Ithuta JV

Source - Article by Bob Andrew

One of the most subjective and misunderstood words in the English language is ‘value’. Engineers define value as function (or performance) per unit cost. The cheaper an item is, for a given function, the higher its value is. There is, however, somewhat of a problem when it comes to defining cost: does one mean simply the initial cost of the item or its cost of ownership? Correct and consistent definition and measurement of both function and cost are extremely important if one wants to measure and evaluate value.

Some project managers may tend to view their project team members like commodities; things that can be purchased to fulfil certain functions, for example planning and scheduling, and therefore they believe they can measure their value. They know what the team member is supposed to do and they generally know what it costs to employ them. Is this the right way of determining the value of an project team member?

Apart from the skills and knowledge that a person has and from which value can be derived, an individual also has ‘worth’, i.e. some quality, or qualities, that renders that person desirable, useful and worth having in the project team. These qualities might be: synergy with other team members, innovative ability to produce new ideas, commitment to the project goals, sensitivity to risk, loyalty to the project manager and social intelligence and networking skills, all of which could cynically be regarded as being of secondary importance but in the world of projects are vital and of critical importance.

Psychologists generally believe that a person’s individual worth is that person’s relationship to ‘quality’ in the broadest sense of the word. This really means that whatever you do and whatever work you are involved in, you give it your best shot; your best efforts represent your personal level of quality. The famous American psychologist Robert Pirsig believed that ‘further improvement to the world will only be done by individuals making quality decisions and that’s all’. Projecting this to the wider world, Pirsig believed that individual worth, as defined by the individual’s relationship to quality, is the most critical resource a country can have.

In the context of project management, project workers should equate their definition of quality to ‘professionalism’ resting on the special relation to the subject and work matters (whatever they may be) in which they are involved.

Professionalism not only relates to the highest possible level of work endeavours but also to a high standard of professional ethics, such as loyalty, commitment, confidentiality, integrity, governance, safeguarding client interests and unblemished behaviour. It also implies appropriate treatment of relationships with colleagues, especially to younger and less experienced colleagues.

Of course, in project management, the ethical and quality worthiness of professionalism must be strongly balanced with competencies. Such competencies would include the mastery of theoretical knowledge, the application of theoretical knowledge to practice, ability to create knowledge by problem solving and commitment to continuous learning about the profession.

It’s interesting to note that Pirsig does not differentiate between professionals and non-professionals by competency alone but rather by individual worth as related to quality. He also introduced the word ‘technician’ as someone who “has become so deeply involved in his field that he has lost the ability to communicate with people outside”.