Quality of Project Management Education and Training Programmes
The paper refers to the factors which influence the quality of training and education on project management. A survey was made and the main results are presented. 81 % of the responses came from China. The rest were professionals of different EU nationalities. The percentage of Project Managers who answered the questions is rather low – 8%. In the “Others” category, we have software developers, financial managers and professors, who are involved in both training on project management, but also as team members or team managers in projects, thus ensuring a balanced overview of both theory and practical issues.
KeywordsQuality Project management training and education competences
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.International Project Management Association, International Competence Baseline – ICB, V 3.0, http://www.pm.org.ro/ICB-V-3-0/ICB-V-3-0.pdf
- 4.Markku, M.: Creating Favourable Conditions for Knowledge Society through Knowledge Management, eGovernance and eLearning. In: FIG Workshop on e-Governance, Knowledge Management and e-Learning in Budapest, Hungary (2006)Google Scholar
- 5.Teekaput, P., Waiwanijchakij, P.: eLearning and Knowledge Management, Symptoms of a Reality. In: Third International Conference on eLearning for Knowledge-Based Society, Bangkok, Thailand (2006), http://www.ijcim.th.org/v14nSP1/pdf/p27.1-6-fin-36.pdf
- 6.Turner, R.J., Simister, S.J.: Gower Handbook of Project Management, Romanian version, Codecs Printing House (2004)Google Scholar
- 7.Gareis, R.: Happy Projects! Romanian version. ASE Printing House, Bucharest (2007)Google Scholar
- 8.Kanellopoulos, D., Kotsiantis, S., Pintelas, P.: Ontology-based learning applications: a development methodology. In: Proceedings of the 24th IASTED International Multi-Conference Software Engineering, Innsbruck, Austria (2006)Google Scholar
- 10.Garcia, A.C.B., Kunz, J., Ekstrom, M., Kiviniemi, A.: Building a Project Ontology with Extreme Collaboration and VD&C. CIFE Technical Report #152, Stanford University (2003)Google Scholar