Body of Knowledge refresh Structure Working Group
16 November 2011
Paper2
2 draft consultation: proposed structure changes
P3M3 dates content. Reference to products tkncl carry through with consistency authors and SWG.
Section
1.1.1 Project
management
Current location
1.1 Governance
Proposed change
Should the title and treatment be Governance of Project
Management? Otherwise there seems to be a confusion about the
extent that this topic is just project management or the more
confined topic of governance of project management.
SWG
 As a point of principle, if 1.1.1 changes,
1.1.2 and 1.1.3 will also have to change.
It is a P3 BoK and so the suggestion is not
applicable here and would be
inappropriate due to inclusion of
programme and portfolio.
 The section is within governance and as
this is a hierarchical structure, it is
technically called ‘Governance/Project
Management’.
Page 1 of 12
Body of Knowledge refresh Structure Working Group
16 November 2011
Section
1.1.6 Maturity
and Success
Current location
1.1 Governance
Proposed change
Success factors not obvious enough - appeared it wasn't there.
Note it is covered in Maturity and Success but not obvious from the
title - should be 'Maturity and Success Factors' and then would
make more sense and be overt
Paper2
SWG
 Reason together is because maturity is a
collection of success factors. This is as
agreed at the last SWG meeting.
 The focus is on the capability rather than
the actual achieved result. Success
factors are the environmental
governance factors.
 The majority of success factors and
maturity is the same, so this needs to be
made clear and logical.
 To make this section clearer, there
should be a better transition between
the third and fourth paragraph, or the
order should be changed.
 This section suggests that the only
success factors are internal. It should
point out that there are things which will
impact success but are external to the
organisation.
 Agreed to rename ‘Maturity and Success
Factors’ to assist user locating success
factors.
Action SWG01: refresh team to update
structure.
SWG02: Consistency authors to review
paragraphs 3-4.
Page 2 of 12
Body of Knowledge refresh Structure Working Group
16 November 2011
Section
2.1 Skills
Current location
2.0 People
Proposed change
Skills - the definition focuses on interpersonal skills; what about
other skills?
Refresh team: Do we need to revisit the heading ‘skills’?
2.1.1
Communication
2.1 Skills
I am not so sure this is a skill. Why have you separated it from
Stakeholder Management? If Comms is a skill, then so is
Stakeholder Management and vice versa. They look odd being
separated.
2.1.5 Leadership
2.1 Skills
100% agreement that there should be more explicit reference to
motivation. Motivation should be an explicit section within
2.1/rename Leadership to 'Leadership and Motivation' (4 or 5).
2.2.3 Ethics
2.2
Professionalism
Should Ethics be part of the Governance section?
Question: Why was Ethics transferred to 2.2.3 instead of being in
1.1 Governance?
Paper2
SWG
 The reason for this is that this is
specifically a section on people skills, and
as above, it is a hierarchical structure and
so the section is People/Skills.
 Have a collection of 7 things including
value, skills and behaviours and the
collective name for these is skills.
 Communication is broader than
stakeholder management and touches
upon most, if not all sections in the Body
of Knowledge structure.
 Stakeholder Management procedure
includes aspects of leadership,
influencing, communications, and other
items as well.
 ‘Motivation’ should be made explicit as it
is covered but maybe not in enough
detail. It is also an idea that ‘Emotional
Intelligence’ be included. Despite this,
Motivation and Emotional Intelligence do
not need their own explicit sections; they
just need to be included in 2.1 Skills.
Action SWG03: consistency authors to
include coverage in 2.1 Skills.
SWG04: Refresh team opportunity for
further supporting material.
 If it has been said that Ethics is not part
of Professionalism, it is part of
Page 3 of 12
Body of Knowledge refresh Structure Working Group
16 November 2011
Section
Current location
Proposed change
Despite the ruling of the august Structure Working Group, I still
believe that the correct place for ethics is in the Governance
section. Ethical principles and in particular the way to deal with the
thorny problem of bribery and corruption must be set at corporate
level and be part of corporate governance and, by implication,
project governance. To make this clear, consider the question: Who
will be prosecuted if there is a contravention of say the UK Bribery
Act 2010 or the US Foreign Corruption Practices Act 1977? Is it
Corporation or the individual project manager? If in doubt, look at
the BAE case.
Paper2
SWG
Governance, then that is fine. However,
this is not the case and so Ethics remains
in Governance.
 A link should be provided from 2.2.3
Ethics to 1.1 Governance.
Action SWG05: consistency authors to
include link.
The project manager merely carries out the policies set by the
Corporation which is responsible for its employees’ behaviour. As
far as the BoK is concerned, ethics should therefore be in the
“governance”, not the “professionalism” section.
3.0 Delivery
3.0 Delivery
Incidentally, the only offence a project manager can now be jailed
for is contravention of Health and Safety regulations.
The (changed) structure which places planning and execution in
Delivery is not helpful.


Planning and execution are part of
delivery.
This section was previously named
Refresh team: Do we need to revisit the heading ‘Delivery’?
Page 4 of 12
Body of Knowledge refresh Structure Working Group
16 November 2011
Section
Current location
Proposed change
Highly suspect use of delivery in the title. Looking at the contents
of this section Management would be a better title.
3.1 Management
1.1.5 Life Cycle
'Handover and Closure of Product' should be an explicit title and go
in 3.1 Management.
Paper2
SWG
‘Performance’ but was changed to
‘Delivery’ as this was deemed to make
more sense. ‘Execution’ was suggested
as an alternative name, but this was
decided against. It was also decided that
‘Development’ was not appropriate.
 There is a design principle for the
structure not to put chronological
constraints.
 Management is already a section within
Delivery and so this is not a suitable
alternative.
 In the absence of a suitable alternative
heading, it stays as ‘Delivery’.
Action SWG06: consistency authors to
amend page 27 to ‘develop and deliver’.
 If one section of 1.1.5 Life Cycle is made
explicit, then the same has to be done
for all.
 Further materials looking at the detail
within the life cycle stages can be
developed outside of the BoK content to
support this section.
Page 5 of 12
Body of Knowledge refresh Structure Working Group
16 November 2011
Paper2
Section
Current location
3.0 Delivery
Proposed change
'Management' should be 'Integrative Management'.
SWG
 Due to the fact that all management
should be integrative, this change is not
necessary. Integrative management is
mentioned in the definition.
 ‘Change Management’ should be one of
the fundamentals and would need an
explicit section (not topic). However this
is a huge change to make at such a late
stage in the Body of Knowledge refresh.
On the other hand, if the title of this
section is changed to ‘Integrative
Management’, Change Management
should not be included.
 The first sentence, “The topics in this
section do not directly address the
fundamental components of scope,
schedule, cost, risk, quality and
resources”, should be omitted.
 Planning, Control, Business Case, etc.
span, scope, schedule, cost, etc.
 Recognise this as an area for further
investigation in the future which can be
highlighted in the eBoK.
3.1.2 Control
3.1 Management
Control is getting things right first time on time. The section
headed "Control" is better headed "Monitoring and Control".

3.1.5 Planning
3.1 Management
Recommendation: Rename 3.1.5 Planning to 'Plans and Planning'.

As you can monitor without control, but
you cannot control without monitoring,
monitoring is implicit as part of control.
This was probably suggested by a PRINCE
user who sees plans and planning as
different things.
Page 6 of 12
Body of Knowledge refresh Structure Working Group
16 November 2011
Section
3.2.4 Managing
Change
Current location
3.2 Scope
Management
Proposed change
Scope Management - why is there a separate section on Managing
Change, should this be in People Management? In 2.1 Skills?
Title is confusing as it is too close to Change Control. Why not use
Transition Management (it does what it says on the tin)? Or at least
'Business Change Management. Would need rewording.
Paper2
SWG
 See 3.1 Management comments above.


Recommendation: Rename 'Managing Change' to 'Transition'.


What about NGOs and government?
‘Business’ may not be applicable.
‘Business Change Management’ may fit
better?
This section does not need to be changed
– it is fine as it is.
Transition is a sub-set of change
management and would therefore not fit
as the heading.
‘Managing Change’ is a process (verb,
present participant) whereas Change
Management is a noun, and so for
consistency with the rest of the structure
titles, should remain as it is.
Page 7 of 12
Body of Knowledge refresh Structure Working Group
16 November 2011
Paper2
Section
4.0 Interfaces
Current location
4.0 Interfaces
Proposed change
Recommendation: Rename 'Interfaces' to 'Legal Context' - this
would imply this theme should then move into 1 Context, becoming
1.3
SWG
 The word ‘interfaces’ is not the best
word to be used due to the fact that it is
misleading as it has multiple meanings.
However, ‘Legal Context’ is too limited
and is not an accurate reflection of what
is covered in the subsequent sections.
 It was suggested that the heading be
changed to ‘Interfacing with Other
Functions’ or ‘Interfaces to Other
Functions’ but decided that either of
these would be too long. ‘Interfacing
Functions’ would be a much more fitting
heading.
 It would be a good idea to find a better
way of defining ‘Interfaces’. Maybe as
‘the interaction between two elements’?
 There was a discussion about omitting
4.0 Interfaces section. Health and Safety
is everywhere so it was suggested that
there is no need to include it as it is
unnecessary. However, as the Body of
Knowledge is a scope statement, it was
agreed to keep the sections as they need
to be referenced and awareness of these
sections is required for P3 success.
4.1 Accounting
4.0 Interfaces
Recommendation: Rename 'Accounting' to 'Project Accounting' and
place it in 3.4 Financial and Cost Management.

The Body of Knowledge now includes
programme and portfolio and so it is not
appropriate to call it ‘project accounting’.
Page 8 of 12
Body of Knowledge refresh Structure Working Group
16 November 2011
Section
4.6 Sustainability
Current location
4.0 Interfaces
Proposed change
Some concern in terms of position in the BoK and ascribed
importance which appears to be low.
Could change to 'Physical Environment'.
New
2.1 Skills
Reference or additional topic could be: Problem Solving.
3.1.2 Control
Issue Management is not present; this is considered to be an
important topic, central to the role of project manager. Could be
placed in 3.5 Risk Management, there are other options.
Needs clearer information about Integration - could sit in Context
or Governance section.
New
New
Has Integration Management moved away from the BoK - would
like to be clear if it is there or not (possibly in 1.2?) - would need to
include Systems Integration.
Paper2
SWG
 The sections are alphabetical and do not
indicate importance of topics. This needs
to be included in introductory text to
clarify.
Action SWG07: consistency authors to
include.
 It was felt that this was too narrow as
the topic also covers social and economic
sustainability.
 This can be flagged for development of
further supporting material for eBoK.
 Issue Management is already included in
3.1.2 Control.

As above with discussion on Integrative
Management, it is implicit within
management and so is already covered.
 Due to the rationale for the Governance
section, it would not logically sit under
Governance.
 Integration Management has not
previously appeared as a discrete section
within the Body of Knowledge, and so
unsure of why ‘moving away’.
 Integration management is still included
and is covered under 3.1 Management.
Page 9 of 12
Body of Knowledge refresh Structure Working Group
16 November 2011
Section
Paper2
Current location
New
Proposed change
The topic of complexity has not been addressed in the document. It
could be included in P2, section 2 (people), section 2.2.2
(competences – para 8) or in 1.2 (setting) once completed. Either
way, the BoK while using the word ‘complexity’ does not discuss its
impact in relation to the people that manage it (see BS6079-pt1 as
reference) which I would consider it needs to in order to make
APMs CF work!
Add topic – Complexity (see P3 point above – and happy to write if
needed?) will lead it on to People section nicely as defined in
BS6079 pt1
SWG
 This comment relates to the Competence
Framework rather than the Body of
Knowledge and can be fed into the
refresh of the Competence Framework.
New
Also should cultural difference be mentioned under 'Interfaces' culture is referenced in People section but could be scope for a
separate topic? Needs to be covered adequately.

References to cultural difference need to
be included in 2.0 People, as well as 3.2.4
Managing Change.
Action SWG08: consistency authors to
include references.
 Detail on culture should be treated in
similar way to Motivation and Emotional
Intelligence in the sense that it needs to
be made explicit but does not require its
own section.
 There are 17 references to ‘culture’ in
the Body of Knowledge.

New

Facilitation should be under 2.1
It was queried why Facilitation should be
separated out.
This is another item that can be
expanded upon within supporting
information.
Page 10 of 12
Body of Knowledge refresh Structure Working Group
16 November 2011
Section
Current location
New
New
New
Proposed change
Relationship Management should be under 2.1
This section (3.0 Delivery) should also include Plan Optimisation as
a topic which is about the refinement of an initial plan to its optimal
state.
Question: Is there room for a Section 5 - Techniques?
Paper2
SWG
 A previous Structure Working Group
decision was not to make this change –
as before.
 Commission supporting material.
 This is not necessary as Plan
Optimisation is implicit in the content.




The use of management approaches such as 6 Sigma and/or AGILE
are sufficiently pervasive to warrant a separate section under 1.2.
Many different techniques are referred
to throughout the Body of Knowledge,
just not in a specific section. This
provides sufficient information about the
various techniques without going into
detail, as that is not what the Body of
Knowledge is for.
The thematic approach is methodology
free and there is an opportunity to have
interpretive materials signposting to the
relevant sections.
It was suggested that the different
approaches, e.g. AGILE, PRINCE, etc.
could be indexed and specific references
could be provided.
AGILE is already defined in the Glossary,
as are PRINCE and six sigma. Agile is
referred to 18 times within the content
of the Body of Knowledge.
Page 11 of 12
Body of Knowledge refresh Structure Working Group
16 November 2011
Section
Sequencing
Current location
Proposed change
Sequence (order) within sections matters - it is noted that they are
alphabetical right now with the exception of Governance, the point
being that if there is a good reason for Governance not to be
alphabetical, then this applies to others.
Paper2
SWG
 The Introduction will explain the rationale
for the ordering of sections.
Main headings work, the subsets within should be reviewed for
logical sequencing.
Page 12 of 12