Talk:PRINCE2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is related to Wikipedia:WikiProject Method engineering.
Please note that the use of Wikipedia to host this project has been questioned. Please read this discussion and, if you wish, contribute your thoughts there.

Updated Quality to explain what it means (as 85.95.99.198) Mnbf9rca 22:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


A great deal of the material in this article was taken from Crown Copyright documents, which we do not have the right to redistribute. The copyright holder has written to the Wikimedia Foundation to complain about this (ref: OTRS 2006051210004346). Respecting copyrights is extremely important to Wikipedia. Please do not use copyrighted text or diagrams in this article. It's okay to use the original documents as sources, but you must rewrite the information in your own words. Also, please remember to maintain an encyclopedic style - it's a summary description, not a how-to manual. FreplySpang (talk) 20:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the article the majority of descriptions were written by me right at the beginning of the article. See [1]. I was perfectly aware of the copyright situation with regard from PRINCE2 and explicitly wrote it from memory. --ChrisG 19:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

What happened! The last time I looked at this page it was an excellent source of information on Prince2 and spurred me on to get my Prince practitioner qualification. Looking at the comments above it seems that all the excellent information was deleted due to copyright. I would be interested in writing some material for this article but can anyone give guidance as to what can be included and what's likely to be deleted? For example, can one refer to the fact that Prince has the following components: Business Case, Organisation, Plans, Controls, Management of Risk, Quality, Configuration Management and Change Control. Are we allowed to refer to the sub-processes by name. I appreciate the comment from FreplySpang about it should be an encyclopedia rather than a how to manual but the current article is very light indeed. (By the way, this is my first post on wikipedia so don't know if I'm doing the right thing here.) Wikikob 11:34 Tuesday 15-Aug-06

I've added a citation needed note to the claim that Prince is being used in 50 countries. Does anyone know where this claim came from? I've also deleted some links to Prince training providers. I don't think this is what Wikipedia is about. Wikikob 15:20 Wednesday 23-Aug-06

There's not been much comment on my comments on this talk page so I have gone ahead and more-or-less rewritten the article. I hope that it passes muster. This is my first major edit on Wiki so am not totally au fait with the formatting rules. Wikikob 09:12, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

The article uses copyrighted material. The pictures shown are not complete and contain errors. Rlkrooshof 22:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Project, Sub-process, Stage

These three important words are used but not explained. As a nitwit I have a hard time to derive from the text the meaning of these three words, and their differences. Can someone with knowledge of Prince2 please explain and add to the article? Many thanks! 131.211.42.152 09:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I wrote much of the article that was felt to breach Crown Copyright. I think it's pathetic that Prince2, funded by tax payers, shouldn't be publically available as an open standard. Personally, based on the article that was removed, this one will also breach their precious copyright.

[edit] External links

I have cleaned out what a fairly large number of inappropriate external links in this article. This appears to be disputed by at least one anonymous editor, so I have outlined my removals here for discussion.

The list of 'software' is simply an unqualified list of commercial links acting as a service directory. Please see the policy at WP:NOT#DIR. If anyone feels software here is notable according to WP:SOFTWARE then please create an article and we can set up an corresponding category - a directory here is not appropriate and is merely advertising.

In the 'external links' there are three links to prince2.org, ogc.gov.uk, and usergoup.org.uk which appear to be official sites: I'm assuming that is not disputed and they seem to pass WP:EL. The rest seems fairly useless:

  • www.p2ug.com, "The PRINCE2 User Group Forum" - Low content site with a handful of posts, maybe five or six this year. This adds nothing to the article.
  • prince2.technorealism.org, "PRINCE2 Wiki" - Affiliated with the p2ug group above, apparently. Wiki with maybe nine changes in the last 15 months, and none this year. Ultra low content as it is.
  • www.microupdate.net, "Prince2 TiddlyWiki complete", Good outline content, but none of the secondary links are filled in. Also does not appear to have been touched in about 20 months.
  • www.spoce.com, "Mini-Method for small projects" - Complete commercial spam for training classes - absolutely no reason for this.
  • www.whyprince2.com, "Why Prince2 site: Background to PRINCE2 method", A handful of pages on general project management and an outline of PRINCE2 that then leads to a commercial training site. This seems to simply be a spam leader.
  • www.ruleworks.co.uk, "PRINCE2 Guide - A to Z, FAQ and 1000+ Exam Questions" - Much of the content appears lifted from www.prince2.org.uk. Most, if not all, of the links lead to a subscription site, which seems to be the main reason for this link. The google ads are not excessive, but there's no reason to have them for a subscription based site.
  • www.outperform.co.uk, "Prince2 2005 Changes and Product & Process Matrix" - Low content consultant's page. Almost every page ends with a list of prices and services from a single vendor along with a pitch. Looks simply like a promotional site.
  • www.prince2.org.uk/web/site/ConsultingAccred/ACOListing.asp, "List of Registered Consultants" - there is no need to link to prince2.org.uk again.

If the 'official' sites are not useful, I do not see ant that are. I'm fine with simply removing all links if there are objections to the official ones. Kuru talk 22:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Your points on the software have some validity. On the links, none at all. You demonstrate a poor understanding of Prince2, which is why you err towards the so-called 'official sites', which are actually poor. Either zap all the links, or none of them. To retain links on the basis of the word 'official' is adhoc at best, and definitely ill advised. It is not what wiki is meant to be. I would add as well that some of your comments above are horribly subjective. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.150.224.172 (talk • contribs).
You could, of course, explain your own logic on what value the links add to the article. Feigned indignation over PRINCE2 'understanding' does not seem particularly useful. Since at least two of the links are blatant spam, which you have re-added with only a tangential disparagement of 'official' links, I'm going to have to ask you to explain your actions. Please be specific as to what you feel each site contributes. Kuru talk 23:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not defending every link there, but your broad brush is missing one gigantic reality. There is a battle raging with regard to the OGC, over an 'open' versus 'closed' future. The 'official' channels are trying to wrap these methods up behind paid/closed doors, using APMG as a shield. They are trying to deny knowledge, unless you pay them for it. Do you not see the irony of what you did by deleting all but links to the 'official' sites, which are low quality anyway? This is a wiki. It is open and its ethos is to provide free knowledge to all. Yet you zap links which provide unfettered knowledge, or at least not the cartel's knowledge, incuding even to other wikis? Think about it.
Wiki is part of 'open' and it should not be used as a tool to blatantly support 'closed' cartelism, especially in the current sensitive context. There are some half decent links there and some poor ones, the latter include what you call 'official'. None are outstanding quality in all honesty. The very least you should do though is balance open and closed, and not chop open and support closed. I hope it makes some sense to you and you understand this perspective.

Wow -what was a useful, interesting and resourceful page has become a very weak, mono-cultural blurb about PRINCE2. No links, no debate, no 'people's view', no links or resources for all the independent PRINCE2 practitioners who will learn nothing from this page now. I agree with all the 'closed' vs 'open' comments, above. Oh well, another free voice is stifled... Stevo 10:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)stevo

You're free to correct the article to introduce 'closed' vs. 'open' issues using cited and referenced materials using reliable and verifiable sources. This is intended as an encyclopedia, not your personal blog, not a directory to promote yor products.
Per the above, I'm going to remove all of the links and we can restore them based on discussions here. I'm looking for useful sites that actually add to the content of the page, and I'm simply not seeing that with the very poor links there now, many of which are blatantly spam. Please constructively discuss specific links rather than general moaning about how you're being "stifled" and how the cartel is out to get to you. This rhetoric is not helpful. If you can make your point without theatrics, I'm more than happy to listen. Kuru talk 12:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
What is this? A dictatorship? King Kuru must not be questioned, or he stamps has jackboot down? Who are you? What makes YOU correct? Silly me. I thought wiki was a 'collaboration'. It seems to be for others, but not he who calls himself Kuru. Read your own 'theatrics' and then consider what they make you sound like. As for the sites themselves, you have even chopped the other wiki's. I wonder about that. There is only room for one wiki in your view? I suppose that would make you consistent. Your comments on the other sites are your opinion as well. Opinion. Opinion. Opinion. I said it three times, because your opinion is subjective. But most of all it is OPINION. The silver lining here? At least we now know the dictatorial nature of things around here. I've added so much trext in the past to wiki, but never again. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.150.224.172 (talk) 13:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC).
One last point. You use the word 'concensus'. Where is the concensus for your change? I see your proposed action, and then two voices disagreeing with it. Yet you still go ahead? Is that what you call concensus? Sorry, but whoever you are, you are way off track and not helping Wikipedia one jot. And before you convince yourself I have vested interests here, I don't. I am a PM who knows a thing or two about this subject. Enough to see things more objectively than you it would appear. Over and out from me. It's your playgound, enjoy it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.150.224.172 (talk) 13:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC).
The editing of these pages, in my opinion, has taken a backward step. It used to be a very useful source of what's happening in the PRINCE2 world. As a PRINCE2 registered consultant I appreciate TSO/OGC's need to protect their copyright, but the dumbing down of these pages makes them little more valuable than the opening chapter within the manual (you get as much information from amazon). The value for me was in some of the external links which have now been removed. I also appreciate wikepedia's editorial code and since the policy is not to have directories, then so be it. It will just limit these pages to focus on the PRINCE2 method rather than the PRINCE2 community. I do take objection to the defamtory remarks made on each of the websites that have been removed. I'm partly responsible for www.outperform.co.uk and do not regard 56 pages of content, numerous white-papers, templates, presentations and checklists as 'low content', particularly since they've been produced by Registered Consultants qualified and licensed to use crown copyright. The particular article that was referenced was comparing the changes from the 2002 to the 2005 versions of the manual. Considering that 50% of PRINCE2 practitioners (circa 100,000 people) sat their exam prior to 2005, and that this information is not readily available elsewhere, we thought it would be useful for people to know (and simpler to add a link rather than to regurgitate the content within the wiki). I also take objection to the statement that 'Almost every page ends with a list of prices and services from a single vendor along with a pitch'. Erm, only 1 page of 56 pages has any service prices on them. Check the facts! Again, if the policy is to not have a directory, then simply state "this is a commercial site" and do away with the opinionated narrative. PRINCE2Andy 13:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I vote for putting all the links back. They add an option for users to look for more information. As long as the list is not very long (perhaps max. 12 links) then there is no need to apply censorship. When there are many links then the less useful ones could be trimmed away.

Hmmmm... looks like some rogue links have been added to the PRINCE2 page. We can't have that, they might be useful! Or, even worse, commercial and useful!. Go, Kuru, go! Stevo 09:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)Stevo

External links tag I've had a look at the (sometimes heated) discussion regarding the external links on this article. I've also had a look at some of the WP guidelines such as the External Links policy. Based on what I've read there do seem to be many more external links than there should be. I have therefore tagged this article with a "clean up the external links" tag. We all know the benefit (search engine rankings) that external links have to the people who insert the links on the WP pages and I'm sure that each site owner sincerely believes that their site really does add value to the WP article. But let's be objective. Wikipedia is not a links directory - it is an encyclopedia.

So who should stay in? Prince2 is "owned" by OGC (well they own the trademark anyway) and they have empowered APMG to administer it. Those two links should obviously be in the list. But I believe everything else should go. Even the so called official user groups look dodgy. If they really are official then shouldn't the OGC and APMG websites reference them? The wikipedia guidelines recommend that the external links list should be short and this isn't just for the benefit of the reader. It is also for the benefit of us people who contribute to the article. The more links that appear in the list, the more difficult it is for us to police the list. Maybe that's the reason why so many spam links have persisted on this page since the last discussion on this topic in April. Wikikob 21:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

External links tag - week +1 update There do not seem to have been any replies to my discussion above so I have gone ahead and tidied up the external links. I have done this in good faith and I hope that the only people this will offend are the spammers themselves. Wikikob 07:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

But we have had this debate before. See above, directly above your own words. The consensus was to leave the links as they were as they were functional.
Consensus is NOT making a self proclamation and then claiming consensus when nobody replies to it! I am reverting your change. Please note that I am not a 'spammer', a word you may be using to defend your actions. The above sequence is clear.


[edit] WP treatment of PRINCE2

Assuming that PRINCE2 and its elements are valid topics for some degree of Wikipedia coverage, then the question is how best to cover them. It seems at present that the coverage is very patchy. For example, there is this quite reasonable overview article on PRINCE2. There's a long and rather rambling article on the Managing Stage Boundaries (SB) process. But there isn't an article for, say, the Initiating a Project (IP) process. A sensible structure might have a medium-length article for each of the 8 processes and the 3 specific techniques, along with shorter ones for the 8 components and for some for key PRINCE2 management products.

The goal here is not to rewrite the PRINCE2 manual, but to give enough understanding for the general reader. Hopefully we can cover all the PRINCE2 elements in enough detail to make it clear how PRINCE2 works. Some of these articles have enough overlap with other PM methodologies (or with ITIL) that it would be better to treat the PRINCE2 material as a section within an existing article.

It's obviously a copyright breach to reuse any extensive wording or to copy graphics from OGC materials, but it should be acceptable to describe PRINCE2, and to use PRINCE2's own terminology where appropriate. Fair use also means brief quotes from Managing Successful Projects with PRINCE2 are entirely reasonable.

Because all these terms have a usage outside PRINCE2, I think some care is needed to distinguish their specific meaning. I'd suggest capitalising the names of processes, sub-processes, and required management products. Also, titles for the lower-level articles will need to be distinguished from regular use of the same term. I'll suggest the following templates, but others may have different views:

  • Managing Stage Boundaries (SB) (PRINCE2 process)
  • Organisation (PRINCE2 component)
  • Product-based planning (PRINCE2 technique)
  • Stage Plan (PRINCE2 product)

Thoughts? Rupert Clayton 14:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alternative home for the PRINCE2 wiki

Hi Everyone,

I am a PRINCE2 trainer and run a PRINCE2 training organisation in Australia called crazycolour.com Crazy Colour (CC Consulting). The content on our website was created from scratch and covers all the PRINCE2(TM) processes, components and techniques. This resource forms part of our pre-course reading for training courses and is used to help people implement and use PRINCE2. We are, in the next few weeks, going to make it available to the public to edit in our p2 wiki. Being open about Crazy Colour content is nothing new: we have had a website with PRINCE2 content for the past 4 years and provided the free Crazy Colour Card for PRINCE2 Processes for download for longer than that. The move to a wiki format is an overdue but natural progression of this.

Please note that we are certainly not trying to reproduce the OGC title "Managing Successful Projects with PRINCE2". Our website will be a Crazy Colour perspective of PRINCE2(TM) based on trainer experience, the public's contribution and those aspects that the APMG(TM) sees as important to achieving benefits on time, on budget and to a required level of quality via the delivery of a project.

CC Consulting will review and monitor the content using trainers and consultants, updating the content when a new manual version is released. We have existing relationships with the OGC and will comply with requests from them regarding copyright, helping them to contribute to the PRINCE2(TM) community. Navigating copyright issue can seem daunting and I think that the removal of past content on Wikipedia is a good example of the consequences of avoiding such requirements.

As as start we provide permission to link to our PRINCE2 content from Wikipedia and will encourage the community to contribute. Our plan is to clearly state when a concept or edit is not in line with the current PRINCE2 manual.

I would appreciate any comments or questions regarding my offer, either via this mediawiki PRINCE2 Talk page or direct [via email]

Please note: Crazy Colour™ is a trademark of CC Consulting. © CC Consulting Ltd, London, United Kingdom, Company No. 04519515. Crazy Colour is an ATO for PRINCE2. PRINCE® is a Registered Trade Mark of the Office of Government Commerce in the United Kingdom and other countries. PRINCE2™ is a Trade Mark of the Office of Government Commerce.

Scott Spence 07:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

This seems to be a blatant request to add linkspam from an overtly commercial organization. There are several exisitng PRINCE2 wikis already, which are not linked to. So the answer from my perspective is no.

[edit] Request for Comment: Elimination of spam in external links

Many of the external links on the Prince2 article are simply spam. There has been discussion on this topic before (see above in the section "External Links") but one anonymous user consistently argues strongly for their retention. For this reason we cannot accept anonymous comments as part of this RFC process.

Interesting. Who is this "WE" as in "we cannot accept anonymous comments" I wonder? It is our friend Wikikob, who created his almost anonymous account recently and has made almost no contributions to Wikipedia, unless you count deleting existing content!
Please do not abuse the rules like this, in pursuit of your mission.

Please take a look at the links and comment on whether the links appear to be spam or not (or spam leaders). Note: Some of these links (e.g. the first two!) are obvious links to keep. The links currently are as follows:

   * The Official PRINCE2 website
   * The OGC's PRINCE2 site
   * The PRINCE2 Successful Candidate Register
   * The OGC officially recognised User Group
   * The PRINCE2 User Group Forum
   * PRINCE2 Wiki
   * Prince2 TiddlyWiki complete
   * Mini-Method for small projects
   * PRINCE2 Guide - A to Z, FAQ and 1000+ Exam Questions
   * Prince2 2005 Changes and Product & Process Matrix
   * Prince2 Tube Map - Complete Process Diagram
Most look fine to me. I seem to be in the majority from reading all the previous comments. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.110.218.226 (talk) 19:41, August 22, 2007 (UTC)
I would also add that contrary to the comments made by WikiKob on another page, the above was my first post and I am not a spammer. This is offensive. And note that there are clearly a number of contributors supporting retention of those links, such as Stevo, PRINCEAndy and others.
Statements like "I am determined not to let him beat me" made by Wikikob on that other page are also of concern as they illustrate a mission other than to contribute to the quality of the page.
This is not an issue of WikiBob against the Anonymous users. There is a policy in place at Wikipedia:External Links. If anyone has an issue with what should be kept and what should be deleted, then argue with the policy, not the links on this page. As such, the following should be removed. I bolded the ones that appear to me to be relevant here.
  1. Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article.
  2. Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources for explanations of the terms "factually inaccurate material" or "unverifiable research".
  3. Links mainly intended to promote a website.
  4. Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services. For example, instead of linking to a commercial bookstore site, use the "ISBN" linking format, giving readers an opportunity to search a wide variety of free and non-free book sources.
  5. Links to sites with objectionable amounts of advertising.
  6. Links to sites that require payment or registration to view the relevant content.
  7. Sites that are inaccessible to a substantial number of users, such as sites that only work with a specific browser.
  8. Direct links to documents that require external applications (such as Flash or Java) to view the relevant content, unless the article is about such rich media. If you do link to such material make a note of what application is required.
  9. Links to search engine and aggregated results pages.
  10. Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace), discussion forums or USENET.
  11. Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority.
  12. Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors.
  13. Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article. A general site that has information about a variety of subjects should usually not be linked to from an article on a more specific subject. Similarly, a website on a specific subject should usually not be linked from an article about a general subject. If a section of a general website is devoted to the subject of the article, and meets the other criteria for linking, then that part of the site could be deep-linked.
I hope that this list, already a Wikipedia policy, helps guide the editors of this page to come to a consensus about which links should remain and which should be removed. -- Kainaw(what?) 14:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
As a vaguely interested party (I have Prince2!), the first 4 only need to be there. The rest are either advertising, barely used forums, or poor-quality wikis with more adverts than editors. I have edited to match. I have books and books about PRINCE2, but don't edit this sort of page much because I see enough of it in work - if any references etc are needed, drop me a line. Neil ム 18:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Kainaw & Neil for your contributions and thanks Neil for actually deleting all that spam. That anonymous user seems to be taking pot shots at me that I feel I must correct. He says "our friend Wikikob, who created his almost anonymous account recently and has made almost no contributions to Wikipedia" - this is, of course, completely untrue and the best way to counter this allegation is to point to my contribution list that shows how I've contributed and also that I have been active on WP under this username since 2004. I fully expect the anonymous user to revert Neil's change in a few days but I'll be keeping an eye on the Prince2 page from now on. Wikikob 19:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Consensus on Wikipedia is important. Changes should be applied when consensus is reached. In fact it is extremely ignorant to simply dive in and delete prior to this. Consensus is certainly not with removal, as comments from several anonymous users, Stevo and PRINCE2Andy illustrate.
Wikikob is in an unseemly hurry to delete them, hence the unacceptable allegations made regarding myself and others. The recent edit history of that user makes very interesting reading. Whatever the mission is here, please follow Wikipedia protocols at all times. —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 20:23, August 23, 2007 (UTC).
Correct. The consensus is that links to user groups, sites with heavy advertising, and small wikis should not be in any article on Wikipedia. If you are against such a consensus, go to Wikipedia:External Links and voice your opinion on the matter. -- Kainaw(what?) 20:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
And the ongoing debate is actually whether the links here fit into those particular categories, which are general but which you mis-quote by the way. There is also the issue of value add, which is also general. This is why debate and consensus is sought in the first place. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.110.218.226 (talk) 21:37, August 23, 2007 (UTC)
I note 208.110 has added the links again. We have a policy on external links for a reason, and so I have removed them again. If the anonymous user adds them again, I'll prevent them from editing this article (either via protection or via blocking their editing privileges). This is not a content dispute, this is not a debate, this is the application of Wikipedia policy to what is and is not acceptable. Links to wikis, forums and the like are not acceptable, per the above list, so they will remain gone. Neil ム 00:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
(churlish personal attack by IP removed) Neil ム 09:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Editor Wikikob (talk · contribs) has asked me to re-review the links here again and revisit the topic that seems to have dropped off my radar several months ago. To start with, I've looked at each site again and I don't think my opinions have changed much; most are either ultra low content, copied from other available sources, or simple and blatant spam as noted above. I'm still in agreement that the first four seem fine.

Of course, I'm not sure how much of this conversation is about individual links as it is about personal attacks and odd indignation. I'm afraid that my assumption of good faith in simply reverting back to a list of links which includes at least one blatant commercial example is becoming exhausted and concur with Neil. I would ask that those proposing an extensive directory of links please list specific links to add and why instead of generalized rants, please. Kuru talk 03:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Responding to the RFC, I see no response to Kuru's request a week later. I second Kuru's suggestion: before adding links back, have a discussion on the talk page. VisitorTalk 05:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comparison with other project management techniques

I'd be interested in summaries of reliable sources that compare this project management technique to the PMI body of knowledge, TOC/Critical Chain, etc. VisitorTalk 05:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This entry is great example of the sad decline of Wikipedia

I've just attempted to turn an almost completely incomprehensible sentence in this article into something vaguely approaching English. Not sure that I've succeeded, but I think that the original problem was caused by the author attempting to squeeze in hyperlinks to other wikipediea articles that really didn't need to be there and completely losing touch with any idea of syntax as a result!

I've looked at a number of articles recently which seem to have gradually deteriorated over time - this really points up the problems of editing by committee, particularly when that committee consists of millions of people spread around the world. Entropy is setting in and articles which were once valuable are now beginning to read like utter garbage. I don't know if there's really a solution to this other than a complete rewrite of the articles in question so, at the very least, they actually make some sense to readers. Seems to me that any feasible solution would involve losing what made wikipedia so good in the first place.

Hey ho. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.21.85.174 (talk) 07:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Just tried to update the page with teh new Practitioner exam info and the correction re the defeicits of Prnce2...all gloriously undone124.191.33.29 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 11:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Has Prince2 failed spectacularly and why is it not open source?

Not so long ago I was told that Prince2 was required for all uk government projects. However, quite a few of these projects have failed, notably the NHS database and ID cards running out of control on price.

Do these failures point at an inherent problem with Prince2 or do they indicate that Prince2 was not in fact used?

Also, if Prince2 is so very important in project management, why is it not all on the web already? Some people might still buy the books! Mike0001 (talk) 13:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)