Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
ScienceDirect
ScienceDirect
Procedia
Available Computer
online Science 00 (2022) 000–000
at www.sciencedirect.com
Procedia Computer Science 00 (2022) 000–000 www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
ScienceDirect
Procedia Computer Science 219 (2023) 1877–1884

CENTERIS – International Conference on ENTERprise Information Systems / ProjMAN –

CENTERIS – Conference
International InternationalonConference on ENTERprise
Project MANagement Information
/ HCist Systems
– International / ProjMANon–
Conference
International Conference
Health on Care
and Social Project MANagement
Information / HCist
Systems and–Technologies
International 2022
Conference on
Health and Social Care Information Systems and Technologies 2022
PMBOK 6th
th meets 7th: How to link both guides in order to support
th
PMBOK 6 meets 7 : How to link both guides in order to support
project tailoring?
project tailoring?
Filipe Amaro*, Luísa Domingues
Filipe Amaro*, Luísa Domingues
Avenida das Forças Armadas, Edifício I, Reitoria 1649-026 LISBOA Portugal
Avenida das Forças Armadas, Edifício I, Reitoria 1649-026 LISBOA Portugal

Abstract
Abstract
Project Management is evolving more rapidly than ever[1]. Driven by the progress in new technologies and the emergence of agile
Project Management
methodologies, is evolving
organizations suchmoreas rapidly thanManagement
the Project ever[1]. Driven by the (PMI)
Institute progress in new technologies
reviewed their Project and the emergence
Management of agile
Standards to
methodologies, organizations
reflect on this phenomenon. In such as the
its latest Project
edition, theManagement Institute Body
Project Management (PMI)Ofreviewed their7th[1]
Knowledge Project Management
(PMBOK), gatherStandards to
the largest
number
reflect onofthis
evolutionary
phenomenon. [2] In
anditsalatest
disruptive approach
edition, based
the Project on Principles
Management BodyandOffocuses on emerging
Knowledge trends such
7th[1] (PMBOK), as tailoring,
gather to
the largest
number of
enhance evolutionary
value [2] and aproject
delivery through disruptive approach based
results[3][4][2]. on Principles
Nevertheless, and focuses
the PMI on emerging
states that trends such
this new release does as
nottailoring, to
invalidate
enhance value
previously delivery
published through
versions project results[3][4][2].
of PMBOK. Nevertheless,
However, the coexistence the PMI
of these twostates that thismay
perspectives newinitially
releasebedoes not invalidate
an unclear subject
for managers
previously and teams,
published used to
versions of aPMBOK.
process-oriented
However, [5].
the coexistence of these two perspectives may initially be an unclear subject
for
Thismanagers
research and teams,
studied the used to a process-oriented
relationship between PMBOK [5]. 6th[5] and PMBOK 7th[1] and the importance of their connection applied
This research
to project studied
tailoring andthe relationship
value creation,between
through PMBOK 6th[5]
a model that and concepts
relates PMBOK from 7th[1]PMBOK
and the importance of their
7th[1] (Methods, connection
Models applied
and Artifacts
andproject
to Performance
tailoringDomains)
and valueand the PMBOK
creation, through6th[5] (Processes).
a model that relates concepts from PMBOK 7th[1] (Methods, Models and Artifacts
and Performance Domains) and the PMBOK 6th[5] (Processes).
© 2022 The Authors. Published by ELSEVIER B.V.
© 2022
© 2023
This The
is an Authors.
open
The accessPublished
Authors. by
by Elsevier
article under
Published B.V.B.V.
the CC BY-NC-ND
ELSEVIER license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0)
This is an
Peer-review open access
under article under
responsibility
This is an open access article under of the
the CC BY-NC-ND
scientific
CC BY-NC-ND license
committee (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0)
of the
license CENTERIS – International Conference on ENTERprise
(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0)
Peer-review under
Information
Peer-review underresponsibility
Systems / ProjMANofof
responsibility -the scientific
International
the committee
scientific Conference
committee of the
on CENTERIS
Project
of the – International
MANagement
CENTERIS Conference
/ HCist
– International on ENTERprise
-Conference
International onConference
ENTERpriseInformation
on
Systems / ProjMAN
Health and Social - International
Care Information Conference on Project
Systems andConference MANagement
Technologies / HCist - International Conference on Health and Social Care
Information Systems / ProjMAN - International on 2022
Project MANagement / HCist - International Conference on
Information Systems and Technologies 2022
Health and Social Care Information Systems and Technologies 2022
Keywords: Project Management; Tailoring; PMBOK
Keywords: Project Management; Tailoring; PMBOK

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +0-000-000-0000 ; fax: +0-000-000-0000 .

* E-mail [email protected]
address:author.
Corresponding Tel.: +0-000-000-0000 ; fax: +0-000-000-0000 .
E-mail address: [email protected]
1877-0509 © 2022 The Authors. Published by ELSEVIER B.V.
This is an open
1877-0509 © 2022 access
The article
Authors.under the CCby
Published BY-NC-ND
ELSEVIERlicense
B.V. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0)
Peer-review
This underaccess
is an open responsibility of the scientific
article under committee license
the CC BY-NC-ND of the CENTERIS – International Conference on ENTERprise Information Systems /
(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0)
ProjMAN - International
Peer-review Conference
under responsibility onscientific
of the Project MANagement / HCist
committee of the - International
CENTERIS Conference
– International on Healthonand
Conference Social CareInformation
ENTERprise InformationSystems
Systems/
and Technologies
ProjMAN 2022 Conference on Project MANagement / HCist - International Conference on Health and Social Care Information Systems
- International
and Technologies 2022
1877-0509 © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0)
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the CENTERIS – International Conference on ENTERprise
Information Systems / ProjMAN - International Conference on Project MANagement / HCist - International Conference
on Health and Social Care Information Systems and Technologies 2022
10.1016/j.procs.2023.01.486
1878 Filipe Amaro et al. / Procedia Computer Science 219 (2023) 1877–1884
2 Filipe Amaro et al. / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2022) 000–000

1. Introduction

Nowadays project managers have a new purpose in the way they deliver their projects and products. Due to the
exponential development of new technologies, Project Management (PM) discipline is evolving faster than ever[1,6]
with a new focus: deliver value for the organization and stakeholders through project work and outputs[1].
The Project Management Institute (PMI) has contributed significantly to the standardization and documentation of
PM practices, and its Project Management Body of Knowledge Guide (PMBOK) is widely accepted by the
community[7][8][9].
Compelled by the new needs of PM, the PMI in its seventh edition[1], has evolved from a protocol and procedural
[5]s approach represented by eight Performance Domains focused on delivering value.
In this new paradigm, the focus is on the tailoring of methodologies and PM, empowering the teams and their
project leaders with a set of principles and base domains that serve as guidelines for the definition of the project’s
lifecycle, development approach and management elements to be used[3]
In chapter "4. Models, Methods, and Artifacts" from PMBOK 7th[1] models, methods and artifacts (Items) are
described so that they can be used by teams to generate value through eight Performance Domains. By itself, this
knowledge allows the project manager to do a high-level tailoring of the project by selecting items according to the
project’s environment.
However, the way these models, methods and artifacts are produced and applied is purposely left open, with
reference to other publications for more detailed information.
The efficient tailoring of projects through the items identified in the PMBOK 7th[1] not depends only on the
project’s knowledge, but also on the processes of creation and application of these models, methods and artifacts.
Through a two-way analysis based on the Value Proposition and the Domains identified by the PMBOK 7th[1],
this investigation intends to relate the items of the PMBOK 7th[1] to the processes of PMBOK 6th[5], and thus (i)
using the knowledge documented in PMBOK 6th[5] meet the needs of each Performance Domain and (ii) analyze how
each PMBOK 6th[5] process contributes to value creation according to the Performance Domains identified in the
PMBOK 7th[1].
In brief, this study aims to contribute with a model to support project tailoring and to aid project managers[5], who
find it difficult to apply the new approach oriented to value creation according to the Performance Domains identified
in the PMBOK 7th[1].

2. LiteratureReview

PMBOK was created in 1987 to document the knowledge of PM[3]. Over the years, PM has evolved and adapted
in an increasingly plural way[2]. Today’s projects diverge between different degrees of uncertainty, complexity and
risk[10][9]. Driven by the exponential development of technology, new approaches, such as agile methodologies, arise
in response to the high demand for immediate value delivery[10]
In 2021, the PMI emphasizes change-oriented PM releasing the PMBOK 7th[1] with the largest number of
evolutionary changes in a new version. From a process-based approach, PMI introduces a new paradigm based on
Principles and Performance Domains, focusing on emerging trends, such as tailoring, to enhance value delivery
through project results[3][4][2].
Until then, PMBOK 6th[5]presented an approach where the project life cycle was well defined, with five phases
associated with 49 processes. Each PM process produced one or more outputs of one or more inputs, using appropriate
PM techniques and tools[5]. Those processes and techniques intended to produce deliverables leave for background
the focus on creating value through the work done, and ultimately the response to the interest of stakeholders[8].
The seventh version of the PMBOK[1] advocates that projects not only produce outputs but more importantly,
enable them to generate results that ultimately add value to the organization and stakeholders[1]. Therefore an
Integrated Value Delivery System, consisting of eight Performance Domains, was developed: Interested parties;
Team; Development and Life Cycle Approach; Planning; Project Work; Delivery; Quantification; Uncertainty. These
domains are interactive, interrelated and independent, working in unison to achieve the project objectives[1].
 Filipe Amaro et al. / Procedia Computer Science 219 (2023) 1877–1884 1879
Filipe Amaro et al. / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2022) 000–000 3

Project tailoring is also highly encouraged in this seventh version[1] as the deliberate adaptation of PM
methodologies, governance and processes to the project environment and to the work to be performed. This subject is
enriched in the guide techniques and guidelines for decisions such as the project lifecycle as well as development
approaches.
In addition to the tailoring of the project, there is also a section dedicated to the presentation of Models, Methods
and Artifacts (Items) so that teams can build a framework for structuring their efforts to deliver the project
outcomes[1].

3. Methodology

This research’s main goal was to build a model to support project tailoring and assist project managers in structuring
efforts to deliver results, considering that Performance Domains are critical to value creation.
To guide and achieve the objectives of this work, it was needed to find a methodology oriented to problem-solving
through the development of an artifact and the production of new scientific knowledge. For being widely applied in
the Information Technologies research area[11] and for meeting the needs of this study[12], Design Science
Research[13] (DSR) was the chosen methodology, applied in 6 steps : 1.Problem Identification and motivation;
2.Solution’s objectives definition; 3.Design and development; 4.Demonstration; 5.Evaluation and 6.Communication.

3.1. Problem Identification

The identification of the problem began at the release of the PMBOK 7th[1] with the greatest number of
evolutionary changes between versions of the guide[2] and a disruptive view on PM. How the PMBOK 7th[1] and the
PMBOK 6th[5] could coexist and complement each other, in the execution of a project, led us to an exhaustive
literature review.
After this analysis, it was possible to identify related points between the two guides, in particular the section "4.
Models, Methods, and Artifacts" from the PMBOK 7th[1] which presents a catalogue of models, methods and artifacts
that correspond with the Techniques and Tools presented and used in PM Processes described in PMBOK 6th[5].

3.2. Solution’s Objectives Definition

The previous step allowed us to identify an integration point between PMBOK 6th [5] and 7th[1] and, from there,
establish a final goal for research: The creation of a model to support the project’s tailoring and assist project managers
to apply the new approach oriented to value creation according to eight Performance Domains identified in the
PMBOK 7th[1].

3.3. Design and Development

In order to deepen the use of tailoring models, methods and artifacts to the project, we considered it relevant to
consult their creation and application processes, documented in the sixth edition of PMBOK[5]. By knowing these
processes and knowing the project, the project manager can deliberate if he has the adequate resources to apply them
and develop the pretended item.
After analyzing versions six and seven, taking care not to invalidate the documented knowledge, a new goal was
defined: explore an integration point between the PMBOK 6th[5] and the PMBOK 7th[1] by correlating Items (models,
methods and artifacts), Performance Domains and Project Management Processes.
Our starting point was the mappings of Items with Performance Domains presented in PMBOK 7th, in tables 4-1,
4-2 and 4-3, respectively models, methods and artifacts.
Given the existence of three dimensions of items(models, methods and artifacts), and maintaining the structure of
the PMBOK 7th[1], this analysis was performed iteratively among the three items.
1880 Filipe Amaro et al. / Procedia Computer Science 219 (2023) 1877–1884
4 Filipe Amaro et al. / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2022) 000–000

To relate all the concepts (Items, Performance Domains and Processes) a criterion of direct relationship between
Items(PMBOK 7th[1]) and the Processes(PMBOK 6th[5]) was defined: (i) artifacts resulting from, or updated, through
a process, as well as (ii) models and methods performed in the processes. This implied the exclusion of the artifacts
documented as input, recognizing that, although they contribute to the creation of value, they do it indirectly and their
impact is less significant.
Then we started an exhaustive search for the correlation between PMBOK 6th[5] Processes and PMBOK 7th[1]
Items. The analysis consisted of an immediate first phase with the identification of PMBOK 6th[5] Processes where
the Items have the exact nomenclature of PMBOK 7th[1] and the identification of the PMBOK 6th[5] processes where
Items (commonly known by two or more nomenclatures) were referenced with a nomenclature equivalent to that used
in PMBOK 7th[1]. For the Items excluded from the previous phase, we performed a second intensive analysis using
the definitions documented in the PMBOK 7th[1] of each Item to identify their contextualization in the PMBOK 6th[5]
Process.
The analysis structured in two different moments allowed us to include all the concepts of PMBOK 7th[1] (Items
and Performance Domains) and PMBOK 6th[5] (Processes), in addition to making the process more efficient. At the
end of this analysis, as desired, it was possible to obtain a matrix whose cells represent the crossing between Items,
Performance Domains and PM Processes.

4. Contributions

As mentioned, the primary contribution of this research consists of a crossbreeding matrix of Performance domains
and Items (PMBOK 7th) with Processes (PMBOK 6th) that can be consulted in Appendix A.
Error! Reference source not found. A brief reference to Appendix A. in it, we can find the eight Performance
Domains of PMBOK 7th[1] and correspond with the number of models, methods and artifacts associated. In addition
to being able to quantify the number of Processes(PMBOK 6th[5]) that can be used to create or apply these items and
generate value according to the Performance Domains.

Table 1.Summary of the Correlation Matrix of Items, Domains of Performance and Management Processes

Performance Domain Models Methods Artifacts Nº Processes

Planning 15 101 235 49
Project Work 36 72 232 49
Delivery 6 65 135 47
Measurement 2 42 105 43
Stakeholders 18 43 83 43
Uncertainty 0 17 63 37
Team 24 7 10 21
Dev Approach and Life cycle 2 5 3 4

By itself, obtaining this Matrix corroborates the guidelines of the PMBOK 7th[1], as it proves the continued
relevance of PMBOK 6th[5] Processes, as well as the real possibility of those being applied in complementarity with
the new approach presented by PMBOK 7th[1].
By Error! Reference source not found.1 we can draw the first analytical conclusions, regarding the representation
of Processes in Performance Domains: (i) for Domains such as Planning and Project Work we verified a total
expression of the 49 Processes of the PMBOK 6th, (ii) however, for the Domain of Dev Approach and Life cycle the
representation is very reduced to only 4 Processes.
In the first instance, this is the reflection of PMBOK’s 7th[1] evolution, revealing a new focus on topics superficially
explored in previous versions, such as the use of agile methodologies and the customization of the project lifecycle.
On the other hand, it reinforces the PMBOK 7th’s appeal to teams not to limit themselves to the prescriptive use of
the PM guide and find new ways to respond to their needs.
 Filipe Amaro et al. / Procedia Computer Science 219 (2023) 1877–1884 1881
Filipe Amaro et al. / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2022) 000–000 5

The Performance Domains of a project are critical to the effective delivery of project results[1]. This was the motto
that led us to rethink the correlation matrix. We evolved it into a model that allows the tailoring of Processes to the
project, enhancing the creation of value by the Performance Domains through the creation or application of Items.
Figure 1 outlines a use case for this model.

Figure 1. Schematic representation of the steps to use the model developed

Initially, the user chooses the Performance Domain(s) that he wants to develop. For this Domain(s), a list of Items
recommended by PMBOK 7th[1] is presented, in the second stage, with the possibility of consulting the corresponding
processes. Based on these data, the manager deliberates the context of the project and decides, in step four, which
processes are adequate to develop the items and add value to the project results. Completing step five by performing
the selected process(es) to produce the Items and generate value through the Performance Domain initially chosen.

4.1. Demonstration

In order to demonstrate the use of this model, we present an example of a manager who intends to add value to his
project through the Performance Domain of Dev Approach and Life cycle. Through the model query, represented in
Table 2, he identifies eight Items documented in the PMBOK 7th[1] that can be developed in order to achieve his goal.

Table 2. Mapping (obtained through the model) of Items and Corresponding Processes for the Dev Approach and Life cycle Performance
Domain.
Items Processes
Cost-benefit ratio 12.1 Plan Procurement Management
Internal rate of return 12.1 Plan Procurement Management
Milestone schedule 4.1 Develop Project Charter
6.5 Develop Schedule
Net present value 12.1 Plan Procurement Management
Payback period 12.1 Plan Procurement Management
Return on investment 12.1 Plan Procurement Management
Roadmap 6.5 Develop Schedule
Stacey matrix 8.2 Manage Quality
8.3 Control Quality

Every Item displays the Processes associated. Adapting to the circumstances of the project the manager can, among
several options, (i) choose an item and select one of the associated processes to perform or (ii) execute the procurement
planning and management process that is associated with a significant number of Items and may indicate a great
potential for value creation in the Dev Approach and Life cycle Domain.
It is important to note that in PMBOK 6th[5], for each of the processes, there is a varied number of tools and
techniques associated, which may or may not correspond to the Items obtained in the model. Following the PMBOK
1882 Filipe Amaro et al. / Procedia Computer Science 219 (2023) 1877–1884
6 Filipe Amaro et al. / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2022) 000–000

7th[1] principle of tailoring and total adaptation of processes to the project, situations such as this should also be
analyzed and taken into account.

5. Conclusions

This investigation started at the release of the version with the highest number of evolutionary changes to PMBOK
7th[2]. Despite the disruptive nature of this new version, PMI clearly states that it does not invalidate the knowledge
documented previously. However, the coexistence of these two perspectives was initially an unclear subject.
After a thorough analysis of the PMBOK 6th[5] and the PMBOK 7th[1], it was possible to establish a link that
allows to integrate the knowledge of both versions through correspondence between the Techniques and Tools used
in the PM Processes of PMBOK 6th[5] and the Models, Methods and Artifacts of PMBOK 7th [1]. Given the less
procedural and prescriptive nature of PMBOK 7th[1], this relationship is important, as it allows the integration and
reuse of previous knowledge(from PMBOK 6th[5]) in the new context presented, as well as guiding teams in the
adoption/transition of the new paradigm.
Another result of the link between versions six[5] and seven[1] of the guide, was a crossbreeding matrix of
Performance Domains and Items (PMBOK 7th[1]) with Processes (PMBOK 6th[5]). In addition to the inherent value,
the matrix obtained corroborates the simultaneous applicability of the knowledge documented by PMI in the different
versions of PMBOK.
The correlation matrix was our primary output that we evolved into a model to support project tailoring whose
objective is to allow teams to deliver results through Performance Domains: by selecting Processes to be performed
in the project, value is generated through the Performance Domains by the creation or application of Items.
For future work, we identified the relevance of extending the Item and Process libraries, extending the research to
PM standards and guides beyond PMBOK. Ensuring a more diverse listing and an equitable response across all
Performance Domains.
 Filipe Amaro et al. / Procedia Computer Science 219 (2023) 1877–1884 1883
Filipe Amaro et al. / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2022) 000–000 7

Appendix A. Correlation Matrix of Items, Domains of Performance and Management Processes

D DA M P PW S T U GT D DA M P PW S T U GT
4.1 Develop Project Charter 7.1 Plan Cost Management
Art 2 1 2 6 2 4 1 18 Art 1 1
Mod 1 1 1 3 Met 1 2 1 1 5
4.2 Develop Project Management Plan 7.2 Estimate Costs
Art 1 1 1 1 4 Art 2 2 3 2 9
Met 2 1 1 4 Met 3 1 6 2 1 1 14
Mod 1 1 1 3 7.3 Determine Budget
4.3 Direct and Manage Project Work Art 1 3 4 3 1 12
Art 4 2 7 5 4 1 2 25 7.4 Control Costs
Met 4 4 2 1 11 Art 3 4 7 7 1 2 24
4.4 Manage Project Knowledge Met 1 4 2 1 1 9
Art 1 1 3 1 6 8.1 Plan Quality Management
Met 1 1 1 1 4 Art 6 3 9 8 2 2 30
4.5 Monitor and Control Project Work Met 3 2 4 1 1 11
Art 4 5 1 6 1 1 18 8.2 Manage Quality
Met 3 4 3 3 1 1 15 Art 7 4 6 11 1 2 31
4.6 Perform Integrated Change Control Met 5 2 4 4 1 1 17
Art 3 1 1 3 1 9 Mod 1 1 1 1 4
Met 2 1 2 1 6 8.3 Control Quality
Mod 4 4 4 12 Art 3 4 3 7 1 2 20
4.7 Close Project or Phase Met 3 1 2 2 1 1 10
Art 1 1 1 3 Mod 1 1 1 1 4
Met 1 3 2 2 2 1 11 9.1 Plan Resource Management
5.1 Plan Scope Management Art 1 4 4 1 2 1 13
Art 3 4 1 1 9 9.2 Estimate Activity Resources
Met 1 1 1 3 Art 2 1 4 5 1 2 15
5.2 Collect Requirements Met 1 4 1 1 7
Art 5 2 6 2 1 16 9.3 Acquired Resources
Met 1 1 1 3 Art 1 2 6 6 2 1 1 19
Mod 1 1 1 3 Met 1 1 1 1 4
5.3 Define Scope Mod 1 1 1 1 4
Art 6 2 8 2 3 1 22 9.4 Develop Team
5.4 Create WBS Art 1 3 5 1 1 11
Art 6 4 6 3 2 1 22 Met 1 1 1 1 4
Met 1 1 1 1 4 Mod 1 1 9 1 8 20
5.5 Validate Scope 9.5 Manage Team
Art 2 2 3 3 1 11 Art 1 2 3 5 1 12
Met 1 1 1 3 Met 1 1 1 1 4
5.6 Control Scope Mod 8 8 16
Art 6 5 8 6 3 28 9.6 Control Resources
Met 2 1 1 1 5 Art 2 3 5 8 1 2 21
6.1 Plan Schedule Management Met 2 1 2 2 1 1 9
Art 3 2 2 2 9 Mod 1 1 1 1 4
Met 2 1 1 4 10.1 Plan Communications Management
6.2 Define Activities Art 2 7 5 5 19
Art 2 2 2 2 2 1 11 Met 1 1 2
6.3 Sequence Activities Mod 1 1 1 1 4
Art 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 15 10.2 Manage Communications
6.4 Estimate Activity Durations Art 1 3 6 8 4 1 23
Art 3 2 2 2 1 10 Met 1 1 1 1 4
Met 4 7 4 3 1 19 Mod 1 1 2 2 2 8
6.5 Develop Schedule 10.3 Monitor Communications
Art 9 2 5 12 9 3 1 2 43 Art 1 5 6 5 17
Met 3 1 6 2 3 1 16 Met 1 1 1 1 4
6.6 Control Schedule Mod 1 1 1 1 4
Art 9 7 8 9 1 2 36 11.1 Plan Risk Management
Met 2 4 5 2 2 1 1 17 Art 1 2 3 2 8
Met 2 1 1 4
1884 Filipe Amaro et al. / Procedia Computer Science 219 (2023) 1877–1884
8 Filipe Amaro et al. / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2022) 000–000

D DA M P PW S T U GT
D DA M P PW S T U GT 12.2 Conduct Procurements
11.2 Identify Risks Art 5 4 10 8 3 2 32
Art 2 3 5 4 14 Met 1 2 2 2 7
Met 4 1 3 2 1 1 12 Mod 1 1 1 1 4
11.3 Perform Qualitative Risk Analysis 12.3 Control Procurements
Art 2 3 3 3 11 Art 2 3 6 6 2 1 20
Met 1 1 2 Met 1 2 2 1 1 7
11.4 Perform Quantitative Risk Analysis 13.1 Identify Stakeholders
Art 2 2 1 5 Art 3 8 6 4 3 24
Met 3 5 1 9 Met 1 2 2 5
11.5 Plan Risk Responses Mod 1 1 1 3
Art 5 3 12 11 1 3 35 13.2 Plan Stakeholder Engagement
Met 2 1 2 2 1 1 9 Art 2 1 2 5
11.6 Implement Risk Responses Met 2 1 1 1 1 6
Art 1 3 3 3 10 13.3 Manage Stakeholder Engagement
Met 1 1 1 1 4 Art 1 4 5 4 14
11.7 Monitor Risks Met 1 2 2 2 2 9
Art 3 2 5 7 1 4 22 Mod 1 1 2 2 1 7
Met 2 2 1 4 2 11 13.4 Monitor Stakeholder Engagement
12.1 Plan Procurement Management Art 1 7 8 5 1 22
Art 8 8 12 10 8 6 52 Met 3 1 4 5 2 1 1 17
Met 1 5 5 7 2 1 21
Legend:
D-Delivery; DA- Dev Approach and Life cycle;
M- Measurement; P-Planning; PW- Project Work;
S-Stakeholders; S-Schedule; T-Team; U-Uncertainty;
GT-Grand Total.

References

[1] Project Management Institute. (2021) “The standard for project management and a guide to the project
management body of knowledge”, 7th ed., Project Management Institute, Inc.
[2] Project Management Institute. (2022) “What’s New with PMI Standards & Publications”, https://www.pmi.org/pmbok-
guide-standards/about/current-projects.
[3] Mesquita V, Garcia B, Projetos H De, Credgrid A, Financeiros S.(2022) “Resenha Guia PMBOK e as modificações
da 7a Edição” in Inovação, Projetos e Tecnologias.
[4] Vieira JM. (2021) “PMBOK 7a Edição – O Que Mudou?” LIDER.
[5] Project Management Institute. (2017) “The standard for project management and a guide to the project
management body of knowledge”, 6th ed., Project Management Institute, Inc.
[6] Seymour T, Hussein S. (2014) “The History Of Project Management”, International Journal of Management &
Information Systems.
[7] Marcelino E, Domingues L. (2019) “An analysis of how well serious games cover the PMBOK”, Procedia
Computer Science: 1013-1020.
[8] Takagi N, Varajão J. (2020) “Success Management and the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK):
An Integrated Perspective – research-in-progress”, International Research Workshop on IT Project Management.
[9] Cardona-Meza LS, Olivar-Tost G. (2017) “Modeling and Simulation of Project Management through the
PMBOK® Standard Using Complex Networks” Complexity: 24-28.
[10] Project Management Institute. (2017) “Agile practice guide”, Project Management Institute, Inc.
[11] Cruz EF. (2011)” Design Science Research em Sistemas de Informação”.
[12] Pimentel M, Filippo D, Santoro FM. (2019) “Design science research”
[13] Ken Peffers , Tuure Tuunanen , Marcus A. Rothenberger & Samir Chatterjee (2007) “A Design Science Research
Methodology for Information Systems Research”, Journal of Management Information Systems: 45-77