

  All Discussions  |  

  Hello Post  |  

  Direct Messages  |   

  Categories  |  

  How-To(Forum)

I asked ai how to improve the BoK

simon

Certainly! Here is a chapter-by-chapter analysis and an across-chapter synthesis of the “BIG-BoKwToC.pdf” (Guidebook for CxOs who want to improve strategy delivery – Business Integrated Governance CIC), focusing on mismatches, contradictions, omissions, errors, and dubious content, with suggestions for improvement.
Page numbers are referenced where possible, and issues are ranked by severity.

—

Chapter-by-Chapter Analysis

—

Foreword (pp. 3–13)

Strengths:

Sets context, introduces contributors, and establishes the motivation for BIG.
Shows breadth of experience and community input.

Issues:

Lack of Early Definition:
- “BIG” and “integrated governance” are not clearly defined up front (pp. 4–5).
- Suggestion: Add a concise definition and diagram on the first page after the foreword.
Redundancy and Repetition:
- Multiple contributors restate the same problems (disconnect between strategy and delivery, need for integration).
- Suggestion: Summarize testimonials and move detailed comments to an appendix.
Overly Positive Tone, No Critique:
- No mention of risks, limitations, or failures (pp. 4–13).
- Suggestion: Add a paragraph on challenges faced or lessons learned.

—

Chapter 1 – Summary and Purpose (pp. 14–17)

Strengths:

Attempts to clarify the document’s purpose and intended audience.

Issues:

Audience Ambiguity:
- Claims to target CxOs, but language and examples are more relevant to mid-level managers.
- Suggestion: Clearly differentiate which sections are for executives versus practitioners.
Lack of Roadmap:
- No clear “how to use this guide” or overview of the journey.
- Suggestion: Add a one-page roadmap or flowchart.

—

Chapter 2 – Introduction (pp. 18–23)

Strengths:

Provides historical context and rationale for integrated governance.

Issues:

Conceptual Vagueness:
- “Integration” and “governance” are discussed in abstract terms.
- Suggestion: Use concrete examples or case studies to illustrate concepts.
No Reference to Existing Standards:
- Mentions Praxis and Agile, but does not compare or contrast with other frameworks (e.g., ISO, COBIT).
- Suggestion: Add a comparison table.

—

Chapter 3 – The BIG Rationale (pp. 24–37)

Strengths:

Explains why a new approach is needed.
Identifies pain points in strategy delivery.

Issues:

Sweeping Claims:
- Statements like “BIG puts to bed pain-points common across all industry sectors” (p. 27) are unsubstantiated.
- Suggestion: Qualify such claims and provide supporting evidence.
Limited Practical Examples:
- Lacks real-world case studies.
- Suggestion: Add vignettes or case studies.

—

Chapter 4 – The BIG Framework: Key Concepts (pp. 38–60)

Strengths:

Begins to outline the actual framework and its key concepts.

Issues:

Delayed Introduction:
- Framework details appear late (after 30+ pages).
- Suggestion: Move a summary diagram to the front.
Ambiguous Metaphors:
- “Golden thread,” “glue,” and other metaphors are not defined (p. 38).
- Suggestion: Add a glossary or sidebar explanations.

—

Chapter 5 – The BIG Framework: Principles (pp. 61–64)

Strengths:

Lists guiding principles.

Issues:

Principles Are Abstract:
- Principles are stated at a high level without practical guidance.
- Suggestion: Provide examples of each principle in action.

—

Chapter 6 – The BIG Framework: Components (pp. 65–100)

Strengths:

Breaks down the framework into actionable components.

Issues:

Component Overlap:
- Some components appear to overlap in scope (e.g., “Governance” vs. “Accountability”).
- Suggestion: Clarify distinctions or merge overlapping sections.
Lack of Implementation Guidance:
- No step-by-step instructions for applying components.
- Suggestion: Add implementation checklists or templates.

—

Chapter 7 – Building a BIG Capability (pp. 101–114)

Strengths:

Focuses on organizational change and capability building.

Issues:

No Metrics or KPIs:
- Does not specify how to measure progress or success.
- Suggestion: Include sample KPIs and maturity models.
Change Management Gaps:
- Limited discussion of managing resistance or cultural barriers.
- Suggestion: Add a section on change management best practices.

—

Chapter 8 – Introduction to the BIG Journey (pp. 115–122)

Strengths:

Outlines a phased approach to adopting BIG.

Issues:

Lack of Real-World Timelines:
- No indication of how long each phase should take or typical pitfalls.
- Suggestion: Add timelines and common challenges.

—

Chapter 9 – Appendix 1: Models (pp. 123–134)

Strengths:

Provides supporting models and references.

Issues:

Model Integration:
- Models are not always clearly linked to earlier framework components.
- Suggestion: Cross-reference models with framework sections.

—

Chapter 10 – Appendix 2: More BIG Information (pp. 135–146)

Strengths:

Offers additional resources and context.

Issues:

Resource Overlap:
- Some information repeats earlier content.
- Suggestion: Streamline or reference earlier sections instead of repeating.

—

Chapter 11 – Glossary (pp. 147–150)

Strengths:

Defines key terms.

Issues:

Glossary Placement:
- Appears at the end; some terms are used much earlier without definition.
- Suggestion: Move key definitions to the front or add callouts.

—

Across-Chapter Analysis

—

Internal Contradictions & Omissions

Audience Confusion: Claims to be for CxOs, but much content is practitioner-level.
Implementation Gaps: Framework is described but lacks step-by-step or practical application guidance.
Evidence Gaps: Many claims are unsubstantiated by case studies or data.
Change Management: Cultural and organizational resistance is not addressed in depth.
Overlapping Content: Redundant testimonials, repeated explanations, and duplicated resources.

—

Dubious Content

Overstated Universality: Claims of applicability to “all organizations” without caveats.
Unqualified Success Claims: No mention of risks, failures, or limitations.

—

Summary Table of Issues and Suggestions

Chapter	Issue	Page(s)	Severity	Suggestion
Foreword	No early definitions, redundancy, no critique	3–13	High	Add definitions, summarize testimonials, mention challenges
1	Audience ambiguity, no roadmap	14–17	High	Clarify audience, add roadmap
2	Conceptual vagueness, no standards comparison	18–23	Med	Add examples, compare to standards
3	Sweeping claims, no case studies	24–37	High	Qualify claims, add evidence
4	Framework appears late, ambiguous metaphors	38–60	High	Move summary forward, define metaphors
5	Principles are abstract	61–64	Med	Add practical examples
6	Component overlap, lack of guidance	65–100	High	Clarify/merge, add checklists
7	No metrics/KPIs, change mgmt gaps	101–114	High	Add KPIs, change mgmt section
8	No timelines, lack of pitfalls	115–122	Med	Add timelines, common pitfalls
9	Models not cross-referenced	123–134	Low	Cross-reference with framework
10	Resource overlap	135–146	Low	Streamline, reference earlier
11	Glossary at end	147–150	Low	Move key terms forward

—

Concrete Suggestions for Improvement

Add an Executive Summary and Key Definitions early.
Clarify the audience and provide a “How to Use This Guide” section.
Move a visual overview of the BIG Framework to the front.
Qualify universal claims and add a “Limitations/Challenges” section.
Provide concrete case studies, KPIs, and implementation checklists.
Streamline testimonials and avoid repetition.
Cross-reference models and appendices with main framework sections.
Address change management and cultural resistance in depth.
Move or highlight key glossary terms at the start.

—

If you want a more granular, page-by-page breakdown or a focus on a specific chapter, please specify further!

Citations:
[1] BIG-BoKwToC.pdf https://ppl-ai-file-upload.s3.amazonaws.com/web/direct-files/attachments/69324168/eafef2a0-e99e-4a7e-8b4a-3a549b9050ba/BIG-BoKwToC.pdf
[2] BIG-BoKwToC.pdf https://ppl-ai-file-upload.s3.amazonaws.com/web/direct-files/attachments/69324168/eafef2a0-e99e-4a7e-8b4a-3a549b9050ba/BIG-BoKwToC.pdf

DD

Just seen this - will process soon!

Bolaji_Olaniru

Just read through the suggestions by AI. Thanks Simon! Would next step be to discuss what we intend to do with each issue raised? Bolaji

DD

Bolaji_Olaniru I think the AI generated ones provide sensible areas to look at - and I am sure there are others.

I see several possible routes through an update:

Clean up what exists - a tactical polish - e.g. corrections, reduce duplication (there is intentionally some), write better
Restructure what exists - reorganise to make more sense
I also think there are some concepts to challenge
There is additional content to create - who is going to create it?

We also need to define how to make decisions. The last version - I was the editor. I think I should continue to do that - BUT I think we need to have an editing group that raises matters that need review and more consensus.

I think we must get the editing group sorted, and gain their commitment to task - certainly before challenging 2, 3, 4.

This also needs operating and organising…

simon

ChrisB comparisons of BIG to other BoK’s/bodies is that BIG is focused on practical implementation rather than theoretical guidance.

Can you give an example of a body of knowledge that is theoretical guidance and not practical implementation tools and/or steps?

I can’t think of one from my experience.

I can identify every Body of Knowledge I have seen examined have an examination that is off the scale skewed away from “there is good advice in all guidance and standards that you could follow (or must add to make our guidance usable)” towards “if you don’t say what we say in the bok with the right commas then you’re wrong” Which is a stupid behaviour driven by the greedy pursuit of revenues: the main failings of PMI, PeopleSoft and the ‘agile industrial complex’. Together three wreckers of the P3M landscape.

ChrisB introduce modern ideas around sense-making and alignment.

And would you like to point to what you think these are? Perhaps there is a parallel to agile?that was the inventor of all the things we had known for 50 (or 500 years)

DD D"#p404 Does anyone want to pick up and run with this? I dont have time at the mo.

What do you mean by that? Are you saying does somebody want to take the lead in an update to the bok?

Is something I would be interested in doing this winter. Access to the text of the bok is a prereq.
As it currently stands it’s not a exportable from the PDF in any format because of the way it’s been constructed by the current tool.

DD

I’ve had a little time to look at the AI generated suggestions for improvement. This is a useful scope for reviewers to investigate. I have not had chance to go through the details and specifics of some general remarks, and the remarks below add in where I concur, dont agree, or I think it needs specific review.

Furthermore - this review does not touch the Accountability node content currently at V1. (e.g. Business Support)

I think we need to compile the stuff here into a manageable list - which we can supplement with human suggestions - then turn into a candidate to do list. But I think it is a great start for discussing improvements on what exists. We can review what additional content is arising by looking at the resources menu

Personally - unless someone has time to lead organising this (which would be fine by me) - I can’t drive it until after conference..

Here goes….

Audience Confusion: Claims to be for CxOs, but much content is practitioner-level. - So what?

Implementation Gaps: Framework is described but lacks step-by-step or practical application guidance. - This is sort of intentional - The Journey is at a high level to enable partners to offer services. We can always add something in if someone can write it for us?

Evidence Gaps: Many claims are unsubstantiated by case studies or data - lets pick these out and resolve. Specifically.

Change Management: Cultural and organizational resistance is not addressed in depth. I would say this is intentional to enable partners to offer services. We can always add something in if someone can write it for us?

Overlapping Content: Redundant testimonials, repeated explanations, and duplicated resources. Some explanations are repeated knowingly with the reader in mind Specifically. - lets pick these out and resolve.

Overstated Universality: Claims of applicability to “all organizations” without caveats. - lets pick these out and resolve.

Unqualified Success Claims: No mention of risks, failures, or limitations. - lets pick these out and resolve.

Add an Executive Summary and Key Definitions early. - The Management Summary is the first chapter after the foreword, and the first paragraph is a definition. What needs to change? To discuss.

Clarify the audience and provide a “How to Use This Guide” section. - This in in the Purpose and Audience section. What needs to change? To discuss.

Move a visual overview of the BIG Framework to the front. - this is a good suggestion - and it is a challenge to pick one diagram - but the answer may lie in here - https://big-cic.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/BIG-Picture-2.pdf?
I am sure there is a call for help on this on the Forum somewhere…

Qualify universal claims and add a “Limitations/Challenges” section. - this is fair comment - and the “Limitations/Challenges” section could be added to The BIG Rationale, at high level and in the Introduction to the BIG Journey section in the form of a discussion of risk? This is a ‘packageable’ job.

Provide concrete case studies, KPIs, and implementation checklists. - Yes, the case studies would be nice. And the KPIs - although I believe these will be difficult to establish generically for quite a while. There is a workstream to gather examples ( @Natalia_Jobson ) and the implementation checklist currently exist in the form of the Services Taxonomy (possibly a misnomer) in the Engagement Playbook.

Streamline testimonials and avoid repetition. I agreed to include the testimonials from people accepting there may be a little repetition - which I dont think is a very bad thing. To discuss.

Cross-reference models and appendices with main framework sections. There are already links to Links to External Material (appendix 2) and references to methods and models in Building a BIG Capability. What needs to change? To discuss.

Address change management and cultural resistance in depth. I dont believe this has an in depth place in the BoK. Neither does project management nor programme management. I was reticent to recreate a chapter on Adkar. What needs to change? To discuss.

Move or highlight key glossary terms at the start.

If the Management Summary and Purpose need a glossary - they need to be edited.
There are key glossary terms defined in the text were we thought needed. Are more needed?
Furthermore - There is a Key Concepts / principles section which brings in terms within the text.
I dont believe the glossary should be moved to the start. The glossary is signposted in the Purpose and Audience section - and I believe the norm is to add a glossary into the appendix. What needs to change? To discuss.

simon

My take on making the BoK more accessible is

https://big-exams.logicalmodel.net/flarum/public/d/71-complete-big-overviews

DD Audience Confusion: Claims to be for CxOs, but much content is practitioner-level. - So what?

I think there is a so what. ‘Directors’ (and sponsors) and practitioners need different focuses in the content one is rational and benefit (why) and the other is how-to potentially with a reference out to other foundational texts such as management of culture change and perhaps OKRs? ERP? & Product & P3 Mgmt?

½¢

ChrisB

DD Provide concrete case studies, KPIs, and implementation checklists.

First - the maturity assessments provide KPIs relevant to any BIG implementation or improvement or simple ongoing performance monitoring on a generic basis - applicable to BoK level. Individual organisations should define their own relevant measures to augment these and provide monitoring of more detailed steps using indicators that both track whether they are doing things they planned to when planned, and whether those are having the desired effect (test cause-effect assumptions).
Second - case studies - DD added some to the discussion on case histories here - I am working on adding more from my past experience and hopefully others will add them.
Third - Implementation checklists - I am not sure that the level of detail of the BoK allows for meaningful implementation checklists beyond overall consideration of key steps. I will submit a visual roadmap that can help with this I think - at the high level. I would expect that real implementation checklists would be generated as part of any detailed plan to implement BIG in an organisation. Probably samples of such checklists could be a useful addition to the BoK in relevant sections, but they will need to be supplied with a short overview providing context for those specific samples.

DD

Does anyone want to pick up and run with this? I dont have time at the mo.

ChrisB

One of the key differences that @DD points out in his ChatGPT comparisons of BIG to other BoK’s/bodies is that BIG is focused on practical implementation rather than theoretical guidance.

I think this a valuable differentiator and any update of the BoK should enhance this ‘practical’ approach and value. And when we drive practical implementation it is much easier to focus on implementation steps and advice that resonates with both CEO’s and lower level people, especially as the BoK will necessarily remain at a higher, more generic level of discussion.

And we do the need to add more substance around the change management (so-called cultural) requirements and steps. In this area we can discuss purpose, motivation, team work, etc., and introduce modern ideas around sense-making and alignment.

DD

Hi simon - Before the conference, I’m not going to have much time to gather, review or implement amendments.

3 aspects in my head:

Structure review - Have we got the right contents list in the right order? This might include what does into the BoK vs separate as resources. We can reconsider the tool used to edit it. At the moment - the content is in Adobe tool (InDesign).

Content review - have we got the right content on the chapters we have, and what new content is needed. It would be interesting if we could get some feedback on the BoK chapter by chapter

One aspect I would like ot improve is the writing style - to get it looked at professionally. We got some review - but that does not mean it is professionally written. That will cost.

IMO the task is related ot engagement and usage capture. I’m sure us experts can have a say (and believe me I took in a lot of feedback from some experts who were forthright in their views) in this area or that - but the hardest part I found was getting a balance. (well - the balance there is presently)

Laters
D

ChrisB

simon Can you give an example of a body of knowledge that is theoretical guidance and not practical implementation tools and/or steps?

PMI PMBoK describes processes at a generic level (or did up until v 6) but had no practical steps to implementation.
However, my comment was based primarily on what DD’s AI analysis showed - and I am not sure we can accept that at face value.

ChrisB

simon Access to the text of the bok is a prereq.

Fully agreed - it is not helpful to be unable to reformat/comment on the document - we need a version we can work with.

ChrisB

simon I can identify every Body of Knowledge I have seen examined have an examination

I was not thinking about examinations but about the basic BoK content.

simon

DD content is in Adobe tool (InDesign).

I know

Making it accessible as text here or via a wiki is IMO - a facilitator.
If you export to text files (and originals of pictures) I’ll do the rest…and take point on encouraging debate improvements

simon

ChrisB PMI PMBoK describes processes at a generic level (or did up until v 6) but

Their body of knowledge up to and including V6 was exactly a body of knowledge so not to implementation guide. as such it had no place providing implementation details to install project management tools and techniques or choose development life cycle.

The process model is university applicable. It models how to run any endeavour from after investment decision up to and including product handovers using any development life cycle one could care at to use and any control structure. ( Thus) it dovetail with PRINCE perfectly and with all agile paradigms (as does Prince)

It equally doesn’t contain information on how to evaluate business cases or the process by which a gate review is held or the possible outcomes nor how to match the different outcomes - although it does have a model that matches Go or Stop or Recycle for the investment or product quality…
It simply tells us the information flows and the tools and techniques that create those decision support packages.

I think that’s fine.
It’s a workable model
BIG can choose equivalent scope or to include a suggested implementation roadmap.
I would say that the CIC decouple implementation from the body of knowledge since they are different in intent.
make the implementation roadmap a value addition that is available to members where the bok is freely available to all.

The rationale will then be that the body of knowledge tells you what to do and if you want to take the trouble and expensive working out how to get that running go for it.
BUT if you want to shortcut the trouble and expensive of inventing everything from scratch then buy a pre-existing template and tailor it.
That gives partners a sales pitch to say they are expert in the implementation guide and can show how the body of knowledge is interpreted for the specific case that matches a particular enterprise

ChrisB

I am thinking here of work being done by teamAnimation (NewPM), appliedchange, Cunefyn’s SenseMaker, CoSteer and others. I was doing ‘agile’ before the Agile Manifesto was released and I don’t think this is analagous although of course we should always have been remembering that we have ‘two ears and only one mouth’.

simon

ChrisB was not thinking about examinations but about the basic BoK content

Then I repeat my assertion The bodies of knowledge are all good material written by experts for the guidance of other competent individuals.
Organisations that take commercial advantage of certification write syllabus & exams that pretend that by reading the bok one can go from beginner to expert - then it all gets skewed. Worse they then assert that everything not in their bok is wrong so they’re all competition are implicitly incorrect - and it all gets yet another skew

2¢~



  All Discussions  |  

  Hello Post  |  

  Direct Messages  |   

  Categories  |  

  How-To(Forum)