Project management
Study PMP through two connected KBC modules: Stakeholder Reporting and Integrated Controls. Explore 28 weekly sessions and 56 live teaching hours.
Develop the judgement to lead a project conversation and the technical understanding to support it. Kent Business College’s PMP preparation route contains two substantial, connected modules: Stakeholder Management, Communications and Reporting; and Project Planning, Scheduling and Integrated Controls. The first establishes whose decisions the project must support. The second creates the plans, baselines and performance evidence behind those decisions.
Teaching is delivered online by Kent Business College, UK. Each module comprises 14 weekly sessions of two hours, giving 28 sessions and 56 live teaching hours across the two-module route. The overall programme is normally planned over approximately eight months, including scheduled breaks and consolidation. Your cohort timetable sets the actual dates; the calendar duration and the number of live sessions describe different things.
Work through practical cases, develop connected outputs and explain the reasons behind your choices. The course combines PMP-oriented scenario study with professional application. KBC teaching and course completion certification are separate from the PMP credential, which PMI awards through its own eligibility, application and examination process.
Work through 2 connected modules, with a practical focus and defined outputs for every teaching session. Open individual sessions below, or expand the complete plan.
Module 1 · 14 sessions · 28 live hours
PMP Module 1: understand stakeholders, create useful reporting and influence decisions through evidence, dialogue and professional judgement.
Distinguish project outputs from intended outcomes, requirements from preferred solutions, and authority from influence. Use a bounded project to explain the sponsor, decision owner, constraints and acceptance criteria in plain English.
Practical output: A project-context statement, key definitions and an initial learning reflection.
Identify affected people, information providers and decision-makers. Compare influence and interest with legitimacy, urgency and dependency, and explain whose perspective a single stakeholder matrix could miss.
Practical output: A dated stakeholder map with a rationale and a record of missing voices.
Practise interviewing, listening and summarising back. Turn broad requests into specific information needs and acceptance conditions, distinguishing preferences from essential requirements and making uncertainty visible.
Practical output: Interview questions and a checked stakeholder-needs summary.
Match the format, detail, frequency and channel to the decision or relationship need. Consider a sponsor brief, technical discussion and accessible visual summary, including time zones and different participation needs.
Practical output: An audience-specific communication and engagement plan.
Design a discussion that surfaces assumptions and draws in relevant expertise. Practise useful questions, balanced participation and accurate summarising, then use observation and feedback to improve your facilitation.
Practical output: A meeting design and a feedback-informed facilitation review.
Separate consultation, recommendation, approval and accountability. Follow an urgent scope request through the appropriate people and identify when a responsibility matrix needs a clearer decision owner.
Practical output: A responsibility map, escalation route and concise decision record.
Explore interests beneath stated positions and compare responses to disagreement. Practise challenging a weak assumption using evidence, while recognising the limits of informal negotiation and the need for escalation.
Practical output: A reasoned response to a disagreement and an updated engagement action.
Inspect a project dataset for missing dates, inconsistent status definitions and outdated claims. Distinguish observation, interpretation and assumption, and decide which messages the available evidence can support.
Practical output: A checked evidence extract with source, date and qualification notes.
Create a concise report that names the decision, explains options and shows the consequence of acting or waiting. Adapt the presentation for a package manager, sponsor or governance audience without changing the underlying facts.
Practical output: A one-page decision brief with a clear recommendation and assumptions.
Test whether a message has been understood and whether an engagement approach is working. Use feedback to revise the plan and explain why some requests are adopted while others need a different response.
Practical output: A revised engagement plan showing the feedback and the resulting change.
Consider how hierarchy, confidence and remote working affect who contributes. Design accessible meetings, advance information and follow-up so that colleagues can raise concerns and provide useful challenge.
Practical output: An inclusive participation plan with explicit questions and follow-up responsibilities.
Respond to an apparently positive project status whose supporting evidence is incomplete. Communicate the concern proportionately, identify what needs checking and defend the escalation to a questioning sponsor.
Practical output: A difficult-message briefing and an evidence-based escalation recommendation.
Bring the stakeholder map, decision rights, engagement plan, reporting specification and decision brief together. Check their consistency and explain the alternatives you rejected when selecting your approach.
Practical output: A complete communication evidence pack and a professional presentation.
Revise the pack after challenge, revisit earlier concepts through scenario questions and identify a meaningful workplace application. Translate stakeholder needs into the scope, acceptance and reporting requirements that Module 2 will develop.
Practical output: A revised pack, learning priorities and a clear handover into integrated controls.
Module 2 · 14 sessions · 28 live hours
PMP Module 2: connect scope, schedules, resources, estimates, baselines, performance and change into a coherent controls model.
Read a project brief, requirements or suitable technical source. Identify deliverables, interfaces, exclusions and assumptions, and explain how safety, sustainability and acceptance requirements affect the work to be planned.
Practical output: A bounded scope statement with acceptance criteria and an assumptions record.
Organise the scope into a work breakdown and coding approach that connects responsibility, schedule and cost. Test completeness, avoid double counting and trace how a work item appears across different records.
Practical output: A linked work breakdown, coding structure and responsibility view.
Define activities, durations, milestones and logical relationships. Examine missing links, unjustified lags and imposed dates, and explain the network manually before relying on scheduling software.
Practical output: A logic-linked schedule with a clear explanation of its dependencies.
Find the activities that govern completion and distinguish float from spare capacity. Examine calendars, resource availability and compression choices, explaining their implications for time, cost, quality and risk.
Practical output: A schedule critique and a compared resource or compression scenario.
Compare analogous, parametric and bottom-up approaches for the available information. Make quantities, rates, sources, exclusions and uncertainty explicit, and distinguish an estimate from an authorised budget.
Practical output: A transparent estimate with its basis, assumptions and limitations.
Check scope coverage, quantities, rates and benchmark comparability. Examine how procurement lead times, payment arrangements and contractual responsibilities influence a proposed delivery approach and its estimate.
Practical output: An estimate-assurance review and a commercial consistency check.
Bring scope, schedule, resources and cost into a coherent reference for control. Define approval responsibilities, measurement rules and reporting arrangements, and identify unresolved conditions before recommending baseline acceptance.
Practical output: A defended baseline proposal and proportionate project controls plan.
Select evidence-based rules for measuring work. Distinguish time elapsed, effort spent and achieved outputs, and inspect whether reported percentages reflect observable completion within the agreed scope.
Practical output: A measurement rulebook and a worked progress-evidence example.
Calculate planned value, earned value and actual cost using a consistent scope and reporting date. Explain cost and schedule indicators together and investigate causes before proposing a response.
Practical output: Checked performance calculations with a plain-English variance commentary.
Compare remaining-work estimates with forecasts informed by observed performance. Test when historical productivity remains relevant, and explore the effect of a late interface, resource restriction or changed assumption.
Practical output: A forecast comparison showing methods, assumptions and plausible scenarios.
Trace a proposed change through scope, schedule, resources, cost, commercial commitments and risk. Distinguish a corrective action from a baseline change and identify the decision authority and consequences of delay.
Practical output: An integrated change recommendation with a traceable approval route.
Trace information from source through validation and reporting. Review access, versions, error handling and audit records, then check any AI-assisted narrative or calculation against the source and an independent manual method.
Practical output: A validated reporting workflow with checks, limitations and human responsibilities.
Turn the connected controls evidence into a focused management recommendation. Explain what is known, what remains uncertain and what action is needed, drawing on the audience and decision skills developed in Module 1.
Practical output: A decision-focused controls report supported by an inspectable evidence pack.
Challenge the baseline, progress evidence and forecasting method. Respond to a changed assumption without relying on a prepared script, revise the pack after feedback and identify the next improvement to the controls process.
Practical output: A revised integrated controls pack and a defended improvement recommendation.
Apply the learning
Develop two complementary packs around an appropriate project or approved case. First establish stakeholders, success criteria, decision rights and reporting needs. Then use that context to create and examine an integrated plan, interpret performance and recommend a response. Your work should show how the technical evidence changes the conversation, and how the stakeholder need shapes the analysis.
Use anonymised, public or suitable synthetic material where workplace information is confidential. The issued assessment brief confirms the required evidence.
Teaching and the relevant course certificate are provided through Kent Business College in the UK. A Kent Business College course certificate is distinct from a separate professional-body qualification or examination. Eligibility, the exact award and any examination inclusions are confirmed for the chosen route.
A technically correct schedule is difficult to use when nobody has agreed what success means or who can approve a change. Equally, a persuasive report becomes fragile when its underlying scope, status date or forecast cannot be explained. The two modules address these connected challenges in sequence.
Module 1 produces the stakeholder requirements and decision context. Module 2 turns them into a controlled delivery model, then brings the results back to the people who must act. Communication, evidence quality and professional judgement continue across both modules rather than ending at a module boundary.
Stakeholder expectations become scope, acceptance criteria, reporting requirements and approval responsibilities.
A change, variance or forecast becomes a clear recommendation for the appropriate decision-maker.
The live sessions combine explanation, worked examples, discussion and guided application. Between sessions, reading, short learning resources, retrieval questions and applied work give you time to revisit difficult ideas and develop your own outputs.
The KBC curriculum develops the work through monthly stages: establish understanding, apply an approach, examine the evidence and defend an integrated recommendation. The issued learning plan identifies submission dates and the appropriate case or workplace task. Preparation, assignments and consolidation sit alongside the 56 live teaching hours.
PMP preparation develops understanding and scenario judgement against the applicable PMI examination outline. An applied project pack develops your ability to select a method, use information and explain a real decision. Both are useful, but a strong quiz score and a strong workplace artefact demonstrate different things.
If you are also enrolled on a PMO or Project Controls Professional programme, relevant work may support that route through separate mapping and review. The issued assessment brief determines what is required. A teaching case remains a teaching case; it does not become evidence of work you carried out for an employer.
It is a two-module route. Each module has 14 weekly two-hour sessions, so the combined programme has 28 live sessions and 56 live teaching hours. The two full module outlines are shown separately.
The calendar includes the taught sessions and planned space for breaks, reading and consolidation. KBC’s curriculum distinguishes these from the live teaching count. Your cohort timetable confirms the dates and any optional masterclass arrangements.
KBC course completion and the PMI credential are separate. PMP certification requires the applicable PMI eligibility, application and examination requirements. Your enrolment information confirms what teaching, materials and examination arrangements are included.
Yes. You examine how stakeholder engagement, planning detail, feedback and control arrangements should reflect uncertainty and the delivery context. You are expected to justify an approach, not apply one method to every project.
Potentially, where you are separately enrolled and the evidence meets that programme’s requirements. Shared work needs explicit mapping and its own assessment decision. These two modules alone do not confer a PMO qualification or complete a Project Controls Professional apprenticeship.
Discuss your experience and objectives with KBC. The modules form a connected route, and the learning plan should identify the preparation needed if you join a particular module separately.
Further reading and programme references · reviewed 18 October 2026
