Body of Knowledge refreshStructure Working GroupPaper 1

16 May 2011

1b draft consultation: proposed structure changes

Ref / Section / Current location / Proposed change / SWG
1 / 1.1.1 Project Management / 1.1 Governance / Should have heading in their own right equal to 1.1 Governance to reflect importance /
  • In top level P3 management – 1.1.1 is governance of pm.
  • Argument that not split into separate sections, as with organisation sections.
  • Governance – broader issue – BoK only 1 part of information have on P3 management e.g. Agile, PMI process model, PRINCE = process models. 1.1.1 etc. were ‘root’ topics for governance models for P3.
  • Need to retain split; in governance is setting the scene for how going to manage P3, 1 place need to have separate sections.
  • Agree 2.1 organisation should be combined. Could then go under ‘3.0 Delivery, 3.1 Management’.
  • Consistency authors – look at how they are at the moment, and consider if combining would be a better way of doing it.

2 / 1.1.2 Programme Management / 1.1 Governance / Should have heading in their own right equal to 1.1 Governance to reflect importance / In top level P3 management. 1.1.2 is governance of pm. See above.
3 / 1.1.3 Portfolio Management / 1.1 Governance / Should have heading in their own right equal to 1.1 Governance to reflect importance / In top level P3 management. 1.1.3 is governance of pm. See above.
4 / 1.1.5 Success Factors / 1.1 Governance / We question whether there is a real need for a programme and portfolio section as there is little that can be added / If maturity models are collection of success factors, then no need for maturity management and success factors. SF used to assist maturity model, but not in entirety. Opportunity for 1.1.5 to be integrated with maturity management – consistency authors to review.
5 / 1.1.5 Success Factors / We believe that this section should be moved to 3.1 management / See 4 above.
6 / 2.1 Organisation / 2.1 Organisation / Organisation should be moved to the Governance Section / See 1 above – now 3.1
7 / 2.2 Skills / 2.2 Skills / How about calling it ‘people skills’. Team unsure why this section is called ‘skills’; the whole BoK covers skills. If remains as ‘skills’ must explain why only this section called skills. / Sits under ‘2.0 People’. Knowledge about models for e.g. teamwork – not competences.
8 / 3.1 Management / 3.1 Management / Where has issue management disappeared to in BoK 6? BoK 5 issue management section should be retained within the delivery section e.g. follow risk management. /
  • It’s an element of control. Could make reference to it in Organisation as well.
  • Check whether theme.
  • Monitoring and control, and control are different roles. Monitoring and control is implicit within control. Make the point within the text for 3.1.2. Can monitor and not be in control.

9 / 3.2 Scope Management / A key is to promote this section to sit above Governance in Section 1 - Context.1. All who contributed to this review will be very interested to see the results of the deliberations of the Structure Working Group thoughts and resulting actions on this recommendation. / Governance has to be preeminent. If PRINCE2 may sit within scope of project; there is a link, but should not be above governance as only limited aspect of governance.
10 / 3.2.6 Change Management / 3.2 Scope Management / We believe (and so did our colleagues from the 1st draft) that the title needs re-wording. It should be ‘business change management’ /
  • What if not in business? Organisational change is at a level higher than ‘scope management’.
  • Moved following 1a draft as change management is part of the scope of a project.
  • AP - should be under 1.1 or 1.2. Change management – sits in 3.1 as ‘management’ or part of ‘context’ but 1.0 puts it too high in hierarchy – not change control (3.2.4).
  • Is it part of delivering end result? Therefore has to be within 3.0 Delivery. Active thing rather than setting.
  • Rename to ‘managing change’ as e.g. some companies call change control, change management.
  • If ordered alphabetically, gets over hierarchical issues.
  • See comments 15 and 16.

11 / 3.2.6 Change Management / 3.2 Scope Management / The Setting group discussed the existing Section 3.2.6, Change Management [at yesterday's review event]. We thought that it would be better positioned under Section 3.1, Management. In addition to that move a change of title to Management of Change would better described the contents and differentiate it from 3.2.4 Change Control. / See 10 above.
12 / 3.2.6 Change Management / 3.2 Scope Management / We believe this is in the wrong section – it should be in 1.0 under Context and before Governance / See 10 above.
13 / 3.2.6 Change Management / 3.2 Scope Management / 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. /
  • Agreed – for consistency authors.
  • Suggested question for autumn consultation = should there be any more references?

14 / 3.3.1 Time Scheduling, 3.3.2 Resource Scheduling / 3.3 Schedule Management / Time scheduling and resource scheduling need to be brought together. / Functionally may be done by separate people.
15 / 3.4.1 Investment Appraisal / 3.4 Cost Management / Investment Appraisal does not sit comfortably under cost management. Would reposition it to section 3.1 with or following business case. It should also clarify where on the lifecycle gateway this should occur and be explicit on go/no go decision criteria and link back to governance. /
  • Would you do an investment appraisal outside of business case? Whether pm does investment appraisal or not does not matter; this has to be done for a ppp; defining boundaries of p3.
  • Can include under business case, or funding. Does not have to have own topic. Should be under business case and referenced in funding.
  • Cost is too narrow a definition – should be financial and cost management, which would then include funding and investment appraisal. Danger in having under business case as limited in words can dedicate to it.
  • Financial management:
  • investment appraisal,
  • funding,
  • budgeting and control.
  • Not all business cases are based on financial management, however will still require affordability, therefore should be retained in 3.1 Management.
  • Implication – move 4.2 Accounting. No – not project accounting, and more awareness of accounting terms.
  • Look at whether to move Business Case.

16 / 3.4.2 Budgeting and Control / 3.4 Cost Management / Budgeting and control – could it be changed to budgeting and cost control / Change – to clarify difference between ‘control’ under 3.1
17 / 3.5.1 Risk Context / 3.5 Risk Management / No need for this section – all content should be covered under 3.5 Risk Management or 3.5.2 Risk Techniques. /
  • RM = procedures and what is risk, threat, uncertainty, opportunity (definitions)?
  • Techniques = Monte Carlo, etc.
  • Then mass of other items = appetite, international, attitudes, etc which doesn’t neatly fit in other 2 sections. So that is outstanding content that needs a better context.
  • Agree needs to have a section to cover this content but consider rewording the title.

18 / 3.7 Resource Management / 3.7 Resource Management / Should content under mobilisation be incorporated within the content for 3.7 Resource Management, or retain a section of its own under 3.7.4 Mobilisation? = neither - should be with 3.1 Management. /
  • Reject.
  • Internal resources – should be under mobilisation. Need to reintroduce. Mobilise resources once you’ve got them. Internal and external acquisition should sit under other sections in 3.7.

19 / 3.7 Resource Management / 3.7 Resource Management / This section should be entitled Procurement or Acquisition and not Resource Management as it is about procurement planning, procurement process (lifecycle), contract award, execution & administration & change. / Reject.
20 / 3.7 Resource Management / The Resource Management section itself fits better within cost & schedule management areas. / Reject.
21 / 3.7.1 Procurement / 3.7 Resource Management / Procurement activities on projects impact business profit & loss and the importance of this is not elevated enough. / Consistency authors to review.
22 / 3.7.1 Procurement Management / 3.7 Resource Management / Procurement Management' or 'Procurement' = unanimous decision – the title should be Procurement / Ok.
23 / 3.7.2 Provider Selection / 3.7 Resource Management / Supply Chain Management' or 'Provider Selection' =
Provider Selection is the preferred title / Provider selection is part of procurement management. This content should therefore be incorporated into Procurement and there should be a separate section on Supply Chain management.
24 / 4.4 Health, Safety and Security / 4.0 General / Insufficient discussion on security. Should security be here as most of this is H&S focused? Security needs to come out as it doesn’t sit well in H&S or defined as security in terms of ‘safety’ or ‘physical security’. /
  • Data, safety, business continuity, physical, terrorism = security is going to be big.
  • Govt projects now have head of security. Other projects, functions performed by one role.
  • Add in as new section – will need new author for this.

25 / New / 3.5 Risk Management / Risk ownership should be a heading. / Can see why, but then would have to do the same for ownership of all items too. No.
26 / New / We think there is something missing overall, there has to be a section on strategic context. /
  • 1.2 Setting, 1.2.1 Environment, 1.2.2 Strategic Management already there, as well as 1.0 Context.
  • There are 2 types of strategy = delivering strategy through projects (1.0 Context), and project strategy (3.1.3 Business Case. 3.0 Delivery).
  • Relevant reference to strategy will be mentioned within appropriate sections throughout, with sentence in 3.1.1 Planning advising make reference to relevant plans, corporate governance standard (1.1). All interdependent so need to have discrete sections, with provision of links.
  • Consistency authors needs to ensure this content is covered.

27 / New / 3.4 Cost Management / Schedule duration estimating and cost estimating should be portrayed as topics in their own right, while estimating is an iterative repeatable activity, believe its importance becomes diluted if it is to become a theme only. There should be more articulation of integrating time and cost schedules and setting resource loaded performance measurement baselines. /
  • Implications across BoK; if estimating is separated out for time and cost, has to be done for other items as well – has to be consistent. High level principles of estimating need to be included where not applicable to individual break down.
  • Estimating often not done under project management. Need to highlight that estimating is important and something pm professional should be involved in – to bring peoples attention to it; not ‘done to’ project manager, but should be done by them.
  • Estimating operates at different levels and so is a theme. To have individual section, would introduce new level of duplication. Perception that if something not detailed as a section, it is not important. Need to challenge this – in introduction.
  • Index, and electronic format will help, but also raises question of how far down we go in describing the detail within the functions.
  • Difficult to include everything that will ever be needed by a pm; need to signpost techniques. Will be mentioned under 3.1.
  • Other items e.g. appendices, indexes, etc should include reference to estimating incl. functional approach.
  • Flag – will be other sections that sit in same place. Need to revisit.

28 / New / EVM performance measurement should be a core topic and not a theme. It is a cost & schedule management tool underpinned by good project management practices. If EVM and EVA are not visible in the Body of Knowledge that businesses who are using as a best practice standard, then we will lose the credibility the APMBoK has given to date. /
  • See 27 above – estimating.
  • Needs to be highlighted as important, but referenced in appropriate sections.

  1. Suggest ‘General’ renamed as ‘interfaces’. Provides good sense check for other topics suggested for inclusion in the future. Agreed by SWG.
  2. 2.3.4 Communities of Practice –
  3. Why are we focusing on one technique of organisational learning? Increasingly becoming important to corporates, government. Suggest re-title ‘organisational learning’. A lot on how organisation structures itself to deliver p3, how individuals relate – focusing on individual knowledge and skill base. Haven’t included corporate universities so why have this one? Needs to have ‘organisational learning’ as well to balance and reflect this.
  4. Related to maturity management (knowledge management, learning and development, communities of practice, factors for success, etc.) which is about ‘getting better’.
  5. Shouldn’t go under 4.0 as it’s not an interface. Not just about individual’s learning; organisation.
  6. Under 2.3 Professionalism as addressing fact that most organisations are silent, and have other professionals; rarely have a department which is full of PMs. Will facilitate organisational learning, but about cognisance of profession of p3 management that typically have no home for PMs.
  7. Need to check that organisational learning is sufficiently covered under knowledge management, communities of practice and learning and development, and if not, need to cover this off. Having moved organisation, potential that a gap now left relating to organisational learning, with focus now on individuals.

Page 1 of 9