Here are updated and valid Cheatsheet to pass P3OF exam proposes you should endeavor its 100 percent free Practice Questions test. You will actually want to download VCE test system and introduce to your PC to rehearse P3OF dumps. We offer you three months of free updates of P3OF Portfolio- Programme and Project Offices Foundation Exam dumps questions and practice tests. Our group remains refreshing the P3OF brain dumps from genuine inquiries constantly.

Exam Code: P3OF Practice exam 2023 by team
P3OF Portfolio, Programme and Project Offices Foundation

Multiple choice examination questions

50 questions per paper with one mark available per question

40 minutes duration

30 marks required to pass (out of 50 available) – 60%

Closed book.

The P3O® certification scheme has been developed to offer two levels of certification, Foundation and Practitioner. AXELOS has accredited PeopleCert as our Examination Institute (EI) and PeopleCert then accredits a network of Accredited Training Organizations (ATOs), including their trainers and course material. The ATOs and accredited trainers offer P3O training courses and examinations.

The purpose of the Foundation certification is to confirm that you have sufficient knowledge and understanding of the P3O guidance to interact effectively with, or act as an informed member of, an office within a P3O model. The Foundation certification is a pre-requisite for the Practitioner certification.

The Portfolio, Programme and Project Offices (P3O®) guidance provides advice, supported
by discussion and examples, on how to develop a governance structure that helps optimize
an organizations investment in change alongside its Business as Usual work.
P3O qualifications are currently offered are two levels: Foundation and Practitioner.
The primary purpose of the syllabus is to provide a basis for accreditation of people involved
with P3O. It documents the learning outcomes related to the use of P3O and describes the
requirements a candidate is expected to fulfil in order to demonstrate that these learning
outcomes have been achieved at each qualification level.

The target audience for this document is:

 exam Board

 exam Panel

 APMG Assessment Team

 Accredited Training Organizations

This syllabus informs the design of the exams and provides accredited training organizations
with a breakdown of what the exams will assess. Details on the exam structure and content
are documented in the P3O Foundation and Practitioner Designs.

The purpose of the Foundation qualification is to confirm that a candidate has sufficient
knowledge and understanding of the P3O guidance to interact effectively with, or act as an
informed member of, an office within a P3

The candidate should understand the key principles and terminology within the P3O
guidance. Specifically the candidate should understand the:

 High-level P3O model and its component offices

 Differences between Portfolio, Programme and Project Management

 Key functions and services of a P3O

 Reasons for establishing a P3O model

 Differences between types of P3O model and the factors that influence selection of the most appropriate model

 Processes to implement or re-energize a P3O

 Tools and techniques used by a P3O

 Purpose and major responsibilities of the defined roles

Level Topic

Key PPM definitions:

1. PPM

2. Portfolio, programme and project

3. Portfolio, programme and project management

4. Business as Usual

What a P3O is:

1. Definition of P3O

2. The potential elements of a P3O model and their definitions Understand key concepts relating to the Overview, Principles of a P3O model and its elements including the Introduction to P3O.

Specifically to identify:

Key concepts of a P3O:

1. The objectives of and differences between portfolios, programmes and projects

2. The objectives of and differences between portfolio, programme and project management and how they help to deliver change
The organizational context of P3O:

1. The relationship between Business as Usual, change and PPM

2. How the elements of a P3O model align to portfolio, programme and project lifecycles

How a P3O provides a decision-enabling/deliverysupport model and how each P3O model element helps to deliver change
What a P3O is:

1. The relationships between the elements in a P3O model and the organization

2. The objectives and key functions of each P3O model element

Portfolio, Programme and Project Offices Foundation
Exin Portfolio, testing
Killexams : Exin Portfolio, testing - BingNews Search results Killexams : Exin Portfolio, testing - BingNews Killexams : Quality testing for antibodies is gaining traction
Monoclonal antibodies for research should be validated in each application used

Monoclonal antibodies for research should be validated in each application usedCredit: Alfred Pasieka/SPL/Getty

Antibodies are invaluable tools in the life sciences. Their high specificity and selectivity for unique protein targets make them indispensable research reagents. Scientists worldwide spend nearly US$2.5 billion a year on antibodies to detect and quantify the expression of proteins in cells and tissues1.

However, lately, the quality of these reagents has come under intense scrutiny. Not all of them seem to be as selective and specific as was assumed, leading to incorrect, inconsistent and irreproducible results2. Alarm bells sounded in 2012 when independent laboratories were unable to replicate the results of 47 out of 53 landmark cancer research papers3.

“The field has been hampered by antibodies that recognize the wrong (or multiple) protein isoforms and antibodies that don’t work well in particular applications,” says Andrew Waters, a postdoctoral researcher at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. Waters’s own dissertation work was significantly delayed because of an antibody that recognized a nonspecific protein of the same molecular weight as his target protein.

Antibody underperformance can significantly drain research time and money. Months, sometimes years, can be spent trying to replicate experiments or proceed with work that is based on incorrect conclusions. To address this growing problem, researchers need to be aware of the issues surrounding these reagents — and antibody manufacturers need to set higher quality standards.

Common issues and how to avoid them

Although antibodies are designed to recognize a target protein, they may not be able to do so in all applications —namely, those that alter the target protein’s structure. Thus, antibodies should be Checked in the application of interest.

Antibody performance can also be hampered by binding to off-target proteins when the target is expressed at low levels or has many isoforms. These potential obstacles can be assessed by using appropriate positive and negative controls prior to carrying out the experiment.

Different batches of antibody can produce dramatically different results. Because antibodies are often referred to simply by brand name, it is important to check the manufacturer’s lot number and characterization data. This information is often omitted in published articles, making it very hard to track down the genuine antibody that was used — and reproduce the findings.

Lack of training in the use of research antibodies compounds these risks. “Many young scientists fail to appreciate the need to confirm that their antibody works in their set-up,” says Giovanna Roncador, head of the Monoclonal Antibody Unit at Centro Nacional de Investigaciones Oncológicas in Madrid.

With colleagues from the European Monoclonal Antibodies Network (EuroMabNet), Roncador has produced a comprehensive set of guidelines to avoid common pitfalls in research antibody use4. Their recommendations include: defining the target antigen and the experimental techniques that will be used to identify it; conducting a thorough search of the literature to find information on existing antibodies; assessing the available validation data and determining what further validation measures are required; and providing all the necessary protocol and antibody details so others can reproduce the findings.

Other organizations are helping with training: societies such as ISAC (International Society for the Advancement of Cytometry) and ICCS (International Clinical Cytometry Society) are producing webinars and educational materials to help junior scientists select and handle research antibodies.

However, determining an antibody’s sensitivity, specificity and reproducibility in a given application — across experiments and over time — is a complex and costly process that researchers can't do on their own. Experts from industry and academia have come together to develop standard guidelines for antibody validation.

Rigorous antibody validation

Rigorous antibody validation is achieved by testing that the antibody binds to the right target in the application of interest. This involves using at least one of nine specificity tests in the applications shown above.

Establishing validation standards

The International Working Group for Antibody Validation (IWGAV) is a consortium of leading protein scientists formed in 2015, and supported by the global life sciences company Thermo Fisher Scientific. The IWGAV has proposed five approaches for antibody validation: using genetics; using anorthogonal (non-antibody) strategy; using independent antibodies binding to the same target; correlating antibody labelling with the expression of tagged proteins; and immunoprecipitation followed by mass spectrometry5. At least one of these strategies should be used when validating an antibody for a specific application. Thermo Fisher has used these recommendations as the basis for its own internal systematic approach for verifying the specificity and functionality of antibodies created for its Invitrogen brand (see ‘Two-part approach for antibody verification’).

Deepa Shankar, director for research and development at Thermo Fisher Scientific, explains: “We want to help researchers make an informed choice by producing the most compelling data showing that an antibody works.” Her team is devoted to validating the company’s large antibody portfolio — testing them using Thermo Fisher's two-part approach. “We spend a lot of time ensuring that we test our antibodies in the right environment, in multiple models and in different applications,” she says. “Our aim is to build trust with the scientific community and help advance their research.”

Detailed testing protocols and results, as well as published antibody data, are collated on the company’s website. “Customer feedback is really positive,” says Shankar. “We are seeing a growing number of publications using our antibodies demonstrating that they are working.”

In recognition of these efforts, Thermo Fisher won the 2018 CiteAb Award for the best antibody validation initiative. “Rigorous validation procedures are not in place in many laboratories. Lack of awareness, resources and funds means researchers are relying on vendors to provide good antibodies,” explains Paul Wallace, director of the Department of Flow & Image Cytometry, Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center in Buffalo, New York, and a panel member on Thermo Fisher’s Antibody Validation Forum. “I am very impressed by how Thermo Fisher is taking responsibility for the quality of its antibody products — and is open to dialogue with users.”

Bright outlook

The first step in solving any problem is to recognize that it exists. Since the issue of antibody validation was exposed, it has been openly discussed — and many initiatives set up to find the best solutions. “We are making headway, but a lot more still needs to be done to figure out what are the best strategies to address the problem,” says Wallace. Agreeing to the need for antibody validation standards is a significant first step. Given the importance of reproducibility for the advancement of science, it is in the interest of all researchers and suppliers to step up to the challenge of implementing these standards.

Read more about Thermo Fisher Scientific's commitment to antibody performance.

Mon, 27 Aug 2018 14:39:00 -0500 en text/html
Killexams : How Exactly Do You Stress-Test Your Financial Plan?

If you’ve been investing for some time, you most likely have a plan in place. Of course, these plans will vary depending on your specific goals, age and risk tolerance. But the essential consideration is that some sort of attainable goal, as well as a plan on how to reach that goal, is common to most investors.

Along with that, however, comes a fatal flaw that is seen far too often: These plans are made in a vacuum. You may think, if I continue earning my current salary, putting 10% in savings, and investing another 25%, then everything will turn out fine. Unfortunately, nothing happens in a vacuum — least of all in the world of investing.