Talk:OPM3

This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Engineering Low‑importance This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of engineering on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EngineeringWikipedia:WikiProject EngineeringTemplate:WikiProject EngineeringEngineering articles Low This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Systems Low‑importance This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Systems, which collaborates on articles related to systems and systems science.SystemsWikipedia:WikiProject SystemsTemplate:WikiProject SystemsSystems articles Low This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This redirect is within the field of Project management. Business Low‑importance This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles Low This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The WP:COIRESPONSE . Zounds227 (talk · contribs) has been paid by Project Management Institute.

I found the article quite interesting and useful, but ended up rating it quite low, since it does not contain a lot of references and no criticism at all on the merits of the model in itself. The "controversy" section seems of more historical interest - i'd be more interested in links to investigations into whether OPM3 maturity is actually linked to project performance. With their focus on testability there must be plenty.

Unforunately I don't know enough of the subject to contribute to the article itself, but I'm currently reading a paper entitled "The role of project management maturity and organizational culture in perceived performance" (Hulya Julie Yazici, project management journal sept 2009) that list some previous research done on the subject - the general conclusion here seems to be that project management maturity level has little or no correlation with project success. A discussion about these papers or link to them would improve "objectivity" and "trustworthyness" of the wikipedia article.

178.155.212.207 (talk) 08:28, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, this sections on "Controversy" and "Outcry" are completely relevant and central to an explanation of what OPM3 is today. These two sections explain that the core of OPM3 (that defines the model and the actions users take when using it) has been withheld, and furthermore, that it is being withheld in a manner that most people do not realize or understand.

As for a discussion of whether maturity models work, I do not think this page is the place for that. This particular model (OPM3) was developed by thousands of practitioners and based on research into 27 other models, facts that are described in great detail in a link on the page to document about the history of OPM3. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jschlichter (talk • contribs) 03:43, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! I am an employee of

The OPM3 certification is just one of many projects created by PMI, and has been retired because of its low adoption rate. I don't think the sources meet Wikipedia's standards. Additionally, the article has a lot of unsourced text (most of 'History', all of 'Contents', 'Adoption', 'Benefits', and 'Controversy' sections) and the entire 'Outcry' section seems inappropriate. I think OPM3 just needs a mention in the PMI article's 'Credentialing and certification' section.

Can someone remove this article? Thanks. Zounds227 (talk) 18:11, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reply 04-JUN-2019

• Any request to delete an article or to have its contents merged into another article ought to be submitted using the
  articles for deletion process, where editors can choose one of many pathways for dealing with articles which may no longer be relevant and whose contents may be best handled within other articles.^[a]

Regards,  Spintendo  03:16, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]