All the work GAPPS produces is made freely available to use for yourself or your organisation.
All we ask is that you acknowledge GAPPS as a source on any documents you produce.
As program management has become a more widely recognised management approach, governments, individuals, and both public and private sector organisations have become interested in frameworks and standards that describe levels of acceptable workplace performance for program personnel.
The GAPPS saw this as an opportunity to produce guiding frameworks to support the development and recognition of local standards, and to provide a sound basis for mutual recognition and transferability of project, program, and other management role-related qualifications.
Our Guiding Frameworks include Leadership in Complexity, Project Managers, Program Managers, Project Sponsors, Project Controls, and Terms of Reference for Governance of Temporary Endeavours. We have also endorsed the i3d3 Model for Measuring Project Success developed by Bond University.
Projects and programs are not all the same. They have different levels of complexity and therefore offer different challenges.
The GAPPS has therefore developed frameworks for assessing and rating the relative complexity of projects and programs. These can be used as a basis for categorizing projects and programs and for determining and matching the level of competence required to lead and manage them. They can also be used to plan paths for experiential development of project and program based competence.
Our tools include Project Complexity, Program Complexity, Project Typology.
Compare Standards & Qualifications.
To help you compare the many competing standards for project, program and portfolio management we have mapped the following standards using GAPPS standards as the neutral spine.
GAPPS standards have been developed drawing on what is common across all existing standards in order to identify the common core covered by the majority of standards, provide a neutral basis for comparison. The comparison shows how well each standard covers the core and also identifies the extent to which each standard goes beyond the core.
Whilst the standards have been mapped to the relevant GAPPS standard, liability for use of the mapping for any purpose rests with the user. GAPPS does not provide qualifications or training against its standards, and therefore any use of this mapping should be referred to the owner of the standard mapped for confirmation of recognition of equivalence prior to usage.
Our tools include Standards for Project, Program and Portfolio Management, and Assessment Methods used in Project Based Qualifications.
To provide a neutral spine for comparison of project based standards, GAPPS draws upon existing standards (PMI, IPMA, AIPM, AACEI, ACostE, ECITB, ANCSPM / IBSA, SAQA, P2M, etc) to identify the most common elements.
These are then developed into Performance Based Competency Standards (PBCS) which complement knowledge based standards by describing what needs to be done in a particular role. Such standards, also called occupational standards (UK), are particularly useful as a basis for practical work-based assessment, and are widely used throughout the world, forming the basis of government endorsed standards and qualifications frameworks in Australia (Department of Education, Science and Training), New Zealand (New Zealand Qualifications Authority), South Africa (South African Qualifications Authority), and the United Kingdom (Qualifications and Curriculum Authority).
Although some of the terms and definitions of the GAPPS framework described differ in some respects from other PBCS, the overall approach is consistent and compatible with generally accepted practice within the field of competency development and assessment.