3.7 Resource 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? / Group split in agreement with this, but section needs improvement.
  1. Are they pan-sector?
  2. Does the content avoid industry/sector bias?
  3. 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, but from a US and French context the terminology is likely to be unsuitable – recommend using someone in technical French/US to review. Recommendation that consider the application of BoK v6 across geographical spread.
  1. Do any key conceptsrelating to the section need to be added?
  2. Definition
  3. General section
  4. Project content
  5. Programme content
  6. Portfolio content
/
  • A. this should be just the first sentence with the addition of ‘… to deliver the required output’.
  • B. this should have three or four lines for each of the sections that follow showing their interdependencies in the resource management section. This could be presented as a diagram which would be impactful.
  • B. Please refer to the content of this general section to 3.3.2 Resource Scheduling to ensure no duplication – it would be expected that the bullet points would appear in 3.3.2
  • C. There must be some content here; if not then the section is not scalable.
  • D. There must be some content here; if not then the section is not scalable.
  • E. There must be some content here; if not then the section is not scalable.
  • There needs to be statement(s) showing scalability and relationships between these areas.
  • Text in programme section to general.
  • Show scalability by similar text but at different levels (see definition in BoK v5 1.1.1, 1.1.2, 1.1.3 for projects, programmes and portfolios).

  1. Does anything need to be amended and why?
/ See answers to question 3.
  1. Have the APM definitions been adhered to (APM Body of Knowledge 5th edition glossary)?
/ EVM and Risk are not adhered to.
  1. Has existing content from 5th edition been reviewed and edited/incorporated?
/ No – see previous comments.
  1. Have the items in the 1st draft feedback been referenced in the content?
/ n/a
  1. Have any diagrams or tables used directly support the content, and have they been explained or referred to in the text?
/ n/a
  1. Are there any other references that could be incorporated into the further reading?
  2. Does further reading fall into one of the following categories:
  3. Further reading or notes that directly support the content
  4. 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
  5. 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.
  6. Have UK (or other relevant) standards that the content is compliant with been referenced?
  7. Are further reading items publicly available?
/
  • OGC MSP
  • OGC P3O
  • Note: review the MoD reference it has been amended.

  1. Do you feel that that content under mobilisation should be incorporated within the content for 3.7 Resource Management, or retain a section of its own under 3.7.4 Mobilisation, and why?
/
  • Neither – it should be with 3.1 Management.

  1. Do you feel that the titles of the sections should be column 1 or column 2, and why?
3.7.1 Procurement Management / 3.7.1 Procurement
3.7.2 Supply Chain Management / 3.7.2 Provider Selection
/
  • Not applicable

  1. Out of the issues we’ve talked about, which ones are the most important to you, and why?
/
  • We think there is something missing overall, there has to be a section in strategic context.
Refresh Programme Team note: 1.2.2 Strategic Management under section 1.0 Context should address this.

3.7.1Procurement 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? / Yes
  1. Are they pan-sector?
  2. Does the content avoid industry/sector bias?
  3. 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. / No – please check content against CIPS information
  1. Do any key conceptsrelating to the section need to be added?
  2. Definition
  3. General section
  4. Project content
  5. Programme content
  6. Portfolio content
/
  • A – Remove 2nd sentence and place it in the introductory sentence of the General section
  • B – opening sentence, change ‘Procurement covers...’to read ‘Procurement typically covers...’
  • See 1st draft comments, there must be a cycle of procurement activities (a sequence). See CIPS
  • C – no additions
  • D – no additions
  • E – no additions

  1. Does anything need to be amended and why?
/ A – as Q3
B – Item 3 delete entirely. Replace with ‘Professional advice or consultancy’
C – Strategy appears here (in the diagram and text) it seems inconsistent in a section that deals predominantly with operational procurement – it needs consistency
-Draw out clearly articulate requirements, time scale and scaling/importance
-The procurement lifecycle within the project lifecycle is not clearly articulated
-Diagram, box 8, please remove ‘benefits’ and replace with deliverables
-The diagram, where is box 3? The logic sequences do not make sense – please review diagram
-Page 3, third bullet from bottom, insurances should be mentioned
-The whole of the contract strategy section, from P3 to top of P4, should be removed as it appears in 3.7.3 Contract
-Please remind of the capacity to contract (which should be scalable)
D and E – Wording insufficient needs to be expanded (refer back to definitions in BoK 5. Why is EPMO here? Refer back to BoK v5 v1.1, 1.2 and 1.3
  1. Have the APM definitions been adhered to (APM Body of Knowledge 5th edition glossary)?
/ See previous responses to Q4
  1. Has existing content from 5th edition been reviewed and edited/incorporated?
/ Yes, with reservations already discussed
  1. Have the items in the 1st draft feedback been referenced in the content?
/ No
  1. Have any diagrams or tables used directly support the content, and have they been explained or referred to in the text?
/ See earlier comments
  1. Are there any other references that could be incorporated into the further reading?
  2. Does further reading fall into one of the following categories:
  3. Further reading or notes that directly support the content
  4. 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
  5. 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.
  6. Have UK (or other relevant) standards that the content is compliant with been referenced?
  7. Are further reading items publicly available?
/
  • Yes – OGC, NEC
  • Where are the international references – do we need them?

  1. Do you feel that that content under mobilisation should be incorporated within the content for 3.7 Resource Management, or retain a section of its own under 3.7.4 Mobilisation, and why?
/
  • n/a

  1. Do you feel that the titles of the sections should be column 1 or column 2, and why?
3.7.1 Procurement Management / 3.7.1 Procurement
3.7.2 Supply Chain Management / 3.7.2 Provider Selection
/ Unanimous decision – the title should be Procurement
  1. Out of the issues we’ve talked about, which ones are the most important to you, and why?
/
  • Please check the content of this section against CIPS (as per the 1st review drafts)
  • Please speak to John Broom regarding his excellent slides which can markedly complement this section
  • Please make sure that the acquisition through the 3rd Part of a proprietary product or specialist item and licensing/end user applications is covered in one of the sections – perhaps Law, and is cross referenced

3.7.2Supply Chain Management/Provider Selection

  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? / Yes
  1. Are they pan-sector?
  2. Does the content avoid industry/sector bias?
  3. 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. / Limited pan sector application. The spirit is sound, but the CIPS mention provides limitations and international application is restricted.
  1. Do any key conceptsrelating to the section need to be added?
  2. Definition
  3. General section
  4. Project content
  5. Programme content
  6. Portfolio content
/
  • A - We believe that the definition of ‘Provider’ as it appears in the footnote of 3.7.1 should be brought into 3.7.2 plus the definition should read ‘Provider selection is the process that seeks to align a package of work against the capabilities of candidate providers.’
  • B – The footnote (‘Provider’) should be tidied up and brought into this section (see our not above)
  • There is no reference to public sector requirements for provider selection (EU procurement, private sector procurement) [Consider this in addition to the second paragraph, second sentence]
  • We have a concern with the term P3 management. Please make sure this is defined SOMEWHERE
  • C and D no comment

  1. Does anything need to be amended and why?
/
  • General – First sentence, delete ‘...and neither...insufficiently thorough.’ Entirely
  • Second paragraph, delete first sentence entirely
  • Move diagram reference to the end of the first sentence of the first paragraph
  • Page 2, first line at top of page should read ‘...risk containment. In this case consider who will co-ordinate the providers to ensure delivery.’
  • The usefulness of the ‘Boston Box’ would greatly assist understanding to the end user of this section
  • Portfolio – Explanatory paragraphs would be more useful that short statements (which were already appearing in previous sections)
  • PLEASE CONSIDER STRATEGIC PARTNERS IN THE PROGRAMME AND PROJECT SECTIONS AND HOW THIS IS TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION
  • P2 first paragraph at top, would be extremely useful as a form of words for section 3.7.1

  1. Have the APM definitions been adhered to (APM Body of Knowledge 5th edition glossary)?
/
  • Nothing on RFPs in this section , yet it appears in v5
  • B2B and B2C mentioned in v5 but not mentioned in this section

  1. Has existing content from 5th edition been reviewed and edited/incorporated?
/ See comments from Q5
  1. Have the items in the 1st draft feedback been referenced in the content?
/ 5es, but where has the content from 3.7.6 gone? We cannot find it in these sections
  1. Have any diagrams or tables used directly support the content, and have they been explained or referred to in the text?
/ Yes
  1. Are there any other references that could be incorporated into the further reading?
  2. Does further reading fall into one of the following categories:
  3. Further reading or notes that directly support the content
  4. 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
  5. 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.
  6. Have UK (or other relevant) standards that the content is compliant with been referenced?
  7. Are further reading items publicly available?
/
  • Something on electronic bidding or auctions, OJEC affiliation directive and EC procurements (web)

  1. Do you feel that that content under mobilisation should be incorporated within the content for 3.7 Resource Management, or retain a section of its own under 3.7.4 Mobilisation, and why?
/
  • n/a

  1. Do you feel that the titles of the sections should be column 1 or column 2, and why?
3.7.1 Procurement Management / 3.7.1 Procurement
3.7.2 Supply Chain Management / 3.7.2 Provider Selection
/
  • Provider Selection is the preferred title

  1. Out of the issues we’ve talked about, which ones are the most important to you, and why?
/
  • No additional comments

3.7.3Contract

  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? / Yes
  1. Are they pan-sector?
  2. Does the content avoid industry/sector bias?
  3. 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
  1. Do any key conceptsrelating to the section need to be added?
  2. Definition
  3. General section
  4. Project content
  5. Programme content
  6. Portfolio content
/
  • We are not content with the definition – see BoK 5 Glossary
  • Nothing to indicate that someone must be responsible for committing to the contract ‘duly authorised person’
  • No mention of an individual or individuals responsible for contract closure
  • Bullet points, p1, good checklist, but too granulated and detailed
  • P2, project dimensions, question the script and its value, particularly given the ‘English’ emphasis, what about Scotland, Europe, US?; the bullet points on p3 are more than useful and the section should be reviewed
  • There must be content for the programme and portfolio sections, it is unrealistic for there not to be.
  • Please consider the key aspects of contract strategy, from 3.7.1. p3, which we suggested was removed could be place in this General section
  • General section should state that there are many forms of contract. And mention there, for example, NEC, ICE, public sector, JCT and mention that the project manager needs to familiarise themselves with the more common forms of contract

  1. Does anything need to be amended and why?
/ As per Q3
  1. Have the APM definitions been adhered to (APM Body of Knowledge 5th edition glossary)?
/ No – see for example the definition offered for the contract on p1
  1. Has existing content from 5th edition been reviewed and edited/incorporated?
/ Yes in general terms
  1. Have the items in the 1st draft feedback been referenced in the content?
/ Unsure, it would have been useful to see the tracked version plus any footnotes
  1. Have any diagrams or tables used directly support the content, and have they been explained or referred to in the text?
/ N/A
  1. Are there any other references that could be incorporated into the further reading?
  2. Does further reading fall into one of the following categories:
  3. Further reading or notes that directly support the content
  4. 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
  5. 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.
  6. Have UK (or other relevant) standards that the content is compliant with been referenced?
  7. Are further reading items publicly available?
/
  • NEC, Thomas Telford, The Civils ICE, JCT, Red book, Green book

  1. Do you feel that that content under mobilisation should be incorporated within the content for 3.7 Resource Management, or retain a section of its own under 3.7.4 Mobilisation, and why?
/ N/A
  1. Do you feel that the titles of the sections should be column 1 or column 2, and why?
3.7.1 Procurement Management / 3.7.1 Procurement
3.7.2 Supply Chain Management / 3.7.2 Provider Selection
/ N/A
  1. Out of the issues we’ve talked about, which ones are the most important to you, and why?
/
  • It is fundamentally a checklist
  • It does not provide a project manager with model forms of contract and guidance
  • It is not commensurate with expectations from a Body of Knowledge

3.7.4Mobilisation

Comment

Should be replaced in its entirety by the green paragraph of 3.7 and the whole green section should then become part of the text in 3.1 Management

Page 1 of 10