Research Into Revising the APM Project Management Body of Knowledge

Research into revising the APM project management body ofknowledge

P.W.G. Morris, M.B. Patel, S.H. Wearne*

Centre for Research in the Management of Projects (CRMP), University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology, P.O. Box 88,

Manchester, M60 1QD, UK

Received 17 June 1999; received in revised form 22 September 1999; accepted 7 October 1999

Abstract

This paper describes research to review the UK Association for Project Management's current Project Management Body ofKnowledge. The research was commissioned by the APM and six leading companies. The paper describes how and why this

work was carried out and sets out the new Body of Knowledge proposed as a basis for certifying competencies andbenchmarking best practice and performance. # 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd and IPMA. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Body of knowledge; Profession; Certi®cation

1. Introduction

The APM Body of Knowledge (BoK) is the docu-ment that the second largest professional project man-agement body in the world, APM1 Ð currently withover 8,000 members Ð uses as the normative docu-ment governing its examination, certi®cation andaccreditation practices. The BoK de®nes the topics inwhich APM considers professionals in project manage-ment should be knowledgeable. It was initially devel-oped in the early 90s.

This initial version was compiled by APM members

on the basis of their professional judgement ratherthan on empirical evidence as to what project manage-ment professionals need to know in order to be com-petent.

Like other BoKs Ð principally PMI's Ð it is seenas being in need of updating. The research reportedhere was undertaken in support of APM's programmeof work updating its BoK. It represents a sustainedprogramme of activity aimed at discovering whattopics project management professionals need to beknowledgeable in and it o�ers a visual model forrepresenting this `Body of Knowledge'. The results ofthe research are now being adopted by APM as thebasis for the next version of its BoK. The work alsoprovides a basis for baselining competencies in projectmanagement and for benchmarking project manage-ment Best Practice and performance. Why is a Bodyof Knowledge important? Essentially, the project man-agement Body of Knowledge identi®es and de®nes theelements of project management in which competentproject management professionals should beknowledgeable.2

This is extremely important because, in e�ect, theBody of Knowledge should re¯ect the purpose ofproject management. It describes the levers that any

International Journal of Project Management 18 (2000) 155±164

0263-7863/00/$20.00 # 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd and IPMA. All rights reserved.

PII: S0263-7863(99 )00068 -X

www.elsevier.com/locate/ijproman

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +44161-200-4615; fax: +44161-200-

4615.

E-mail address: [email protected] (S.H. Wearne).1 PMI (the Project Management Institute) has over 40,000 mem-

bers. IPMA (the International Project Management Association) is a

federation of national project management associations: it has ap-

proximately 35 members who combined represent the interests of

about 14,000 or more individual members.2 PMI has registered the acronym PMIBoK2 as the term for its

BoK. PMI also, quite wisely, titles its PMIBoK2 a Guide to the Pro-

ject Management Body of Knowledge recognising that no single docu-

ment can cover the whole project management body of knowledge.

professional could, or should, employ in order toful®l this purpose. The Body of Knowledge thusre¯ects the ontology of the profession: the set ofwords, relationships and meanings that describe thephilosophy of project management. A professionalÐ as Schon and others have pointed out Ð issomeone who is considered by society and his pro-fessional body as being competent to practice alone[1].

To do so, he (or she) needs to:

. understand the necessary relevant body of knowl-edge

. have the appropriate experience

. be appropriately certi®cated/licensed to practicecompetently

. maintain a programme of continuing professionaldevelopment and education

. subscribe to the code of ethics of the profession

The Body of Knowledge in this sense of professionalcompetence is thus crucial. Yet, amazingly, the pro-fessional project management societies currently havequite di�erent versions of the BoK. PMI's covers gen-eric project management processes and practices. Itdoes not address the technical, commercial or environ-mental a contextual issues that, as we shall see shortly,are so often crucial in determining whether a projectwill be a success or not. APM's BoK on the otherhand does address these broader topics. The BoKs ofFrance, Germany and Switzerland substantially re¯ectthe APM model [2]. AIPM, the Australian Institute ofProject Management, uses PMI's but as a basis ofcompetencies rather as knowledge.

APM, like other IPMA members, introduces com-petency assessment via an examination and certi®ca-tion programme. The IPMA provides aninternational baseline for certifying competency andbenchmarking best practice and performance in pro-ject management, covering levels of competence andconsidering knowledge, experience and personal atti-tude [3]. It sets out a BoK of 28 core and 14 ad-ditional elements based upon the BoKs of France,Germany, Switzerland and the UK (PMI is not amember of IPMA).

The need to focus on what is the proper contentof a project management Body of Knowledge isthus crucial. For if the professional project manage-ment societies cannot agree the elements of a pro-ject management BoK, how credible is the idea ofprofessionalism in project management?

The notion that there is such a thing as a pro-fessional in project management is itself a topic

worthy of debate. In the end, however, most peopleworking in the subject do believe that there is a

generic discipline that is core to the practice of pro-

ject management across a very wide range of indus-tries and applications, and that as a result it is

worth trying to de®ne what this core is. Conse-quently, it is held, performance ought to be

improved.

De®ning what that core is obviously requires a view

on what the task of project management ought to be,and hence what activities it should involve itself in.

Again, this is a (very) big topic, but it is fundamental

to where one starts. The di�erence between the APMand PMI models in essence boils down to whether the

project management core is essentially about process,or performance.

Traditionally, project management has been seenlargely about completing tasks `òn time, in budget, to

scope'' [4]. This is understandable and re¯ects the taskand implementation orientation of project manage-

ment. It is still very much the basis of PMI's BoK. In

order to accomplish projects on time, in budget, toscope, says PMI, you need to manage scope, schedule,

cost, risk, etc. Yet to many practitioners, and aca-demics, this view fails to capture su�ciently the scope

of the real challenge of project management. This cer-

tainly was the view underlying APM's decision toadopt a more broadly structured BoK.

Academic research has shown that the factors that

cause projects to fail or to succeed certainly include

the traditional project management ones of planningand monitoring tools, teamwork, etc., but also Ð in

fact, particularly Ð include (a) technical, commercial,and `èxternal'' issues, and (b) the way the initial

requirements of the project are established Ð theFront End [5]. Most practising managers agree.3

Understanding what factors have to be managed inorder to deliver successful projects is very important,

for it addresses squarely the issue of what the pro-

fessional remit Ð the ethos Ð is of project manage-ment. Put simply, is it to deliver projects `òn time, in

budget, to scope'', or is it to deliver projects success-fully to the requirements of the project customer/spon-

sor? In essence it has to be the latter, because if it isnot, project management is an inward looking pro-

fession that in the long-term few serious managers are

going to get very excited about. What managers ingovernment, business, academia Ð just about every-

where in fact Ð are concerned about is that their pro-jects are managed e�ectively and e�ciently: that they

represent value-for-money and meet or exceed their

strategic objectives. De®ning the scope, cost, and timetargets properly is half the battle; ensuring that the

technical, commercial, business, environmental, andother factors are e�ectively aligned with organisational

3 A comment made both on the basis of personal experience and

the research reported here.

P.W.G. Morris et al. / International Journal of Project Management 18 (2000) 155±164156

and control issues is generally fundamental to ensuringan optimum outcome.4

It was recognition of the importance of the widerremit that focussing on what delivering successfulprojects entails that in fact caused the APM, whenit sought a BoK for its Certi®cation programme inthe early 90s, not simply follow the PMI BoKmodel.

APM's current BoK comprises four groups of topics(see Fig. 1):

. general topics

. organisational issues

. tools and techniques

. general management

The central two cover some of these wider, more gen-eral and contextual matters.

The APM model has worked well over the decadesince it was launched. It is now widely used as thebasis of competency assessment by many companies inEurope and elsewhere Ð as indeed is PMI's. It doeshowever contain a number of areas that are in need ofrevision (as PMI recognises its BoK does too). Hencea proposal was prepared by the Centre for Research inthe Management of Projects at UMIST in mid 1997 toconduct a research programme aimed at providingempirical data upon which APM could decide how itwished to update its BoK. The research lasted 14

months and was ®nanced both by APM and by indus-try.

2. What was CRMP trying to do and how was theresearch performed?

The aim of the CRMP work was to:

. identify the topics that project management pro-fessionals Ð practitioners, educators, and others Ðconsider need to be known and understood by any-one claiming to be competent in project manage-ment

. de®ne what is meant by those topics at a genericallyuseful level

. update the body of literature that supports thesetopics

It did not initially aim to produce a revised BoK struc-ture, though in fact it ended up doing so as a result ofthe comments received.

The research is, we believe, unique in that, so far, itis the only such research that has systematically soughtempirical evidence for identifying the topics in whichproject management professionals need to be knowl-edgeable. The structure eventually chosen is also basedon research: researches on the factors that projectmanagement professionals consider important to theirprofessional work.

The research was performed in the followingsequence: First the then current version (Version 3.0)

Fig. 1. APM Body of Knowledge structure, revised 3rd version.

4 This is the thesis of The Management of Projects, Morris,

1997 [5].

P.W.G. Morris et al. / International Journal of Project Management 18 (2000) 155±164 157

of the APM Body of Knowledge was criticallyreviewed. A new draft version (Version 3.1) was pre-pared Ð the so-called ``Strawman'' BoK. This versionhad more topics than Version 3.0, principally in thetopics of Front End De®nition, Business and Market-ing, Technology and Design Management, Procure-ment and Contract Administration, and at the projectCompletion and Operations and Maintenance/Inte-grated Logistics Support back-end of the project lifecycle. Version 3.1 consisted of 44 topics. De®nitions ofthe topics were then reviewed, prepared, or revised.Questionnaires were then sent out to over 2,500 projectmanagement professionals. The work was also adver-tised widely in the technical press. Advice on literatureassociated with the topics was also solicited. In-depthinterviews were then held with approximately 20 com-panies. Ultimately data was obtained, via the inter-views and returned questionnaires, from over 117companies or divisions of companies. (Valid question-naire returns were only received from 6% of thosepolled: many stated that they were unable to respondadequately because they did not really understandwhat the purpose of a BoK was.)

As a result of the questionnaire returns, the CRMPresearch team, under the supervision of its SteeringCommittee, deleted some topics and combined others,and modi®ed the de®nitions.

It had been intended not to group the CRMP topicsinto any kind of structure. However, a strong inputfrom the research returns was that the respondentsfound the number of topics too large. Max Widemanof Canada (who made invaluable input into the study)in fact reminded us of the work of Miller [6] thatshowed that people generally ®nd 7 (plus or minus 2)to be the optimum size of data sets for convenienthandling. We therefore started developing potentialgroupings of the topics (now reduced to 37), relatingthem to the project life cycle.

The revised version (3.2) was then sent out to the117 companies which had responded and was pub-lished on the web. Returns were received from 30 com-panies. At this stage there were very few amendmentsto the de®nitions of the topics per se. There was how-ever considerable comment on the structure, and theallocation of particular topics to the elements, of theemerging BoK model. As a result of this round ofinput a new version of the BoK was produced Ð Ver-sion 3.3.

This version was then reviewed with the APM Pro-fessional Development Board and members of APM'saccreditors and examiners. A few minor amendmentswere made and the ®nal CRMP version was releasedto APM. It was then taken by APM for full and for-mal review by its Special Interest Groups, assessorsand examiners, and its Council. The revised versionwill then become Version 4.0 of the APM BoK.

In addition, CRMP conducted two analyses of thematch between Version 3.1 and

. all the papers published in the International Journalof Project Management and the Project ManagementJournal over the last 15 years

. all the papers published in the 1996 and 1997 PMIAnnual Seminars/Symposia and the 1996 and 1998IPMA Congresses.

3. What we found

The following represent the principal ®ndings of thestudy:

. 100% of those responding felt that the APM BoKneeded updating.

. It was felt that the BoK should be less complicatedand more inviting.

. The English should be simple.

. The text should be multi industry.

. There should be an integrating diagram.

. The emphasis should be on project managementrather than on the project manager.

Fig. 2 shows the respondents' views on whether theVersion 3.1 topics should be retained or dropped.100% agreed on the need for Leadership to beincluded, 100% on Legal Awareness, 100% on Pro-curement, 99% on Safety, Health, and Environment,98% on Life Cycles, 96% on Purchasing, 95% onRisk Management, 94% on Financial Management,93% on Industrial Relations, 93% on Scheduling,89% on the Business Case, 89% on Project Organis-ation, 89% on Testing, Commissioning, and Hand-over, 87% on the Project Context, 86% on Close-out,85% on Programme Management, 84% on Teamwork,84% on Quality Management, 81% on Project Man-agement Plan, 80% on (Post)-Project EvaluationReview, 79% on Contract Planning and Adminis-tration, 79% on Project Management, 78% on Moni-toring & Control, 77% on Resources Management,77% on Project Launch, 75% on Con®guration Man-agement and Change Control.

Losers included: 28% on Goals, Objectives, andStrategies (surprising considering how important theseare), 32% on Requirements Management (ditto), 33%on Integrative Management (not surprising: it is cov-ered by Project Management), 36% on Systems Man-agement (not surprising: this has long causeddi�culty), 42% on Success Criteria (relatively surpris-ing), 44% on Performance Measurement Ð i.e. EarnedValue (this is very interesting considering how centralto project management theory and `Best Practice' it is


considered by writers and experts), 46% on Infor-mation Management.

Fig. 3 shows how these agreements were split byindustry sectors. There are some notable ®ndings.Construction and Information Systems (IS) ratedMarketing and Sales 40%, and Goals, Objectives,and Strategies only 20%. This may be a re¯ection

simply of the jobs/life experience of those whoresponded. On the other hand, it has a wry corre-lation with the reputation of those industries toconcentrate on implementation and less on how torelate the project to the customer's real needs. Simi-larly IS rated Requirements Management only 22%Ð incredible considering (a) the generally high rate

Fig. 2. Respondents' views on the 44 topics.


on IS project failures, often associated with poor

Requirements Management and Front Ð End De®-

nition [7], (b) that the term is particularly associ-

ated with systems projects. (The 32% for

Requirements Management in Construction is more

understandable since the term is not well known in

Construction). Performance measurement scored

only 29% in IS too (and 21% in Facilities Manage-

ment Ð high everywhere else): again an interesting

comment on the information systems sector.

In general the research showed:

. the amount of di�erence in de®nition and usage of

topics was less than anticipated

. broad acceptance of terms is emerging

. di�erent industries often concentrate on di�erent

parts of the BoK5

. most people accept that project management covers

the total project life cycle Ð including the vital

front-end de®nition and the back-end hand-over and

evaluation

. it is extremely di�cult to ®nd authoritative guides

to many of the topics, and indeed to the BoK as

a whole

The research comparing Version 3.1 with the Inter-

national Journal of Project Management and the Pro-

ject Management Journal and with the IPMA and PMI

Fig. 3. Agreement % by industry sector.

5 Subsequent work at CRMP is more accurately showing that it is

more useful to talk additionally of di�erent supply chain con®gur-

ations rather than simply di�erent industries Ð and of participants

roles in those supply chains.


conference proceedings has already been reported [8].

Brie¯y the ®ndings were as follows.

In the conferences, Programme Management, Stra-

tegic Implementation Plan, Marketing and Sales, Pro-

ject Launch, Teamwork, Project Appraisal,

Information Management, Value Improvement, Design

Management and Systems were all well covered. Pro-

ject Planning, Control, Risk analysis, Contracts and

related classical problems of project execution also had

good attention. The other topics did not however,

though possibly because they did not ®t the conference

themes.

In the journals we found the following:

. Academic writing on the BoK is not even in cover-

age: there are some topics that have a huge amount

written about them; some have next to nothing.

Technical and commercial issues in particular

receive little coverage compared with the traditional

subjects Ð planning, monitoring, control, organis-

ation, leadership, teamwork, etc.

. US coverage of marketing and sales, integrative

management, resources, and cost management is

higher than in Europe; European coverage of the

early stages of project formation, the project con-

text, project management plan, project launch, and

risk is higher than American.

Fig. 4 shows the ®nal version of the CRMP BoK

model. The topics have been grouped into seven sec-

tions:

. The ®rst section deals with a number of General

and introductory items.

The remaining six sections deal with topics to do with

managing:

. the project's Strategic framework, including its basic

objectives

. the Control issues that should be employed

. the de®nition of the project's Technical character-

istics

. the Commercial features of its proposed implemen-

tation

. the Organisation structure that should ®t the above

. issues to do with managing the People that will

work on the project

Areas of signi®cant di�erence compared with Version

3 of the APM BoK include the following:

. Tighter de®nition of Success Criteria.

. Value Management split from Value Engineering

Fig. 4. CRMP Project Management Body of Knowledge.


(because VM is Strategic and VE is basically Techni-cal/Con®guration/Engineering).

. All aspects of Technical except VE and Con®gur-ation Management Ð Design, Production, andHand-over; Requirements Management; TechnologyManagement; Modelling & Testing.

. Better description of Procurement.

. Better description of Life Cycle Design and Manage-ment.

. Organisational Roles in addition to OrganisationStructure.

Several Version 3.0 topics have been incorporated intoother topics or omitted entirely:

. Systems Management Ð omitted as not su�cientlyunderstood or relevant.

. Project Appraisal Ð incorporated in Business Caseand Finance.

. Integration Ð incorporated in Project Management.

. Control and Coordination Ð incorporated in thewhole section on Control.

. Delegation Ð omitted as not su�ciently substantial.

. Management Development Ð incorporated in Per-sonnel Management.

. Estimating Ð combined with Budgeting and CostManagement.

. Mobilisation Ð omitted as too Constructionspeci®c.

. Operation/Technical Management Ð incorporatedin the whole section on Technical.

. Industrial Relations Ð incorporated in Personnel.

4. Discussion of proposed structure and general ®ndings

We have found in presentation of our work and indiscussion that initially most attention is paid to thestructure of the BoK that we have devised. Our view isthat while the structure is important as a means of pre-senting and communicating what in reality is a lot ofinformation, in terms of the validity of the BoK itselfit is not that important. The really important mattersare two:

. to decide what topics should be included in the BoK

. to ensure that project management professionals'basic understanding of what those terms mean isagreed

An important ®nding of the research is the extent towhich the breadth of topics proposed was so stronglyendorsed by the empirical data. Though this may com-fort the original authors of the APM BoK, and indeeddoes ®t with the research data on success and failureetc., there is an obvious word of caution. Since most

of those providing data (though not all) were APMmembers, they would be biased to accepting the APMBoK view of project management. A more interestingresult would be to ®nd what topics a cross section ofproject management professionals thought should beincluded.

There is discussion among some quarters that ``weneed to agree on the shape of the BoK''. The principalpurpose of the BoK is for the professional societies tode®ne what they expect their members to be knowl-edgeable in. A subsidiary bene®t is that it can act as asourcebook of information for practitioners, aca-demics, and others. But in the same way as one wouldnever get experts arguing over what exactly had to bethe chapter structure and format of all textbooks on,say, marketing, so it is irrelevant, we believe, to argueover what should be the correct order, degree of detail,subheadings, and so on, for the Body of Knowledge ofproject management.

Nevertheless, there are some important points aboutthe potential structure of the BoK. First, there shouldbe some indication of the project life cycle Ð thereshould be a process basis to the BoK. Second, thestructure should be as simple and cogent as possible.Ideally the major headings should not number morethan about seven (plus or minus two), as said earlierthe maximum range that most people feel comfortablewith. Third, too much should not be read into theactual position of a topic under a heading. Manytopics could arguably be put under other headings.Many Control topics in the CRMP model for exampleare arguably Strategic; Con®guration Managementcould have gone under Control, as could Testing.Value Management would often be seen as very closeto Value Engineering (often to the point of confusionin some people's minds): in the CRMP BoK they areseparated because Value Management is strategicwhile Value Engineering is technical.

There was great debate in the research aboutwhether there should be a ``Technical'' heading. Indeedthe debate about how much technical knowledge aproject manager has to have is a very old one. Wewere persuaded of its importance not least by theweight of research data that shows that technical mat-ters and their management can be major sources ofprojects failing to meet their planned requirements [4].

The heart of the BoK is in fact the text thatdescribes each of the topics. Use of plain English hasbeen the objective, both because this is sensible andbecause this is what our research showed people verymuch want. It is not as easy a challenge as it mightsound. Surprisingly, in many ways, there are very fewmodels on which to base such short, general, and yetuseful, de®nitions.

A constant challenge is the use of jargon. ShouldRequirements be used or Brie®ng, for example?


Another issue is the extent to which one should fol-low or be prepared to lead in describing good projectmanagement practice. If most of the IS and Construc-tion industries think that Requirements Managementdoes not apply, should it be included? (There is somuch research as well as anecdotal evidence, as well asplain logic for including it that we elected to keep it.)In several instances in fact we decided that we had totake a lead in de®ning what we believed the best prac-tice model of project management is: the research datawas to guide our writing, not dictate it.

References to ISO and other standards, and todocuments issued by other professional bodies are aparticularly important case. ISO type documents areimportant because of their perceived authority andgeneral pervasiveness. Yet they do not necessarilyre¯ect perfect practice.

How few books Ð almost none, struck us in fact Ðcover the contents of the total BoK authoritatively.Most books deal with particular aspects of the BoK,usually the Control, Organisation, and People parts.There is more coming onto the market now addressingTechnical issues. Commercial and Strategic issues areprobably the least addressed.

The references for each of the topics were identi®edin two parts: in the main text of the BoK only a smallnumber of readily available texts were noted. A longerlist of useful books and papers were given as FurtherReading where appropriate. Since the text is in Eng-lish, only English language texts were referenced.

The references should of course be updated on aregular basis, as should the whole BoK itself. APMhas accepted the CRMP structure as the basis of itsrevised new Body of Knowledge. In doing so it hasagreed a Con®guration Management Board to managethe BoK through its further evolution.

5. Conclusions

The Body of Knowledge is important in projectmanagement because it is one of the few general docu-ments that gives a genuine cross-industry, authoritativeview of what a professional in project managementshould be expected to know. Current BoKs have beennotable (a) for the lack of empirical data upon whichthey are based (b) the signi®cant variation between the``simpler'' PMI model and the broader APM/IPMAones.

This research found that of the 125 companies con-tributing to the CRMP BoK review, all supported thebroader model (most were APM members however).All felt that front-end, business, technical, and com-mercial issues were important.

This breadth of view of the scope of project manage-ment is not as well covered by the literature as it

might be however. Journals and conference papers donot cover the range of topics evenly, and there are fewbooks if any that cover the whole ®eld.

A BoK should never be totally frozen. Practicechanges. The BoK should be updated periodically. Thepoints made in this paper likewise need challengingand reviewing periodically. The authors look forwardto the next empirically based BoK update.

References

[1] Schon DA. The re¯ective practitioner: how professionals think in

action. New York: Basic Books, 1991.

[2] Wideman M, et al. Set of papers on project management bodies

of knowledge. International Journal of Project Management

1995;13(2):71±140.

[3] Caupin G et al. IPMA competency baseline. International

Project Management Association, 1999.

[4] Archibald RD. Managing high technology programs and pro-

jects. New York: Wiley, 1993.

[5] General Accounting O�ce: various reports on US defence pro-

jects' performance. Morris PWG. The Management of Projects,

Thomas Telford, 1997. National Audit O�ce: various reports on

UK defence projects' performance. Pinto JK, Slevin DP. Project

success: de®nitions and measurement techniques, Project

Management Journal 1989;19(1):67Ð75; World Bank,

Operations Evaluation Department: various reports on World

Bank project performance.

[6] Miller GAM. Processing information. Psychological Review

1956;63(1):81±97.

[7] Standish Group: see (www.standishgroup.com).

[8] Themistocleous G, Wearne SH. Project management topic cover-

age in journals, International Journal of Project Management, in

press; Zobel AM, Wearne SH. Project management topic cover-

age in recent conferences, in press.

Peter Morris is Professor of Project Management and head of the

Centre for Research in the Management of Projects at the University

of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology. He is also

Executive Director of INDECO Ð a leading projects based manage-

ment consultancy. Until 1996 he was a Main Board Director of

Bovis Ltd. He is the author of `The Management of Projects' (Tho-

mas Telford, 1997) and `The Anatomy of Projects' (Wiley, 1998).


Marsh Patel is a Researcher in the Centre for Research in the Man-

agement of Projects at the University of Manchester, Institute of

Science and Technology. With a ®rst class science degree, Marsh

worked as a Project Manager in a number of countries in Europe,

Africa, and Asia. He joined the CRMP team in 1997. His research

work deals with several aspects related to project management and

he has a special interest in using project management techniques in

developing countries.

Stephen Wearne is a Visiting Senior Research Fellow in the Centre

for Research in the Management of Projects, University of Manche-

ster Institute of Science and Technology, Manchester, UK. In indus-

try his project responsibilities included engineering coordination of a

large hydro-electric project in Venezuela and project management of

a nuclear power project in Japan. He was Professor (now Emeritus)

of Technological Management at the University of Bradford 1973±

1984.


Research Into Revising the APM Project Management Body of Knowledge

Documents

Transcript of Research Into Revising the APM Project Management Body of Knowledge