Body of Knowledge Refresh 2011:
Wednesday 13 April 2011 morning session
Focus Group: Scope Management A including:
3.2. Scope Management
3.2.1 Requirements Management
3.2.2 Benefits Management v0.2 preferred and commented on)
3.2.3 Value Management
3.2 Scope management
1. Definition of good practice:
2 agreed partially, 4 disagreed
‘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?
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.
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
4 agreed, 1 disagreed and one partially
agreed






Consistency between ‘outcomes ‘
and ‘outputs’
Does not reflect the evolving and
developing nature of scope
As scope evolves ensure it evolves
in line with changing business
requirements (3.2.1)
Nothing in the work concerning
prioritisation (must haves..through
to..nice to haves)
Please refer back to the items
identified in 1st draft review
feedback in the list starting with
‘politics’ through to ‘managing
people’ which appear not to have
been added to the project,
programme and portfolio sections
Portfolio section needs a complete
review, it is unclear, it uses latin –
how about the crystal mark for clear
English?
4. Does anything need to be amended and why?




Please see also ‘etc’ – think about
readers for whom English is a 2nd
language.
See all in question 3
In programme definition, how to
programmes scope projects?
Projects - traceability of
requirements in scope
Make sure outputs produce correct
capabilities (scope has to be
traceable)
5. Have the APM definitions been adhered to
(APM Body of Knowledge 5th edition glossary)?
Please review ‘outputs’ and ‘outcomes’ and
‘benefits’
6. Has existing content from 5th edition been
reviewed and edited/incorporated?
Generally yes, but please take note of the
comments in this feedback
7. Have the items in the 1st draft feedback been
referenced in the content?
No, see our comments on Q3. Review
diagram numbering, we are not sure this is
correct
8. Have any diagrams or tables used directly
support the content, and have they been
explained or referred to in the text?
See comment at Q3 above
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?
10. Out of the issues we’ve talked about, which
ones are the most important to you, and why?




V1.0
Page 2 of 8
Yes – DSDM, ATERN
Handbook
Differences between ‘outcomes’
and ‘outputs’
Definition of scope management
Does not cross reference to the
other scope sections (how one
reacts to the other)
The whole section should consider
being re-written
3.2.1 Requirements management
1. Definition of good practice:
Yes
‘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?
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.
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
Yes



4. Does anything need to be amended and why?



Requirements that risk controls (all
requirements are not equal)
Functions, legal, stress
requirements perhaps
Consider a ‘V’ diagram as a driver
The definition – whose needs for
example. The v5 definition is
superior just add in the managing
change, but keep the last sentence
‘outputs/outcomes....’
The sentence ’In this respect
‘justified’...’ please review this, it
does not make sense.
Bottom of P2, definitions of
MOSCOW, please change ‘won’t
have’ to ‘won’t have for now’
Include that requirements will
continue to be managed as business
as usual (suggest another box on Fig
1)
5. Have the APM definitions been adhered to
(APM Body of Knowledge 5th edition glossary)?
yes
6. Has existing content from 5th edition been
Generally yes, but please take note of the
V1.0
Page 3 of 8
reviewed and edited/incorporated?
comments in this feedback
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?


Success criteria not covered
Elicitation from stakeholders not
covered
We very much like Fig1
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?
10. Out of the issues we’ve talked about, which
ones are the most important to you, and why?
Content with
references
A cross referencing to other sections in 3,2
would be useful to consider
3.2.2 Benefits management
1. Definition of good practice:
Yes – excellent definitions and common
‘The knowledge and practices described are
understandings
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?
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
V1.0
Page 4 of 8
Yes and scalable
complexity)?
Definition of pan-sector:
Generic, non industry specific content that can be
applied regardless of industry or sector.
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
4. Does anything need to be amended and why?


A link to requirements management
Note: Benefits can come during a
project/programme
Explain the abbreviation PGMO

Definition – change should identify
business change life cycle
What is ‘benefits driven leadership’
?please explain
Does not mention exploitation of
opportunities. Counter measures for
disbenefits should also be
mentioned
Little bit more on continuing into
business as usual
Portfolio – second sentence should
prioritisation
Footnote p1 remove ‘normally
expressed’ and replace with ‘for
example’. Also remove the last
sentence of this footnote – it is not
necessary. Please add that benefits
can be qualitative as well as
quantitative (perhaps proxymeasures?)





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?
yes
8. Have any diagrams or tables used directly
support the content, and have they been
explained or referred to in the text?
The diagram is v. Good but needs
referencing in the text and a reference
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
V1.0
Page 5 of 8
Yes – MSP and OGC
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?
10. Out of the issues we’ve talked about, which
ones are the most important to you, and why?
Suggest that the new glossary should be
reviewed as are the content sections
The author is commended on a sound piece
of work
3.2.3 Value management
1. Definition of good practice:
Partially 5/6
‘The knowledge and practices described are
Yes 1/6
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?
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.
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
V1.0
Page 6 of 8
Yes



A link to operations (whole life cycle
of the undertaking)
The definition in v5 is superior (or
would be) with the inclusion of the
words “..solution to then arrive..”
It is suggested that value
management is a behaviour rather
than a process, focussing on

4. Does anything need to be amended and why?



outcomes rather than the process.
A behaviour/culture embedded in
management philosophy
Value analysis and value
engineering must be explained (but
could be in the glossary)
Project Dimension: ‘Concept phase’
on p1 and p2 first paragraph
‘concept and development phases’
– which is it?
General section – 4th paragraph
should this be in the project
section?
Last sentence of @project
dimensions’ section – ‘Value
management...available budgets’ is
not required, it should be removed
5. Have the APM definitions been adhered to
(APM Body of Knowledge 5th edition glossary)?
As far as we can tell
6. Has existing content from 5th edition been
reviewed and edited/incorporated?
Not the value engineering section
7. Have the items in the 1st draft feedback been
referenced in the content?
In general terms - no
8. Have any diagrams or tables used directly
support the content, and have they been
explained or referred to in the text?


Diagram has no reference
It is not sufficient to state the
diagram overlaps with stakeholder
and requirements management
without showing or stating how on
the diagram
 Diagram in v5 (2.2) should replace
the formula being offered.
9. Are there any other references that could be incorporated into the
Yes – OGC Guide to
further reading?
value
a. Does further reading fall into one of the following
Value and Risk
categories:
management
i. Further reading or notes that directly support the
(Dallas) (Please see
content
v5)
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?
V1.0
Page 7 of 8
10. Out of the issues we’ve talked about, which
ones are the most important to you, and why?




V1.0
Page 8 of 8
Behaviour/culture is a key area that
should be addressed
The concept of delivering value is
key to project success this must be
made fundamental to overall
success
Please review the last 2 sentences in
the General section, they are very
confusing. Could value management
assist in developing risk responses
for example?
Please review the relationship(s)
between value management, value
analysis and value engineering; it is
confusing and relationships unclear