I'm wondering how much has changed if
One of the most important changes is the criteria for included information, which evolved from “generally accepted on most projects, most of the time” to “generally recognized as good practice on most projects, most of the time.”
Nevertheless, an essential reference if you are going to study for the PMP exam. I'm getting less and less excited about PMI the more I read. Expecially when I read their linking agreement (find it at: www.pmi.org/info/LinkAgreement.asp) which states:
No Negative References. You agree not to make negative or disparaging references to PMI, its services or its members or otherwise compare PMI, its services or its members unfavorably to others.
Hey, maybe I could use those terms and conditions on my site?
Comments (2)
Jack,
Most professional orgs I belong to don't allow linkage. IEEE, ACM, INCOSE. It simply creates a mess like this. Then they have to have oppressive wording which then cascades into people complaining about the linkage policies.
The issues starts when the professionalism aspects get intermixed with the commerical aspects of the organizaiton. This is the core problem with PMI. They have a financial incentive to promote their org, where ACM, IEEE and INCOSE don't (or at least it's not their primary motive).
IEEE and ACM have commerical sides with conferences and insurance offerings, but they didn't seem to get that confused with the community of members and their intellectual needs.
Posted by Glen B. Alleman | November 20, 2005 9:04 AM
Posted on November 20, 2005 09:04
Please Send any new of PMP Project
Posted by Mohammad | January 29, 2006 11:05 PM
Posted on January 29, 2006 23:05