Skip to content

Review event outputs now available

Added to your CPD log

View or edit this activity in your CPD log.

Go to My CPD
Only APM members have access to CPD features Become a member Already added to CPD log

View or edit this activity in your CPD log.

Go to My CPD
Added to your Saved Content Go to my Saved Content

Many thanks to all of those who attended what we found to be a very positive day with excellent feedback received on the drafts to feed into the next drafts. The outputs from the review event on 20 April 2011 are now available for viewing. Please read the content and feel free to add comments to highlight any amendments needed/additional items you would like to feed into the consistency authoring stage.

Many thanks to all of you, whether involved virtually or at the review events. Your input is an absolutely essential part in developing the Body of Knowledge 6th edition, and we are very grateful for your time and energies.

For those contributing virtually, please can you submit your responses to the questions using the word document in the review materials to

Where possible, for sections that did not satisfy the expectations, please can you provide suggestions for content that you would expect to see so that we are able to go through to the consisteny authors with constructive feed back on specific content areas that need expansion.

This group will be available until Tuesday 3 May 2011 for any additional comments. Please do not hesitate to contact us should you have any queries.



Join the conversation!

Log in to post a comment, or create an account if you don't have one already.

  1. Mike Rawlins
    Mike Rawlins 02 May 2011, 10:17 PM

    Generally captured the points well other than:1)  The Definition in 1.2.1 is a good definition for the project context which is a term that in my experience is generally recognised.  That this description defines 'context' in terms of 'the environment' rather than the other way round suggests that 'context' would be a better title for this section than 'environment'  The section itself is confused - using both context and environment as if they were synonymous and seemingly at random.  Worse, the paragraph at the bottom of page two defines the 'environment' as consisting of major elements including 'the Environment' - two uses of the word in the same sentence.  all of this could be avoided by settling on the term 'context' for this section.2)  The comment regarding adding a sentence reminding the reader of those aspects under their direct control, etc. is not well explained.  My point was that there are elements of the context that the project/programme manager can control (and these can be planned for); there are elements that the PM can only influence (for which relationship management becomes a factor); and elements that are outside the PM's direction and influence (these become risks).  The message is, do not try to direct things that can only be influenced and use risk management to mitigate factors outside your sphere of influence.

  2. Esther Abrey
    Esther Abrey 26 April 2011, 12:42 PM

    Additional comment received from Setting review event participant:The Setting group discussed the existing Section 3.2.6, Change Management [at yesterday's review event]. We thought that it would be better positioned under Section 3.1, Management. Having given this some more thought, I think that in addition to that move a change of title to Management of Change would better described the contents and differentiate it from 3.2.4 Change Control.

  3. Ruth Murray-Webster
    Ruth Murray-Webster 28 April 2011, 09:21 PM

    I completely agree that Management of Change is a far far better title than Change Management for the reasons you state.  Ruth