INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF

PROJECT
MANAGEMENT
International Journal of Project Management 24 (2006) 461–473
www.elsevier.com/locate/ijproman

Research updating the APM Body of Knowledge 4th edition

a,*
Peter W.G. Morris , Ashley Jamieson a, Miles M. Shepherd b,1

a
School of Construction and Project Management, University College London, Gower Street, London, United Kingdom
b
International Project Management Association, 121 Harnham Road, Salisbury, Wiltshire SP2 8JT, United Kingdom

Received 9 September 2005; received in revised form 18 November 2005; accepted 10 February 2006

Abstract

This paper reports on an 18-month research project to update the APM Body of Knowledge 4th edition. It reviews the role of Bodies
of Knowledge in the profession, and reports on the data gathered from an extensive series of structured interviews, web questionnaire
returns and drafting committee reviews. In the end APM decided that publication of the revised text should be on a phased basis so that
the impact on certification curricula and other developing aspects could be managed progressively. The paper concludes by reflecting on
the limitations imposed on professional institutions in the presentation of new research and practitioner based knowledge.
Ó 2006 Elsevier Ltd and IPMA. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Bodies of Knowledge; Professions; Trends in project management

1. Introduction and a number of new topics were added. Ultimately achiev-

The APM Body of Knowledge [1], along with the
PMBOK Guide [51] and P2M [17], is one of the most influ-
ential publications on what constitutes the knowledge base
of the profession.
APM, the Association for Project Management, the UK
based project management professional association, peri-
odically updates its Body of Knowledge (BOK) to reflect
developments in the discipline – new trends in practice,
evolving terminology, research, and publications. In late
2003 the APM commissioned University College London
to conduct a review and update of its 4th edition, published
in 2000. A large quantity of information was collected as a
result of which the existing BOK was substantially revised.
At 55,000 words the text was substantially longer than
the 33,000 previous edition. While most of the 4th edition
topics were retained in principle, and in most instances
by name, they were re-sequenced, some were combined
ing a fit between the proposed new structure and text and
the 4th edition structure and associated certification pro-
grams proved difficult and APM decided to effect the tran-
sition progressively. The published 5th edition draws on
the research presented here but used substantially new
and different text, as briefly described at the end of this
paper.
This paper reflects on the UCL based research and
drafting. It begins with a brief recapitulation of the intent
behind project management BOKs. It then presents the
results of the research survey showing the extent to which
respondents rated proposed topics as relevant or not; these
are disaggregated by industry sector and by Program and
Project Management. The paper then reviews the principal
directions taken in drafting the BOK as a result of the sur-
vey findings and subsequent expert workshops. Finally,
observations are drawn from the difficulty APM had in
adopting and applying the proposed revised BOK.

*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +44 20 7679 5953; fax: +44 20 7916 1887. 2. Project management bodies of knowledge
E-mail addresses: pwmorris@ucl.ac.uk, pwmorris@netcomuk.co.uk
(P.W.G. Morris), jamieson.ashley@ntlworld.com (A. Jamieson), miles.
shepherd@msp-ltd.co.uk (M.M. Shepherd). Project management in its modern form originated in the
1
Tel.: +44 17 2232 7215; fax: +44 17 2234 1636. late 1950s and 1960s [18,25,33]. By the late 1960s to early

0263-7863/$30.00 Ó 2006 Elsevier Ltd and IPMA. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2006.02.002
462 P.W.G. Morris et al. / International Journal of Project Management 24 (2006) 461–473
1970s project management societies had begun to provide
forums for interested parties to communicate on the emerg-
ing discipline. In the mid 1980s first PMI, the US headquar-
tered Project Management Institute, and later APM, the
UK Association for Project Management, embarked on
certification programs to test whether people met their stan-
dards of project management professionalism.
2.1. Bodies of knowledge for certification programs
To be tested requires that there be a curriculum or sim-
ilar reference work that can be used as the basis of the test.
PMI established its first Project Management ‘‘Body of
Knowledge’’ (BOK) in 1976 but it was not until the mid
1980s that PMI’s BOK became the basis of its standards
and certification program. PMI’s BOK was updated sev-
eral times during the 1980s and 1990s (though, as we shall
see, without significant alteration to its fundamental struc-
ture or terms, or indeed overall conception).
APM on the other hand, when it launched its certifica-
tion program in the early 1990s, felt that the then PMI
BOK did not adequately reflect the knowledge base that
project management professionals needed. To a large
extent this view was driven by research which suggested
that, important though project execution efficiency is, the
way the project is defined and developed, the way it is
related to its strategic intent, and the way externalities
are addressed are critical to successful project outcome
[34] – but see also the subsequent work of, for example,
Cooke-Davies [11], Crawford [12], Flyvberg et al. [19],
Miller and Lessard [29], and Morris [33]. PMBOK essen-
tially focussed on execution delivery and largely ignored
the front-end [38]. Hence APM developed a more compre-
hensive view of the knowledge required to accomplish pro-
jects successfully – one which looks at what needs to be
managed across the total project life cycle in order to deli-
ver success to all principal stakeholders, particularly those
sponsoring the project: what has been termed a ‘manage-
ment of projects’ perspective [33,39].
APM’s certification program was adopted by several
European countries. In 1998 IPMA, the International Pro-
ject Management Association, produced an amalgam of
these national BOKs: The ICB [9]: the IPMA Competence
Baseline – together with proposals for harmonising the var-
ious national project management qualifications [47].
In 2001 the Engineering Advancement Association
(ENAA) of Japan published as its BOK: P2M, ‘‘A Guide-
book for Project and Program Management for Enterprise
Innovation’’ [17]. The focus of P2M is on ‘‘value creation
to enterprises . . . and a consistent chain from a mission,
through strategies, . . . program(s) to implement strategies,
to projects comprising a program’’ [17]. This is clearly a
fuller view of the discipline than the PMBOK Guide and
one more in line with managing for stakeholder success
and value creation, as in the APM BOK: both emphasize
the importance of project delivery effectiveness as well as
‘on time, in budget, to scope’ efficiency.
2.2. Bodies of Knowledge as broader representations of
project management knowledge
What we see in these BOK initiatives therefore is an
attempt to define the body of knowledge at least initially
largely for certification purposes. And certification has
proved immensely important for the profession, and for
the professional associations. There are now over 55,000
PMPs (Project Management Professionals) in PMI and
about 10,000 certificated members of APM. The BOKs
play a strategic role in supporting this important activity.
But should they have a more ambitious role and attempt
to provided broader representations of the knowledge
needed to manage projects and programs? APM certainly
believes so, as is manifest in its commitment to develop
an empirically grounded base to its BOK and as was made
clear in its brief to the research team. This belief is one of
the fundamental drivers to their commitment to commis-
sioning a formal research program to update their BOK.
As well as this 2004/5 exercise, a research project under-
scored their 2000 4th edition update [34]. But such an
attempt faces a number of difficulties, not least methodo-
logical and epistemological.
First, how feasible is it for a BOK to represent the
broad generalization of knowledge in project and pro-
gram management? APM is dealing with a much broader
range of knowledge bases than PMI. APM, for the rea-
sons described above, also takes a broader ‘management
of projects’ view of the discipline. It currently offers four
levels of certification whereas PMI has largely focussed
just on its PMP.2 Also, the UK market is quite crowded
with competitor qualifications, including two very popu-
lar ones from the Office of Government Commerce
(OGC), PRINCE2 [45] and Managing Successful Pro-
grammes [44], in addition to one from the Management
Charter Initiative, and two from the British Computer
Society, as well as National Vocational Qualifications in
project management. There is also a discernible move to
promote Programme Management as a distinctive disci-
pline separate from Project Management. For these rea-
sons, APM has tended to adopt a broader, more
discursive and less methods-oriented approach to its
BOK than say is found in the PMBOK Guide. In fact
the Association has three or four levels of guidance: its
BOK as the top, most general level; more detailed infor-
mation represented in its Pathways documents [58]; sub-
ject-specific documents such as those on governance [2]
or risk [3]; and the curricula themselves for the various
APM qualifications.
Second, what should the epistemological base be in
area of management like project and program manage-
ment? This is not a natural science where objective reality
can be established wholly through reduction, repeatability
2
The Japanese currently just have their Project Manager Specialist
although two additional levels are planned.
 P.W.G. Morris et al. / International Journal of Project Management 24 (2006) 461–473
and refutation [35,48,49]. Management is contextual [22]
and practice based [53]. Management knowledge is a
combination of ‘static’ knowledge (of concepts, rules,
facts, etc.), both tacit and explicit [43,50] and ‘dynamic’,
action based, knowing [10]. Practitioners, as in medicine
say, or law, or management, constantly reflect on – and
through – their practice [4,53]. Formal knowledge based
on empirically grounded research is an important basis
for professional knowledge but a social and contextual
interpretation is unavoidable and indeed critical. Because
management knowledge – particularly in practice-based
areas like project management (perhaps less so in more
rule driven areas like finance, but indeed even here3) –
is situated, its legitimacy is derived through its group
endorsement [6,27,63]. None of this is meant to deny or
diminish the importance of empirically derived manage-
ment knowledge, only to ensure that its limitations, par-
ticularly as regards any claims to be creating a universal
‘standard’ need to be appreciated. (PMBOK is indeed
vulnerable here in that it has been adopted as an ANSI
standard and calls itself a standard in its text.4) And it
does raise very real questions of the validity of the knowl-
edge represented in a BOK [37]. If such knowledge is ‘sit-
uated’, how representative and valid is the data that is
drawn on to write the BOK; if it is owned by a group,
who is elected to represent the group owning and writing
the profession’s BOK?
Third, following from this second point5, how realistic is
it to expect evidence that having knowledge of what it
takes to manage projects will provide a assurance of per-
forming competently, as is intended in a professional
licence to practice? Partly this is the first question again
of the scope and level of detail or depth presented. But pri-
marily it is a question of how robust and reliable is the pro-
posed link between knowledge, certification and project
success. This is an area which has been virtually ignored
in the project management literature though Morris et al.
have pointed out the methodological difficulties of
attempting to demonstrate causal linkage (Morris et al.
[41]). There is little evidence of how knowledge of BOK
3
There is a mixture of types of knowledge in most project management
bodies of knowledge. To an extent, some knowledge can be presented as
positivist – as objectively testable; publicly verifiable – as in knowledge of
Health, Safety and Environment (HSE) regulations, the principles of
contract administration, the process of cost control or the principles
of scheduling. Other parts, as in communications, understanding how best
to organize, or the practice of leadership or negotiating, require much
more reflection and contextualization.
4 6
The other BOKs are more discursive and less mechanistic than
PMBOK, as indeed are many of the other standards [13] – such as BS 6079
[7] and ISO 10006 [8].
5
‘‘To be accomplished in a profession, discipline or craft, for example, is
necessarily to be tied up in practicing it. This does not mean that its body
of knowledge is useless to practice, only that it is not the same as the
epistemic dimension of practice. An accomplished engineer may possess a
great deal of sophisticated knowledge; but there are plenty of people who
possess such knowledge yet do not excel as engineers (as is often observed
in many fields).’’ (Cook and Seely Brown [10], p. 387.)
463
topics is correlated with improved project performance,
which after all is the aim of professional certification (pro-
ject performance note, not project manager comport-
ment6); Hodgson and Cicmil [23], Thomas [61,62] and
Williams [64] meanwhile have all criticized the method
basis they perceive underlying the PMBOK Guide object-
ing to suggestions that the mechanistic application of such
norms will necessarily lead to satisfactory project out-
comes. The idea of a body of knowledge per se is not nec-
essarily wrong for such critics insofar as it tries to
rationalize and explain, but it is dangerous if too much cre-
dence is put on its ability to guarantee performance (such
as project success) – however that may be defined [11], a
criticism which indeed ultimately goes to the heart of the
value of certification itself [12,21,41].
The proposed APM BOK re-draft of the 4th edition did
not propose a mechanistic set of rules or practices which
must be followed or must be fully known about if success
is to be guaranteed (which it never can be) or if one is to
be considered as operating professionally. Instead it was
more discursive. It stressed the importance of context.
What it did set out to do was to:
 describe the topics that practitioners and researchers see
as relevant to managing projects and programs, with
suggestions for how to get additional information;
 indicate some of the practices that have been found use-
ful (such as say in scope management, work breakdown,
change control, etc.);
 outline established relevant thinking (as in risk manage-
ment or estimating) and elucidate newer practices (such
as value management or performance measurement);
 indicate relevant standards (as in BS 6079 or ISO
10006);
 refer to some of the relevant fundamental conceptual
frameworks (although in the final published text, this
aspect was toned down).
As such, it is, we believe, the outline of what currently
might reasonably be called the discipline of managing pro-
jects and programs – the profession’s ‘distinctive body of
knowledge’.
(A discipline, note, but not, we suggest, a theory. There
is surely not a single theory of project management, as
recent critics have pointed out [26,28], let alone one of
the management of projects. The field is far too big: there
may be theories of topics included in the domain – risk
There are several real difficulties in getting evidence of such a
correlation. Formal knowledge of modern project management practices
may not be essential for the effective management of projects. Skills and
behaviours may be just as important as formal knowledge. We would need
to distinguish between apprehension of formal project management
knowledge and (1) project manager behaviour and doing the right things
properly and (2) project outturn performance. We should also recognize
that projects may not turn out well despite the application of appropriate
knowledge, for example due to the actions of third parties or unforeseen
circumstances.
464 P.W.G. Morris et al. / International Journal of Project Management 24 (2006) 461–473
management, requirements management, knowledge man-
agement, negotiation, value, capacity planning, and so on
– but not a single theory of project management.7 The same
is true surely for the other professions such as medicine and
law.)
2.3. Methods of gathering and formulating BOK knowledge
Any attempt to represent knowledge begs questions of
how such knowledge is derived and formulated, as we have
seen. The three principal BOKs have adopted different
approaches. PMI has worked through practice committees,
leaving them to modify the PMBOK Guide as they saw fit.
In fact they have made only minor changes in recent years
and the structure of the PMBOK Guide has been relatively
unchanged since its inception. (Perhaps because any dra-
matic changes would cause difficulties for those who have
been certificated against the old structure.) P2M was devel-
oped after an investigative project led by Chiba University,
and with strong sponsorship by the Government of Japan,
followed by intense work by practitioner committees over a
2 1/2-year period. APM’s BOK was initially developed by
practitioner groups. The 4th edition however was devel-
oped via a research project at UMIST8 and included data
from 118 questionnaire returns. The update of the 4th edi-
tion was more ambitious and was the subject of an 18-
month long, 450-man-day research project by University
College London, and took account of data collected from
40 in-depth structured interviews with senior project exec-
utives from a carefully selected range of different industries,
and from over 400 web-based questionnaire returns on the
relevance and textual definition of existing and proposed
new BOK topics, as well as extensive literature reviews.
There were in addition four Steering Group meetings
(made up of three past Chairmen of APM, two past presi-
dents of IPMA, and several notable academics, senior
industry and government figures) and five workshops to
review progress and comment on the emerging drafts.
The results give an interesting perspective on the state of
practitioner perception and of academic knowledge in pro-
ject and program management. These are reviewed in the
following section of this paper.
3. Survey results on the state of practice in the management
of projects and programs
We shall present first the data on the perceived relevance
of various knowledge topics, differentiated by industry sec-
tor and also by program versus project management appli-
cation, before reviewing some of the more significant
comments on topics and their descriptions as revealed from
the interviews, questionnaire returns, and workshops.
7 the diversity of business sectors, types of projects and
What there certainly will be are theoretical approaches to the discipline
such as systems theory or organization theory or risk/uncertainty
management [16,54,55,65,67].
8
Now the University of Manchester.
3.1. Relevancy of knowledge area topics
Respondents were asked to comment on the textual def-
inition of the topics in the 4th edition and on how relevant
the topic was to their organization. Additional ‘strawman’
topics (derived from the literature search and the 40 in-
depth interviews) were also added as potential new topics
(see Table 3).
Senior managers and project management professionals
from a wide spectrum of business sectors and government
agencies were selected for interview. Prior to the interview
the research team sent an information pack to all the inter-
viewees comprising a project overview, a description of the
interview process and a questionnaire that formed the basis
of the interview (interviewees were asked to complete and
return this prior to the interview). The information the
research team sought to gain from the interviews was as
follows:
1. The topics that experts and practitioners in different
industries consider a project management professional
should be knowledgeable in.
2. How relevant the existing BOK topics are.
3. How well the existing BOK topics are described.
4. Does the knowledge profile vary between industry sec-
tors or practitioner communities and if so, what are
the differences that should be included in the updated
BOK?
5. Does the knowledge profile vary between the project
sponsor, project manager and PMO/PSO staff roles?
6. What new topics should be added to the updated BOK?
7. The suitability of the content and layout of the question-
naire for a survey of APM members.
The questionnaire contained qualitative and quantita-
tive questions and the opportunity to comment on the
existing text of BOK topics and text of the proposed new
topics. There were also questions to determine the intervie-
wee’s professional experience and level of appointment.
Detailed notes were taken during the interviews to add to
the information given in the questionnaire answers. The
information and data contained in the questionnaires and
that gathered during the interviews were synthesized and
analysed. The results of the analysis of the data on the rel-
evancy of the existing BOK topics and proposed new ones
are shown in Tables 1–3. There were 2000 free text com-
ments on the existing and proposed new topics all of which
were carefully considered during in the writing of the
revised BOK.
The duration and funding of the project imposed severe
limitations on the research team to fully investigate the
range of topics – 43 existing ones and 17 new ones – analyse
the findings, and write the revised version. Furthermore,
approaches to project and program management, and asso-
ciated methodologies within them, precluded coverage in
detail in the revised text in all but a few of them.
Table 1
Project management perspective on topics’ relevance
BoK topic Business sector
Rating Total Aerospace Construction Process Process Transport Drug Manufacturing, ICT Financial Government,
sample weighted & defence, (building), engineering engineering – rail, development, %/sample (software), services %/sample
total average %/sample %/sample – oil & gas, – utilities, %/sample %/sample %/sample (banks),
%/sample %/sample %/sample
Project Management 218 100 100–0/45 100–0/56 100–0/24 100–0/26 100–0/36 100–0/23 97–3/37 100–0/80 100–0/49 100–0/86
Program Management 195 92 95–5/42 96–4/47 83–17/24 87–13/23 93–7/28 90–10/21 88–12/34 93–7/70 93–7/43 90–10/74
Project Context 185 91 93–7/42 89–11/45 86–14/21 91–9/23 90–10/29 89–11/19 91–9/33 96–4/69 90–10/42 90–10/69

P.W.G. Morris et al. / International Journal of Project Management 24 (2006) 461–473

Project Success Criteria 155 100 100–0/49 97–3/37 100–0/20 100–0/21 100–0/25 100–0/19 100–0/29 100–0/63 100–0/39 100–0/62
Strategy/PMP 155 99 100–0/36 100–0/36 100–0/20 100–0/21 100–0/23 100–0/19 96–4/26 98–2/61 97–3/36 98–2/55
Value Management 147 88 87–13/38 94–6/36 90–10/20 89–11/19 95–5/22 84–16/19 81–19/26 89–11/55 85–15/34 89–11/55
Risk Management 146 100 100–0/39 100–0/38 100–0/20 100–0/20 100–0/23 100–0/18 100–0/26 100–0/58 100–0/34 100–0/57
Quality Management 141 93 94–6/35 94–6/36 95–5/20 90–10/20 95–5/22 89–11/18 92–8/24 93–7/55 88–12/33 96–4/51
HSE 140 83 78–22/36 97–3/34 78–22/18 79–21/19 90–10/21 63–37/19 82–18/22 83–17/53 77–23/31 92–8/50
Work Content & 128 98 100–0/35 100–0/42 94–6/18 95–5/19 100–0/21 94–6/16 100–0/22 98–2/51 100–0/30 98–2/48
Scope Management
Time phasing/Scheduling 130 96 97–3/35 97–3/34 94–6/18 95–5/19 95–5/20 88–12/17 96–4/23 98–2/52 97–3/30 98–2/50
Resource Management 128 96 100–0/33 97–3/33 89–11/18 89–11/19 95–5/20 88–12/17 100–0/23 98–2/50 97–3/29 94–6/49
Budgeting & Cost Management 126 96 97–3/36 97–3/35 94–6/18 95–5/19 95–5/20 88–12/17 96–4/23 98–2/49 96–4/28 98–2/48
Change Control 126 100 100–0/35 100–0/34 100–0/18 100–0/19 100–0/20 100–0/17 100–0/23 100–0/49 100–0/29 100–0/48
Earned Value Management 126 90 94–6/35 82–18/34 89–11/18 95–5/19 85–15/20 88–12/17 96–4/23 92–8/49 86–14/28 89–11/47
Information Management 125 94 91–9/22 97–3/32 89–11/18 89–11/19 95–5/19 88–12/17 100–0/18 95–5/57 93–7/28 98–2/48
Design, Impl’tation & 121 99 100–0/30 100–0/42 100–0/17 100–0/18 100–0/19 100–0/16 100–0/21 96–4/47 96–4/27 98–2/49
Handover
Requirements Management 118 98 100–0/33 94–6/32 100–0/16 100–0/18 94–6/18 100–0/14 100–0/20 100–0/46 92–8/26 100–0/44
Estimating 118 97 100–0/29 94–6/32 88–12/17 94–6/18 100–0/18 94–6/16 100–0/20 98–2/46 96–4/26 98–2/44
Technology Management 116 82 87–13/31 84–16/32 87–13/16 94–6/18 83–17/18 86–14/14 63–37/19 82–18/45 81–19/26 79–21/43
Value Engineering 117 79 77–23/30 84–16/31 75–25/16 83–17/18 83–17/18 75–25/16 80–20/20 85–15/46 69–31/26 74–26/43
Modelling & Testing 116 91 89–11/28 87–13/30 100–0/15 94–6/17 89–11/18 87–13/15 90–10/20 93–7/46 96–4/25 88–12/41
Configuration Management 115 92 96–4/27 87–13/30 93–7/15 88–12/17 88–12/17 86–14/14 95–5/19 98–2/45 88–12/25 95–5/42
Business Case 114 99 96–4/28 100–0/39 100–0/14 100–0/16 100–0/16 100–0/14 95–5/19 100–0/45 100–0/24 100–0/40
Marketing & Sales 114 73 82–18/28 74–26/31 79–21/14 81–19/16 69–31/16 64–36/14 84–16/19 71–29/45 56–44/24 72–28/39
Financial Management 113 96 100–0/28 93–7/29 92–8/13 94–6/16 94–6/16 86–14/14 100–0/19 100–0/45 88–12/24 98–2/40
Procurement 111 99 100–0/24 100–0/30 100–0/13 100–0/16 100–0/16 100–0/14 100–0/19 100–0/35 92–8/24 100–0/41
Legal Awareness 111 91 93–7/29 97–3/31 92–8/13 100–0/18 81–19/16 86–14/14 95–5/19 91–9/45 83–17/24 90–10/39
Life Cycle Design Mgt 109 94 93–7/28 90–10/29 92–8/13 88–12/17 94–6/16 93–7/14 96–4/23 96–4/45 96–4/24 95–5/38
Opportunity 111 79 89–11/28 72–28/29 77–23/13 81–19/16 69–31/16 71–29/14 84–16/19 86–14/43 77–23/22 77–23/40
Design and development 109 96 100–0/28 93–7/28 92–8/12 100–0/15 93–7/15 92–8/13 96–4/18 98–2/43 96–4/23 95–5/39
Implementation 110 93 93–7/28 90–10/29 85–15/13 100–0/16 88–12/17 86–14/14 89–11/19 95–5/44 92–8/24 98–2/40
Handover 109 94 96–4/26 96–4/28 92–8/12 100–0/15 93–7/15 85–15/13 94–6/18 95–5/43 96–4/23 92–8/39
Project Evaluation Review 110 92 93–7/28 93–7/29 92–8/13 94–6/16 88–12/16 86–14/14 89–11/19 92–8/44 92–8/24 92–8/40
Organization Structure 109 98 100–0/27 97–3/29 100–0/12 100–0/15 100–0/15 100–0/13 100–0/18 98–2/43 96–4/23 97–3/39
Organizational Roles 108 98 100–0/27 96–4/28 100–0/12 100–0/15 100–0/15 92–8/12 100–0/17 98–2/43 100–0/23 97–3/38
Communication 108 96 96–4/27 96–4/28 92–8/13 93–7/15 94–6/16 92–8/13 94–6/18 98–2/44 96–4/24 98–2/41
Teamwork 108 92 93–7/27 89–11/28 85–15/13 93–7/15 82–18/17 85–15/13 94–6/18 98–2/42 92–8/24 93–7/40
Leadership 108 96 96–4/27 96–4/28 92–8/13 93–7/15 94–6/16 100–0/13 94–6/18 98–2/44 96–4/24 98–2/41
Conflict Management 108 98 96–4/26 100–0/28 100–0/13 100–0/15 100–0/16 100–0/13 94–6/18 100–0/42 100–0/25 95–5/40
Negotiation 108 97 96–4/27 96–4/28 92–8/13 100–0/15 94–6/16 92–8/13 100–0/18 100–0/42 92–8/24 98–2/40

465
Personnel Management 109 87 84–16/25 93–7/28 92–8/13 93–7/15 81–19/16 85–15/13 83–17/18 83–17/42 87–13/24 87–13/39
Table 2

466
Program management perspective on topics’ relevance
BoK topic Business sector
Rating Total Aerospace Construction Process Process Transport Drug Manufacturing, ICT Financial Government,
sample weighted & defence, (building), engineering engineering – rail, development, %/sample (software), services %/sample
total average %/sample %/sample – oil & gas, – utilities, %/sample %/sample %/sample (banks),
%/sample %/sample %/sample
Project Management 218 100 100–0/21 100–0/32 100–0/10 100–0/14 100–0/18 100–0/11 94–6/17 100–0/42 100–0/24 100–0/41
Programme Management 195 90 86–14/22 100–0/28 90–10/10 91–9/11 87–13/15 86–14/7 73–27/15 91–9/35 90–10/21 91–9/35
Project Context 185 92 100–0/21 81–19/27 100–0/8 100–0/10 93–7/15 100–0/5 93–7/15 88–12/33 95–5/20 90–10/31

P.W.G. Morris et al. / International Journal of Project Management 24 (2006) 461–473

Project Success Criteria 155 99 100–0/18 96–4/24 100–0/8 100–0/10 100–0/12 100–0/5 100–0/13 100–0/31 100–0/19 100–0/27
Strategy/PMP 155 99 100–0/17 100–0/24 100–0/8 100–0/10 100–0/11 100–0/5 100–0/11 97–3/29 100–0/18 100–0/26
Value Management 147 81 65–35/17 88–12/24 75–25/8 70–30/10 91–9/11 60–40/5 73–27/11 81–19/27 83–17/18 93–7/27
Risk Management 146 96 94–6/6 100–0/23 100–0/8 90–10/10 100–0/11 83–17/6 91–9/11 96–4/28 94–6/18 96–4/26
Quality Management 141 85 82–18/17 87–13/24 75–25/8 90–10/10 90–10/10 60–40/5 78–22/9 84–16/25 89–11/18 92–8/25
HSE 140 80 76–24/17 96–4/25 75–25/8 70–30/10 80–20/10 60–40/5 80–20/10 70–30/23 67–33/18 92–8/25
Work Content 128 93 88–12/17 100–0/13 100–0/8 80–20/10 100–0/9 100–0/5 90–10/10 91–9/23 88–12/17 96–4/25
& Scope Management
Time phasing/Scheduling 130 89 88–12/17 95–5/22 88–12/8 80–20/10 89–11/9 80–20/5 80–20/10 91–9/23 88–12/17 92–8/25
Resource Management 128 92 100–0/16 95–5/22 100–0/8 80–20/10 100–0/9 100–0/5 90–10/10 87–13/23 87–13/16 88–12/25
Budgeting & Cost Management 126 89 87–13/15 95–5/22 87–13/8 80–20/10 89–11/9 80–20/5 80–20/10 91–9/22 87–13/16 92–8/25
Change Control 126 100 100–0/16 100–0/22 100–0/8 100–0/10 100–0/9 100–0/5 100–0/10 100–0/25 100–0/16 100–0/25
Earned Value Management 126 81 88–12/16 73–27/22 88–12/8 80–20/10 89–11/9 80–20/5 80–20/10 86–14/22 69–31/16 85–15/26
Information Management 125 95 93–7/16 95–5/22 100–0/8 90–10/10 100–0/9 100–0/5 100–0/10 93–7/14 87–13/6 96–4/24
Design, Implementation 121 99 100–0/15 100–0/14 100–0/8 100–0/10 100–0/9 100–0/5 100–0/10 95–5/22 100–0/16 100–0/24
& Handover
Requirements Management 118 93 93–7/15 95–5/21 100–0/7 90–10/10 100–0/9 71–29/5 90–10/10 95–5/22 87–13/15 96–4/23
Estimating 118 90 87–13/15 90–10/21 86–14/7 80–20/10 100–0/9 100–0/5 90–10/10 91–9/22 80–20/15 96–4/23
Technology Management 116 86 77–23/13 86–14/21 86–14/7 100–0/9 89–11/9 100–0/4 88–12/8 85–15/20 93–7/14 78–22/23
Value Engineering 117 77 67–33/15 76–24/21 57–43/7 80–20/10 78–22/9 60–40/5 70–30/10 82–18/22 80–20/15 87–13/23
Modelling & Testing 116 91 93–7/15 85–15/20 100–0/7 100–0/10 89–11/9 100–0/5 100–0/10 90–10/21 93–7/15 83–17/23
Configuration Management 115 85 87–13/15 85–15/20 88–14/7 80–20/10 89–11/9 75–25/4 78–22/9 90–10/20 80–20/15 86–14/22
Business Case 114 98 93–7/15 100–0/11 100–0/6 100–0/9 87–13/8 100–0/5 100–0/10 100–0/20 100–0/14 100–0/20
Marketing & Sales 114 74 73–27/15 65–35/20 83–17/6 78–22/9 75–25/8 80–20/5 80–20/10 75–25/20 73–27/11 71–29/21
Financial Management 113 92 93–7/15 95–5/19 100–0/5 89–11/9 88–12/8 100–0/5 90–10/10 95–5/20 86–14/14 90–10/20
Procurement 111 94 93–7/15 100–0/19 100–0/5 89–11/9 100–0/8 100–0/5 90–10/10 95–5/20 86–14/14 95–5/20
Legal Awareness 111 86 87–13/15 100–0/17 100–0/5 89–11/9 100–0/8 80–20/5 70–30/10 85–15/20 80–20/15 81–19/21
Life Cycle Design Mgt 109 89 87–13/15 84–16/19 80–20/5 87–13/8 87–13/8 80–20/5 90–10/10 95–5/19 93–7/14 95–5/21
Opportunity 111 72 73–27/15 68–32/19 60–40/5 78–22/9 63–37/8 80–20/5 80–20/10 85–15/20 57–43/14 70/30–20
Design and development 109 89 100–0/14 89–11/18 75–25/4 100–0/8 100–0/7 100–0/4 100–0/9 100–0/19 92–8/13 95–5/19
Implementation 110 88 87–13/15 89–11/19 80–20/5 89–11/9 100–0/8 100–0/5 80–20/10 90–10/20 86–14/14 85–15/20
Handover 109 90 93–7/14 94–6/16 75–25/4 88–12/8 100–0/7 100–0/4 89–11/9 89–11/19 85–15/13 89–11/19
Project Evaluation Review 110 82 73–27/15 89–11/19 80–20/5 78–22/9 62–38/8 80–20/5 80–20/10 90–10/20 79–21/14 85–15/20
Organization Structure 109 99 100–0/14 94–6/18 100–0/4 100–0/8 100–0/8 100–0/4 100–0/9 100–0/19 100–0/13 100–0/20
Organizational Roles 108 94 92–8/13 94–6/18 100–0/4 94–6/8 100–0/7 100–0/3 87–13/8 94–6/18 92–8/13 95–5/20
Communication 108 92 93–7/14 95–5/19 80–20/5 88–12/8 88–12/8 75–25/4 89–11/9 95–5/19 93–7/14 95–5/20
Teamwork 108 84 86–14/14 95–5/19 80–20/5 75–25/8 88–12/8 75–25/4 67–33/9 89–11/19 86–14/14 80–20/20
Leadership 108 87 86–14/14 95–5/19 80–20/5 75–25/8 88–12/8 80–20/5 78–22/9 89–11/19 86–14/14 90–10/20
Conflict Management 108 97 86–14/14 100–0/19 100–0/5 100–0/8 88–12/8 100–0/4 100–0/9 100–0/19 100–0/13 95–5/20
Negotiation 108 92 93–7/14 95–5/18 100–0/5 88–12/8 100–0/8 100–0/4 78–22/9 95–5/19 86–14/14 90–10/20
Personnel Management 109 79 64–36/14 95–5/19 80–20/5 75–25/8 75–25/8 75–25/4 78–22/9 74–26/19 71–29/14 86–14/21
Table 3
Project and program management perspective on potential new topics
BoK topic Business sector
Rating Weighted Aerospace Construction Process Process Transport Drug Manufacturing, ICT Financial Government,
sample average & defence, (building), engineering engineering – rail, development, %/sample (software), services %/sample
total %/sample %/sample – oil & gas, – utilities, %/sample %/sample %/sample (banks),
%/sample %/sample %/sample
Topics proposed by project management
Portfolio Management 108 82 81–19/27 71–29/28 85–15/13 80–20/15 88–12/16 92–8/12 83–17/18 88–12/41 87–13/23 74–26/39

P.W.G. Morris et al. / International Journal of Project Management 24 (2006) 461–473

Ethics 108 84 81–19/27 93–7/29 100–0/13 87–13/15 87–13/15 100–0/12 88–12/16 80–20/40 78–22/23 74–26/39
Benefits Management 108 87 69–31/26 81–19/26 92–8/12 100–0/11 87–13/15 100–0/11 88–12/16 95–5/40 91–9/23 84–16/38
Critical Chain 107 68 81–19/27 70–30/27 58–42/12 50–50/14 67–33/15 56–44/9 88–12/16 70–30/40 57–43/23 68–32/38
Supply Chain Management 108 77 88–12/28 81–19/27 83–17/12 86–14/14 67–33/15 82–18/11 75–25/16 73–27/40 65–35/23 76–24/38
Stakeholder Management 108 99 100–0/26 93–7/27 100–0/12 100–0/14 93–7/15 100–0/11 100–0/16 100–0/40 100–0/21 100–0/37
Knowledge Management 108 86 78–22/23 89–11/27 92–8/12 86–14/14 87–13/15 100–0/11 88–12/16 83–1 7/40 87–13/23 82–18/38
Organizational Learning 108 80 73–27/26 81–19/26 92–8/12 71–29/14 87–13/15 91–9/11 88–12/16 74–26/39 82–18/22 81–19/37
Concurrent Engineering 109 63 73–27/22 67–33/27 58–42/12 50–50/14 60–40/15 72–28/11 69–31/16 55–45/40 50–50/22 74–26/38
Tender & Contract 108 97 96–4/26 100–0/27 92–8/12 100–0/14 100–0/14 92–8/12 100–0/16 100–0/41 91 –9/23 95–5/38
Management
Project Performance 108 89 92–8/26 93–7/27 83–17/12 93–7/14 87–13/15 82–18/11 88–12/16 93–7/40 87–13/23 87–13/38
Management
PMSO 108 80 81–19/27 74–26/27 75–25/12 57–43/14 62–38/13 82–18/11 82–18/17 85–15/40 83–17/24 89–11/38
PM Competencies 107 78 65–35/23 84–16/25 83–17/12 71–29/14 80–20/15 73–27/11 77–23/13 83–17/36 73–27/22 80–20/35
& Capabilities
PM3 107 76 74–26/27 74–26/27 83–17/12 57–43/14 73–27/15 82–18/11 67–33/15 82–18/39 74–26/23 82–18/38
Uncertainty 107 82 85–15/26 82–18/28 92–8/12 64–36/14 73–27/15 91–9/11 87–13/15 85–15/39 83–17/23 81–19/37
Governance 107 86 82–18/22 81–19/27 92–8/12 64–36/14 87–13/15 91–9/11 73–27/15 90–10/39 96–4/23 89–11/38
Topics proposed by program management
Portfolio Management 108 82 71–29/14 72–28/18 80–20/5 88–12/8 75–25/8 67–33/3 78–22/9 94–6/18 85–15/13 90–10/20
Ethics 108 90 86–14/14 94–6/18 100–0/4 88–12/8 100–0/9 100–0/3 89–11/9 83–17/18 92–8/1 3 85–15/20
Benefits Management 108 91 79–21/14 82–18/17 100–0/5 78–22/9 88–12/8 100–0/3 89–11/9 100–0/18 100–0/13 95–5/19
Critical Chain 107 69 79–21/14 67–33/18 40–60/5 88–12/8 63–37/8 60–40/5 78–22/9 65–35/20 62–38/13 70–30/20
Supply Chain Management 108 74 71–29/14 83–17/18 60–40/5 88–12/8 75–25/8 67–33/3 78–22/9 72–28/18 67–33/12 70–30/20
Stakeholder Management 108 99 100–0/14 94–6/18 100–0/5 100–0/8 100–0/8 100–0/3 100–0/9 100–0/18 100–0/13 100–0/20
Knowledge Management 108 90 79–21/14 94–6/18 100–0/5 100–0/8 88–12/8 100–0/3 89–11/9 89–11/18 93–7/1 5 85–15/20
Organizational Learning 108 88 79–21/14 82–18/17 100–0/5 88–12/8 100–0/8 100–0/3 100–0/9 100–0/18 69–31/13 85–15/20
Concurrent Engineering 109 62 79–21/14 67–33/18 40–60/5 37–63/8 75–25/8 67–33/3 67–33/9 56–44/18 43–57/14 70–30/20
Tender & Contract 108 97 100–0/15 100–0/18 100–0/5 100–0/8 89–11/9 100–0/3 100–0/9 94–6/18 92–8/12 100–0/20
Management
Project Performance 108 94 93–7/14 94–6/18 80–20/5 100–0/8 88–12/8 100–0/3 100–0/9 94–6/18 92–8/13 95–5/20
Management
PMSO 108 79 86–14/14 72–28/18 60–40/5 75–25/8 75–25/8 67–33/3 89–11/9 72–28/18 83–17/12 90–10/20
PM Competencies 107 83 64–36/14 89–11/18 80–20/5 88–12/8 88–12/8 33–67/3 78–22/9 88–12/17 85–15/13 90–10/20
& Capabilities
PM3 107 82 79–21/14 78–22/18 80–20/5 88–12/8 88–12/8 67–33/3 89–11/9 76–24/17 85–15/13 85–15/20
Uncertainty 107 81 86–14/14 83–17/18 80–20/5 75–25/8 88–12/8 67–33/3 78–22/9 82–18/17 77–23/13 80–20/20
Governance 107 88 97–7/14 83–17/18 80–20/5 75–25/8 88–12/8 67–33/3 78–22/9 94–6/17 92–8/13 95–5/20

467
468 P.W.G. Morris et al. / International Journal of Project Management 24 (2006) 461–473
Text was provided to describe the topics, both current
and potentially new. Responses were analysed by industry
sector although many respondents answered for more than
one industry sector and some answered separately for pro-
gram and for project management.
Choosing the industry sector definition was not easy.
Characteristics of projects and programs may be, and often
are, more significant in shaping the way project or program
management needs to respond than industry sector – as
Shenhar and Dvir [56], and Crawford et al. [14] have
shown. Other factors, such as technology, regulation,
methodology, and forms of procurement, can have a major
effect on the way project and program management is
deployed in practice [36]. In the end, respondents were
offered 18 pre-defined seactors and were additionally
allowed to define their sector in free text. For the respon-
dents, the most distinctive sectors proved to be:
 defence–aerospace,
 construction (building),
 oil & gas,
 utilities,
 rail,
 drug development,
 manufacturing,
 ICT (software),
 financial services,
 government.
Table 1 gives the perceived relevance of the topics for
project management; Table 2 for program management.
(The research brief asked in particular that the potential
special needs of program management compared with pro-
ject management be considered.) Table 3 give the perceived
relevance for the proposed new topics for both project and
program management. The total number of respondents
who rated each topic is stated along with the percentages
of those who rated the topics as highly relevant/relevant
or little/not relevant, by business sector. Thus in Table 1,
for say Value Management, the total number of respon-
dents was 147: 88% said this topic was relevant or very rel-
evant; 38 replied for Aerospace, 87% of whom said the
topic was relevant/very relevant, and so on for the other
sectors. (Separate figures are available for relevant/highly
relevant and little/not relevant but are not published here
for space reasons.)
Overwhelmingly the respondents showed that for pro-
ject management the existing topics are seen as relevant
or highly relevant. Only Marketing & Sales (73%), Oppor-
tunity life cycle phase (79%), Value Engineering (79%), and
Technology Management (82%) show less than 85% rele-
vant. No sector stands out as having its own distinctive
pattern – which in itself is an important finding. HSE is
seen as weak in most sectors.
The program management figures (Table 2) are more
varied. Value Management (81%), Opportunity life cycle
phase (72%), Marketing & Sales (74%), Value Engineering
(77%), Personnel Management (79%), HSE (80%), Earned
Value (81%), Project Evaluation (82%), and Teamwork
(84%) all score under 85%. Process Engineering, Drug
Development, and Manufacturing all indicate lower scores
than the other sectors.
Table 3 shows, for both program and project manage-
ment, that of the proposed new topics, stakeholder man-
agement (99%), tender & contracts management (97%)
and project performance management (89/94%) scored
highly. Several topics were scored higher by program man-
agement than by project management: benefits manage-
ment (87/91%),9 ethics (84/90%), knowledge management
(86/90%), and organizational learning (80/88%). Most of
the rest of the topics score around 78–83% although Con-
current Engineering was 63/62%. Again, there is no real
differentiation by industry sector.
Overall, the high agreement on the relevancy of the top-
ics provides prima facie clear evidence that the broader
‘management of projects’ framework used by APM (and
indeed by IPMA and ENAA though without explicitly
using the term) is appropriate for representing the knowl-
edge base needed to manage projects. It should be recog-
nized however that the methodology used – that is, to
offer up a series of topics with pre-defined descriptions –
is certainly open to the criticism of introducing bias: the
data gathering method was not value-free. On the other
hand, it is difficult to think of another method short of
observing what people do and then naming their practices
(which again is not a value-free activity). And all the topics
had received endorsement as worthy of inclusion from the
first round of in-depth interviews.
There is evidence of less perceived relevancy of a number
of topics in program management, though the relevancy is
still high.
Note that in using the ‘the management of projects’ def-
inition – following Morris [33] and Morris and Pinto [39],
the knowledge, skills and behaviours needed to successfully
define, develop and deliver projects (and programs) – we
avoid the more diminished definition of project manage-
ment as a discipline principally only about execution.
PMBOK focuses on phase execution and in doing so
underplays the importance of managing project definition,
and the project front-end [38,42] – a point we shall return
to later. The result unfortunately is that other functions
or disciplines, such as development management, often
become seen as responsible for managing the front-end def-
inition and development activities; or that responsibility for
achieving strategic change is seen as being more that of
program management than project management. (Both
these interpretations are common in the UK currently in
spite of the fuller conceptual framework adopted by APM-
BOK, and P2M.) The APMBOK and P2M aim to make it
clear that the discipline of managing projects effectively
9
With split figures like this, project management is given first before
program management.
 P.W.G. Morris et al. / International Journal of Project Management 24 (2006) 461–473
and efficiently includes the management of the front-end,
as well of course as execution. The research data shows
overwhelmingly that professionals in the field endorse this
conception of the knowledge domain.
3.2. General comments on topics
The structured interviews, web-based questionnaires,
and Steering Group and Working Party reviews produced
a number of proposed conceptual and definitional changes
which, we believe, reflect importantly on the state of prac-
tice within the profession. The following are among the
more significant.
3.2.1. The link to business purpose (strategy, value
management, benefits management) needs to be emphasized
Projects are done for a purpose. The structured inter-
views and workshops suggested strongly that the linkage
between the project – its strategy and the way it is imple-
mented – and the enterprise’s ‘business’ strategy needs to
receive more attention [31]. (The counter data from Craw-
ford [15] and Thomas et al. [61] that senior management
rejects an involvement from project management, springs
in part, we shall suggest below, from the execution-oriented
definition of project management, based on PMBOK, used
as the basis for these studies.)
The interviews and questionnaire returns suggested that
value management (VM) [59,60,66] needs to be more
clearly understood. Several companies claimed the topic
was not relevant to them – though see Morris and Jamie-
son [40] which shows 55% of the EMEA PMI members sur-
veyed were applying VM, and Tables 1 and 2 show 88/81%
reporting VM as relevant. The literature and questionnaire
respondents (87/91%) suggested that the relatively new
topic of benefits management [5,44] needs to be mainstrea-
med into the discipline.
3.2.2. Program Management (and portfolio management)
has emerged as a major and at times distinctive field of
professional activity
In recent years the UK has seen sustained interest in
promoting program management as a distinctive disci-
pline. OGC and the Management Charter Initiative, and
the APM’s Programme Management Special Interest
Group, have been particularly active through their publi-
cations and certification proposals. Yet the interviews and
questionnaire returns suggested there is little difference in
the range of topic areas perceived to be needed by the two
disciplines, though there will obviously be differences in
content and treatment of knowledge within a topic area.
Some of the topics score as less relevant for program
management, as we saw above (Table 2), but not by
much. The proposed new topics’ relevancy scores are,
with one or two exceptions, higher in program manage-
ment (see Table 3).
A finding from the in-depth interviews was that while
about a third felt the 4th edition text on program manage-
469
ment needed thorough revision, many of the remainder did
not. Some indeed expressed the view that there should not
be a separate topic on program management but that it
should be integrated into the rest of the BOK topics.
This said, there can be no doubt that, in the UK at least,
program management is the subject of much real profes-
sional interest, not least amongst those working on organi-
zational change, product development programs and BOT
type schemes,10 and as such the discipline needs to under-
stand its dynamics and the implications to the main body
of knowledge more fully.
Portfolio management (Table 3) was seen also to war-
rant more attention (82% saw it as relevant or highly rele-
vant). Project and program management have an
important role to play in ensuring portfolio management
is fed with accurate, up-to-date information, particularly
on status, including risk. Project and program managers
may also have a major role in arguing within the portfolio
allocation process for the resources their project or pro-
gram will need.
3.2.3. Governance issues are now recognized as being much
more important than they were in the 4th edition
Governance emerged with 86/88% recommending that it
be included as a formal topic in the BOK. (And, as we have
seen, Stakeholder Management scored 99%.) Good gover-
nance is clearly critical to the effective management of pro-
jects and programs. There are particular governance
responsibilities for ensuring strategic alignment, the proper
allocation of resources and transparent reporting. It is
important to be clear on who the relevant stakeholders
are. APM has recently published guidance on the principles
of good governance with respect to project and program
management (APM, 2004a).
The draft 5th edition followed the recent APM PRAM
Guide [3] and other influential guides [24,46], in combining
opportunity management with risk management.
3.2.4. The nature of context in interpreting and applying
project management knowledge needs to be emphasized
As noted above, recent critics of the PMBOK Guide
have emphasized the contextual nature of project manage-
ment knowledge – ‘‘projects are invented not found’’
[23] – though in fairness PMBOK is explicit in advising
its readers to adapt the guidance it contains to the needs
of any particular project (PMBOKÒ Guide [51]: 3). The
proposed 5th edition text emphasized that the application
of project and program management varies by project
conditions and business unit, enterprise, and industry
sector practices within the general guidelines as presented
by a Body of Knowledge such as APM’s [14,36,56].
10
Build-Operate-Transfer: one of a number of acronyms used to describe
privately funded projects providing public services, such as hospitals,
roads, schools, prisons, etc. – where the entity is really a long-term
program covering whole life operations as well as construction.
470 P.W.G. Morris et al. / International Journal of Project Management 24 (2006) 461–473
3.2.5. The project development cycle and its application in
different contexts should be emphasized, as should a number
of key roles
The interview findings and the web-based questionnaire
returns clearly demonstrated the underlying critical impor-
tance of a gated development cycle to an effectively gov-
erned and managed project. (And they also reflected
frustration in the way this is treated in the 4th edition.)
As a result, this section was completely rewritten.
It was noted that there are two ways of looking at the
project or program management life cycle:
 one is the project management activities organized
around the product development ‘cycle’ – Concept, Fea-
sibility, Definition, Design, Implementation, Operation,
Termination;
 the other represents the process by which project or pro-
gram management activities should be undertaken, no
matter what the type or stage of project or program.
Both are valid. Both, it was felt, should be understood
as working in conjunction with the other. PRINCE2 [45]
and PMBOK tend to emphasize the sequence of project
management activities in terms of processes; BS 6079 [7]
starts with the project life cycle but has also much of its
text orientated around the ‘‘project management process
flow’’.
To illustrate how the development cycle varies contextu-
ally, research was undertaken to map how the development
cycle varied in companies representing seven different
industry sectors and how the APM BOK topics were
applied at different stages of the life cycle. This confirmed
that the proposed topics were largely deployed throughout
the overall project life cycle.
The role of sponsor and client’s [owner’s] project man-
ager and the Project Board are critical in such reviews
and received special attention in the section on roles (an
area respondents to the web-based questionnaires did not
think had been addressed particularly well in the 4th
edition).
3.2.6. Greater clarity is needed in the treatment of technical
management issues
The structured interviews and questionnaire returns
showed that while most respondents saw managing the
project’s technical development as an inherently important
aspect of project and program managers’ activities, there
was still dissatisfaction with the way the BOK addressed
the general area. The questionnaire returns also showed
some unease with this topic (82% rated Technology Man-
agement as relevant or highly relevant in project manage-
ment, 86% in Program Management.) The proposed 5th
edition text therefore adopted a structure in which require-
ments were first addressed and then solutions were devel-
oped, the Vee model [20] being adopted as the schematic
by which to represent this process. The special challenges
of managing innovation, concurrency, design reviews, test-
ing, and commissioning, were treated separately in the
section.
Information management, including document manage-
ment and legislative responsibilities of the project or pro-
gram manager, and configuration management were dealt
with as separate topics. Information management in partic-
ular was seen by questionnaire respondents as very impor-
tant (94/95%) but in general is a poorly treated subject.
3.2.7. Project control remained central but with a broadening
out in performance management
The areas of scope management, estimating, scheduling,
cost management, resource management, change control,
and performance management, the traditional core of pro-
ject management in many ways, received general endorse-
ment in the interviews and questionnaire returns. 68/69%
had considered Critical Chain as relevant (see Table 3):
the workshops took the view that Critical Chain is an
aspect of Scheduling and not a principal topic in its own
right (see Raz et al. [52]). Performance measurement was
broadened to include a Balanced Scorecard approach to
reporting [30,57] as well as Earned Value Analysis
(EVA). (The treatment of EVA is analogous to Critical
Chain: it is positioned as a part of performance measure-
ment not as a topic in its own right.)
3.2.8. Procurement should be enlarged to cover capability
acquisition and supply chain management
Crawford [15] found many project managers ambivalent
with regard to their involvement in procurement yet our
data shows 99/94% stating it as a relevant topic (only
Financial Services not recording 100% in project manage-
ment – though the range drops to 86–100% in program
management (Table 2)), and 97% reporting Tender and
Contract Management as a relevant ‘new’ topic – see Table
3. In practice many of the strategic procurement decisions
are made by specialists and are considered out with the
project management function. Yet procurement and supply
chain issues often have a major impact on the way the pro-
ject is organized and managed. As one questionnaire
respondent put it: ‘‘not a core Project Management topic,
though obviously of great significance to Project Manage-
ment’’. (Procurement of course is a PMBOK knowledge
area.) Many project managers, on the other hand, get much
more involved in tendering and bidding, and in contract
administration.
At the Workshops and Steering Group meetings it was
concluded that the whole topic needed broadening to
encompass projects where in-house resources need acquir-
ing as well as externally supplied resources procuring.
The topic was therefore renamed Capability Acquisition,
beginning with acquisition strategy and then proceeding
to procurement, tendering and contract administration
(including in-house equivalents such as performance agree-
ments). Although several questionnaire respondents que-
ried having supply chain management included at all, the
workshops and steering group felt particular emphasis
 P.W.G. Morris et al. / International Journal of Project Management 24 (2006) 461–473
needed to be given to supply chain management, and
within this (i) the role of the client as sponsor/project man-
ager and (ii) the importance of partnering.
3.2.9. The importance of including managing the project
front-end in any definition of project management
It is notable how much of the foregoing issues concern
management of the front-end activities of project definition
and development. As we’ve seen, APM follows the view,
based now on considerable data [12,19,29,32,38,42], that
the front-end is both an area of opportunity to improve
project performance, and one of danger if rushed or other-
wise managed poorly. The draft 5th edition followed the
4th in maintaining the management of projects emphasis
on adopting a more holistic, integrative approach to the
management of the overall project from the very early
stages of the life cycle.
As we noted above, the way one sets up the BOK defi-
nitional framework colours, quite strongly, the way the dis-
cipline is perceived. Hence the recent findings of Crawford
[15] that successful project managers are perceived not to
get involved in the front-end and in strategy and project
definition may well follow, we contend, from Crawford
using the PMBOK Guide as her framework for investigat-
ing perceptions on project management competence. For
PMBOK, project management is about ‘‘the application
of knowledge, skills, tools and techniques to project activ-
ities to meet project requirements’’ (PMI [51]: 8) (emphasis
added), i.e., post-project definition. Projects are seen as
‘‘a means of achieving an organization’s strategic plan’’
([51]: 7). Yet no guidance is given on how the two interact.
The implication is that the plan is ‘given’ to the project.
One cannot help reflecting that if one defines the discipline
as not being involved in strategy and front-end definition,
then people will come to think of it thus. The APMBOK
and P2M are explicit in including front-end management,
and the survey respondents confirm this is valid. People
exposed to this view of project management will be more
likely to accept that project managers have a role in shap-
ing strategy across the corporate/project interface.
(The execution-oriented view of project management
may also lie behind Thomas et al.’s findings on the diffi-
culty of ‘selling’ project management successfully to top
management [61].)
3.2.10. People factors needed significantly enhanced
positioning, with more emphasis in particular on competency,
learning & development, leadership, team-working, and
behaviour
Projects begin and end, arguably, with people, yet the
project management BOKs do not deal in detail with this
as a knowledge area, generally spending less space on it
than on the other topics. The structured interviews with
leading project executives suggested that the 4th edition
material in this area needed upgrading. An expanded treat-
ment of leadership and teamwork was accordingly pre-
pared, together with a substantial general section on
471
behaviours (trust, communication, influencing & negotia-
tion, conflict management, problem solving, delegation &
empowerment, motivating, and culture) and concluding
with a section on learning and development.
4. The meeting of new knowledge with institutional
constraints
The draft proposed 5th edition was delivered on time
(and in budget) to the APM. The brief had been ‘‘not to
radically change the existing BOK structure (unless com-
pelling empirical evidence emerges to indicate the need)
but to update the topics and literature generally and to pro-
vide a more substantial and realistic version of the BOK,
which might be used by both practitioners and academics
as a basis for defining what the discipline actually refers
to and to provide some empirical research into the disci-
pline as a whole’’. The brief, it was agreed, had been met,
although the perception of radical change was to prove
subjective.
One of the findings coming out of the structured inter-
views was that the 4th edition structure laid out the topics
without sufficient indication of their interrelationships and
that it would be preferable if there were more ‘of a thread’
running through the BOK. The drafting team thus
attempted to express the sequence they might be addressed
in. This involved some substantive modifications from ear-
lier editions of the APM BOK structure. This proved too
radical. APM took the view that the 4th edition structure
– originally emanating from the BOK but now all-perva-
sive across the organization – was no longer in the gift of
the BOK authors and recognized that the BOK structure
thus acts as a restraint on revising its contents.
At the time of receiving the draft 5th edition, APM was
reviewing and streamlining its certification processes,
including curricula. It proved inappropriate to absorb
and publish a BOK which was as structurally different from
the 4th edition as the proposed draft, or which had so
many new terms. APM thus decided to implement changes
to the APM BOK in stages, beginning with an update ver-
sion using the 4th edition structure of primary sections and
sequence with some revisions to subsections. This would be
the actual 5th edition published in early 2006. The new 5th
edition has been developed by largely practitioner led
groups with varying degrees of reference to the March,
research-based draft. The discussion in the section above
on ‘‘Bodies of Knowledge as broader representations of
project management knowledge’’ comes to mind: ‘‘Because
management knowledge – particularly in practice-based
areas like project management . . . – is situated, its legiti-
macy is derived through its group endorsement. None of
this is meant to deny or diminish the importance of empir-
ically derived management knowledge, only to ensure that
its limitations . . . [But] it does raise very real questions of
the validity of the knowledge represented in a BOK. If such
knowledge is ‘situated’, how representative and valid is the
data that is drawn on to write the BOK; if it is owned by a
472 P.W.G. Morris et al. / International Journal of Project Management 24 (2006) 461–473
group, who is elected to represent the profession’s group
owning and writing the BOK?’’
This – frustrating, to all parties – end gives rise to two
observations about professions’ attempts to update the
codification of knowledge, as in a project management
BOK. First, as we saw in the introductory sections of the
paper, the project management BOKs are primarily devel-
oped around the needs of certification. The APM’s multiple
certification programs, the ‘management of projects’ phi-
losophy, and indeed the brief, all here drove the draft of
the 5th edition towards a more comprehensive, discursive
document. But it was largely the constraints of the certifi-
cation programs on which the new BOK snagged and
caught.
Second is the impact of structure. When the 4th edition
was being prepared its structure was the last thing to be
developed: all the emphasis had been on representing the
knowledge on the topics. And in fact the structure has been
criticized – for not having a ‘thread’ running through it.
Intellectually, the structure is much easier to tackle than
the choice and description of topics. There are many differ-
ent ways to structure topics and their inter-relationships.
But in the end it is the structure that people see first and
that organizes much of the institutional work which flows
off a body of knowledge – curricula, special interest groups,
library and filing systems, and so on.
The BOK structure, with both its ‘soft’ conceptual and
‘hard’ configuration implications, naturally sets a con-
straint on an institution’s ability to respond flexibly to pro-
posed changes in topics and the perceived ‘thread’ running
between them. The bigger the enterprise and the larger the
number of stakeholders in the body of knowledge, the
greater is the constraint of the status quo infrastructure,
including structure – that is, this becomes a particular prob-
lem for public institutions like the professional societies.
APM is to be applauded for adopting a research
approach to the capture, development and articulation of
its professional knowledge. But the experience of revising
the 4th edition illustrates some of the challenges profes-
sional bodies face in seeking to incorporate new develop-
ments in research and practitioner-based knowledge given
the constraints of structure and certification.
References
[1] Association for Project Management. Body of knowledge. 4th ed.
High Wycombe: Association for Project Management; 2000.
[2] Association for Project Management. Directing change: a guide to
governance of project management. High Wycombe: Association for
Project Management; 2004.
[3] APM Publishing Ltd. Project risk analysis and management guide
(PRAM). 2nd ed. High Wycombe: APM Publishing Ltd.; 2004.
[4] Argyris C, Schon DA. Organizational learning. Reading (MA):
Addison-Wesley; 1978.
[5] Bennington P, Baccarini D. Project benefits management in IT
projects – an Australian perspective. Proj Manag J 2004;35(2):20–30.
[6] Brown JSA, Duguid P. Organizational learning and communities of
practice: toward a unified view of working. Organization Sci 1991;2:
40–57.
[7] BS 6079-1. Guide to Project Management. BSI, London; 2002.
[8] BS ISO 10006. Quality management systems – guidelines for quality
management in projects. BSI, London; 2003.
[9] Caupin G, Knöpfel H, Morris PWG, Motzel E, Pannenbäcker O.
ICB IPMA Competence Baseline, International Project Management
Association, Zurich. Available from: http://www.ipma.ch.1998.
[10] Cook SDN, Seely Brown J. Bridging Epistemologies: the generative
dance between organizational knowledge and organizational know-
ing. Organization Sci 1999;10(4):381–400.
[11] Cooke-Davies T. Project success. In: Morris PWG, Pinto JK, editors.
The Wiley guide to managing projects. Hoboken (NJ): Wiley; 2004.
[12] Crawford L. Profiling the competent project manager. In: Slevin DP,
Cleland DI, Pinto JK, editors. The Frontiers of project management
research. Newton Square (PA): Project Management Institute; 2002.
[13] Crawford L. Global body of project management knowledge and
standards. In: Morris PWG, Pinto JK, editors. The Wiley guide to
managing projects. Hoboken (NJ): Wiley; 2004.
[14] Crawford L, Hobbs JB, Turner JR. Project categorization systems
and their use in organisations: an empirical study. In: Slevin DP,
Cleland DI, Pinto JK, editors. Innovations: project management
research 2004. Newton Square (PA): Project Management Institute;
2004.
[15] Crawford L. Senior management perceptions of project management
competence. Int J Proj Manag 2005;223(1):7–16.
[16] Davies A, Hobday M. The business of projects. Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press; 2005.
[17] ENAA P2M: A guidebook of project & program management for
enterprise innovation: Summary translation. Revision 1, Project
Management Professionals Certification Center (PMCC), Japan;
2002.
[18] Engwall M. No Project is an Island: Linking Projects to History and
Context. Res Policy 2003;32:789–808.
[19] Flyvberg B, Bruzelius N, Rothengatter W. Megaprojects and risk: an
anatomy of ambition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2003.
[20] Forsberg K, Mooz H, Cotterman H. Visualizing project management.
Hoboken (NJ): Wiley; 1996.
[21] Gale A. Competencies: organizational and personal. In: Morris
PWG, Pinto JK, editors. The Wiley guide to managing projects.
Hoboken (NJ): Wiley; 2004.
[22] Griseri P. Management knowledge: a critical view. London: Palgrave;
2002.
[23] Hodgson D, Cicmil S. Are projects real? The PMBoK and the
legitimation of project management knowledge. In: Hodgson D,
Cicmil S, editors. Making projects critical. London: Palgrave; 2006.
[24] Institution of Civil Engineers. RAMP: Risk analysis and management
for projects. London: Institution of Civil Engineers and Institute of
Actuaries; 1998.
[25] Johnson SB. Systems Integration and the social solution of technical
problems in complex systems. In: Prencipe A, Davies A, Hobday M,
editors. The business of systems integration. Oxford: Oxford Uni-
versity Press; 2003.
[26] Koskela L, Howell G. The underlying theory of project management
is obsolete. In: Proceedings of PMI research conference 2002, Project
Management Institute, Newton Square (PA); 2002. p. 293–302.
[27] Lave JE, Wenger E. Situated learning: legitimate peripheral partic-
ipation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1991.
[28] Melgrati A, Damiani M. Rethinking the project management
framework: new epistemology. In: New insights proceedings of PMI
research conference 2002.
[29] Miller R, Lessard DR. The strategic management of large engineering
projects. Cambridge: MIT Press; 2000.
[30] Milis K, Mercken R. The use of the balanced scorecard for the
evaluation of information and communication technology projects.
Int J Proj Manag 2004;22(2):87–97.
[31] Mintzberg H, Quinn JB. The strategy process: concepts, contexts,
cases. Upper Saddle River (NJ): Prentice-Hall; 1996.
[32] Morris PWG, Hough GH. The anatomy of major projects. Chich-
ester: Wiley; 1987.
 P.W.G. Morris et al. / International Journal of Project Management 24 (2006) 461–473
[33] Morris PWG. The management of projects. London: Thomas
Telford; 1994.
[34] Morris PWG. Updating the project management bodies of knowl-
edge. Proj Manag J 2001;32(3):21–30.
[35] Morris PWG. Science, objective knowledge, and the theory of project
management. Proc Inst Civil Eng 2003;150(12641):82–90.
[36] Morris PWG. The (ir)relevance of project management. In: Proceed-
ings of international association for project management world
congress, June, Moscow. IPMA, Zurich; 2003.
[37] Morris PWG. The validity of knowledge in project management and
the challenge of learning and competency development. In: Morris
PWG, Pinto JK, editors. The Wiley guide to managing projects.
Hoboken (NJ): Wiley; 2004.
[38] Morris PWG. Managing the front-end: how project managers shape
business strategy and manage project definition. In: Proceedings of
the 2005 project management institute EMEA symposium, Edin-
burgh. Project Management Institute, Newton Square (PA); 2005.
[39] Morris PWG, Pinto JK, editors. The Wiley guide to managing
projects. Hoboken (NJ): Wiley; 2004.
[40] Morris PWG, Jamieson HA. Translating corporate strategy into
project strategy. Newton Square (PA): Project Management Institute;
2004.
[41] Morris PWG, Crawford L, Hodgson D, Shepherd M, Thomas J.
Project Management, Professionalism, and the Bodies of Knowledge.
Int J Proj Manag [in press].
[42] Munns AK, Bjeirmi BF. The role of project management in achieving
project success. Int J Proj Manag 1996;14(2):81–7.
[43] Nonaka I, Takeuchi H. The knowledge creating company. New
York: Oxford University Press; 1995.
[44] Office of Government Commerce Managing Successful Programmes.
The Stationery Office, Norwich; 2003.
[45] Office of Government Commerce Managing Successful Projects with
PRINCE 2. The Stationery Office, Norwich, UK; 2002.
[46] Office of Government Commerce Management of Risk: Guidance for
Practitioner. The Stationery Office, Norwich, UK; 2002.
[47] Pannenbacker K, Knopfel H, Caupin G. PMA and its validated four-
level certification programmes: Version 1.00. Zurich: International
Project Management Association; 1998.
[48] Popper KR. Conjectures and refutations. The growth of scientific
knowledge. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul; 1972.
[49] Popper KR. Objective knowledge, Oxford; 1972.
[50] Polanyi M. Personal knowledge. London: Routledge; 1958.
473
[51] Project Management Institute. A guide to the project management
body of knowledge. 3rd ed. Newtown Square (PA): Project Manage-
ment Institute; 2004.
[52] Raz T, Barnes R, Dvir DA. Critical look at critical chain project
management. Proj Manag J 2003;34(4):24–32.
[53] Schon DA. The reflective practitioner: how professionals think in
action. New York: Basic Books; 1983.
[54] Söderlund J. Building theories of project management: past
research, questions for the future. Int J Proj Manag 2004;22(3):
183–91.
[55] Söderlund J. On the broadening scope of the research on projects: a
review and a model for analysis. Int J Proj Manag 2004;22(8):
655–668.
[56] Shenhar AJ, Dvir D. How projects differ, and what to do about it. In:
Morris PWG, Pinto JK, editors. The Wiley guide to managing
projects. Hoboken (NJ): Wiley; 2004.
[57] Steward WE. Balanced scorecard for projects. Proj Manag J
2001;21(1):38–53.
[58] Stevens M, editor. Project Management Pathways. High Wycombe:
Association for Project Management; 2002.
[59] Thiry M. Program management: a strategic decision management
process. In: Morris PWG, Pinto JK, editors. The Wiley guide to
managing projects. Hoboken (NJ): Wiley; 2004.
[60] Thiry M. Value management. In: Morris PWG, Pinto JK, editors.
The Wiley guide to managing projects. Hoboken (NJ): Wiley; 2004.
[61] Thomas J, Delisle C, Jugdev K, Buckle P. Selling project management
to senior executives: the case for avoiding crisis sales. Proj Manag J
2002;33(4):19–28.
[62] Thomas J. Problematizing project management. In: Hodgson D,
Cicmil S, editors. Making projects critical. London: Palgrave; 2006.
[63] Wenger E. Communities of practice. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-
sity Press; 1997.
[64] Williams T. Assessing and building on the underlying theory of
project management in the light of badly overrun projects. In:
Proceedings of the PMI research conference, London. Project
Management Institute, Newton Square (PA); 2004.
[65] Winch GM. Managing construction projects. Oxford: Blackwell
Publishing; 2002.
[66] Woodhead R, Downs C. Value management: improving capabilities.
London: Thomas Telford Publishing; 2001.
[67] Winter M, Checkland P. Soft systems: a fresh perspective for project
management. Civil Eng 2003;156(4):187–92.