General comment:
Refresh Programme Team comments have been added in italics where appropriate. All comments will be fed through to the consistency authors to assist with the next draft including those without direct responses.
· 1.1.1, 1.1.2, 1.1.3 and 1.1.4 to have heading in their own right equal to 1.1 Governance.
· PMO or Project Office or ? – they believed that this kept on changing throughout the documents and can mean different things to different people as they undertake a range of roles. There needs to be an agreement on the definition that is going to be used and for it to then be consistent throughout. They recommended that P3O be acknowledged as a good definition which could then be aligned to but not used. At this point it was also raised that Project, Programme and Portfolio should have their own headings and not be under Governance as this is confusing. This is raised again later on the flipchart paper.
Refresh Programme Team: P30 is a trademarked term and although this would be an good way of addressing the point raised above, due to trademark, we would be unable to do this. The next stage of authoring will address consistency across the content including the use of terms, and will be available for review in the autumn.
· ‘Business as usual projects’ – you can’t have this as there is ‘no such thing’.
· They believed that the management of dependencies and interdependencies are not covered sufficiently in the structure. They should be explored looking at how they work within the relevant boundaries.
· Organisational culture – is this covered elsewhere? They considered this impacted so much on how projects are run and embedded within organisations.
Refresh Programme Team: organisational culture has been included in the author briefing for reference within a number of appropriate sections, particularly 1.2 Setting and sub sections under that. All content will be available for review in the autumn.
· They believed that Change Management should be ‘referenced’ or ‘integrated into the text’ of Governance as this is such an important aspect. The linkage should be there into the relevant section.
· Roles, responsibilities, structures and accountability – these should be considered at both individual and structural levels with Governance and referenced accordingly into the other areas. They believed that the first three would and should be covered under Organisation but weren’t clear where accountability was and whether it was covered in sufficient depth under Governance.
· Assumptions were then made about what would be covered in the foreword to all the high level sections e.g. foreword. They believed that there should be high level definitions of project, programme and portfolio exploring them from a change and organisational perspective.
Refresh Programme Team: the overarching section 0.0 Project, Programme and Portfolio management will include definitions of projects, programmes and portfolios (in keeping with APM definitions) and will be appropriately referenced to the content sitting under 1.1 Governance.
· There was also a debate on the further reading against each of the sections. Some agreed that the same books/articles are referenced everywhere and whether there should be a separate reference section. Others wanted them against each of the sections but ‘fine tune’ them to the relevant chapter or section especially if you are only dealing with that certain aspect at that time.
· If the author receives feedback and no action is taken can this be passed back, and if action is taken, clarification on what has happened.
Refresh Programme Team: the next stage of authoring is going through to a different group of authors and not to the original (for the consistency authoring and copy editing). Therefore it is likely that the words on the page will be different to the drafts so far, whilst retaining the key concepts, and so it will not be possible to track all changes made for the next consultation. This draft will be available for review in the autumn.
1.1 Governance
1. Definition of good practice:‘The knowledge and practices described are applicable to most projects most of the time, and …there is widespread consensus about their value and usefulness’.
A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBoK®Guide) Third Edition, ©2004 Project Management Institute
Does the draft reflect good practice? / [1]
2. Are they pan-sector?
a. Does the content avoid industry/sector bias?
b. Is the content scalable (taking into account the range of projects/programmes/portfolios from small to large, and the range of complexity)?
Definition of pan-sector:
Generic, non industry specific content that can be applied regardless of industry or sector. / · Ok but page 1, bullet 7 not pan sector and Sarbanes Oxley is sector specific
3. Do any key concepts relating to the section need to be added?
a. Definition
b. General section
c. Project content
d. Programme content
e. Portfolio content / · Consider add information and decision making
· B. Should be links to ethics, sustainability and health and safety.
· Following components should be included: portfolio direction-(project) sponsorship, (project) management effectiveness and efficiency, disclosure and reporting.
4. Does anything need to be amended and why?
a. Definition
b. General section
c. Project content
d. Programme content
e. Portfolio content / · A. delete ‘their’
· D. 1st bullet, 2nd sentence unclear. Relationship between project and programme should be clearer.
· C. Diagram should be moved to general section. Needs BAU to be added with links to corporate board and portfolio.
· C. Arrow at bottom of diagram – where is it going?
· E. 3rd para, ‘one method…’ – unclear of message trying to portray
· E. Opening section – all negative points should be positive introduction
·
5. Have the APM definitions been adhered to (APM Body of Knowledge 5th edition glossary)?
6. Has existing content from 5th edition been reviewed and edited/incorporated?
7. Have the items in the 1st draft feedback been referenced in the content?
8. Have any diagrams or tables used directly support the content, and have they been explained or referred to in the text? / See above comments under 4.
9. Are there any other references that could be incorporated into the further reading?
a. Does further reading fall into one of the following categories:
i. Further reading or notes that directly support the content
ii. A list of further reading for the section i.e. further reading which although not directly used have contributed to the ideas in the content
iii. More general sources from the management or technical literature that is considered to be important and which are relevant in a more general sense to the readership.
b. Have UK (or other relevant) standards that the content is compliant with been referenced?
c. Are further reading items publicly available? / OGC Management of Portfolios ISBN 978-0-11-331294-8
10. Out of the issues we’ve talked about, which ones are the most important to you, and why?
1.1.1 Project Management
1. Definition of good practice:‘The knowledge and practices described are applicable to most projects most of the time, and …there is widespread consensus about their value and usefulness’.
A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBoK®Guide) Third Edition, ©2004 Project Management Institute
Does the draft reflect good practice? / No – prefer version 5
2. Are they pan-sector?
a. Does the content avoid industry/sector bias?
b. Is the content scalable (taking into account the range of projects/programmes/portfolios from small to large, and the range of complexity)?
Definition of pan-sector:
Generic, non industry specific content that can be applied regardless of industry or sector. / A. Generally ok – are there other methods other than PRINCE2?
B. Include a reference that project management covers a wide scale and scope and should be implemented in proportion to criticality, complexity and risk.
3. Do any key concepts relating to the section need to be added?
a. Definition
b. General section
c. Project content
d. Programme content
e. Portfolio content / · B. General: use para from page 2 ‘a project may be either…’
· C. replace all of content with chapter 1.1 from version 5 except for last para from this draft.
4. Does anything need to be amended and why? / · As above
5. Have the APM definitions been adhered to (APM Body of Knowledge 5th edition glossary)? / Use version 5
6. Has existing content from 5th edition been reviewed and edited/incorporated? / Use version 5
7. Have the items in the 1st draft feedback been referenced in the content?
8. Have any diagrams or tables used directly support the content, and have they been explained or referred to in the text? / Use version 5 including diagram – do not use current diagram
9. Are there any other references that could be incorporated into the further reading?
a. Does further reading fall into one of the following categories:
i. Further reading or notes that directly support the content
ii. A list of further reading for the section i.e. further reading which although not directly used have contributed to the ideas in the content
iii. More general sources from the management or technical literature that is considered to be important and which are relevant in a more general sense to the readership.
b. Have UK (or other relevant) standards that the content is compliant with been referenced?
c. Are further reading items publicly available? / OGC MOP
10. Out of the issues we’ve talked about, which ones are the most important to you, and why?
1.1.2 Programme Management
1. Definition of good practice:‘The knowledge and practices described are applicable to most projects most of the time, and …there is widespread consensus about their value and usefulness’.
A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBoK®Guide) Third Edition, ©2004 Project Management Institute
Does the draft reflect good practice? / No
Refresh Programme Team – please expand to assist with feedback going to consistency authors
2. Are they pan-sector?
a. Does the content avoid industry/sector bias?
b. Is the content scalable (taking into account the range of projects/programmes/portfolios from small to large, and the range of complexity)?
Definition of pan-sector:
Generic, non industry specific content that can be applied regardless of industry or sector. / · Yes
· Needs to consider comments made previously regarding scalability (1.1.1 feedback above)
3. Do any key concepts relating to the section need to be added?
a. Definition
b. General section
c. Project content
d. Programme content
e. Portfolio content / · A. Use version 5 definition
· B. Use a modified version of previous section v5 project management
· C. nothing to be included
· D. add more about strategy and benefits. Needs more on programme governance roles e.g. sponsorship, finance management, programme specific risks.
· D. 2nd para, page 1 to be rewritten to make clear relationship between outcomes, behaviour, capabilities and benefits. This para seems muddled.
· Programme reviews missing.
· Sustainable change needs to be included.
4. Does anything need to be amended and why?
a. Definition
b. General section
c. Project content
d. Programme content
e. Portfolio content / A, B, C no comment.
· D. delete ‘change’ from 1st para.
· D. final para, page 2, ambiguous as to the root to achieve the eventual outcomes.
· Statements to tranches incorrect – add in uncertainty and incremental.
· Page 2 bullets, change sequence to importance: benefits, programmes, specific risks and programme costs.
· Word ‘assumptions’ not mentioned
5. Have the APM definitions been adhered to (APM Body of Knowledge 5th edition glossary)? / Yes
6. Has existing content from 5th edition been reviewed and edited/incorporated? / Yes
7. Have the items in the 1st draft feedback been referenced in the content? / No – hence comments above
8. Have any diagrams or tables used directly support the content, and have they been explained or referred to in the text? / · Brackets on right hand side should go below programmes – can go to strategic benefits. Same for projects. Portfolio can be a collection of projects only.
· Move to portfolio 1.1.3
· 2nd diagram add BAU
9. Are there any other references that could be incorporated into the further reading?
a. Does further reading fall into one of the following categories:
i. Further reading or notes that directly support the content
ii. A list of further reading for the section i.e. further reading which although not directly used have contributed to the ideas in the content
iii. More general sources from the management or technical literature that is considered to be important and which are relevant in a more general sense to the readership.
b. Have UK (or other relevant) standards that the content is compliant with been referenced?
c. Are further reading items publicly available? / · APM guide to starting out in project management
· OGC reference out of date
· MSP book latest date 2007
10. Out of the issues we’ve talked about, which ones are the most important to you, and why?
1.1.3 Portfolio Management
1. Definition of good practice:‘The knowledge and practices described are applicable to most projects most of the time, and …there is widespread consensus about their value and usefulness’.
A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBoK®Guide) Third Edition, ©2004 Project Management Institute
Does the draft reflect good practice? / Ok
2. Are they pan-sector?
a. Does the content avoid industry/sector bias?
b. Is the content scalable (taking into account the range of projects/programmes/portfolios from small to large, and the range of complexity)?
Definition of pan-sector:
Generic, non industry specific content that can be applied regardless of industry or sector. / Yes to a and b
3. Do any key concepts relating to the section need to be added?
a. Definition
b. General section
c. Project content
d. Programme content
e. Portfolio content / · A. add business as usual
· B. add diagram from 1.1.2 Programme Management
· C and D – nothing to be added
· E. be clear about modular or phased projects.
· E. Explore and expand what portfolio management is and how it is different to programme management e.g. never end. MOP will help to define this. Very top down at the moment.
· E. Missing iteration of the business capability ‘feedback loop’.
· Measurement tracking and reporting incorporate BAU
4. Does anything need to be amended and why? / · A-D nothing to be amended.
· E. Delete project from 1st sentence or look at terminology of project portfolio management.
5. Have the APM definitions been adhered to (APM Body of Knowledge 5th edition glossary)? / APM BoK version 5 out of date.
6. Has existing content from 5th edition been reviewed and edited/incorporated? / Yes
7. Have the items in the 1st draft feedback been referenced in the content?
8. Have any diagrams or tables used directly support the content, and have they been explained or referred to in the text? / The following diagrams would be helpful to add:
· Diagrams in MOP page 33 and page 29
· OGC life cycle page 13 executive guide
9. Are there any other references that could be incorporated into the further reading?
a. Does further reading fall into one of the following categories:
i. Further reading or notes that directly support the content
ii. A list of further reading for the section i.e. further reading which although not directly used have contributed to the ideas in the content
iii. More general sources from the management or technical literature that is considered to be important and which are relevant in a more general sense to the readership.
b. Have UK (or other relevant) standards that the content is compliant with been referenced?
c. Are further reading items publicly available? / · OGC Management of Portfolios
10. Out of the issues we’ve talked about, which ones are the most important to you, and why? / · Align with new guidance (MOP)
1.1.4 Life Cycle