BoK7: So how has the BoK structure changed?
Those of you who followed the series of blogs that ran alongside the initial consultation on the structure and content of the APM Body of Knowledge 7th edition will appreciate that as an editorial team we are committed to delivering a body of knowledge that describes projects, programmes and portfolios and how they contribute to organisational value in a usable way. Specifically we recognise that there are multiple options for progressing from start to end of an investment in change – from more traditional, linear and deliberate progression from A to B to structures that deal more effectively with iterative and adaptive approaches, and emergent change.
A revised BoK structure is available for you to look at on the consultation pages – so you can see how the editorial team* has listened to feedback and changed the structure to give appropriate weight to all topics.
Hopefully you’ll be able to see how we have...:
- Positioned project-based working (as individual projects or as projects and other operational work within programmes and portfolios) in the organisational context.
- Clarified different ways that the accomplishment of organisational change through projects can be governed, shaped, funded, assured, delivered – right through to the realisation of the desired benefits by the investing organisation.
- Focused on people and behaviours and the skills needed to engage stakeholders, lead teams, negotiate deals whether formal or informal and resolve conflicts.
- Addressed the linear/deliberate and iterative/adaptive variants of core planning and monitoring elements for projects.
Each topic in the structure will have a two-page spread in the APM Body of Knowledge 7th edition – so approximately 400 words plus a diagram and pointers for further reading. That’s why big and important aspects of our profession, like value, benefits, knowledge, risk, contracts and procurement, governance, assurance, people, etc, don’t have one topic, but are featured in multiple topics throughout the structure.
We’ll have even more detail for detailed review by members and volunteers by early September but we’d encourage you to take a look at where we are up to, and of course, let us know your thoughts. Email us on Yourviews@apm.org.uk.
*The editorial team comprises:
Scott Walkinshaw – APM Head of Knowledge
James Simons – APM Publishing Manager
Ruth Murray-Webster – Editor
Darren Dalcher – Academic Advisor and part of the writing team
Charles Mills, Dale Shermon, Tayyab Jamil and Phil Bradbury – all experienced practitioners and part of the writing team
Learn more about the editorial team.
Ruth is a Director of Potentiality UK providing leading-edge risk and change consultancy services to clients across sectors. Ruth was formerly Director of Change Portfolio at Associated British Ports; Director of the Risk in the Boardroom practice for KPMG LLP and 10 years as a Director of Lucidus Consulting Ltd. Her work on risk appetite and risk attitude with David Hillson is widely published. Her doctoral research focused on the accomplishment of planned change from the perspective of the recipients of change rather than change agents. Ruth was awarded Honorary Fellowship of APM in 2013 for her contributions to risk and change.
Ruth was Editor of the 7th edition of the APM Body of Knowledge and is a member of the APM Professional Standards and Knowledge Committee.
2 comments
Log in to post a comment, or create an account if you don't have one already.
Hi Ruth, I like the new structure - it reads well, and seems to logically organise the key topics. Delighted to see that "projects" are (or can be) things that deliver "benefits" rather than simple pre-defined deliverables. In Chapter 4, will you address the issue of resource allocation, in particular the loss of productivity from allowing resources to try and progress too many activities at once (so-called "bad multitasking"). This can be an issue on single projects, but is a significant issue across programmes & portfolios using shared resource pools. Agile addresses this with WIP limitations on Kanban boards, but I rarely see other methods doing so. As a critical-chain fan, can I suggest that it is not only addressed in section 56 (Scheduling), but also that it's implications flow through to the subsequent chapters. Using CCPM has a significant impact on topics like cost estimation & baselining, risk & contingency, and progress reporting As a simple example with progress reporting (s. 65), the fever chart would replace EV or actual v plan. I know organisations that get CCPM and would like to use it, but don't because another part of their system insists on EVM reporting, whilst needs significant manipulation to accommodate CCPM, so they don't bother! If the BoK acknowledged this, I think it would be a great step forward. Ian
Hi Ruth It is nice to see that complexity is coming up now to two areas – Ch1, Section A/1 and Ch3, Section G/38. However, after so many years I was expecting that the revised edition will assist practitioners by proposing / giving them support on how to manage the effects of complexity. Maybe this is with the two topics. Kind regards Dr Dimitris Antoniadis