Project Resource Planning; Is there a Gap in the PMBOK?

According to the PMBOK and traditional project management practices, project initiation begins with the project charter. Never mind that the real value-add is in the preparation needed to tie the project to organizational strategy (which arguably links to the portfolio management process) and to select the right project approach (which would end up on the charter). Ideally, the project manager should be more involved in up this up-front options analysis, which would also require solicitation of specialized resources very early in the game.

In addition, the subsequent planning processes include WBS and schedule development (both of which are best done as a group effort with stakeholders, as the PMBOK points out), yet there is no mention beforehand of soliciting resources for that work. These stakeholders are not often readily available, so this appears to be a gap.

Although the PMBOK rightfully suggests engaging stakeholders in the initiating and planning processes, the first time resource planning is mentioned in the PMBOK is following the schedule development. Could it be that the PMBOK doesn't consider stakeholders resources?

Yes and no. As it turns out, the PMBOK assumes these resources are readily available, as part of what it calls "Enterprise Environmental Factors." This might relate to the fact that many organizations (and remember, the PMBOK exists to document common practice, hence the name "standard") do not track resources during initiation and planning, but only begin doing so during execution.

Ultimately, the initiation and planning phases drag out because stakeholders aren't available and/or nobody is tracking progress during these phases. Some organizations are starting to realize the benefits of planning and tracking the "initiation and planning" activities (instead of planning to infinite capacity), so by the time the next PMBOK rolls around this might be common practice.

So, maybe this isn't a gap in the PMBOK after all, but instead, a gap in common practice.