KnowledgeAcquirer
Active member
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2008
- Messages
- 44
- Reaction score
- 0
Actually, I was addressing the other PMP (Project Management Professional) since the Rita text and most of industry is focused on this certification (and that was what the other posting mentioned for their PMP certification).
You're the first person that actually asked about PgMP. None of the DoD folks I know are focused on this right now. But then, S/W Engineering and industry do not handle large programs, but are project-based in line with PMI's definition of a project --- one-time task that goes away upon completion. More importantly, PMI's definition of a project is that once whatever it is that is developed (i.e., bridge, road, software application), it gets handed over to another organization or organizational entity for Operations and Maintenance (O&M). Since you are familiar with DoD you realize that DoD does Program Management not Project Management. The DoD exception and aerospace for that matter based on my experience, is S/W Engineering. While an organizational entity such as a CSC, EDS, SAIC, et al may develop a software application for DoD, once it is blessed and becomes operational, another organization (usually a DoD entity or another contractor entity) is responsible for the O&M.
I wholeheartedly agree with you, "wait-and-see". However, I really can't see commercial industry picking up on Program Management. Again, my example of bridges or roadways. Once a Halliburton or CH2M Hill builds something, especially on the State or Municipal level, the State or Municipal entity is the organizational entity that is responsible for O & M. Not so in DoD. When a satellite, ship, submarine, or aircraft is built for DoD by a contractor, DoD is still the entity that does the O & M. This is the reason that there are Program Managers (PMs) on the contractor and DoD side. I personally know several engineers that moved up to PMs (I came out of college and trained under them when they were PMs) that developed the first IMINT and SIGINT systems. By the time I graduated and worked for these people, they were the PMs on the 3rd/4th generation of these satellite families. There is a lot to be said when one is exposed to folks who worked on the first systems. It was a really challenging and exciting experience. Since I was in Engineer in charge of the autonomous C3I (now C4I in DoD nomenclature), I had to apply transmission line theory and high frequency communications theory to resolve the problem of signal reflection since there were multiple cables to provide redundancy and backup to multiple subsystems (that were systems unto themselves) that also had redundancy (in case of failure by another unit or two). As the PMs and Chief System Engineers that mentored me pointed out, "Things were much simpler. One box and one cable between boxes". When I asked why the change, they laughed and looked at me. "Well, you're the one with the VLSI and computer knowledge ---- what used to be a single box is now on a card in the box." Each of the 6 boxes that I was responsible for, along with the 48-bit-slice computer, had 24 populated card slots out of 28. I was more flabbergasted by the fact that there were 24 128-pin connectors on each of the boxes.
However, since these former PMs are not licensed PEs (though 2 have Ph.Ds in engineering), they cannot provide Verification of my Engineering Experience that would be accepted by my State Board so that I can take the PE Exam. Some have already passed on.
Sorry for going off on tangents, but it is really nice to interact with others who have the passion and knowledge that I find here at engineerboards.com.
