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

www.elsevier.com/locate/ijproman

Research into revising the APM project management body of

knowledge
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 of
Knowledge. 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 and
benchmarking best practice and performance. # 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd and IPMA. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Body of knowledge; Profession; Certi®cation

1. Introduction on the basis of their professional judgement rather

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 with
over 8,000 members Ð uses as the normative docu-
ment governing its examination, certi®cation and
accreditation practices. The BoK de®nes the topics in
which 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
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +44161-200-4615; fax: +44161-200-
4615.
E-mail address: wearne@email.msn.com (S.H. Wearne).
1 of Knowledge important? Essentially, the project man-
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.
than 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 seen
as being in need of updating. The research reported
here was undertaken in support of APM's programme
of work updating its BoK. It represents a sustained
programme of activity aimed at discovering what
topics project management professionals need to be
knowledgeable in and it o€ers a visual model for
representing this `Body of Knowledge'. The results of
the research are now being adopted by APM as the
basis for the next version of its BoK. The work also
provides a basis for baselining competencies in project
management and for benchmarking project manage-
ment Best Practice and performance. Why is a Body
agement Body of Knowledge identi®es and de®nes the
elements of project management in which competent
project management professionals should be
knowledgeable.2
This is extremely important because, in e€ect, the
Body of Knowledge should re¯ect the purpose of
project management. It describes the levers that any

0263-7863/00/$20.00 # 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd and IPMA. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 2 6 3 - 7 8 6 3 ( 9 9 ) 0 0 0 6 8 - X
156 P.W.G. Morris et al. / International Journal of Project Management 18 (2000) 155±164
professional could, or should, employ in order to
ful®l this purpose. The Body of Knowledge thus
re¯ects the ontology of the profession: the set of
words, relationships and meanings that describe the
philosophy of project management. A professional
Ð as Schon and others have pointed out Ð is
someone 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 practice
competently
. maintain a programme of continuing professional
development and education
. subscribe to the code of ethics of the profession
The Body of Knowledge in this sense of professional
competence is thus crucial. Yet, amazingly, the pro-
fessional project management societies currently have
quite di€erent versions of the BoK. PMI's covers gen-
eric project management processes and practices. It
does 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 project
will be a success or not. APM's BoK on the other
hand does address these broader topics. The BoKs of
France, Germany and Switzerland substantially re¯ect
the APM model [2]. AIPM, the Australian Institute of
Project Management, uses PMI's but as a basis of
competencies rather as knowledge.
APM, like other IPMA members, introduces com-
petency assessment via an examination and certi®ca-
tion programme. The IPMA provides an
international baseline for certifying competency and
benchmarking best practice and performance in pro-
ject management, covering levels of competence and
considering 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 a
member of IPMA).
The need to focus on what is the proper content
of a project management Body of Knowledge is
thus crucial. For if the professional project manage-
ment societies cannot agree the elements of a pro-
ject management BoK, how credible is the idea of
professionalism in project management?
The notion that there is such a thing as a pro-
fessional in project management is itself a topic
3
A comment made both on the basis of personal experience and
the research reported here.
worthy of debate. In the end, however, most people
working 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 APM
and PMI models in essence boils down to whether the
project management core is essentially about process,
or performance.
Traditionally, project management has been seen
largely about completing tasks ``on time, in budget, to
scope'' [4]. This is understandable and re¯ects the task
and 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, to
scope, 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 to
adopt 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 planning
and monitoring tools, teamwork, etc., but also Ð in
fact, particularly Ð include (a) technical, commercial,
and ``external'' issues, and (b) the way the initial
requirements of the project are established Ð the
Front End [5]. Most practising managers agree.3
Understanding what factors have to be managed in
order 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 ``on 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 is
not, 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 in
government, 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 time
targets properly is half the battle; ensuring that the
technical, commercial, business, environmental, and
other factors are e€ectively aligned with organisational
 P.W.G. Morris et al. / International Journal of Project Management 18 (2000) 155±164
Fig. 1. APM Body of Knowledge structure, revised 3rd version.
and control issues is generally fundamental to ensuring
an optimum outcome.4
It was recognition of the importance of the wider
remit that focussing on what delivering successful
projects entails that in fact caused the APM, when
it sought a BoK for its Certi®cation programme in
the early 90s, not simply follow the PMI BoK
model.
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 decade
since it was launched. It is now widely used as the
basis of competency assessment by many companies in
Europe and elsewhere Ð as indeed is PMI's. It does
however contain a number of areas that are in need of
revision (as PMI recognises its BoK does too). Hence
a proposal was prepared by the Centre for Research in
the Management of Projects at UMIST in mid 1997 to
conduct a research programme aimed at providing
empirical data upon which APM could decide how it
wished to update its BoK. The research lasted 14
4
This is the thesis of The Management of Projects, Morris,
1997 [5].
157
months and was ®nanced both by APM and by indus-
try.
2. What was CRMP trying to do and how was the
research performed?
The aim of the CRMP work was to:
. identify the topics that project management pro-
fessionals Ð practitioners, educators, and others Ð
consider 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 generically
useful level
. update the body of literature that supports these
topics
It did not initially aim to produce a revised BoK struc-
ture, though in fact it ended up doing so as a result of
the comments received.
The research is, we believe, unique in that, so far, it
is the only such research that has systematically sought
empirical evidence for identifying the topics in which
project management professionals need to be knowl-
edgeable. The structure eventually chosen is also based
on research: researches on the factors that project
management professionals consider important to their
professional work.
The research was performed in the following
sequence: First the then current version (Version 3.0)
158 P.W.G. Morris et al. / International Journal of Project Management 18 (2000) 155±164
of the APM Body of Knowledge was critically
reviewed. A new draft version (Version 3.1) was pre-
pared Ð the so-called ``Strawman'' BoK. This version
had more topics than Version 3.0, principally in the
topics of Front End De®nition, Business and Market-
ing, Technology and Design Management, Procure-
ment and Contract Administration, and at the project
Completion and Operations and Maintenance/Inte-
grated Logistics Support back-end of the project life
cycle. Version 3.1 consisted of 44 topics. De®nitions of
the topics were then reviewed, prepared, or revised.
Questionnaires were then sent out to over 2,500 project
management professionals. The work was also adver-
tised widely in the technical press. Advice on literature
associated with the topics was also solicited. In-depth
interviews were then held with approximately 20 com-
panies. Ultimately data was obtained, via the inter-
views and returned questionnaires, from over 117
companies or divisions of companies. (Valid question-
naire returns were only received from 6% of those
polled: many stated that they were unable to respond
adequately because they did not really understand
what the purpose of a BoK was.)
As a result of the questionnaire returns, the CRMP
research team, under the supervision of its Steering
Committee, deleted some topics and combined others,
and modi®ed the de®nitions.
It had been intended not to group the CRMP topics
into any kind of structure. However, a strong input
from the research returns was that the respondents
found the number of topics too large. Max Wideman
of Canada (who made invaluable input into the study)
in fact reminded us of the work of Miller [6] that
showed that people generally ®nd 7 (plus or minus 2)
to be the optimum size of data sets for convenient
handling. We therefore started developing potential
groupings of the topics (now reduced to 37), relating
them to the project life cycle.
The revised version (3.2) was then sent out to the
117 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 amendments
to the de®nitions of the topics per se. There was how-
ever considerable comment on the structure, and the
allocation of particular topics to the elements, of the
emerging BoK model. As a result of this round of
input 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's
accreditors and examiners. A few minor amendments
were made and the ®nal CRMP version was released
to APM. It was then taken by APM for full and for-
mal review by its Special Interest Groups, assessors
and examiners, and its Council. The revised version
will then become Version 4.0 of the APM BoK.
In addition, CRMP conducted two analyses of the
match between Version 3.1 and
. all the papers published in the International Journal
of Project Management and the Project Management
Journal over the last 15 years
. all the papers published in the 1996 and 1997 PMI
Annual Seminars/Symposia and the 1996 and 1998
IPMA Congresses.
3. What we found
The following represent the principal ®ndings of the
study:
. 100% of those responding felt that the APM BoK
needed updating.
. It was felt that the BoK should be less complicated
and 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 management
rather than on the project manager.
Fig. 2 shows the respondents' views on whether the
Version 3.1 topics should be retained or dropped.
100% agreed on the need for Leadership to be
included, 100% on Legal Awareness, 100% on Pro-
curement, 99% on Safety, Health, and Environment,
98% on Life Cycles, 96% on Purchasing, 95% on
Risk 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 Evaluation
Review, 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, and
Strategies (surprising considering how important these
are), 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 caused
diculty), 42% on Success Criteria (relatively surpris-
ing), 44% on Performance Measurement Ð i.e. Earned
Value (this is very interesting considering how central
to project management theory and `Best Practice' it is
 P.W.G. Morris et al. / International Journal of Project Management 18 (2000) 155±164 159

considered by writers and experts), 46% on Infor-
mation Management.
Fig. 3 shows how these agreements were split by
industry sectors. There are some notable ®ndings.
Construction and Information Systems (IS) rated
Marketing and Sales 40%, and Goals, Objectives,
and Strategies only 20%. This may be a re¯ection
simply of the jobs/life experience of those who
responded. On the other hand, it has a wry corre-
lation with the reputation of those industries to
concentrate on implementation and less on how to
relate 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.

160 P.W.G. Morris et al. / International Journal of Project Management 18 (2000) 155±164
Fig. 3. Agreement % by industry sector.
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:
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.
. 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
 P.W.G. Morris et al. / International Journal of Project Management 18 (2000) 155±164
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-
Fig. 4. CRMP Project Management Body of Knowledge.
161
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
162 P.W.G. Morris et al. / International Journal of Project Management 18 (2000) 155±164
(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, and
Hand-over; Requirements Management; Technology
Management; Modelling & Testing.
. Better description of Procurement.
. Better description of Life Cycle Design and Manage-
ment.
. Organisational Roles in addition to Organisation
Structure.
Several Version 3.0 topics have been incorporated into
other topics or omitted entirely:
. Systems Management Ð omitted as not suciently
understood or relevant.
. Project Appraisal Ð incorporated in Business Case
and Finance.
. Integration Ð incorporated in Project Management.
. Control and Coordination Ð incorporated in the
whole 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 Cost
Management.
. Mobilisation Ð omitted as too Construction
speci®c.
. Operation/Technical Management Ð incorporated
in 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 in
discussion that initially most attention is paid to the
structure of the BoK that we have devised. Our view is
that while the structure is important as a means of pre-
senting and communicating what in reality is a lot of
information, in terms of the validity of the BoK itself
it is not that important. The really important matters
are two:
. to decide what topics should be included in the BoK
. to ensure that project management professionals'
basic understanding of what those terms mean is
agreed
An important ®nding of the research is the extent to
which the breadth of topics proposed was so strongly
endorsed by the empirical data. Though this may com-
fort the original authors of the APM BoK, and indeed
does ®t with the research data on success and failure
etc., there is an obvious word of caution. Since most
of those providing data (though not all) were APM
members, they would be biased to accepting the APM
BoK view of project management. A more interesting
result would be to ®nd what topics a cross section of
project management professionals thought should be
included.
There is discussion among some quarters that ``we
need to agree on the shape of the BoK''. The principal
purpose of the BoK is for the professional societies to
de®ne what they expect their members to be knowl-
edgeable in. A subsidiary bene®t is that it can act as a
sourcebook of information for practitioners, aca-
demics, and others. But in the same way as one would
never get experts arguing over what exactly had to be
the chapter structure and format of all textbooks on,
say, marketing, so it is irrelevant, we believe, to argue
over what should be the correct order, degree of detail,
subheadings, and so on, for the Body of Knowledge of
project management.
Nevertheless, there are some important points about
the potential structure of the BoK. First, there should
be some indication of the project life cycle Ð there
should be a process basis to the BoK. Second, the
structure should be as simple and cogent as possible.
Ideally the major headings should not number more
than about seven (plus or minus two), as said earlier
the maximum range that most people feel comfortable
with. Third, too much should not be read into the
actual position of a topic under a heading. Many
topics could arguably be put under other headings.
Many Control topics in the CRMP model for example
are arguably Strategic; Con®guration Management
could have gone under Control, as could Testing.
Value Management would often be seen as very close
to Value Engineering (often to the point of confusion
in some people's minds): in the CRMP BoK they are
separated because Value Management is strategic
while Value Engineering is technical.
There was great debate in the research about
whether there should be a ``Technical'' heading. Indeed
the debate about how much technical knowledge a
project manager has to have is a very old one. We
were persuaded of its importance not least by the
weight of research data that shows that technical mat-
ters and their management can be major sources of
projects failing to meet their planned requirements [4].
The heart of the BoK is in fact the text that
describes each of the topics. Use of plain English has
been the objective, both because this is sensible and
because this is what our research showed people very
much want. It is not as easy a challenge as it might
sound. Surprisingly, in many ways, there are very few
models on which to base such short, general, and yet
useful, de®nitions.
A constant challenge is the use of jargon. Should
Requirements be used or Brie®ng, for example?
 P.W.G. Morris et al. / International Journal of Project Management 18 (2000) 155±164
Another issue is the extent to which one should fol-
low or be prepared to lead in describing good project
management practice. If most of the IS and Construc-
tion industries think that Requirements Management
does not apply, should it be included? (There is so
much research as well as anecdotal evidence, as well as
plain logic for including it that we elected to keep it.)
In several instances in fact we decided that we had to
take a lead in de®ning what we believed the best prac-
tice model of project management is: the research data
was to guide our writing, not dictate it.
References to ISO and other standards, and to
documents issued by other professional bodies are a
particularly important case. ISO type documents are
important because of their perceived authority and
general pervasiveness. Yet they do not necessarily
re¯ect perfect practice.
How few books Ð almost none, struck us in fact Ð
cover 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 addressing
Technical issues. Commercial and Strategic issues are
probably the least addressed.
The references for each of the topics were identi®ed
in two parts: in the main text of the BoK only a small
number of readily available texts were noted. A longer
list of useful books and papers were given as Further
Reading where appropriate. Since the text is in Eng-
lish, only English language texts were referenced.
The references should of course be updated on a
regular basis, as should the whole BoK itself. APM
has accepted the CRMP structure as the basis of its
revised new Body of Knowledge. In doing so it has
agreed a Con®guration Management Board to manage
the BoK through its further evolution.
5. Conclusions
The Body of Knowledge is important in project
management because it is one of the few general docu-
ments that gives a genuine cross-industry, authoritative
view of what a professional in project management
should be expected to know. Current BoKs have been
notable (a) for the lack of empirical data upon which
they are based (b) the signi®cant variation between the
``simpler'' PMI model and the broader APM/IPMA
ones.
This research found that of the 125 companies con-
tributing to the CRMP BoK review, all supported the
broader 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
163
might be however. Journals and conference papers do
not cover the range of topics evenly, and there are few
books if any that cover the whole ®eld.
A BoK should never be totally frozen. Practice
changes. The BoK should be updated periodically. The
points made in this paper likewise need challenging
and reviewing periodically. The authors look forward
to 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).
164 P.W.G. Morris et al. / International Journal of Project Management 18 (2000) 155±164

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.