Download Body of Knowledge Refresh 2011: Wednesday 13 April 2011

Body of Knowledge Refresh 2011:
Wednesday 13 April 2011 afternoon session
Focus Group: Organisation including:
2.1 Organisation
2.1.1 Project Organisation
2.1.2 Programme Organisation
2.1.3 Portfolio Organisation
2.1 Organisation
Comment


Organisation should be moved to the Governance Section
Some of the current discussion has already been reviewed by group members and not
apparent in the feedback
1. Definition of good practice:
No – Below sufficiency for good practice,
‘The knowledge and practices described are
complex narrative, excessive focus on
applicable to most projects most of the time,
change rather than application of current
and …there is widespread consensus about
business organisational practice
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
No – written on assumption of a major
organisation and not inclusive of SME
 Define organisational structures
(types) e.g. public, major, small
business enterprise
 Current text makes it difficult to
consider project and portfolio
aspects
4. Does anything need to be amended and why?
Difficult to address in view of group
comments in Q3
No
5. Have the APM definitions been adhered to
(APM Body of Knowledge 5th edition glossary)?
6. Has existing content from 5th edition been
Concerns that numerous issues arise due to
limitations of text. Feeling that even at
project level much should be added. See
also Q1. Should include a diagram
(structure/organisation type)
no
reviewed and edited/incorporated?
7. Have the items in the 1st draft feedback been
referenced in the content?
Feedback has partly been incorporated, but
not to the expected level in view of previous
feedback provided.
8. Have any diagrams or tables used directly
Please include diagrams – basic types of
support the content, and have they been
organisational structure
explained or referred to in the text?
Positioning of project, programme, portfolio
within context of section
9. Are there any other references that could be incorporated into the
 Wider range of
further reading?
further reading
a. Does further reading fall into one of the following
 Titles
categories:
referenced
i. Further reading or notes that directly support the
within the text
content
 More general
ii. A list of further reading for the section i.e. further
titles on
reading which although not directly used have
‘Organisation’
contributed to the ideas in the content
not necessarily
iii. More general sources from the management or
with project
technical literature that is considered to be
management
important and which are relevant in a more general
specific focus
sense to the readership.
 Further reading
b. Have UK (or other relevant) standards that the
(draft) not
content is compliant with been referenced?
consistent with
c. Are further reading items publicly available?
BoK 5
10. Out of the issues we’ve talked about, which
ones are the most important to you, and why?
Concerns over current structure and
narrative of the draft.
2.1.1 Project Organisation
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)?
V1.0
Page 2 of 6
No
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?
5. Have the APM definitions been adhered to
(APM Body of Knowledge 5th edition glossary)?
Exact definition/description of project
manager role (strategic elements), pm
should be thinking both day to day as well
as strategic level.
Text contains a wide range of terms – need
to be specific with detail and/or direction to
glossary of terms
Query on consistency regarding ‘Project
Office’ and ‘Project Management Office’
6. Has existing content from 5th edition been
reviewed and edited/incorporated?
No, the group preferred the text in version 5
7. Have the items in the 1st draft feedback been
referenced in the content?
Feedback has not been addressed, previous
feedback has not been referenced
8. Have any diagrams or tables used directly
support the content, and have they been
explained or referred to in the text?
Diagram appropriate but needs to present a
full picture for project, programme and
portfolio
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?
2.1.2 Programme organisation v0.1
V1.0
Page 3 of 6
Sufficient, but
would be better to
include generic
references.
Lack of relationship between the draft and
the diagram
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, but
a) Some technical/design role should
be incorporated
b) Also connection with design
authority role
4. Does anything need to be amended and why?
Programme content
needs clear linkage between txt
and diagram
- Consistency variance. Definition of
“programme organisation” against
“project organisation”
- Remove final sentence (page 3)
“programme success.......”
Yes
5. Have the APM definitions been adhered to
(APM Body of Knowledge 5th edition glossary)?
Programme content – reference should be
made to ‘project steering group’ within
diagram
6. Has existing content from 5th edition been
reviewed and edited/incorporated?
1
7. Have the items in the 1st draft feedback been
referenced in the content?
Agreed sufficient coverage
8. Have any diagrams or tables used directly
support the content, and have they been
Existing diagram is sufficient but group
questions relevance of the upper part of the
1
Orange indicates where no response received from facilitator.
V1.0
Page 4 of 6
explained or referred to in the text?
diagram “main Board” – should relate only
to programme management team
9. Are there any other references that could be incorporated into the
Very limited list
further reading?
compared with BoK
a. Does further reading fall into one of the following
5 list – suggest to
categories:
combine in BoK 6
i. Further reading or notes that directly support the
update
content
ii. A list of further reading for the section i.e. further
*group view –
reading which although not directly used have
centralised reading
contributed to the ideas in the content
list online access
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?


Requirement for clear & detailed
definitions
Alignment of text with diagrams
2.1.3 Portfolio Organisation
Comment
Overall dissatisfaction by group with approach to text coverage, detail and relevance to topic area –
group reluctant to develop themes on the basis of the draft submitted.
1. Definition of good practice:
Does not address topic per se – not relevant
‘The knowledge and practices described are
– more a personal view rather than
applicable to most projects most of the time,
knowledge sharing
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)?
V1.0
Page 5 of 6
No
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?
Section text does not cross reference with
overall programme
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?
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 6 of 6