The inclusion of sustainability concerns in a revised PMBOK is crucial. I believe the changes can make a widespread and important contribution to a better world through project management. Generally, I agree with the content changes you propose but I think it is counter-productive to use the term ‘greenality’ as if it is already an accepted reference when it is not. You run the risk that the academic board reviewing our proposal will be put off by the inclusion of a term that is not known or in common usage. This one word could stall or kill the whole project and is not an acceptable risk. It is NOT on wikipedia and has only limited hits on Google, the most prominent being on urbandictionary.com where the definition includes a self serving entry from authors who hope to coin a new word.
In updated comments to the PMBOK(R) Guide review, we have left out references to greenality.
As to the board being put off by a single word – yes, it’s possible, that’s why we took out further references to it, but we’d have to have some faith in the board having at least a reasonable a focus on *intent* and not specific word choice.
We of course disagree with your assessment of the word as being self-serving. The word “serves” everyone who wants to describe the attribute of combining quality and ecological sense.
And of course we completely agree with you in intent, and your first sentence – you are right on. So let’s focus on what we can do in alignment, rather than mis-alignment. Have you entered in comments to the 5th Edition? If so, thanks!
Cheers and thanks for your viewpoint.
Rich Maltzman, PMP
You must be logged in to post a comment.