Proof of Knowledge Transfer

To successfully pass the GPM/IPMA Level D certification exam you need to hand in a so called Proof of Knowledge Transfer. That's a document which, based on a smaller real project, proves that apply everything you've learned. Here you can download my proof of knowledge transfer -- perhaps you can use it as an inspiration (that is: now as a source) for your own.

So just click here and download it.

Attentions

In the meantime the requirements for the contents of those proofs of knowledge transfer have changed. The maximum number of pages also is limited to 60, which is about half of what I have. Since the document you can donwload here is written according to the old requirements, I don't know how useful it can be for you.

Still, perhaps my proof of knowledge transfer can serve as a standard of comparison for your's -- I think the level and tone should still be about the same.

Feedback

After the oral exam the PM-ZERT assessors offer some insightful feedback regarding the proof of knowledge transfer. Unfortunately you don't have the opportunity to make some notes -- so the following has been reconstructed from memory:

• The general impression is good, almost exclusively strong chapters, great typography.

• The project charter is all good but missing the costs..
  (Right, I forgot to put the costs in -- they most certainly belong in there.)

• The goals chapter does not differentiate between the employers goals and the goals of the project itself. The employers goals are taken as goals of project without reflection.
  (Right, that could have been done much better.)

• Within the stakeholder analysis I don't include costs of the actions to be taken.

• The chapter conerned with risks is rather weak as a whole. Especially the assessors criticized that I have a risk in there with a probability of occurence of 70%. That's too much.
  (Admittedly that topic could have been treated somewhere outside of the risk analysis. 70% is almost as bad as 100% so I could have put that topic as a fixed negative aspect. Given.)

• The amount of loss and the value at risk aren't given in Euro but on an abstract scale.
  (In the text I explain why I think that this is sensible but the assessors didn't seem to follow my argumentation. Fine with me.)

• The risk portfolio is missing the arrows showing the directions any activities to counteract the risks should take. The costs of those activities aren't show.

• The chapter concerned with project organisation is good but rather thin. Some more explanation would have been appropriate with the topics of escalation and decision-making bodies.

• The chapter project phases is pretty good. The graphical representation of the project phases is missing the annotation of the X axis, which would show the project weeks.
  (Forgot.)

• The chapter resources is good. It would have been better, however, if I hadn't left out the material costs.

• In graphical representations of hierarchical information the levels of hierarchy are interconnected wrongly.
  (Pretty sad for computer guy who normally thinks quite hierarchically -- still the assessors are right. I took that shortcut, because it was easier and quicker to draw and I didn't think that anyone would notice. They did, unfortunately...)

• Anything else was positive.