Web 2.0 is harnessing collective intelligence, turning the web into a kind of global brain, the blogosphere is the equivalent of constant mental chatter in the forebrain, the voice we hear in all of our heads. It may not reflect the deep structure of the brain, which is often unconscious, but is instead the equivalent of conscious thought." —Tim O'Reilly

At its core, Web 2.0 is the beginning of two-way communication in Web Applications. Web 2.0 sites invite participation and that might be voting, rating, commenting and submitting new posts. So Web 2.0 sites are collaborative. For example in Social networking sites like Google, Google Maps, Earth, Bing Maps, Twitter, Facebook, Skype, Youtube can have friends, fans, followers, connections etc. So Web 2.0 category sites contains following features.

• Web 2.0 sites are Two-way.
• Web 2.0 sites are Active.
• Web 2.0 sites are Dynamic.
• Web 2.0 sites are Collaborative.

The ArcGIS Online initiative is all about the Web 2.0 style of services, sharing, and mashups.  It provides many mapping resources as well as a framework for sharing data and services.  All of this has been implemented using open standards and open Web protocol. 

Limitations

• Limit to the number of points of interest or shapes
• Tile overlays can be slow when rendered dynamically
• Interacting with vector based shapes when represented on tiles for overlay 

Web 1.0 - Websites, E-mail Newsletters

It's hard to define Web 1.0 for several reasons. So I will put it this way. What Web 1.0 really is, it's everything in between from the day World Wide Web has introduced and the day Web 2.0 has introduced. So keeping that in mind, Web 1.0 category web applications contains following features.

• Web 1.0 sites are Static.
• Web 1.0 sites aren't Interactive.
• Web 1.0 applications are Proprietary.
• Web 1.0 sites are One-way.
• Web 1.0 sites are Passive.
• Web 1.0 sites are Closed.

Web 1.0 category sites basically contain information that user's might find useful, but there's no reason for a visitor to return to the site later. An example might be a personal Web page that gives information about the site's owner, but never changes. And visitors can only visit these sites, they can't contribute to these sites. Because of this, these kind of sites are Static and they are not Interactive to the visitor which will make the site  Passive, One-way and a Closed site.

Bailout or Blackout: Commercial losses set to double in SEBs

A report titled 'Bailout or Blackout: SEBs on borrowed time' by IIFL's Institutional Equities says that the aggregate net worth of state electricity boards (SEBs) has been wiped out. An excerpt is shared here.

The aggregate net worth of state electricity boards (SEBs) has been wiped out and there is little political appetite to defray cost inflation through tariff increases. Worryingly, the states seem to be working on the assumption of a bail-out package similar to the one in 2001. Utilities, especially private utilities with short-term power sales, would be severely tested in the interim. Longer delays may adversely affect loan book quality of institutions such as Rural Electrification Corporation (REC) and Power Finance Corporation (PFC) that have large exposures to SEBs. A ~40 per cent increase in the financial sector's SEB exposure (Rs 2 trillion or $44 billion as at end-FY09), given the estimated losses of Rs 1.08 trillion over FY10-11 is estimated. But is there a way out? A forced consensus would emerge for reforms, but a bail-out might still be needed in the interim, as reforms take time. 

The Shunglu Committee on SEBs estimates that losses have more than doubled to Rs 680 billion in FY11. Blended tariffs will have to increase by ~25 per cent if SEBs are to break-even. If Coal India (CIL) increases coal prices for utilities by ~20 per cent, a further ~5 per cent increase in overall tariffs will be required to break-even.

Losses mount as tariffs lag cost increases

With the average blended tariff increasing by only 6.5 per cent over FY07-09 versus the 16.5 per cent increase in the average cost of supply, aggregate cash losses have jumped 4x to Rs 284 billion over FY07- 09. The Shunglu Committee on SEBs estimates that losses have more than doubled to Rs 680 billion in FY11. Cost increases have been driven by the jump in cost of power purchased, which is up 16 per cent over FY07-09.

Sharp rise in power purchase cost the key culprit

Consolidated average cost of supply (ACS) for Indian distribution utilities stood at Rs 2.58/unit, up 16.5 per cent over FY07-09. Power purchase forms the largest proportion of ACS at 62 per cent. This is followed by employee cost (12 per cent) and fuel costs (10 per cent). For distribution utilities, the average power purchase cost increased 17 per cent over FY07-09. The majority of the increase happened in FY09. The adverse demand-supply situation was exacerbated by political compulsions to reduce load-shedding in the run-up to the general elections in the summer of 2009.

Insignificant benefits from slightly lower AT&C losses

An insignificant correction in AT&C losses has not benefited the utilities. These losses remain high, owing to multiple issues such as power theft and collection inefficiencies and most importantly, from a lack of political will to direct the utilities to curb power theft. Internationally, AT&C losses stand at 4-8 per cent in the developed world. Adjusting for inferior T&D infrastructure as compared to developed countries, actual T&D losses in developing countries can be pegged at ~10 per cent. This means that ~18 per cent of the power produced is simply stolen. The cost of stolen power is either borne by the paying consumers or the discoms. The additional cost due to stolen power is partially passed on. Hence, any increase in sourcing cost of power results in larger losses for the discoms.

Tariff increase has not kept pace with cost increases

Tariffs, on the other hand, have largely remained stable over FY07-09. Blended tariff increased by just 6.5 per cent over FY07-09. Average tariff for agricultural consumers has increased from Rs 0.74/unit in FY07 to Rs 0.86/unit in FY09 - a 15.6 per cent increase over the two years. The increase might look high in percentage terms but the pace of increase is woefully slow when compared to the absolute increase in cost of supply. The fact that tariffs are significantly below the cost of supply results in a sharp jump in losses as the cost of supply increases.

SEBs are eschewing expensive power to contain losses

Industry participants and regulators given the poor financial condition of discoms have little inclination to buy expensive power, hence reducing off-take from stations based on expensive fuel sources. For imported coal/gas-fired capacities, there would be brief periods of respite during state/national elections when political compulsions would translate into SEBs being forced to buy even expensive power.

Most states in India heavily subsidise the power for agricultural use by charging higher rates to industrial users. For large states, 31 per cent of the energy sold is used for agriculture. However, revenue from agricultural customers forms only 8 per cent of the total revenue. Industrial customers contribute 46 per cent of total revenues against their share of 34 per cent of total energy sold.

APDRP - useful but not having a significant enough impact

Aiming for a financial turnaround of the distribution sector, the central government had launched the Accelerated Power Development and Reform Programme (APDRP). Under this scheme, central plan assistance was made available to states undertaking distribution reforms in a time bound manner. An incentive scheme was introduced to incentivise utilities achieving cash loss reduction.

The R-APDRP was launched in July 2008 to establish reliable and verifiable baseline data and further reduce the AT&C losses. R-APDRP is focusing on strengthening T&D systems to reduce AT&C losses on a sustainable basis. Overall, Rs 400 bn has been allocated as loans for R-APDRP of which Rs 200 billion will be converted to a grant depending on the extent to which utilities reduce losses.

Overall, the APDRP and R-APDRP programme has resulted in AT&C losses decreasing from 38.9 per cent in FY02 to 28.4 per cent in FY09. While the first few years did see an improvement, the pace of improvement has slowed down significantly. In fact, the Western region witnessed a worsening of AT&C losses in FY09.

So R-APDRP cannot make a significant contribution to improving the financials of distribution utilities. In the absence of sufficient tariff hikes, gains on APDRP would provide little help to distribution utilities. For instance, the Southern region, which has the lowest AT&C losses, is the largest contributor to the increase in book losses as tariffs have remained stable over many years, while power purchase cost keeps increasing.

The slow pace of privatization of distribution is not helping. A key component of the distribution reforms has been the privatization of power distribution. Privatization is being attempted broadly in two ways, sale of a government-owned utility to private enterprise and through appointment of a private distribution enterprise, particularly for a loss-making circle.

Distribution franchising differs from privatization

Distribution reforms are inevitable, owing to mounting AT&C losses and deteriorating health of state-owned distribution entities. However, despite this dire situation, states are reluctant to implement tough reforms. Privatizing distribution is one of the simplest forms of reforms, but it involves transfer of assets and manpower to private entities. Such changes in ownership are often not received positively by the masses, especially employees of distribution firms, who are directly affected by any changes in ownership. Hence, states are reluctant to implement privatization.

Government could finally resort to a bailout (similar to the one in 2001) for SEBs

Apart from subsidized funds for SEBs, the central and state governments could resort to a one-time settlement similar to the one adopted in 2001. The health of state finances is much better than that in 2001. Hence, it would easier for the states to contribute to the funds required for the one-time settlement. In 2001, the accumulated dues of Rs 414 billion had arisen due to the continued non-viability of the current operations of the SEBs. The commission recognized that settlement of past dues alone would not solve the basic problem facing the SEBs. Unless the problem of current unviability is speedily addressed, overdues would mount again.

Issues in the Electric Network Mapping & GIS Implementation

Recently I attended Geospatial MapWorld Forum in Hyderabad, India. It was a good opportunity to share experience with various GIS volunteers working on Electric GIS. I also presented a paper on the issues critical to the successful implemetation of GIS in Electric utilities.All the people I met and discussed agreed with my view that we need to be more practical in such projects.

Status of GIS Implementation in Utilities

I used  GIS "data quality" as an indicator of knowing the status of GIS implementation and its utilization within the utility. Now days completeness and currency of data is considered most important in any GIS database of utilities who maintain a dynamic network  that changes rapidly in the field. No one will use an outdated data if its not updated regularly and do not reflect the ground reality. I based my conclusions on a published survey to assess the status of GIS in the utilities in USA.

2009 Smart Grid Readiness Survey Findings are summarized here–

·         70% Utilities have a data backlog of 90 days or more

·         25 % reported backlog of more than 6 M or year(s)

·         Larger utilities have longer lag times in data updation

·         Data model still not stabilized

·         Integration with non-GIS database and applications is not as per business needs and utilities work flow

·         Lack of commitment by domain people

It is very clear that something is wrong with the utilities own approach to GIS implementation. Most of the utilities are vendor driven and not business focused. Based on this I identified some common issues and also suggest the solution to make things simple and projects feasible.

Technical Issues

• End users want a view of the data that is in line with the as-built used by them.  Survey output is not generally accepted because it cant be easily interpreted  by the engineers and field technicians who are used to dealing with as-builts and SLDs. Make work flow simple and in line with the engineering guidelines and standards.
• Maintain a good customer address information
• Link customer premises with the Electric network
• Pole/Transformers/Substation
• Feeder/Circuit
• Supply Phase
• Reflect customers in GIS as soon they are connected in the field

Operational Issues

Follow the international practices for Utilities Mapping  & Facilities Management

• Do not rely too much on advanced surveying techniques like DGPS and Geophysical methods- cable tracing & GPR. 
• Project becomes FEASIBLE & in-line with STANDARD international practices
• Reduce backlog in the data updation
• DGPS coordinates can not be used in case of multiple overlapping cables and lines due to requirements of offsets to represent network in a 2D dataset
• Use As-built drawing as base and Validate features in the field using limited survey
• Use the survey control points to  realign the features in the As-built drawing
• Use an acceptable amount of offset from a reference line feature if there are valid junction features. For ex., bundle of cables in a trench etc
• Use digital data for mobile  field operations on GPS enabled PDAs with a backdrop of landbase showing work area
• Improve Data Editing operations
• Standardization of geo-referencing and data updation procedure
• Spatial realignment of network features using Survey points during as-built updation
• Rectified GIS data should be uploaded regularly on daily /weekly  basis

Project Management Issues

• Understanding of the SoW and Objectives 
• Work to set goals all can share
• Just because we can do something does not imply that we should.
• High accuracy is too costly to achieve and even more to utilize it later
• Don’t rush
• Understanding project priorities help you develop sensible timelines
• Don’t throw people at problem solving
• Continuously train  people and then deploy
• Quality issues upstream cause problems in downstream
• Re-engineering must with new technologies
• Don’t let yourself hostage of IT
• Embrace technology to be efficient  and more productive
• Don’t forget the fundamentals
• Follow the engineering standards for record preparation and keeping
• Fix responsibilities and accountability
• Sponsors and vendors both are equally responsible for project success
• Remember the past
• Improve your approach based on the lessons learned
• Do not justify a failed pilot because of its cost

Lessons to Remember

• Implement GIS in a phased manner
• Backlog in the data updation should be reduced to avoid confusion in the field
• Survey control points should be used to compliment for the deficiencies in the landbase and as-built drawings.
• Comprehensive survey requirements making a lot of projects uneconomical & technically not feasible also
• GIS database cannot replace any engineering document like as-built drawings which is supposed to be the single independent document describing as laid details of utilities  and technical characteristic of the network.
• "DISTRIBUTION AUTOMATION" is crucial for the continued development of Generation, Transmission and Distribution. By attaching an “electronic meter” + CT/PT in the "beginning and end" of each Feeder and also put an ‘electronic meter’ + TC output of each Distribution Transformer we can monitor these Feeders along its entire length and to establish accurate levels of "Technical Losses" of these Feeders.
  
  
   

Standardisation of Data and Technology for Smart Grid

Thanks in part to the government stimulus money with mandated time limits, and other "green" incentives, the implementations of facility BMS, EMS, GIS, DGPS Survey for data and smart meter projects are proceeding full speed ahead and damn any standards that get in the way.

There are many diverse aspects to the smart grid but one of the most intriguing is the application of intelligence to the transmission and distribution grid itself, all the way from the long distance transmission lines, to the local substations, distribution lines and ultimately the (smart) meters.  The upgrade of the grid is not so much in the transmission and distribution equipment itself which but rather in the overlaying of an intelligent network that aggregates data from across the grid to enable the utilities to better manage the transmission and distribution functions, localize and isolate faults and integrate renewable power sources while preserving the stability and reliability of the grid.

Data is another area of serious concern.Utilities have either not maintained this data and/ or were not following standards for the maintenance of engineering records. They now look at field surveyors to provide the accurate engg. records (in fact better than elec. engg could do). Surveyors have their own concepts of accuracy and correctness. GIS and GPS technology is applied in a very fashionable /casual way without understanding the business requirements and processes. Most of these initiatives are tailormade to consume a particular product and heavily influenced by the vendors. Once initiated in one country these projects are replicated blindly elsewhere and spread like a disease. Ex. a classic case of vendor agent driven misguided utilities in some Gulf countries: few utilities started countrywide geophysical survey  (GPR and cable tracing) of  buried utilities to map their electrical network for GIS database updation and pilot failed. No lessons learned. Then they went ahead with another project for DGPS survey  (20 cm accuracy) of utilities in open trench condition to create the GIS database of utility network.  An exercise that guarantees CM level accuracy. How will you accommodate this level of accuracy in a complex network of cables in an urban environment? What is the use of such a high accuracy where everyone feels the existing procedure of as-built preparation is more than enough, if followed  properly ? Practice of precision surveys is neither required nor sustainable for any utility where hundreds of changes occur on daily basis. An standardized work flow for the creation of as-built, its submission and entry into GIS would be enough to maintain the sanctity of the engineering records and serve the purpose of O&M staff.

This same issue of interoperability will be critical to the smart grid as it moves out of the realm of isolated pilot programs and demonstration projects to a more ubiquitous presence. As in the case of cellular networks (or any networks), there are going to be a wide variety of equipment providers involved in the smart grid.  Within an individual service area, the utility may choose to work with multiple vendors in order to mitigate both technical and commercial risk.  In order to maximize the value of the smart grid, it will be necessary to enable the utilities to have a homogeneous view of this heterogeneous network.

Standardization of business processes is more important than the technology implementation to justify the RoI. Vendors should never dictate the way things should move. Now we see a lot of RFPs and projects where you can easily see that "Failure " is in-built in the form of vague SoW, no standards for data  and technology and irrational timelines. Technology should be used to facilitate the implementation in a phased manner and thus the standards will be defined by the experts and not by the agents of vendors who are interested only in selling their products.

R-APDRP: GIS & Utilities Business Process Re-engineering

Massive Aggregate Transmission and Commercial (AT&C) losses have long crippled the financial viability of State Distribution Companies. To address this problem a targeted funding mechanism was introduced for the first time in 2003 in the form of the Accelerated Power Development Reforms Programme (APDRP). Its key objectives were to reduce AT&C losses, improve customer satisfaction as well as financial viability of the SDCs, adopt a systems approach and introduce greater transparency.Unfortunately, the benefits under the first APDRP were not linked to well defined objecives, Quality checks, demonstrable performance and it failed glaringly to achieve its goals. In several cases, funds under the first APDRP were utilised without taking cognisance of the need to reduce AT&C losses. To illustrate, in the state of Bihar, significant amounts of money received under the first APDRP were spent on sophisticated equipment for substations, while very little money was spent on procuring meters to measure actual consumption of electricity. In fact, AT&C losses increased in Haryana, Jharkhand, Punjab, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh under the first APDRP. It was in this backdrop that the Restructured APDRP (R-APDRP) was conceived in September 2008.


R-APDRP seeks to commence with tackling the problem of un-metered supply and lack of proper data acquisition systems, followed by system up-gradation and modernisation of equipment. Proposals under R-APDRP will be considered in two phases. In the first phase, proposals for establishing reliable and automated systems for the sustained collection of accurate baseline data and IT applications for energy accounting/auditing and IT-based consumer service centres will be considered for funding. In the second phase, proposals for strengthening/upgradation of power distribution will be considered.
Nowdays, We face obvious questions. For ex. how GIS is going to help in solving the problems of "Utilities" which are facing the challenges of reducing the AT&C losses and incresing the profits? How R-APDRP is different from APDRP in terms of implementation?  It seems that just changing the funding mechanism and implementing a GIS will not result in any reengineering and improvement in the performance and profit. Not implementing a GIS will not preclude effective reengineering either. What the GIS can do are:

• Help identify critical information needed for the business process  and decision making (turning data into information)
• Help to rethink organizational issues by bringing to light low value organizational boundary interfaces
• Facilitate process improvement steps by organizing all geographic and facility information in one common data source
• Enable new creative thinking which could lead to dramatic improvements in the policy implmentations and monitoring the performance of the network and utilty staff as well

Assuming that the GIS is open and accessible to all users within the business unit, the GIS will link the customer directly to the product delivery system. In the past, the billing and customer systems probably have not been integrated into the delivery system data. With the GIS, this is changed. Thus rather than looking at process reengineering of a billing or customer system or an engineering system, it becomes possible to look at reengineering a retail electric business system (the broader view). As stated before, nearly all aspects of the retail electric business, from marketing to sales to collection of bad revenue involve a customer base that is spatial. The benefit of reengineering is to dramatically improve several dimensions in the business process, namely:

• Reduction of gaps in the consumer billing data & the revenue realisation
• Cycle Time - the life cycle measured in elapsed time from the beginning of the process to the end.
• Cost - the total cost to maintain the system
• Service - the value of the relationship of the customer to the provider of the product or service.

Cost will be a major factor after the project completion for maintaining the currency of the data and maintenance. The biggest obstacle to reengineering may be in the attitude that improvement in the cycle time dimension involves a degradation in one of the other dimensions.

Education & System of Education

Nowadays everyone is talking about the biggest bollywood blockbuster movie of this season. Its a basically satire on our education system. Some people relate it with the higher education system in India with IITs at the summit.

Purpose of Education

Before education one is ignorant, after the education one is supposed to be wise, responsible,  high self-esteem and mature. If you have used the word education thinking its is same as literacy, then the above statement will be no more valid. Before literacy one is an ignorant, after that one is a literate ignorant who cant think beyond money.

If we look into the education system, its almost near perfect. But the purpose of this system is not being solved because it is unknown to all, teachers parents and students alike. Subjects are mere chapters to be mugged up to crack the exams just to show the superiority over other students. And everyone feels happy and proud about it. 

What I can't understand is that is the Education system is a failure or are the students and parents at fault for not making the use of the system in a proper manner?

 Pre-Schools/Schools:

• To learn basic knowledge about language, scinece and culture
  
• To becomes responsible citizen to the Nation and to the World at Large.
• To become a good human being and serve the soceity to the best of his/her abilities.
• To respect and love others and your environment and live in Harmony.

Colleges:

• To use the knowledge gained in a innovative and productive way so as to alleviate all or at least most of the problems that mankind is facing.

Professional Institutes/Research Institute:

• To be innovative, create new knowledge...have new vision and mission which will enhance the quality of Life of Mankind in general.
• To search and make an attempt to know more about the Universe at large, who we are ..our latent potentials..and what are our objective..or purpose in Life. Using Science to the extent possible.....No Religion of any kind.. Spiritualism devoid of any Religion is OK.

Some Facts:

Even after the 2008 addition of numerous IITs, we still have only 15,500 seats for undergrad studies in IITs. Compare that with just one state in South India, AP. AP has nearly 600 private engineering colleges today. I had done some back of envelope calculations sometimes back adding up private engineering seats of KA, AP, TN and MH, the four top states producing engineering graduates in India. It was a whopping 600,000 undergrad Engineering seats just from these four states. If you add up other states, like TN, I am fairly certain that India has a million engineering undergrad seats today. Majority of these are producing substandard graduates who are not readily 'employable'. I know the pain as I have done plenty of interviews over the years.

Elitism is good, it sets standards and it allows others to emulate.

India still has a long way to go to even get 100 colleges at world class level. Everything that counts can not be counted and reflected in the reports. IITs are the only brand presentable and recognised outside India and envied most back home. IT boom happened in India because of these so-called unpatriotic IITians. At present whatever little respect India has in the western world is mainly due to its contributions and achievements in the fields related to IT sector. We have to improve the infrastructure, including the quality of faculties and even that of Heads and Vice-Chancellors. Most of the money being spent for establishing new Institutions should actually go to existing Institutions to improve the working conditions and quality of the teachers and Scientists. Other wise, the country would drag on in a similar way as it did on the past boasting about numbers. 

I am happy to know that atleast some portion of my Tax money is being utilised to nurture such intellectuals otherwise that would also have been utilised to fund some politicians' foreign account . And I believe most of the Tax-payers are ready to get their funds utilised the former way. I must not forget to tell that most of the IITans and IIMites are not so called book-warmish otherwise they would not have survived the heat (Please Note : Most of the great business leaders are from IIT and IIM which cannot be denied).

Read more on higher education:
http://www.deeshaa.org/2007/04/30/the-indian-education-system-part-1/
Read all the 10 parts
http://www.deeshaa.org/2009/07/04/policy-brief-on-higher-education-in-india/
http://www.deeshaa.org/2009/06/09/mr-kapil-sibal-abolish-the-human-resources-development-ministry/
http://www.deeshaa.org/2009/06/05/education-and-corruption/
http://www.deeshaa.org/2009/05/31/lynching-is-too-good-for-them/  

Facts About PMP

Any qualification, let it be MS, MBA, CFA, PMP, PRINCE-2 or MCTS provides the individual an opportunity to "know" the sum of all knowledge in the respective line of  business. Expertise and real-world competence comes through experience and applied learning of the same skills. The certifications give you a global view of the relevant knowledge areas and helpful to those who are not in good position to claim anything about their usefulness to any organisation. Someone without the global view  and domain knowledge will have less options to think about. Doing certifications/training is like reading the user manual before operating the tool. Reading the user manual doesn't make an expert, but experience operating the tool does to any technician.  Most of these (like PMI) provide a good reference but it is AVERAGE global practice and not best practice. It is limited in so many aspects and hardly add any real  value to your project because they are so generic and may hinder the project also if used blindly by some non-technical PM. To make a project success, you need to adopt "BEST PRACTICES" suitable to your project. That is the difference between  failure & success apart from the basic assumptions made at the beginning and the scoping.

I, and most others, do not ignore the value of  PMI, PMBOK or PMP or something else. The issue is that PMP was marketed as best practice where it is not and PMI management has become too focused on the numbers rather than value. By being too commercial PMI is losing many of its volunteers, members, and even PMP. Just look at the statistics PMI publishes numbers of members and PMP are starting to drop and this is a fact and not a opinion. This is also due to the fact that many PMPs are not able to perform at the level "they are marketed and sold" - sorry for these terms but this is the reality everywhere. There are many lawsuites going against PMI as those who are preaching PM have nothing to do with projects  and they are too beaurecratic and theoretical (Oliver  F. Lehmann, PMP case). In fact, they create lots of confusion by giving unwanted attention to not so important matters and promoting mediocrity, gossiping (they call it communication), mis-communication thru  emails/ tables and graphs along with politics and corruption too to cover up their failures.

I have never attacked the accomplishments of anyone who has taken the PMP exam. I have always attacked the claims of people who want to make that accomplishment into something more than it is. When people suggest, imply, or state that the PMP provides assurance of skill and experience as a project manager ... that is just so totally wrong. Finally, if you feel devalued by the facts that are presented  here. Reality is a tough mistress.  Here are just a few of those facts:

•   The PMP was DESIGNED as an entry level certification.
•   The PMP uses multiple choice questions exclusively in its examination, and it does not deduct for wrong answers.
•   The passing grade for the PMP started out as 70%, was lowered to 68.5% in the late 1990s, and then lowered again to 61% around 2005 where it stayed until recently when PMI stopped publishing the passing grade.
•   The number of questions on the exam started at 320, was reduced to 200 in the late 1990s, and then reduced again to 175 around 2005.
•   From the start of the PMP until a few months ago, there was no requirement for experience as a project manager.
•   From the start of the PMP until about 2005, there was no experience requirement that even implied the need for experience as a project manager.
•   PMI verifies the experience of less than 10% of applicants, and when it verifies experience, it does not assess the quality of that experience. In other words, there is no assurance that any PMP has ever managed a project successfully.
•   The first time pass rate for native English speakers who take an exam prep course is around 95%. The first time pass rate for non-native English speakers is substantially lower and is about 65%.
•   PMI does not publish statistics on pass rates.
•   Some candidates lie on their applications because some organizations require the PMP for them to get an interview.

Are some PMPs competent project managers? Absolutely. Are all PMPs competent project managers? No. Are some PMPs worthy of respect? Absolutely Yes. Are all PMPs worthy of respect? Not a chance.

Then, what is so alarming? Is anyone employable and worthy of respect solely by virtue of holding a PMP? NO. There are reasons.  My experience  is that these PMPs are contributing more to project failures than success beacuse their  lack of real/domain knowledge, basic understanding and  inability to appreciate the figures in the PM tempelates and  decisions in critical matters.



What I recommend: Develop a set of criteria that are appropriate to your specific project needs. There is no such thing as a general competence or competency in project management. So make sure that the person's traits match your project's requirements.

A person who may be patient, may be the needed manager for one project, but slow down another one too much. A great group leader may be bad in documentation, a person who is nitpicking on forms and templates may de-motivate a team. Make sure the person has a sound level of knowledge. There are various certifications that test that, but you can also develop your own tests, of course.

I am in the favor of a domain specific project management - I wonder how a "generic" PM who does not have any domain experience would understand and manage any project on the basis of some  PM tempelates. I also think that a PM with no domain knowledge might do well if you  use an automated process that can provide him the necessary metrics - s/he wouldn't have to worry about collecting build times, number of errors, number of failed tests, the most problematic component - component taking the most time, etc. - s/he will get all that automatically through the automated process. So, in my opinion, you should look for a candidate who has the necessary technical experience as well - in addition to project management experience.

No certification guarantees leadership and project success. And no certification exam can test discipline and stamina, two major traits of very good project managers. And be prepared to find in the end that there are no guarantees in project management. Those who promise that probably have their own "Agendas" and they definately dont know what is your project.