Volunteer Group Guidelines 2017: Fill & Download for Free

'What are some ways to encourage pharmaceutical companies to share their data? Who will be the key stakeholders involved and what roles do they play?'Why is clinical trial data transparency and sharing important? Regulators use this data to approve new drugs and only relatively recently has the general public become aware of the extent to which such decisions hinge on handpicked data sets while an unknown amount remain unpublished, in both clinical trial registries as well as in peer-reviewed scientific journals. If a drug's approved based on part, not all, of the data on it, how could we be sure it's as effective and safe as claimed?This answer addresses the roles, responsibilities and incentives of both academia and biopharma since both are involved in the discussion on clinical trial data sharing and data transparency. Key stakeholders in clinical trial data include both decision makers as well as hapless participants who still aren't part of the decision making process.Decision makers are regulators, scientists, academia, biopharma and science publishing, all of whom have in recent years fostered the notion through regulations and abundant posturing that the entire biomedical research ecosystem from individual investigators on to entities that fund and publish their research is in favor of data transparency and keen to share clinical trial data with peers, partners and maybe even the general public (1).Unfortunately, studies continue to find that a substantial portion of data from completed clinical trials never see the light of day (2, 3). Such analyses also show the rule-makers themselves to be big-time rule-breakers.IMO understanding the main obstacles that prevent clinical trial data sharing from becoming the norm helps understand the kind of policy prescriptions necessary to bring about change.Perverse incentives and absence of tangible incentives for data sharing keep scientists chained to a hyper-competitive, publish-or-perish, winner take all attitude to the scientific data they generate. Their promotions, tenures and grants are decided by their publication, not their data sharing, record (4).Regulators (FDA, EMA, etc.), employers (research institutions, universities) and funders (governments, foundations, academia, industry) remain stubbornly blind to how data sharing remains antithetical to what it takes to forge a successful scientific career.In a scientific culture that prizes originality and novelty above all, scientists currently do not benefit from sharing their data or by mining other people's data to glean new insights simply because funders, journals and employers presently do not similarly reward them as they do those who publish original and novel data generated from their own studies.Total data transparency weakens incentive for drug repurposing, Drug repositioning - Wikipedia, which has increasingly become a lifeline that sustains biopharma revenue in an age where new products have become increasingly expensive and time-consuming to roll out (5, 6).Proposed regulatory solutions fail to adequately address need to protect trade secrets and proprietary information, and do not provide requisite relief and mitigation. Rather, they ignore the real constraints that both academia and biopharma face today and instead exhort them to share data by paternalistically highlighting obligations to volunteer participants. Ignoring such real constraints might instead serve to foster a backlash in the form of inventive expansions of what actually constitute trade secrets and proprietary information, a reaction that would end up helping no one.A systematic review found 85 opinion pieces on the importance of developing incentives for researchers to share their data but fewer studies, 76, that actually tested approaches to increase data sharing (7). Most of the approaches tested entailed mere tinkering around the edges and nothing substantive.Clearly, a substantial gap exists between stated intent and actual actions. Data sharing needs to become part of clinical trial design and a critical aspect for scientific career progression (1). Typically, researchers plan a study with the intention of analyzing the data and publishing a peer-reviewed report upon completion. No thought is given to how the data will be stored such that it's easy to share so others can re-analyze it and neither is data sharing deemed merit-worthy for a scientist's career progression.Clinical trial participants are MIA in these discussions. No clinical trial participants, no clinical trial, no results, no new drugs. As simple as that. Given they're so central to this issue, why are trial participants nowhere to be seen or heard in this debate (8)?Paternalism continues to dominate the biomedicine culture but the general public's passivity and apathy makes it equally culpable.In recent decades, patient and disease advocacy groups have started notching impressive wins and gained accelerated access to new therapies, HIV/AIDS and cancer being cases in point. However, the weakness inherent to the tactics these groups have used thus far is to focus not on the totality but rather narrowly only on enhancing the speed of the drug approval process. Doing so ended up with regulators and drugmakers both cutting corners in the decision making process whereas fighting to get a seat at the table through legislative and regulatory means would have had a far more consequential and beneficial effect with respect to data sharing and transparency.Rest of this answer detailsA recap of regulations mandating clinical trial data be reported and published.Efforts to change the status quo by Ben Goldacre - Wikipedia, the reigning enfant terrible in the clinical trial space, and his collaborative initiative, AllTrials - Wikipedia.Quick recap of recent regulatory developments in the US clinical trial space as well as important global players1997: Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997 - Wikipedia is passed. The FDAMA led to the creation of ClinicalTrials.gov - Wikipedia, currently the world’s largest online clinical trial registry.2000: ClinicalTrials.gov - Wikipedia comes online, maintained by United States National Library of Medicine - Wikipedia (NLM), a permanent institute within the US NIH.2007: Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007 - Wikipedia is passed. The FDAAA mandates the following (9),All applicable clinical trials to be prospectively registered at ClinicalTrials.gov - Wikipedia.Data should include information on study participants, summary outcomes, particularly adverse events.Mandatory publication of trial results upon completion.Section 801 of FDAAA establishes penalties for non-compliance. For example, US $10000 per day if trial results not posted within 12 months of completion.Applicable trials entail those other than Phase I and with at least one study site in the US.Limitations of FDAAA that end up excluding data on vast majority of treatments in use today,Excludes clinical trial results obtained pre-2007.Only requires publication of trials completed after 2008.Not to mention strikingly unenforced.In response to poor compliance with these reporting requirements, US regulators tightened perceived ambiguity and issued what is called the Final Rule in September 2016 (10).Also note that the US FDA has dismantled patient protections with regard to international clinical trials. Declaration of Helsinki - Wikipedia is the international code of medical ethics which stresses that everyone involved in a clinical trial has a duty to make the findings public. Specifically, in 2009 after years of insisting that companies applying for marketing authorization for a drug in the US needed to provide evidence that all foreign trials had been compliant with the Helsinki declaration, the FDA diluted its position by pegging such trials to the much lower standard of the International Conference on Harmonization (ICH) Good Clinical Practice (GCP) guidelines (11). As Goldacre points out,These guidelines are only voted on by members of the EU, USA and Japan.They are more focused on procedures while Helsinki focuses on moral principles.Over the years, GCP has become the main ethical regulation of trials in the developing world, a sign of expediency trumping Informed consent - Wikipedia.This kind of thinking is penny-wise, pound-foolish since no matter the experimental drugs in question get initially tested on non-US populations, once approved in the US, they'd be consumed by Americans, no?The WHO. Mainly soft not hard power. On May 18, 2017, major research funders across the world, now numbering 21, released a statement on the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform pledging to implement self-avowed policies and impose audits to ensure trials they fund are reported (12). US regulators notably MIA in this statement. As the global public health organization of record, the WHO has substantial soft power it could bring to bear in mediating or nudging organizations that fail to measure up during periodic audits.The ICMJE (International Committee of Medical Journal Editors): ICMJE recommendations - Wikipedia. It announced in 2005 that (see below from 13),'The ICMJE member journals will require, as a condition of consideration for publication, registration in a public trials registry. Trials must register at or before the onset of patient enrollment. This policy applies to any clinical trial starting enrollment after July 1, 2005. For trials that began enrollment before this date, the ICMJE member journals will require registration by September 13, 2005, before considering the trial for publication.'With 16 journal members In 2017, up from 11 in 2004, ~3300 journals now reportedly follow ICMJE recommendations. To neutralize a perceived barrier to publication, ICMJE allows trial results to be posted to clinical trial registries (14, 15).Ben Goldacre - Wikipedia & The AllTrials EffortA physician by training who morphed into a journalist, writer and activist, Ben Goldacre is well-known in his native Britain for his two polemics, Bad Science (book) - Wikipedia and Bad Pharma - Wikipedia. His energizer bunny-like advocacy wedded to a keen sense of the fierce urgency of now makes him a compelling figure while his writing, though often hyperbolic, manages to remain engaging even when analyzing hard science or posting trenchant criticisms of prevailing policies and pervasive conflicts of interests among the deciders in the clinical trial space.Through the collaborative launch of AllTrials, Goldacre is expending yeoman effort to upend the inimical status quo of cherry-picked clinical trial data often serving as the basis for new drug approval, leaving the rest hidden and unpublished.Unlike the FDAAA, AllTrials calls for registration and publication of all clinical trials on all treatments in current use. AllTrials' definition of publication includes full reporting of methods as well as publication of negative data.As of December 2017, a total of 735 organizations from all over the world have joined AllTrials while 91006 people have signed the AllTrials petition (16). On the one hand, this seems promising.OTOH, 622 organizations and 87956 petitioners as of 24 April, 2016 (see page 7 of 17) means over 20 months, 113 organizations but only 3050 additional individuals signed a petition supporting this initiative.Clearly, there's a sharp contrast between institutional and individual participation in the AllTrials effort. Such an anemic individual participation rate only underscores how passive and apathetic even patients and disease advocacy groups remain about one of the most critical aspects of biomedicine, namely, transparency of clinical trial data.Bibliography1. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK269030/pdf/Bookshelf_NBK269030.pdf2. Tirumalai Kamala's answer to Why are some clinical trials finished, but the results not reported?3. Tirumalai Kamala's answer to Why are some clinical trials finished, but the results not reported?4. Friesike, Sascha, and Thomas Schildhauer. "Open science: many good resolutions, very few incentives, yet." Incentives and Performance. Springer International Publishing, 2015. 277-289.5. Brassington, Iain. "The ethics of reporting all the results of clinical trials." British medical bulletin 121.1 (2017): 19-29. ethics of reporting all the results of clinical trials | British Medical Bulletin | Oxford Academic6. Baghai, Tabassom. "Lack of clinical trial data transparency and current solutions." University of Ottawa Journal of Medicine 7.1 (2017). https://ottawa.scholarsportal.info/ojs/index.php/uojm-jmuo/article/download/2021/18617. Rowhani-Farid, Anisa, Michelle Allen, and Adrian G. Barnett. "What incentives increase data sharing in health and medical research? A systematic review." Research Integrity and Peer Review 2.1 (2017): 4. https://researchintegrityjournal.biomedcentral.com/track/pdf/10.1186/s41073-017-0028-9?site=researchintegrityjournal.biomedcentral.com8. Haug, Charlotte J. "Whose Data Are They Anyway? Can a Patient Perspective Advance the Data-Sharing Debate?." New England Journal of Medicine 376.23 (2017): 2203-2205. http://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMp17044859. https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-110publ85/html/PLAW-110publ85.htm10. National Institutes of Health. "Clinical Trials Registration and Results Information Submission. Final rule." Federal register 81.183 (2016): 64981. https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2016-09-21/pdf/2016-22129.pdf11. https://www.fda.gov/downloads/RegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM294729.pdf12. http://www.who.int/ictrp/results/ICTRP_JointStatement_2017.pdf13. De Angelis, Catherine, et al. "Clinical trial registration: a statement from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors." (2004): 1250-1251. http://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMe04822514. http://icmje.org/icmje-recommendations.pdf15. Dal‐Ré, Rafael. "The ICMJE trial data sharing requirement and participant's consent." European journal of clinical investigation (2016).16. Supporters17. Breil, Thomas, et al. "An Assessment of Publication Status of Pediatric Liver Transplantation Studies." PloS one 11.12 (2016): e0168251. http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0168251&type=printableThanks for the R2A, Jeffrey Brender.

The Party’s ninety-million volunteers take the same oath⁠[1] today as they did a century ago: “I promise to bear the people’s hardships first and enjoy the benefits last.” Few benefit⁠[2] financially from membership and, between them, they contribute a billion dollars in annual dues and billions of volunteer hours leading China to dàtóng.Here’s the current composition of the Party’s membership:Half have at least a junior college degree,forty percent are women,one-third are ‘exemplary farmers, herdsmen and fishermen,’a quarter are white-collar workers,a sixth are retirees,one-tenth are ethnic minorities⁠[3] andseven million work for the government.Two-thirds of their leaders have graduate degrees and one-fourth have doctorates.They vote democratically–on a one man, one vote basis–for senior Party and government appointments. Surveys suggest that people are pleased with the direction they’ve set for the country.Admission to membership has always been highly restrictive and the process takes years. Candidates explain their motives for applying; list personal shortcomings along with detailed personal, financial and political information about themselves and their families; include recommendations from two Party members; and supply character references from two non-relatives who will be accountable for them for life. During the application process they attend weekly classes in Party history and ideology and participate in volunteer activities. Three quarters of university graduates apply but only a tenth succeed.So membership is pretty democratic already, and China’s governance process makes it the world’s leading democracy. Here’s why:Constitutionally, China’s constitution stipulates, “The State organs of the People’s Republic of China apply the principle of democratic centralism. The National People’s Congress and the local people’s congresses at various levels are constituted through democratic elections. They are responsible to the people and subject to their supervision. All administrative, judicial and procuratorial organs of the State are created by the people’s congresses to which they are responsible and by which they are supervised”. America’s founders carefully omitted the word ‘democracy’ from all Constitutional documents. For at least paying lip service to democracy, we must award a point to China.Electively, China’s bigger, more transparent elections were designed and supervised by The Carter Center which continues to expand the franchise at the behest of Premier Wen Jiabao, who told them in 2012, “The experience of many villages shows farmers can succeed in directly electing village committees. If people can manage a village well they can manage a township and a county. We must encourage people to experiment boldly and test democracy in practice”. Today, 3,200 democratically elected Congressional representatives must vote, almost unanimously, to approve all senior appointments and all legislation. In the U.S., wealthy, unelected people propose and fund candidates for election. An unelected Electoral College chooses the chief executive. China 2–USA 0.Popularly, the Chinese, who still bear scars of recent governance mistakes, will tell you that it was when Mao, Deng and the Qing Emperor ignored experts that they got the country into trouble. Today, Chinese democracy resembles Proctor and Gamble more than Pericles. There are more than a thousand polling firms in China and its government spends prolifically on surveys, as author Jeff J. Brown says, “My Beijing neighborhood committee and town hall are constantly putting up announcements, inviting groups of people–renters, homeowners, over seventies, women under forty, those with or without medical insurance, retirees–to answer surveys. The CPC is the world’s biggest pollster for a reason: China’s democratic ‘dictatorship of the people’ is highly engaged at the day-to-day, citizen-on-the-street level. I know, because I live in a middle class Chinese community and I question them all the time. I find their government much more responsive and democratic than the dog-and-pony shows back home, and I mean that seriously”. Even the imperious Mao would remind colleagues, “If we don’t investigate public opinion we have no right to voice our own opinion. Public opinion is our guideline for action,” which is why Five Year Plans are the results of intensive polling. Citizens’ sixty-two percent voter participation suggests that they think their votes count. Princeton’s Gilens and Page, on the other hand, examining the causes of Americans’ fifty-two percent voter participation, found ‘the preferences of the average American appear to have a near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy’. China 3–USA 0.Procedurally, The Chinese engineers, economists, statisticians and sociologists who develop policies practice democracy among themselves and the top seven decision makers–appointed independently of each other and with a collective 200 years governing experience–require at least six votes to send legislation to Congress. If President Xi claimed that global warming is a hoax he would be regarded as autocratic, not democratic. If he wants a new climate policy and persuades five colleagues to support it, he can push it into the trials pipeline but, without solid trial data, he can’t propose legislation and the popularly elected, unpaid congress has proven willing to delay leaders’ pet projects for decades. Data-driven democracy has steadily narrowed the gap between public expectations and government capacity, which is why Chinese support for government policies stands at 96 percent, higher than even Switzerland’s or Singapore’s and far higher than our twenty percent. China 4–USA 0.Operationally, American presidents resemble the medieval monarchs upon whom their office was modeled, as Abraham Lincoln’s Secretary of State, William Henry Seward, observed, “We elect a king for four years and give him absolute power within certain limits which, after all, he can interpret for himself”. Our presidents hire and fire all senior officials, secretly ban fifty thousand citizens from flying, order people kidnapped, tortured, imprisoned and assassinated and take the country to war. No Chinese leader, not even Mao at his peak, could do any of those things. The president cannot even choose his prime minister (always his strongest rival for the presidency), can only make decisions with 6–1 or 7–0 support from colleagues and can’t hire or fire officials, elect, assign or suspend members of Congress. As Stanford VC Robin Daverman explains, China’s initiatives rely on math: “Major policies undergo ‘clinical trials,’ beginning in small towns that generate and analyze test data. If the stats look good, they’ll add test sites and do long-term follow-ups. They test and tweak for 10-30 years then ask the 3,000-member People’s Congress to review the data and authorize national trials in three major provinces. If a national trial is successful the State Council [China’s Brains Trust] polishes the plan and takes it back to the 3,000 Congresspeople for a final vote. It’s very transparent and, if you have good data and I don’t, your bill gets passed and mine doesn’t. People’s Congress votes are nearly unanimous because the legislation is backed by reams of data. This allows China to accomplish a great deal in a short time: your winning solution will be quickly propagated throughout the country, you’ll be a front page hero and you’ll be invited to high-level meetings in Beijing and promoted. As you can imagine, the competition to find solutions is intense”. Operationally, data-driven legislation wins hands down. China 5–USA 0.Substantively, researchers, experts, media, academics, stakeholders and obstreperous citizens set the agenda. Since 2000, China has allowed foreigners to conduct surveys and publish apolitical results without submitting their questionnaires and Harvard’s Tony Saich, who’s been polling there for over a decade reports, in Governing China,that ninety-six per cent of Chinese are satisfied with their national government and, according to Edelman’s 2016 Report, almost ninety percent of Chinese trust it. World Values Surveys found that eighty-three percent say China is run for their benefit rather than for the benefit of special groups–compared to thirty-eight percent of Americans. China 6–USA 0.Financially, ninety-five percent of poor Chinese own their homes and landand the Chinese own, in common, the commanding heights of their economy– banks, insurers and utilities. And inequality is being effectively addressed. In its 2017 study, Global Inequality Dynamics, America’s National Bureau of Economic Research reports that, though the bottom half of Chinese saw their share of national income fall from twenty-seven percent to fifteen percent after 1980, Americans’ share collapsed from twenty percent to twelve percent. Simultaneously, China’s top one percent captured thirteen percent of all personal income, but America’s elite grabbed twenty percent. Since those figures were compiled, China has eliminated urban povertyand, the World Bank adds, “We can reasonably expect the virtual elimination of extreme poverty in [rural] China by 2022”. Every Chinese–not just the poor–has doubled her income every ten years for the past 40 years, an extraordinary improvement in income mobility and the inverse of our experience. In the U.S., says Stanford’s Raj Chetty, “rates of absolute mobility have fallen from approximately 90% for children born in 1940 to 50% for children born in the 1980s. Absolute income mobility has fallen across the entire income distribution, with the largest declines for families in the middle class”. China 7–USA 0.It’s clear that China has improved on our quaint, eighteenth century model.___________________________________________________________________________1 The oath is based on advice to officials by the great Song Dynasty Chancellor, Fan Zhongyan (AD 989–1052).2 Economic Returns to Communist Party Membership: Evidence from Urban Chinese Twins. Hongbin Li Pak Wai Liu Junsen Zhang Ning Ma. The Economic Journal. Vol. 117.3 Ethnic minorities make up 8.5% of China’s population.

Hi,Actually, PMP knowledge areas did not increase. There are new topics added to the existing knowledge areas however the overall content did not increase more than 10%.You can see the latest PMBOK changes below:PMBOK 6th Edition has been released on 2017 Q4 and the PMP exam has changed for PMBOK 6th Ed after 26th of March 2018. But what are the changes from the PMBOK 5th edition to PMBOK 6th edition? How will the PMBOK 6th edition change impact me? From when will PMBOK 6th edition come into force? Yes, many questions for a PMP aspirant like you. Let us dig deeper to understand what changes in PMBOK 6th edition and what does not and how and whom it will impact.PMI announced the high level changes that will be introduced in PMBOK 6th edition previously. We will summarize the changes in PMBOK 6th edition in this article.What is PMBOK?PMBOK or A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge is the defacto standard on project management. It conforms to American National Standard Institute (ANSI) standard and is touted as the GOLD standard in project management.Why is PMBOK important to you?Are you aspiring to be a PMP- Project Management Professional? Then, the PMP certification exam is based on the PMBOK though you need to also be knowing concepts from other books and resources.Even if you are not appearing for the PMP certification exam, if you are working in project management arena, you still would need to know about PMBOK.How PMBOK helps you?PMBOK is helpful for all project managers and aspiring project management progessionals including those preparing for PMP certification and Certified Associate in Project Management (CAPM) certification.If you are preparing for the PMP certification, your exam will be based primarily on the PMBOK. Therefore, you need to understand what the PMBOK has and hence, the changes from PMBOK 5th edition to PMBOK 6th edition are critical for you in your exam preparation.What if am a project manager and not right now thinking of PMP certification? Should I still follow PMBOK?PMBOK is the framework which guides project managers for successful completion of projects according to the project objectives. Therefore, PMBOK and the changes in PMBOK 6th edition are definitely important for you too! Since the PMBOK 6th edition is aligned to the current practices in project management, even if you are not planning for CAPM or PMP, it is imperative to know about PMBOK 6th edition.Why does the PMBOK edition change?PMI revises the PMBOK every few years to ensure the Guide to Project Management Body of Knowledge is current and meets the changing trends and practices in project management. As you are aware, PMI is run by volunteers. This change from PMBOK 5th edition to PMBOK 6th edition has been accomplished by the efforts of the volunteer base. These volunteers are practicing project managers from various industries.PMBOK 6th Edition: When will this happen?PMI has released the PMBOK 6th Edition on 2017 Q4. Moreover, it is going to be released in 10 more languages this time. Therefore, check out if you have a PMBOK 6th edition that is in your native language!Will the online version of PMBOK 6th edition be released earlier? No, both the hard copy and soft copy will be out at the same time. So, pick the PMBOK 6th edition that you are most comfortable with.Can I get a sneak peek of PMBOK 6th Edition?PMI released the final version of the PMBOK 6th edition in 2017 Q4. Project Management professionals across the globe could send their feedback on the changes proposed who are members of PMI. But, now it is closed for comments. You can access to PMBOK 6th Edition from PMI library. If you are interested in changes from PMBOK 5th Ed to PMBOK 6th Ed, don't worry, we will give you a distilled version of what changes you can expect from the PMBOK 6th edition in this article. So, read on.PMBOK 6th Edition: What is changing in PMBOK 6?We will go through the changes in process groups, knowledge areas, processes, project management plan components and project documents.PMBOK 6th edition Process GroupsThere were 5 process groups in PMBOK 5: Initiating, Planning, Executing, Monitoring & Controlling and Closing. These 5 process groups will remain same in PMBOK 6th edition as well. There is essentially the same framework in PMBOK 6th edition too. A few additions in the number of processes and streamlining of processes to reflect current practices has been the focus of change to PMBOK 6th edition from the PMBOK 5th edition.What is different in PMBOK6?In PMBOK 6th edition, the processes are organized around the process groups. Since processes are more relevant to the process group as compared to a knowledge area, PMBOK 6th edition has organized processes by process groups. As already mentioned, PMI listens to the practitioners and hence brought about this change in PMBOK 6th edition.Change #1: Changes in total chapters in PMBOK 6th editionWe had a total of 13 chapters in PMBOK 5th edition. Chapter 1-3 was to give you an overall picture of project management framework and the role and skills of a project manager. It covered the concepts of project, program, portfolio and organizational structures in addition to the life cycle of project.PMBOK 6th edition consolidates these chapters. We have a new chapter on what a project manager is supposed to do. In addition to this, the skills and competencies you should possess as a Project manager are now aligned to the PMI Talent Triangle.What is PMI Talent Triangle?As a contemporary project manager, it is not enough if you have technical skills. The dynamically changing project environment and the evolving trends in the industry necessitate the project manager to have additional skills. What are the skills needed?Strategic & Business ManagementIt is not enough to manage the triple constraints of a project. You need to understand the business alignment and fitment of the project. Therefore, you need strategic & business management skills. What does it involve?With the changes in PMBOK 6th edition, you need to understand skills that help you analyze competition, market, know the legal implications, business models, etc.Leadership SkillsThough leadership skills were discussed in PMBOK 5, the PMBOK 6th edition gives a greater emphasis to these skills. Leadership skills include emotional intelligence, problem solving, team building and influencing which give you the needed competency to motivate your team.Technical SkillsPMBOK 6th edition continues the need for skills with respect to the domain you are working in. In addition to this, you would need to know the performance management, earned value management, governance, life cycle management, etc. which were part of the earlier edition too.Change #2: PMBOK 6th Edition Knowledge Areas:There are 10 knowledge areas in PMBOK 5. These knowledge areas will still exist in PMBOK 6th edition but 2 of these knowledge areas will appear with new names as below in the table::What changed in knowledge areas in PMBOK 6th edition?As you have seen, number did not change but names of two knowledge areas changed to better align with project needs. Now, every knowledge area in PMBOK 6th edition will have 4 additional sections. These are:Key conceptsTailoring considerations: Earlier edition had a mention on need for tailoring but nothing specific was mentioned. PMBOK 6th edition has more detailed guidelines on these and an appendix added that discusses the tailoring considerations. Using these tailoring guidelines, you know which processes to put more focus on that depend on the size of the project you are working on and of course the scope of work!What are the developments and New practices being used in project management is also discussedFocus on Agile and adaptive methodology: keeping with the changing trend in various industries, PMBOK 6th edition has included what a project using agile or adaptive methodology may useRead the full post: PMP 2018 - 7 Key Changes in PMBOK 6th Edition