BoK7: Are we getting this right?
Following on from my last post in August, we have further refined the structure for the APM Body of Knowledge 7th edition and we have extended storyboards for each of the 70 topics. You can take a look at how the content has evolved and share your thoughts via our online consultation tool Citizen Space.
We continue to engage face to face also with representatives from APM Specific Interest Groups (SIGs). These volunteer groups obviously have a big interest in what happens with the APM Body of Knowledge, and particularly how it pertains to their specific interests. We have SIG ‘clinic’ sessions on Thursday this week, where SIG representatives will be able to deep dive into the structure and proposed content with me and other members of the editorial team.
One area of our profession that gains much attention, and where we have had significant feedback so far, is people and behaviours. Gone are the days when we just needed to define teams and say a little about team development and team leadership. The social context for project-based working means that the concept of stakeholder ‘management’ is now accepted as a misnomer with wide acceptance that stakeholders need to be engaged and influenced in a variety of ways if we are to be successful. As our projects become more global, with increased virtual team-working and more technology claiming to be able to replace human contact, there are many issues to manage.
As a result, Chapter 3 of the new Body of Knowledge, which focuses on people and behaviours, has 15 topics including areas that your feedback has told us is of high importance such as:
- Dealing with stress, focusing on building resilience and focusing on well-being.
- Embracing diversity and inclusiveness as a positive and value-generating practice rather than a ‘have-to’.
We reflect in this chapter, as we do throughout the revised structure, that the social context for projects, programmes and portfolios is becoming more complex as organisations collaborate and strive to deliver more (innovation, progress and pace) with less (cost, waste and stress).
Are we getting this right? Please do contribute to the consultation so we can reflect the views of our profession in our foundational knowledge repository.
Read other blogs in this series: