A Guide to the Project Management Body of

Knowledge (PMBOK), 4th edition

A WHI TE PAPER PROVI DED TO ASPE BY DAVI D CACCAMO, PMP
www.aspe-sdlc.com 877-800-5221
ASPE SDLC Tr ai ni ng
2010 ASPE age 1
A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge A White Paper prepared for ASPE
A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge
!"#$%&
'
() +
,-
./0,012
1he 4
Lh
edlLlon of A Culde Lo Lhe ro[ecL ManagemenL 8ody of knowledge (popularly known as
Lhe M8Ck) was lssued ln 2008 and M examlnaLlons based upon Lhls edlLlon wlll begln on
!uly 1, 2009. As Lhe source for Lhe overwhelmlng ma[orlLy of Lhe maLerlal covered on Lhe LesL,
lL ls lmperaLlve for prospecLlve Ms who have some famlllarlLy wlLh Lhe older 3
rd
edlLlon Lo
reLool Lhelr Lhlnklng Lo brlng lL ln llne wlLh Lhe changed LexL. Llkewlse, currenL Ms who
LesLed on Lhe 3
rd
edlLlon should make Lhemselves aware of Lhe changes ln order Lo sLay currenL
wlLh Lhe process Lermlnology LhaL wlll soon follow ln organlzaLlons LhaL wlsh Lo be fully M8Ck
compllanL.
1he ma[or changes Lo Lhe M8Ck are:
1) 1he adopLlon of Lhe verb-noun formaL for process names
2) AmpllflcaLlon as Lo LnLerprlse LnvlronmenLal lacLors and CrganlzaLlonal rocess AsseLs
3) ClarlflcaLlons as Lo Lhe relaLlonshlps beLween CorrecLlve AcLlons, revenLaLlve AcLlons,
uefecL 8epalrs, and 8equesLed changes
4) 1he ellmlnaLlon, addlLlon, and consolldaLlon of processes Lo LlghLen Lhe loglc of Lhe
process groups
3) A dlvlslon of Lhe ro[ecL ManagemenL lan documenLs from ro[ecL uocumenLs LhaL
was unclear ln Lhe 3
rd
edlLlon of Lhe M8Ck
6) 1he esLabllshmenL of a dlsLlncLlon beLween Lhe elemenLs of a ro[ecL CharLer from Lhe
ro[ecL Scope SLaLemenL
7) 1he ellmlnaLlon of process flow dlagrams LhaL were ofLen lnLerpreLed as acLlvlLy
dlagrams raLher Lhan loglcal flows
8) More emphasls on Lhe loglcal connecLlons beLween Lhe processes (where ouLpuLs
become lnpuLs Lo follow-on processes)
9) An appendlx LhaL ls lnLended Lo emphaslze Lhe need for sofL (lnLerpersonal) skllls

Verb-Noun Format
1he sLandardlzaLlon of Lhe name formaL for Lhe processes, whlle noL a ma[or change, was
lndlcaLlve of a general move Lo force conslsLency beLween Lhe nlne knowledge areas. 1he
ro[ecL ManagemenL lnsLlLuLe ls, ln many ways, an academlc-llke organlzaLlon. 1haL means LhaL
declslons are reached by consensus, and lL ls aL leasL arguable LhaL Lhere was Loo much
consensus and Loo llLLle dlrecLlon by Lhe edlLors when lL come Lo Lhlngs such as Lhe
sLandardlzaLlon of Lools, Lhe namlng of processes, and Lhe use of lnpuLs. lor example, mosL
2010 ASPE age 2
A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge A White Paper prepared for ASPE
processes ln a knowledge area use Lhe subsldlary managemenL plan for LhaL area as an lnpuL.
8uL someLlmes, for no apparenL reason, Lhere were unexplalned excepLlons. 1he across-Lhe-
board sLandardlzaLlon of Lhe 4
Lh
edlLlon ls very welcome lmprovemenL and serves Lo make Lhe
M8Ck more loglcally conslsLenL.
Enterprise Environmental Factors/Organizational Process Assets
1he 3
rd
edlLlon M8Ck freely used LnLerprlse LnvlronmenLal lacLors and CrganlzaLlonal rocess
AsseLs as lnpuLs for many of Lhe processes. Cbvlously Lhe vasL range of processes lmplled a
greaL deal of depLh ln Lhese Lwo lnpuLs, buL Lhe explanaLlons glven ln Lhe early chapLers were
noL sufflclenL Lo supporL all of Lhese uses. 1he expanslon of Lhese Lwo lnpuLs respecLlve
deflnlLlons glves more academlc rlgor Lo Lhe Lerms, buL probably wlll noL be consldered of greaL
lmporLance Lo mosL pro[ecL managers.
Corrective Actions / Preventive Actions / Defect Repairs / Change Requests
Cne way of looklng aL how Lhese four ouLpuLs (and subsequenL lnpuLs) dlffered was Lo Lhlnk
abouL Lhe dlfference beLween shorL-Lerm and long-Lerm managemenL acLlons. ln Lhls scheme,
CorrecLlve AcLlons, revenLlve AcLlons, and uefecL 8epalrs can be LhoughL of as Lhose acLlons
necessary Lo keep a pro[ecL on Lrack (l.e., shorL-Lerm, day-Lo-day managemenL acLlons), whlle
Change 8equesLs are acLlons necessary Lo change Lhe dlrecLlon of Lhe pro[ecL (l.e., long-Lerm,
sLraLeglc acLlon).
under Lhe new Ml scheme, CorrecLlve AcLlons, revenLlve AcLlons, and uefecL 8epalrs have
become varlaLlons of Change 8equesLs. ln oLher words, a Change 8equesL may sLlll be used Lo
lncrease or decrease Lhe scope of a pro[ecL (long-Lerm, sLraLeglc acLlon), buL lL can also mean
Lhe mundane day-Lo-day acLlons of runnlng a pro[ecL (CorrecLlve AcLlons, revenLlve AcLlons,
and uefecL 8epalrs). ln addlLlon, updaLes" has been added as anoLher caLegory. 1hese
represenL [usL LhaL, updaLes Lo Lhe conLenL of documenLs, plans, eLc.
WheLher Lhls change helps pracLlLloners may be open Lo quesLlon, buL lL ls cerLalnly reduces Lhe
number of lnpuLs and ouLpuLs LhaL a would-be M musL memorlze for Lhe examlnaLlon.
Processes
1he ma[or changes ln Lhe processes Lhemselves were as follows:
- 1he ellmlnaLlon of Lhe uevelop rellmlnary ro[ecL Scope SLaLemenL" process
- 1he addlLlon of Lhe ldenLlfy SLakeholders" process
- 1he subsLlLuLlon of Lhe CollecL 8equlremenLs" process for Lhe Scope lannlng"
process
2010 ASPE age 3
A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge A White Paper prepared for ASPE
- 1he consolldaLlon of Lhe lan urchases and AcqulslLlons" and Lhe lan
ConLracLlng" processes lnLo Lhe lan rocuremenLs" process
- 1he consolldaLlon of Lhe 8equesL Seller 8esponses" and SelecL Sellers" processes
lnLo Lhe ConducL rocuremenLs" process
- 1he move of Lhe Manage Lhe ro[ecL 1eam from Lhe MonlLorlng and ConLrolllng
rocess Croup Lo Lhe LxecuLlng rocess Croup
- 1he move of Lhe Manage SLakeholder LxpecLaLlons from Lhe MonlLorlng and
ConLrolllng rocess Croup Lo Lhe LxecuLlng rocess Croup
1he ellmlnaLlon of Lhe rellmlnary ro[ecL Scope SLaLemenL has so far ellclLed Lhe mosL
commenL from pro[ecL managers. CommenLs have ranged from l'll do lL anyway" Lo l'll
lnclude lL ln Lhe CharLer" Lo l never dld lL anyway." 1he besL way of Lhlnklng abouL Lhls change
may be LhaL lL reflecLs a concerLed efforL Lo sLarL dlsLlngulshlng beLween 8uslness Analysls
processes (durlng lnlLlaLlon) and pro[ecL scope plannlng (durlng plannlng). 8egardless, lL seems
clear LhaL fuLure edlLlons of Lhe M8Ck are golng Lo have Lo confronL more dlrecLly Lhe growlng
sLandardlzaLlon of 8uslness Analysls Lools and processes belng developed under LhaL
professlon's own 8A 8ody of knowledge.
MosL pro[ecL managemenL professors and lnsLrucLors have long LaughL LhaL sLakeholder
analysls ls Lhe flrsL sLep ln communlcaLlons plannlng. 1hus Lhe ldenLlfy SLakeholders" process
added under CommunlcaLlons ManagemenL ln Lhe lnlLlaLlng rocess Croup ls a needed change
Lo beLLer lllusLraLe Lhe connecLlon beLween sLakeholders and pro[ecL communlcaLlons
managemenL.
1he CollecL 8equlremenLs" process helps Lo presenL a more deLalled undersLandlng of
requlremenLs gaLherlng ln developlng Lhe pro[ecL's scope. And agaln, Lhe ulLlmaLe
reconclllaLlon of Lhe 8A8Ck wlLh Lhe M8Ck would seem Lo be a loglcal necesslLy.
1he leasL conslsLenL knowledge area, aL leasL ln Lerms of process namlng, was rocuremenL
ManagemenL. Anyone who has ever saL for Lhe M exam probably remembers Lhls area's
lnconslsLenL and confuslng nomenclaLure. 1hls was an over-due change.
llnally, Lhe Mange SLakeholders" process's becomlng Lhe Manage SLakeholder LxpecLaLlons"
seems Lo be a more proacLlve approach Lo sLakeholder managemenL Lhan was evldenced by Lhe
3
rd
edlLlon. ln Lhls respecL, lL ls also more ln keeplng wlLh how pro[ecL managemenL ls normally
LaughL Lo new pracLlLloners and serves Lo make Lhe M8Ck more relevanL Lo real world
managemenL.

2010 ASPE age 4
A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge A White Paper prepared for ASPE
Project Management Plan / Project Documents
Cne dlfflculL Lo undersLand feaLure of Lhe M8Ck Lhlrd edlLlon was lLs explanaLlon of Lhe
documenLs LhaL should or could be lncluded ln a ro[ecL ManagemenL lan. Cn cursory
lnspecLlon, lL appeared LhaL [usL abouL any documenL was falr game Lo belng lncluded.
1he dlvlslon of Lhe ro[ecL ManagemenL lan from all Lhese oLher worklng documenLs (now
referred Lo as ro[ecL uocumenLs) and Lhe subsequenL clarlflcaLlon of Lhe ro[ecL ManagemenL
lan's conLenL (basellnes and subsldlary managemenL plans) clears up Lhls confuslng slLuaLlon,
much Lo Lhe M8Cks lmprovemenL.
lncldenLally, Lhe M8Ck now refers Lo Lhe Lhree basellnes as Lhe Scope 8asellne (sLlll made up
of Lhe ro[ecL Scope SLaLemenL, Lhe W8S, and Lhe W8S ulcLlonary), Lhe Schedule 8asellne, and
Lhe CosL erformance 8asellne.
Project Charter / Project Scope Statement
1he emphasls change ln Lhe CharLer becomes apparenL upon revlewlng Lhe bulleL lLems
presenLed ln Lhe M8Ck as Lo whaL a charLer lncludes. 1he Lerm Plgh Level" ls used ln Lhree
of Lhe bulleLs and Summary" ln Lwo. 1he remalnlng flve bulleLs descrlbe admlnlsLraLlve lLems
(approvals, auLhorlLy) or background.
Process Flow Diagrams
1he rocess llow ulagrams ln Lhe Lhlrd edlLlon were noL helpful ln undersLandlng [usL whaL was
happenlng ln Lhe respecLlve process groups. lor example, Lhe lannlng flow dlagram was aL
odds wlLh Lhe sLaLed process lnpuLs of LhaL process group, whlle Lhe LxecuLlng dlagram was [usL
confuslng. MosL prospecLlve Ms LhoughL LhaL whaL Lhey were looklng aL was an acLlvlLy flow
dlagram, and Lhey Lherefore LhoughL Lhey could Lransfer Lhese dlagrams lnLo a L81/CM
neLwork for accompllshlng Lhelr pro[ecL. More Lhan a few lnsLrucLors gave Lhelr sLudenLs
correcLed dlagrams, or even Lold Lhelr sLudenLs Lo lgnore Lhe dlagrams alLogeLher. 1helr
removal should be welcome news Lo anyone Lrylng Lo undersLand Lhe Ml meLhodology.
Logical Connections between Processes
Lach of Lhe processes (as presenLed ln Lhelr respecLlve knowledge area chapLers) now lncludes
a dlagram showlng Lhe daLa flow (lnpuLs) Lo Lhe process, speclflcally ldenLlfylng Lhe source of
LhaL lnpuL. ln some cases, Lhls dlagram comes perllously close Lo lnformaLlon overload (as ln
Lhe uevelop ro[ecL ManagemenL lan" process), buL on Lhe whole Lhese dlagrams serve Lhe
very useful funcLlon of lllusLraLlng Lhe connecLlons and feedback loops LhaL connecL Lhe varlous
processes.
2010 ASPE age 3
A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge A White Paper prepared for ASPE
Interpersonal Skills
1he lnLerpersonal Skllls appendlx (Appendlx C) ls a sLarL aL recognlzlng Lhe lmporLance of Lhese
skllls ln pro[ecL success, buL aL presenL Lhe appendlx seems Loo general and lacklng ln speclflcs
Lo be of any real value. lf Ml sLays wlLh Lhe appendlx ln lLs nexL (flfLh) edlLlon, look for a
conslderable beeflng up" of Lhls maLerlal.
Conclusion
As wlLh mosL edlLlon changes, Lhe auLhors Lweaked deflnlLlons here and Lhere, someLlmes
resulLlng ln clarlflcaLlon, many Llmes maklng changes LhaL appear slmply cosmeLlc. 8uL on Lhe
whole, Lhe 4
Lh
edlLlon was a deflnlLe lmprovemenL on Lhe 3
rd
. 1he updaLe wenL a long way
Lowards LlghLenlng up Lhe loglc of Lhe work as well as supplylng some much needed conslsLency
Lo everyLhlng from slmple wordlng Lo lnpuLs, Lools and Lechnlques, and ouLpuLs. 1he
subsLanLlve changes Lo Lhe processes Lhemselves were ln keeplng wlLh Lhe way Lhe professlon
ls acLually LaughL and pracLlced, and Lhls alone makes Lhe 4
Lh
edlLlon a much beLLer documenL.