Français (France) 
Finnish (FI) 
English (United Kingdom) 
 |
Follow the Discoverit.fi LinkedIn company page and get special benefits. |
| Subscribe to 'A Hitchhiker's Blog of PM' newsletter | |
Select your language
Select your language
|
Follow the Discoverit.fi LinkedIn company page and get special benefits. |
| Subscribe to 'A Hitchhiker's Blog of PM' newsletter | |
PM², PRINCE2, IPMA, and PMBOK are often mentioned in the same context, even though they aren't really comparable — they answer different questions. This article walks through what each one actually means, and when PM² is the most natural choice.
PM² is an open, free project management methodology developed by the European Commission. It is used widely within EU institutions, and the Digital Europe Programme actively promotes it to public administrations across Member States. Yet after reviewing the content published by Finland's leading project management sites, and searching for international adoption examples, there were hardly any hits.
Read more: Why is PM² missing from the Finnish project management discussion?
In ERDF, ESF+, JTF, and other EU-funded projects risk management is often treated as administrative paperwork: the risk register gets filled because funder requires it. The same applies to the methodology as a whole — PM²'s templates can easily look like bureaucracy whose only purpose is to show the managing authority that the project is being run properly.
AI can assemble a status update, phrase it clearly, flag risks, and propose corrective actions. That's genuinely useful. But the success of a project depends on the cooperation. It cannot be automated. It requires a jointly agreed procedure — and that's why the PM² methodology is needed, even as the tools around it evolve quickly.
Most organisations recognise the value of project management methodology: clear responsibilities and decision-making, traceable processes and the ability to learn from experience. Yet adoption often stalls - barely surviving thanks to the effort of a few committed individuals while the rest of the organisation retains its old habits. This can be seen as the methodology paradox: the benefits are understood, but everyday behaviour does not change.