4.1 Law

  1. Definition of good practice:
‘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?
  1. Are they pan-sector?
  2. Does the content avoid industry/sector bias?
  3. 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.
  1. Do any key conceptsrelating to the section need to be added?
  2. Definition
  3. General section
  4. Project content
  5. Programme content
  6. Portfolio content
/
  1. What does a pm have to do? And perhaps be the key provisions section from the general list and more explanation and examples given.
  1. English/Scottish Law. N.B. You may be operating under other jurisdictions or multiple jurisdictions. You must identify which jurisdiction you are operating under and its implications.
N.B. There are other categories of legal requirements that impact.
  1. Key provisions ought to be in a ‘project’ section.
Commercial contracts and key provisions is a confused list. The word commercial is possibly confusing. Perhaps ‘commercial’ should be deleted (3.7.3 Contracts?) – theymay not be ‘commercial’.
  1. Importance of repeating projects/programmes in different jurisdictions (cross border) or repeating a project/programme at a later date when the legal landscape may have changed.
  1. As above, and project section – do you still have a business case? Have constraints changed? Are there more opportunities? Are all the constituent projects compliant?

  1. Does anything need to be amended and why?
/ End of p1 ‘a claim’ – this is a complex sentence specific to contracts.
  1. Have the APM definitions been adhered to (APM Body of Knowledge 5th edition glossary)?
/ No change.
  1. Has existing content from 5th edition been reviewed and edited/incorporated?
/ No change.
  1. Have the items in the 1st draft feedback been referenced in the content?
/ Not incorporated at all!!
  1. Have any diagrams or tables used directly support the content, and have they been explained or referred to in the text?
/ n/a
  1. Are there any other references that could be incorporated into the further reading?
  2. Does further reading fall into one of the following categories:
  3. Further reading or notes that directly support the content
  4. 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
  5. 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.
  6. Have UK (or other relevant) standards that the content is compliant with been referenced?
  7. Are further reading items publicly available?
/ Not copied over from version 5
  1. Out of the issues we’ve talked about, which ones are the most important to you, and why?
/ Not been updated so difficult to comment – more emphasis on multiple jurisdictions especially with the increasing influence of EU law.

4.2Accounting

  1. Definition of good practice:
‘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? / Yes – financial accounting and reporting but no reference to management accounting e.g. forecasting especially regarding programme and portfolio management.
  1. Are they pan-sector?
  2. Does the content avoid industry/sector bias?
  3. 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. / Yes to both
  1. Do any key concepts relating to the section need to be added?
  2. Definition
  3. General section
  4. Project content
  5. Programme content
  6. Portfolio content
/
  1. Definition needs to be expanded to include management accounting i.e. how financial information is used.
  2. ‘balance sheet’ needs to be added and explained. These are specific reports like PoL statements.
  3. Under ‘discounted cash flow’ include ‘net present value’ – to make the point that they are 2 sides of the same thing.

  1. Does anything need to be amended and why?
/ b. Depreciation – explanation is cumbersome
and the accuracy is questionable at a project
level. Review for accuracy and a clearer,
project related example given linked to
accounting principle.
c. Under bullet 1 ‘projects do not generate
profits…’ is a very private sector orientated
comment. Need more public and third sector –
emphasis is on the provision of services and
benefits (see current PRINCE2 manual).
c. Page 2 Project section – is this a duplication
under 3.4.2? Do they tie up?
Page 3 How does it tie to 3.4.1?
Errors – footnote iii is of concern and the
statement is ‘not true’- in terms of
‘primarily…do the same for less’. It should be
‘project accounting is there to report the
financial progress of the project and provide
information for the project manager
potentially identifying savings while achieving
objectives’.
d. page 3 Payback analysis – ambiguous ‘select
and reject’, better ‘prioritise and sequence’.
ROI – ‘furthermore’ – missing text.
Programme governance – includes the setting
of quality standards including indications for
consistency…programme office can support in
setting and monitoring the standards.
DCF – ‘is a third accounting comparison tool’ –
delete. Review the definition of DCF.
e. Portfolio – oversight body may not be main
board but a portfolio committee. Remove the
example of ‘main board’.
  1. Have the APM definitions been adhered to (APM Body of Knowledge 5th edition glossary)?
/ ‘project manager’s arsenal’ is a questionable phrase.
  1. Has existing content from 5th edition been reviewed and edited/incorporated?
/ Yes
  1. Have the items in the 1st draft feedback been referenced in the content?
/ Yes.
  1. Have any diagrams or tables used directly support the content, and have they been explained or referred to in the text?
/ n/a
  1. Are there any other references that could be incorporated into the further reading?
  2. Does further reading fall into one of the following categories:
  3. Further reading or notes that directly support the content
  4. 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
  5. 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.
  6. Have UK (or other relevant) standards that the content is compliant with been referenced?
  7. Are further reading items publicly available?
/ General accepted accounting principles.
  1. Out of the issues we’ve talked about, which ones are the most important to you, and why?
/ Overlaps with other areas e.g. benefits and value management and ensure they are properly linked and consistent.

4.3Funding

  1. Definition of good practice:
‘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? / Yes.
  1. Are they pan-sector?
  2. Does the content avoid industry/sector bias?
  3. 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. / Does it sufficiently cover 3rd sector? E.g. patrons, donations and fundraising or venture capital, enterprise angels or the ethical dimensions of ‘outside source’ which may have ‘strings’ attached and impose constraints or other stakeholders e.g. ‘supply funded’ initiatives.
  1. Do any key concepts relating to the section need to be added?
  2. Definition
  3. General section
  4. Project content
  5. Programme content
  6. Portfolio content
/
  • general – see above.
  • 2nd/3rdpara – would they sit better under programme and portfolio? ‘Usually a single project sponsor who is responsible for sourcing funding is an important point to emphasise’. A single designated sponsor channels the funding.
  • Page 2 – last para and penultimate para. Long winded way of saying some resources are direct changed and others indirect as this section is about ‘funding’ and not ‘budgeting’ – we question relevance of these paragraphs?
  • Page 3 – no definition of management accounting in the accounting section.
  • d. Page 3 – ‘a programme may receive…’ too general and not project, programme or portfolio specific. This is a generic statement not differentiated and therefore should be in general section.

  1. Does anything need to be amended and why?
/ See question 3 above.
  1. Have the APM definitions been adhered to (APM Body of Knowledge 5th edition glossary)?
/ n/a
  1. Has existing content from 5th edition been reviewed and edited/incorporated?
/ Yes
  1. Have the items in the 1st draft feedback been referenced in the content?
/ Programme section – self funding? Tranching? Omitted.
Programme and portfolio – shaping of funding (bullet 3) omitted.
  1. Have any diagrams or tables used directly support the content, and have they been explained or referred to in the text?
/ Does figure 2 require further explanation? Is It clear in its representation? Could it be clearer or explained better? What is its intended purpose?
  1. Are there any other references that could be incorporated into the further reading?
  2. Does further reading fall into one of the following categories:
  3. Further reading or notes that directly support the content
  4. 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
  5. 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.
  6. Have UK (or other relevant) standards that the content is compliant with been referenced?
  7. Are further reading items publicly available?
/ Something on 3rd sector – not sure if that’s included.
  1. Out of the issues we’ve talked about, which ones are the most important to you, and why?
/ Broader focus - private, public, third sector

4.4Health, Safety and Security

  1. Definition of good practice:
‘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? / All about compliance, not best practice – very narrow in focus, construction industry focus.
  1. Are they pan-sector?
  2. Does the content avoid industry/sector bias?
  3. 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. /
  1. No – very construction biased and in the industries where it is the H&S&S of doing the project is the focus.
H&S impact in other sectors need to be considered e.g in end production/outcomes.
Some disagreement in group 2/4 are satisfied. 1 in particular (subject specialist) wanted more.
Too wide a subject – legislation.
  1. Yes.

  1. Do any key concepts relating to the section need to be added?
  2. Definition
  3. General section
  4. Project content
  5. Programme content
  6. Portfolio content
/
  • ‘Safety culture’ – leadership to H&S and thinking about.
  • ‘The safety case’ – justification for why it’s safe – omitted.
  • Page 1 ‘usually’ – delete ‘usually’ in first line, delete ‘project’ (first word) as its all managers.
  • Page 1 para 3 – ALARP – more explanation about what it means – case law – perhaps in glossary – James Inge to produce a definition.
  • Organisation may have an H&S policy which the project manager will be required to follow or laws in a country of operation as well as a parent country.
  • Concept/definition – consider how ‘safe’ do you want it to be? Consider the ‘safety’ requirement/risk assess.
  • Project manager has H&S for project but also for ongoing maintaining/operation/outcome of project – it needs building in for both ‘project lifecycle’ and ‘extended project/product lifecycle’. Processes affect H&S too.
  • Planning – project plans need to think about/address H&S. Should address: risks to health of humans and risks to product.
  • Programme – ‘desk based’- not recognising wider risks or the/to the project. No matter what the environment there is always a legal requirement for H&S policy is UK specific but the hazards and risks may vary.
  • Bullets- not programme specific. Need to add interdependencies within projects.
  • Doesn’t emphasise legal accountabilities – maybe this is under Goverance 1.1? at corporate governance level and GoPM level. This goes for all project/programme/portfolio.

  1. Does anything need to be amended and why?
/
  • C. ‘management responsible…’ lots of repetition – needs to be tighter.
  • B. the ‘delivery team’ does not set H&S&S in isolation but in light of company H&S&S policy and legal context.
  • c. ALARP – applies to H&S not security.

  1. Have the APM definitions been adhered to (APM Body of Knowledge 5th edition glossary)?
/ Yes
  1. Has existing content from 5th edition been reviewed and edited/incorporated?
/ Yes
  1. Have the items in the 1st draft feedback been referenced in the content?
/ COSHH – there are numerous other areas of legislation that may be included. Is there a catch all statement that could be used here?
  1. Have any diagrams or tables used directly support the content, and have they been explained or referred to in the text?
/ n/a
  1. Are there any other references that could be incorporated into the further reading?
  2. Does further reading fall into one of the following categories:
  3. Further reading or notes that directly support the content
  4. 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
  5. 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.
  6. Have UK (or other relevant) standards that the content is compliant with been referenced?
  7. Are further reading items publicly available?
/ Not referenced sufficiently – IOD/HSE – duplicated below.
  1. Out of the issues we’ve talked about, which ones are the most important to you, and why?
/
  • Insufficient discussion on security. Should security be here as most of this is H&S focused? Security needs to come out as it doesn’t sit well in H&S or defined as security in terms of ‘safety’ or ‘physical security’.
  • See HSE32ab&c on
  • Further reading – see CESG website.

4.5Sustainability

  1. Definition of good practice:
‘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? /
  • No – it is written in an academic way. The definition by Bruntland in page 1, para 3 is a better definition. Not in the APM voice – would require a substantial rewrite.
  • Does not provide a good insight into what sustainability is in a project context.
  • Title ‘Sustainable development’ – Deln by Bruntland.

  1. Are they pan-sector?
  2. Does the content avoid industry/sector bias?
  3. 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. /
  • A. page 2 – standards are predominantly construction based. ISO14000 is a generic standard.
  • B. doesn’t appear to be much content! No definition of society and economic in page 1 last para.

  1. Do any key concepts relating to the section need to be added?
  2. Definition
  3. General section
  4. Project content
  5. Programme content
  6. Portfolio content
/
  • Lacking detail, example, content – too generic. E.g. socio-economic sustainability e.g. preserving a skilled workforce in an area of the country e.g. submarine building in NW of England.
  • Focus needs to change to organisational sustainability as well as environmental sustainability e.g. moral obligation to planet. What does it mean for the project manager.
  • e.g. include environmental impact/risk assessment could be included. Not much to get teeth into.
  • Triple bottom line needs adding to glossary of APMBoK.

  1. Does anything need to be amended and why?
/
  • Too many fluffy statements – e.g. ‘ultimate arbiter’.
  • What is the method for modelling sustainable behaviours? Example and reference required.
  • What are the project managers obligations – Kyoto – to the planet, to the customer, to the organisation, to stakeholders, to society.
  • Emotive language – very preachy language on ‘green’ agenda.
  • Venn diagram – good but we need more examples and explanation on what is meant by economy, environment and society.
  • ‘What are sustainability credentials’ in relation to project? Surely this is a stereotype and must be context specific.

  1. Have the APM definitions been adhered to (APM Body of Knowledge 5th edition glossary)?
/ Needs new definitions.
  1. Has existing content from 5th edition been reviewed and edited/incorporated?
/ n/a author has ignored what little was in there about environment.
  1. Have the items in the 1st draft feedback been referenced in the content?
/ 1. What PM/programme manager/portfolio manager need to know/do is skipped over.
2. Too general re bullet 2 under general observation.
3. Not explained ISO14001 as a management system and its benefits.
  1. Have any diagrams or tables used directly support the content, and have they been explained or referred to in the text?
/ A good diagram not well exemplified or explained in the text.
  1. Are there any other references that could be incorporated into the further reading?
  2. Does further reading fall into one of the following categories:
  3. Further reading or notes that directly support the content
  4. 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
  5. 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.
  6. Have UK (or other relevant) standards that the content is compliant with been referenced?
  7. Are further reading items publicly available?
/ Intro to further reading not required. ISO14001 not included.
  1. Out of the issues we’ve talked about, which ones are the most important to you, and why?
/ It needs a re-write from the point of view of the project professional.

4.6Human Resource Management