p3 m3 services 2v0 app
DESCRIPTION
A presentation introducing P3M3 v2 and showing the range of support services from Outperform (an accredited consulting organisation license to undertake certification assessments using P3M3)TRANSCRIPT
Doc No: 0937-01-09 / 2v0-APP
1
Portfolio, Programme and Project Management Maturity Model (P3M3™)
Assessment support services from Outperform
© Outperform UK Ltdwww.outperform.co.uk
The Swirl logo™ is a Trade Mark of the Office of Government Commerce
P3M3™ a Trade Mark of the Office of Government Commerce
2
Contents
• P3M3 Overview• Services from Outperform
– P3M3 On-line Survey– P3M3 Discovery Assessment– P3M3 Diagnostic Assessment– P3M3 Certification Assessment– P3M3 Community Survey– P3M3 Roadmap Workshop– P3M3 Training
• Case study• About Outperform
P3M3 Overview
• What is P3M3?– A maturity model developed
and owned by the OGC (a UK Government Department)
– Covers project, programme and portfolio management
– Describes key attributes that organisations are expected to exhibit at five increasing levels of maturity
– Breaks down the complexity of project, programme and portfolio management to enable improvement plans to be formulated
• It has six primary uses– Discovering capabilities to
determine which areas to concentrate on (may lead to a diagnostic assessment)
– Diagnosing systemic weaknesses to eliminate root causes
– Baselining current capability (for later comparison)
– Benchmarking capability against other organisations (possibly to harvest best practice from a community)
– Certifying capability through independent assessment
– Prioritising improvement initiatives (based on any of the above) 3
P3M3 v2 Model Structure
PerspectivesManagement
ControlBenefits
ManagementFinancial
ManagementStakeholder
ManagementRisk
ManagementOrganisational
GovernanceResource
Management
Maturity Levels
Aware Repeatable Defined Managed Optimised
Models
Portfolio Management Programme Management Project Management
Generic Attributes
Planning
Information Management
Scrutiny & Review
Skills & Competence
Specific Attributes
5 levels * 7 perspectives
Indicate Capability
Define Goals/Purpose
Help Deployment
Describe Evidence
4
P3M3 perspectives
Perspective PjM3 Description
Management Control
Management Control covers how the direction of travel is maintained throughout the project’s lifecycle, with appropriate break points to enable it to be stopped or redirected by a project board (or equivalent) if necessary.
Benefits Management
Benefits management is the process that ensures that the desired business change outcomes have been clearly defined are measurable and are ultimately delivered through a structured approach and with full organisational ownership.
Stakeholder Management
Stakeholder management includes communications planning, the effective identification and use of different communications channels, and techniques to enable the project’s objectives to be achieved.
Risk Management
Risk Management is the process to systematically identify and manage opportunities and threats.
Finance Management
Finance is an essential resource that should be a key focus for initiating and controlling projects. Financial management ensures that the likely costs of the project are captured and evaluated within a formal business case and that costs are categorised and managed over the investment life cycle.
Resource Management
Resource management covers management of all types of resources required for delivery. These include human resources, buildings, equipment, supplies, information, tools and supporting teams.
Organisational Governance
Organisational Governance looks at how the delivery of projects is aligned to the strategic direction of the organisation. It considers how start-up and closure controls are applied to projects and how alignment is maintained during a project’s lifecycle. This differs from management control, which views how control of a project is maintained internally.
5
6
P3M3 Maturity LevelsProject Management Programme Management Portfolio Management
Level 5 - Optimised
Undertake continuous process improvement with proactive problem and technology management for projects in order to improve its ability to depict performance over time and optimize processes.
Undertake continuous process improvement with proactive problem and technology management for programmes in order to improve its ability to depict performance over time and optimize processes.
Undertake continuous process improvement with proactive problem and technology management for the portfolio in order to improve its ability to depict performance over time and optimize processes.
Level 4 - Managed
Obtain and retain specific measurements on its project management performance and run a quality management organization to better predict and control future performance.
Obtain and retain specific management metrics on its programme management performance and run a quality management organization to better predict and control future performance.
Obtain and retain specific management metrics on its whole portfolio of programmes and projects as a means of predicting future performance. The organization assesses its capacity to manage programmes and projects and prioritize them accordingly.
Level 3 - Defined
Have its own centrally controlled project processes with individual projects being able to flex within these processes to suit the particular project.
Have its own centrally controlled programme processes with individual programmes being able to flex within these processes to suit the particular programme.
Have its own portfolio management process and centrally controlled programme and project processes with individual programmes and projects being able to flex within these processes to suit particular programmes and/or projects.
Level 2 - Repeatable
Ensure that each project is run with its own processes and procedures to a minimum specified standard. (There may be limited consistency or coordination between projects).
Ensure that each programme is run with its own processes and procedures to a minimum specified standard. (There may be limited consistency or coordination between programmes).
Ensure that each programme and/or project in its portfolio is run with its own processes and procedures to a minimum specified standard. (There may be limited consistency or coordination).
Level 1 - Aware
Recognize projects and run them differently from ongoing business. (Projects may be running informally with no standard processes or tracking system).
Recognize programmes and run them differently from projects. (Programmes may be running informally with no standard processes or tracking system).
Have an Executive Board that recognizes programmes and projects and maintains an informal list of investments in programmes and projects, without perhaps a formal tracking mechanism and documented process.
Project Management Programme Management Portfolio ManagementLevel 5 - Optimised
Undertake continuous process improvement with proactive problem and technology management for projects in order to improve its ability to depict performance over time and optimize processes.
Undertake continuous process improvement with proactive problem and technology management for programmes in order to improve its ability to depict performance over time and optimize processes.
Undertake continuous process improvement with proactive problem and technology management for the portfolio in order to improve its ability to depict performance over time and optimize processes.
Level 4 - Managed
Obtain and retain specific measurements on its project management performance and run a quality management organization to better predict and control future performance.
Obtain and retain specific management metrics on its programme management performance and run a quality management organization to better predict and control future performance.
Obtain and retain specific management metrics on its whole portfolio of programmes and projects as a means of predicting future performance. The organization assesses its capacity to manage programmes and projects and prioritize them accordingly.
Level 3 - Defined
Have its own centrally controlled project processes with individual projects being able to flex within these processes to suit the particular project.
Have its own centrally controlled programme processes with individual programmes being able to flex within these processes to suit the particular programme.
Have its own portfolio management process and centrally controlled programme and project processes with individual programmes and projects being able to flex within these processes to suit particular programmes and/or projects.
Level 2 - Repeatable
Ensure that each project is run with its own processes and procedures to a minimum specified standard. (There may be limited consistency or coordination between projects).
Ensure that each programme is run with its own processes and procedures to a minimum specified standard. (There may be limited consistency or coordination between programmes).
Ensure that each programme and/or project in its portfolio is run with its own processes and procedures to a minimum specified standard. (There may be limited consistency or coordination).
Level 1 - Aware
Recognize projects and run them differently from ongoing business. (Projects may be running informally with no standard processes or tracking system).
Recognize programmes and run them differently from projects. (Programmes may be running informally with no standard processes or tracking system).
Have an Executive Board that recognizes programmes and projects and maintains an informal list of investments in programmes and projects, without perhaps a formal tracking mechanism and documented process. 7
P3M3 Maturity Levels
(Chaotic, Ad Hoc, Heroic)The starting point for use of a new process
(Process discipline)The process is used repeatedly- Documenting current practices
(Embedded)The process is defined/confirmed as a standard business process
- Documenting desired practices / Designing processes.
(Quantified)Process management and measurement takes place
(Process Improvement)Deliberate optimisation/improvement
85%
9%
4%
2%
Performance improvements can be measured!
Process capability as indicated by maturity levels
Performance improvements can be measured!
Process capability as indicated by maturity levels
Most expensive place to be
Doc No: 0937-01-09 / 2v0-APP
P3M3 Services from Outperform
© Outperform UK Ltdwww.outperform.co.uk
10
Typical engagement journey
11
Management Contro
l
Benefits
Management
Risk Management
Finance
Management
Stake-holder Management
Oganisation Governance
Resource
Management
Level 5 Optimised
Level 4 Managed
Level 3 Defined
Level 2Repeatable
Level 1 Recognised
Management Contro
l
Benefits
Management
Risk Management
Finance
Management
Stake-holder Management
Oganisation Governance
Resource
Management
Level 5 Optimised
Level 4 Managed
Level 3 Defined
Level 2Repeatable
Level 1 Recognised
Step 2Where are you today?
Step 3Where do you
want to be?
P3M3 ratings Step 4
How will you get there?
Measurable targets
Management Contro
l
Benefits
Management
Risk Management
Finance
Management
Stake-holder Management
Oganisation Governance
Resource
Management
Level 5 Optimised
Level 4 Managed
Level 3 Defined
Level 2Repeatable
Level 1 Recognised
Corporate Vision &
Objectives
Step 1What is the context?
Improvementplan
Progress metrics
P3M3 scope
Step 5How well did you do?
Outperform’s P3M3 Services+ =
P3M3 On-line Survey
P3M3 Discovery-
lite Assessment
P3M3 Discovery
Assessment
P3M3 Diagnostic
Assessment
P3M3 Certification Assessment
P3M3 Community
Survey
P3M3 Roadmap Workshop
P3M3 Training
Workshop
Primary useBenchmarki
ngBaselining
DiscoveringBaselining
DiscoveringBaselining
DiagnosingPrioritising
CertifyingBenchmarki
ngPrioritising
Skills Transfer
Typical resource
requirements
None Low Medium High Medium Medium Low Low
Typical timescale
requirements
Client preference
1-2 weeks 2-3 week 3-6 weeks 4-6 weeks 3-6 weeks 1-2 weeks 1-day
Approach SurveyDesk studyInterviews
Focus group
SurveyDesk
study+Interviews+Focus group
SurveyDesk
study++Interviews+
+Focus group
Roadmap workshop
Desk study++
Interviews++
APMG certificate
SurveysRoadmap workshop
Classroom training
Typical price
£1500 for one model£500 for
each additional
model
£4950 for one model
£9950 £20k-£100k £20k-£30k £6k-£15k £5950
£550/person (public)
£1950 on-site
Options
Custom survey: POA
Roadmap workshop for £5950
Development of Project Briefs: POA
Maturity model
assessor qualification
£350
Additional management presentation for £1250 each
P3M3 On-line Survey
• Purpose– To baseline an organisation’s
likely maturity against OGC’s P3M3
– (optionally) to provide useful 360 degree input to consultant led assessments
• Deliverables– Survey Plan– P3M3 Capability Assessment
Report• Maturity dashboards• Benchmarking against
Outperform’s results database• Skills profile• Respondents’ comments
• Approach– Clients set up the survey by
providing:• Name, organisation and email
address of the applicant
• Which models they are assessing (i.e. PjM3, PgM3, PfM3)
• The expected maturity level
• Survey start date, survey close date
• Respondents’ mail addresses
– Survey Execution• Respondents are quizzed about
maturity at 3 levels only (one below/above the expected level)
• Takes 10-15 minutes to complete
• Non-respondents are sent reminders
– When the survey closes the applicant is emailed an auto-generated report
13
P3M3 On-line Survey Process
14
Note: It is possible to tailor the survey to client’s specific terminology and to include additional questions in support of any non-standard assessment objectives. Such amendments may incur some additional fees.
Primary use: benchmarking, baselining
P3M3 On-line Survey
Ass
esso
rsC
lient
Scopingmeeting
Survey Plan
Complete On-line Survey
Approve
On-line Survey report
Yes
No
Present result (optional)
Words for email invite and
website landing page
Set up on-line survey
Provide list of email addresses
Issue survey invites
And reminders
P3M3 Discovery-lite Assessment
15
• Purpose– To assist an organisation in
assessing their maturity against OGC’s P3M3
– A discovery of capability in order to prioritise improvement plans
– To baseline current capability in order to track progress
• Deliverables– Pre-assessment briefing– P3M3 Capability Assessment
Report• Maturity Dashboard• Benchmarking against
Outperform’s results database• Recommendations
• Approach– Desk study of key
documentation • Limited number of documents• Understand theoretical maturity
– Interviews (1 day on-site)• Up to 4 people• Gather examples
– Focus Group workshop (1 day on-site)
• Contextual understanding• Rating relative importance
– Produce report– Presentation of results (optional)
P3M3 Discovery-lite Assessment Process
16
Primary use: discovering, baselining
P3M3 Discovery-lite Assessment
Ass
esso
rsC
lient
Scopingmeeting
Assessment Plan
Supply materials
Desk study
Approve
Analysis
Capability Assessment
Report
Yes
No
Present result(optional)
Interviews / Focus Group
Note: Organisations that wish to develop an improvement roadmap are advised to undertake the full discovery service or the diagnostic service. Discovery-lite covers one model only (e.g. Project Management)
P3M3 Discovery Assessment
17
• Purpose– To assist an organisation in
assessing their maturity against OGC’s P3M3
– A discovery of capability in order to prioritise improvement plans
– To baseline current capability in order to track progress
• Deliverables– Pre-assessment briefing– P3M3 Capability Assessment
Report• Maturity Dashboard• Benchmarking against
Outperform’s results database• Recommendations
• Approach– On-line survey
• Unlimited respondents• Organisational data• Process usage• Skills profiles• 360 degree opinions
– Desk study of key documentation • Project/programme documents• Understand theoretical maturity
– Interviews (2 days on-site)• Up to 8 people• Gather examples• Follow-up survey queries
– Focus Group (1 day on-site)• Follow-up survey queries• Contextual understanding• Rating relative importance
– Produce report– Presentation of results
(optional)
P3M3 Discovery Assessment Process
18
Primary purpose: discovering, baselining
P3M3 Discovery Assessment
Ass
esso
rsC
lient
Scopingmeeting
AssessmentPlan
Supply materials
Desk studyOn-line Survey
Approve
Analysis
Capability Assessment
Report
Yes
No
Present resultInterviews /
Focus Group
On-line Survey report
P3M3 Diagnostic Assessment
19
• Purpose– To use P3M3 to identify the root causes of an identified issue– To quantify potential cost savings and performance gains from planned
improvement initiatives
• Deliverables– Survey Report– Capability Assessment Report containing P3M3 results, observations
relating to the assessment objective and key recommendations– Improvement Roadmap– (optional) Project Briefs for selected improvement initiatives– (optional) presentation of results
• ApproachAs per P3M3 Discovery Assessment but with– A more detailed desk study of the organisation’s PPM collateral– Additional interviews– Roadmap Workshop investigating root causes and formulating
solutions
P3M3 Diagnostic Assessment Process
20
Primary use: diagnosing, prioritising
P3M3 Diagnostic Assessment
Ass
esso
rsC
lient
Scoping meeting
AssessmentPlan
Supply materials
Desk studyOn-line Survey
Approve
Analysis
Capability Assessment
Report
Yes
No
Present result (optional)
Interviews / Focus Group
On-line Survey report
Present roadmap(optional)
RoadmapWorkshop
Project Briefs(optional)
ImprovementRoadmap
P3M3 Certification Assessment
21
• Purpose– To assess an organisation against P3M3 in order to award a certificate for the
level achieved
• Deliverables– Assessment Plan– Application to APMG for P3M3 certification– P3M3 evidence submission to APMG– P3M3 dashboard– P3M3 certificate(s) if successful
• Approach– Check readiness for certification– Scope assessment– Desk study of key documentation (against minimum set required by APM Group)– Interview of selected personnel (against the minimum number required by APM
Group)– Aggregation of evidence to compile submission to APMG– Liaison with APM Group regarding submission of application form, APMG spot-
check, submission of maturity rating, APMG verification of rating, award of certification
22
Certification Assessment - Interviews by role
Interviewees for Project Management Certification:
Number of concurrent projects
< 5 6-20 21-50 51-100 > 100
Head of Projects 1 1 1 1 1
Head of Project Office (if applicable) 1 1 1 1 1
Project Executives 1 2 2 2 3
Project Managers 2 4 6 8 10
Interviewees for Programme Management Certification (including Project Management numbers above)
Number of concurrent programmes
<5 5-10 11-20 21-50 >50
Head of Programmes & Projects 1 1 1 1 1
Head of Programmes Office 1 1 1 1 1
Senior Responsible Owners 1 2 2 2 3
Business Change Managers 2 2 3 4 5
Programme Managers 2 3 3 4 5
Interviewees for Portfolio Management Certification (including Project Management and Programme Management numbers above)
Portfolio Director plus one other member of the Main Board’s Investment Committee
Head of Programme and Projects Management
Head of Centre of Excellence
P3M3 Certification Assessment Process
23
Primary use: certifying
P3M3 Certification Assessment
Ass
esso
rsA
ccre
dita
tion
Bod
yC
lient
Scopingmeeting
Application Form
AssessmentPlan
Approve
No
Supply materialsYes
Desk study
Generalinterviews
AnalysisEvidence for
rating
CapabilityAssessment
Report
Present Results
(optional)
Confirmapplication
Spot checkVerifyRating
NoException Report
CertificateYes
P3M3 Community Survey
24
• Purpose– To benchmark the individual and
collective capability of a group of organisations against OGC’s P3M3
– To provide a baseline for each participating organisation in the benchmark
– To foster the sharing of best practice
• Deliverables– P3M3 Capability Assessment Report
(each participating organisation)• Maturity Dashboard• Benchmarking against
Outperform’s results database and against the community results
• Skills profile• Respondents’ comments
– P3M3 community report (whole community)
• Approach– Survey Set Up
• agree the number of participating organisations, contact details and survey set-up data
• Each organisation provides the respondents email addresses
– Survey Execution• All organisations complete the same
survey
• Respondents are quizzed about maturity at 3 levels only (Levels 1 to 3)
• Takes 10-15 minutes to complete
• Non-respondents are sent auto-reminders
– When the survey closes each organisation is emailed an auto-generated report for their own organisation
– The consultant analyses the aggregated results, produces the community report and emails it to the community representative
P3M3 Community Survey Process
25
Primary use: benchmarking
P3M3 Community Survey
Me
mb
er
Org
an
isa
tion
sA
sse
sso
rsS
po
nso
r
Approve
And reminders
Provide list of email addresses
Set up on-line survey
Capability Assessment
ReportIssue survey
invites
Words for email invite and
website landing page
Complete On-line Survey
Assessment Plan
Survey Plan
Yes
Yes
Approve
Scopingmeeting
No
CommunityReport
Presentresult
(optional)
For each member organisation
P3M3 Roadmap Workshop
• Purpose– decide which items from the
assessment should be addressed
– understand the root causes of any problems identified
– identify possible solutions– agree a outline improvement
plan– identify the key performance
indicators which will be used to track progress
• Deliverables– Workshop Brief – Workshop notes in presentation-
style containing:• Root cause analysis results• Selected solutions• Key performance indicators• Timeline and actions
– Roadmap verification report
• Approach– Preparation
• Liaise with project/programme manager to agree objectives, agenda, attendees, date, venue and logistics for the workshop
• Issue a Workshop Brief to the attendees
– Facilitated Workshop for up to 10 people to analyse results and identify outline Improvement Roadmap
– Follow-up• Coach the project/programme
manager on converting workshop notes into an Improvement Roadmap
• Verify that the Improvement Roadmap will deliver the desired goals/levels
26
P3M3 Roadmap Workshop Process
27
Primary use: prioritising
P3M3 Roadmap Workshop
Ass
esso
rsC
lient
Post-workshopcoaching
RoadmapWorkshop
Workshopscopingmeeting
ProjectBrief(s)
(optional)
Workshopnotes
Workshop Brief
Available Training
Training Purpose Format Target Audience
P3M3 Webinar
To enable attendees to asses how they could use P3M3
To enable people to understand their P3M3 results
2 hour webinarHead of Project,
Programme or Portfolio Management
Head of PPM Profession
PMO Managers
ConsultantsP3M3 Workshop
To enable attendees to plan a P3M3 assessment and to formulate a
prioritised improvement roadmap1 day classroom
Level 4 Award in “Maturity Model
Assessor” qualification
To enable attendees to select a maturity model and undertake a
maturity assessment (not a certification assessment)
20 hours guided learning
Vocational qualification
Internal Assessors
Quality Managers
Process Consultants
© Outperform UK Ltdwww.outperform.co.uk
28
Doc No: 0937-01-09 / 2v0-APP
Case Study
Core Cities
29
Core Cities Benchmarking Initiative
• Background– Sharing of best practices by 11 major regional city councils
– Wanted to identify PPM strengths and weaknesses individually and in comparison to the group as a whole
– 4 councils participated in wave 1 (Birmingham, Bradford, Manchester, Sheffield)
• Context– Comprehensive Performance Assessment (CPA) undertaken by the
Audit Commission consistently identified project management as an improvement area for most local authorities
– In 2009 the Audit Commission is replacing CPA with a Comprehensive Area Assessment (CAA)
• Assesses all ‘parties’ in the local area
• Greater focus on outcomes
• Greater focus on alignment to ‘local priorities’
30
Purpose
• The purpose of the Core Cities P3M3 benchmark was to undertake a baseline assessment of our project, programme and portfolio management capability against P3M3, providing:
– an assessment for each of the seven perspectives within each of the three models for key service areas within the council
– Comparison against other public sector organisations generally, the private sector and specifically other Core Cities
– Improvement suggestions including identification of quick fixes
– Assessment of maturity level that could be attained on implementation of the improvement roadmap.
– To provide a baseline for Comprehensive Area Assessment (CAA)
31
Challenges
• Organisation size• Organisation diversity• Different structures• Different role titles• Service partners
32
Assessment Approach
• Community survey of all participating councils (e)– On-line survey
• Organisational data• Skills data• Aggregated opinions by common services areas (e.g. children services, housing,
highways, ICT, Etc)
– Community report• Facilitated self-assessment for each participating council (b)
– Desk study of key documentation• theoretical maturity
– Interviews• Gather examples• Follow-up survey queries
– Workshop• Follow-up survey queries• Contextual understanding• Rating relative importance
– Council specific report
33
Individual Assessment Reports
• Executive Summary• Evaluation Objective & Method• Observations• Recommendations• Capability Dashboards• Appendix A – Findings• Appendix B – Document List / Interview List /
Questionnaire Respondents List• Appendix C - Definitions
Each council’s result was anonymous within the aggregated Core Cities report
Provides ‘likely’ maturity rating
Identifies strengths and weaknesses
Highlights areas for further investigation
34
Example P3M3 dashboard
PjM3 specific Attributes
Manage
ment Control
Benefits Manage
ment
Risk Manage
ment
FinanceManage
ment
Stake-
holder
Manage
ment
Oganisational Governance
Resourc
eManage
ment
Level 5 Optimised
Level 4 Managed
Level 3 Defined H H M M M H M
Level 2Repeatable H H M H L M H
Level 1 Aware M H H M M H H
Key:
H/M/L designates confidence in the rating
Red = no evidence of key practicesAmber = some evidence key practicesGreen = most key practices in placeWhite = out of scope
35
Initial Findings
• Mature ‘common’ project processes and templates in 2 councils, defined processes and templates in the others
• There are islands of excellent programme management practice in all councils - but not commonly applied
• However, programme Management is often project oriented
• Annualised programmes rarely tranche oriented
• Some programmes are actually portfolios (sub-programmes should be avoided)
• Emerging use of tools – some excellent
• Emerging application of portfolio management
• Benefits being tracked, but not always aligned to strategic objectives
36
Initial Findings
• In some councils there is a marked difference between capital and service improvement
– Capital = good at projects and portfolio, weak at programmes
– Service improvement = good at programme management
• Cross-cutting programmes difficult in a silo environment
– the SRO appointment dictates which directorate owns the programme
• There are different approaches to stakeholder engagement
– consultation
– handling member influence / inclusion
– However, what may work for one council may not work for another
• There may be a correlation between P3Os (number of people and degree of centralisation) and the maturity results 37
Average Maturity Level by rank
By Discipline• PjM3 = 2.05• PgM3 = 1.88• PfM3 = 0.64
By perspective• Management Control = 1.87• Risk Management = 1.75• Stakeholder Management = 1.67• Organisational Governance =
1.58• Benefits Management = 1.42• Finance Management = 1.29• Resource Management = 1.08
38
Skills Analysis Summary
Untrained Learner, 18%
Trained Learner, 9%
Untrained Practitioner, 35%
Trained Practitioner, 29%
Expert, 8%
0%5%
10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%
Projects
Programmes
Portfolios
• Part time / occasional project/programme managers
– “day job” comes first– SME led appointments– skills transfer weak
• PPM only just emerging as a profession
– pay and scale reviews– competency profiles– competency development– Sponsor / SRO role unclear
39
Project Management
Council Project Maturity Rank
Council 1 2.07 2
Council 2 1.79 4
Council 3 2.43 1
Council 4 1.93 3
00.5
11.5
22.5
3
Management Control
Benefits Management
Finance Management
Stakeholder Management
Risk Management
Organisational Governance
Resouuce Management
Council 1
Council 2
Council 3
Council 4
40
Measuring process adoption
41
Is there a mechanism to suggest improvements?
Are you notified if the processes are updated?
Did you receive any training on the processes?
Can you locate the latest version of the processes?
Do you follow a documented Project Management process?
0%20%
40%60%
80%100%
120%
Project Management Processes
yes don't know no
Doc No: 0937-01-09 / 2v0-APP
CASE STUDY
Improvement roadmapfor an
Engineering Company
Context
• This company employs some 800 project managers who manage around 2000 projects per year
• Annual expenditure on projects is ~ £950m• The scope of projects is primarily capital
– new infrastructure– asset renewal
• Funding is provided by a government department that sets targets
• They are regulated
Organisational GovernanceFinance Managment
Risk ManagementStakeholder Engagement
0
1
2
3
4
5
2007 Result – Project Management
Highlights in 2007:• Project objectives unclear• Business case not kept updated• Interface issues• Commitment of support functions• Ad-hoc project induction• No gates process• Estimating weak• Baseline management weak• No formal stakeholder management
process• Risk process is good but not
consistently followed• Difficult to assess risk if scope is not
identified properly• Programme managed strategically
but project reporting is done on an individual basis and not as part of the programme
Organisational Governance
Finance Managment
Risk Management
Stakeholder Engagement
0
1
2
3
4
5
1. Portfolio 2. Programme 3. Project
Highlights:
- Project processes very good, but adoption is patchy
- Programme processes mostly good, but not consistent across all programmes
- Portfolio management is not recognised distinctly from programmes
- Analysis has focused on P3M3 perspectives (e.g. Management control) rather than the P3M3 models (i.e. projects, programmes, portfolios)
- In 2009 COMPANY launched PMF, which is consistent with OGC best practice and provides a theoretical level 3
- Therefore the roadmap focus should be on embedment and assurance
2009 P3M3 ratings
0.6 1.8 2.1
Organ
isatio
nal G
over
nanc
e
Man
agem
ent C
ontro
l
Financ
e M
anag
men
t
Resou
rce
Man
agem
ent
Risk M
anag
emen
t
Benef
its M
anag
emen
t
Stake
holde
r Eng
agem
ent
0
1
2
3
4
5
P3M3 Ratings - projects
2007 result
2009 result
2010 Target
2011 Target
Anaalysis of 2009 results - approach
Individual Project Organisation
Behavioural
Technical
Contextual
For consistent and repeatable successful project delivery,
organisations require a blend of behavioural, technical and contextual
competencies across all levels.
This requires an integrated approach to assessing competence and
formulating improvement plans for all levels.
47
Individual perspective
Project perspective
Organisation perspective
Behavioural competence
The personal attributes required for project based working
The temporary team working together
The corporate culture for project working,
e.g. matrix management
Technical competence
Project management specific techniques such as planning,
estimating
Methods for managing a project
Frameworks for deploying,
maintaining, and supporting methods
and techniques
Contextual competence
Domain specific knowledge such as finance, legal, HR
Methods specific to the project purpose,
e.g. software development lifecycle
models
Commissioning and tracking the best set
of projects to achieve strategic goals
The landscape for success - definitions
Improvement focus since 2007 assessment
Individual perspective
Project perspective
Organisation perspective
Behavioural
Technical
Contextual
PMF method(90% complete)
49
PMF people(30% complete)
PMF estimating(10% complete)
50
PjM3 Organisational Governance - Organisational governance defines how the organisations identifies the need for initiatives, and ensures that they remain aligned to the strategic needs of the organisation
1. Awareness. Decision-making authorities for each project are clearly defined and are based on a distinction between those who direct the project and those who manage the project.
2. Repeatable. Projects can demonstrate a clear link and alignment with strategic organisational objectives (such as those documented in a corporate plan), with roles and responsibilities for this defined.
3. Consistent. There is a common governance framework that ensures projects are approved based on their alignment to strategic objectives and that they remain aligned to the business needs throughout their lifecycle. If a project is no longer aligned to strategic objectives it is either realigned or stopped.
4. Managed. Quantitative information is used to assess the effectiveness of governance framework for the organisation’s projects.
5. Optimising. The governance arrangements for projects are fully integrated with corporate governance, with demonstrable reporting lines from all projects through to Executive Board level.
1. Some projects have a project board (or equivalent) steering its direction.
2. It is recognised that the Project Board (or equivalent) is responsible for ensuring strategic alignment
3. Project Managers are appointed (they may be part time and may have existing functional responsibilities in addition to managing the project)
4. Project Managers generally report progress to the Project Board
5. It is recognised that rudimentary project information should be maintained.
6. Project Boards (or equivalent) exist, but with ad hoc membership - often acting more as consultation groups than accountable groups
7. Projects generally have a defined link to an organisational strategy or objectives
8. Decision making within projects takes account of local organisational factors
9. Projects take corporate and regulatory standards into account during the definition
10. Projects have an internal reporting structure and progress is reported locally
11. Localised dependencies are recognised and managed between projects - but overlaps between projects tend to occur
12. There are examples of projects that have clearly defined break points where the organisation can decide to stop or go, but this is not consistently applied, these may take the form of gate reviews.
13. The organisational leadership has shown commitment to the concepts of project management, but it tends to be localised
14. Project management is recognised as a professional career by some parts of the organisation
15. Community of project management practice may exist, but with limited effectiveness in prioritizing and coordinating process improvement across the organization.
16. Decisions are auditable
17. There is a common definition of the roles and responsibilities of Project Boards (or equivalent), which are in place on most projects unless there is a justifiable reason to vary
18. There are centralised formal reviews of the portfolio of projects to determine the best mix of projects to deliver the organisation’s strategy.
19. Operational stakeholders are consulted during the definition of projects and are involved in direction setting and final acceptance
20. There is clear commitment from all organisation leaders to the concepts of project management
21. Project management is part of a professional structure with different roles being formally recognised.
22. There is a standardised independent approach to assurance
23. There are central storage facilities for project information which are maintained under change control and are current, accurate and available to projects for reference.
24. Projects have a standard approach to reporting enabling consolidated progress reporting
25. Clear reporting lines are set and maintained
26. Legislative and regulatory requirements built into guidelines and compliance is monitored
27. The organisation has a set of prescribed control points to review the alignment of each project. These may take the form of gate reviews. The control points include start-up and closure as a minimum.
1. Strategic changes are communicated to Project Boards effectively
2. The responsibilities for maintaining alignment with organisational strategy are embedded in the organisation’s structure and hierarchy
3. Projects are not only aligned to the organisation’s strategic objectives, but flex and realign effectively with changes to strategic direction
4. Decisions to launch projects made against impact assessment on current initiatives
5. Projects that lose alignment to the organisation’s strategy are changed or stopped quickly.
1. Pre-emptive and rational project closure based on business decisions rather than project performance
6. Escalation routes are in place from project boards to strategy boards (or executive boards)
7. Project leadership is part of the organisation’s leadership development programme and recognised as a core competency
8. A clear understanding of the dependencies between the projects and other initiatives exist.
9. A track record in successful project delivery is acknowledged as a key element for career progression
10. Reviews and assurance are used to identify opportunities for organisation wide improvements
1. Decision-making effectiveness is reviewed and improvements sought
2. Ownership of project outcomes and benefits is embedded at the strategic and executive level of the organisation
3. Decision making is rapid with clear accountability embedded in the organisation’s management structure and processes
4. Project reporting is part of Corporate reporting and control process
5. Knowledge is managed as a core asset within the organisation and project information is fed into this system
2. Decisions on priorities and major conflict resolution resolved by reference to strategic priorities and Executive Board
3. Lessons learned contribute to development of guidance on conduct of specific roles
4. Formal ideas management process exists, with ideas deferred or built into strategy where appropriate
5. High levels of competence in project and change management evident at Executive Board level
6. Regular periodic reviews of effectiveness of governance arrangements, based on lessons learned
Example Analysis of P3M3 Result Organisational Governance
Example Analysis of P3M3 result
51
Individual perspective
Project perspective
Organisation perspective
Behavioural competence
The organisational leadership has shown commitment to
the concepts of project management, but it tends to
be localised.
Community of project management practice may
exist, but with limited effectiveness in prioritizing and coordinating process improvement across the
organization.
Technical competence
Projects generally have a defined link to an
organisational strategy or objectives.
There is a standardised independent approach to
assurance.
Contextual competence
There are centralised formal reviews of the portfolio of projects to determine the
best mix of projects to deliver the organisation’s strategy.
Missing P3M3 attributes at level 3 for Organisational Governance
Example Analysis of P3M3 Result Organisational Governance
Possible actions to get to Level3
1. Cleanse MPD & other systems, close lingering projects (down to an estimated 400 live projects) and release residual budgets to Finance. Establish on-going mechanisms to facilitate timely closure of projects.
2. Have regular reviews of the project “portfolio”
– ensure that the right projects are being executed/planned
– Undertake trending analysis to prevent poor performance
3. Document the hierarchy of ‘delegated authority’ from Ministry, through COMPANY CEO, Programme Manager to PM – and propose efficiency improvements
4. Investigate and recommend improved governance structures shifting from a QC culture to a QA culture
5. Identify and disentangle current conflicting rules that drive behaviour contrary to COMPANY’s stated values
6. Continue to embed the current PMF products focussing on planning
7. Review sponsorship provision and recommend improvements as required
Assessment Feedback• COMPANY has a QC culture with lots of groups
checking work at the end rather than assuring work as it is planned and executed, especially for investment/procurement authority decisions
• Lack of appropriate authorities for the different management levels. Very opaque – too many layers.
• Lack of trust across business areas. Unwillingness to confront difficult behaviours.
• Conflicting goals and objectives lead to power struggles. Lack of consistent messages and clear decision making from the top to drive through business change.
• Lack of full support for project agendas beyond the ‘core’ teams. Support functions behave like policemen and add further layers of governance
• Not planning ahead enough – there is no > 6-month window.
• There aren't any documented processes for Portfolio Management in COMPANY.
• The COMPANY PMF briefly defines responsibilities of Programme Managers, but it is lacking w.r.t. roles and responsibilities across a "programme“ compared with “project”
52
PMF Focus Areas 2010/11
Individual perspective
Project perspective
Organisation perspective
Behavioural
Technical
Contextual
PMF governance& assurance
53
PMF people
Benefit Map for proposed improvements
54
Improve LU’s capability to
deliver projects
Raise organisational
capability
Right people, right time
Decrease staff turnover &
recruitment costs
Pe1 Resourcing Strategy
Pe2 Resourcing Plan
Im1.1 Resourcing Module in PMF Improve delivery
certainty
Improve efficiency
Increase stakeholder confidence
Programmes have ability to get better
rates
Unit cost reduction
Reduced overheads
Removed need for reconciliation of
reports
Better SPI/CPI (spread & mean)
Reduced (to zero) contingency
Become a learning organisation
Reduced defects
Integrated control system
Project cost managament
More informed decision making
Controlled projects
Fit-for-purpose method
Move from QC to QA organisation
External certification (e.g.
APMP)
Es1 Unit cost model
Ef3 Supply-chain efficiency
Ef2 Benchmarking
Sd1 IT Requirements
Em3/Em4 Supporting project
teams & Communications
Im1.2/Im1.3 PMF continuous
improvement (e.g. Lessons & risk)
Em1/Em2 PMF policy &
adherence
Pe4.3 Community of Practice
Pe4.1 Role-based Competency
Pe4.2 Individual development
plans
Stops hoarding
More capable staff
Key
Output Outcome Benefit Objective
Improve staff capability
Single data enty
Ef3.2 Being a good client
Sd2 IT Roadmap
Pe1 Training & education
Notes
• Strength = Performance gains (PG)• Weaknesses = Price of non-conformance (PONC)• Implementation Actions = Cost of Quality (CoQ)• Ongoing PM overhead = Cost of Quality (CoQ)
Benefit = PG + PONC – CoQ
Effectiveness = quality of process x level of adoption
55
Business Case
• Cost of Quality (£1.8m)– £1.1m for improvement
plans– £0.7m for increased
operations
• Quantified benefits from ‘efficiency’ alone (£5.4m)– 25% reduction in the
number of mandatory documents required by Project Managers on each product
• £1.6m from 400 projects x 8 days x £500/day
– Reduction in approval hurdles (from 14 to 10)
• £3.2m from 400 projects x 4 hurdles x £2k
– Lower operational costs for report consolidation
• £600k from 3 permanent staff instead of 9
Summary
• Use of P3M3– P3M3 has been used to
‘prove’ current strengths and weaknesses
– Improvement initiatives based on factual analysis rather than guesses
– Senior Management Team were involved in setting priorities for the improvement initiatives based on the raw P3M3 result
– P3M3 used as the main way of setting goals and tracking progress
• Lessons– Only as COMPANY
approached level 3 maturity has it been possible to calculate tangible savings and performance gains (as data was unreliable at lower levels)
– Getting senior management to set the level of ambition was key to gaining buy-in for the improvement plans
© Outperform UK Ltd 57
Doc No: 0937-01-09 / 2v0-APP
About Outperform
58
About Outperform
• A specialist consultancy– Helping organisations improve their
bid, project and programme management performance through the practical application of best practice methods
• Accreditations– ISO9001 Certified– Accredited Consulting Organisation
• Professional membership– APM corporate member – Best Practice User Group™
member
59
Some of our consultants
60
Aspire Europe
Project Angels
Cansoti
Where we help – expertise and services
Publications
Outperform’s consultants have written a number of books/white-papers and developed handbooks/templates which are available to purchase or download from our website.Assessments
Bid, Project and Programme audits or health-checks. Organisational maturity assessments. Portfolio review (inc culling service).Training Workshops
One and two day workshops and business games delivered by registered consultants showing how to embed best practice. Available as public and on-site.Facilitation
Structured workshops to help you define, assess risks in, or plan your bid, project or programme.Coaching
Our buddy services start from half day a month and can be called off in hourly units.
Embedding
Use a maturity model to assess current capability, define an improvement roadmap, develop handbooks/ processes/ templates and supervise the roadmap implementation.
PublicationsAssessments
TrainingFacilitationCoaching
Embedding
Bids
Projects
Programmes
Risk & Governance
Portfolio & Change
PMO
61
Individual perspective
Project perspective
Organisation perspective
Behavioural competence
The personal attributes required for project
based working
The temporary team working together
The corporate culture for project working, e.g. matrix management
Technical competence
Project management specific techniques such as planning, estimating
Methods for managing a project
Frameworks for deploying, maintaining, and supporting methods
and techniques
Contextual competence
Domain specific knowledge such as finance, legal, HR
Methods specific to the project purpose, e.g.
software development lifecycle models
Commissioning and tracking the best set of
projects to achieve strategic goals
Where we help – organisational competence
Partially covered
Not covered
Fully covered
62
Where we offer value
63
Example P3M3 Assessments
Client Use
Metronet Rail Used in response to going into administration. Assessment was used to define PPM improvement roadmap with a goal to achiev predictability.
Docklands Light Railway To assist move from “maintain the railway” to “improve the railway”
Sun Microsystems To identify the causes of drop in performance and to develop improvement roadmap as part of a global re-organisation
British Council To assist the journey to a “projects based” business
United Utilities To assess ‘best of breed’ PPM processes and capability across the set of companies it was formed from
Newham PCT Used as part of a post-project review
“Core Cities” Appointed to undertake a national benchmark of the largest Metropolitan Borough Councils in England
Injazat Data Systems Used P3M3 to assess their largest outsourcing deals and to design and implement their PMOs
Vodafone Used as part of an assignment to audit a major transformation programme
SunGard Used to assess the capability of its fast-growing professional services group in order to establish effective, repeatable, consistent services.
Contacts
• UK– t +44 8451 304861
– f +44 871 750 3386
– w www.outperform.co.uk
• UAE– t +971 50 321 7420
– w www.outperform.ae
M_o_R® is a Registered Trade Mark of the Office of Government Commerce in the United Kingdom and other countries
PRINCE2® is a Registered Trade Mark of the Office of Government Commerce in the United Kingdom and other countries
MSP™ is a Trade Mark of the Office of Government Commerce
The Swirl logo™ is a Trade Mark of the Office of Government Commerce
P3M3™ a Trade Mark of the Office of Government Commerce
BPUG® is a Registered Trade Mark of Best Practice User Group Ltd
Best Practice User Group™ and the Best Practice User Group™ logo are Trade Marks of Best Practice User Group Ltd
Outperform™ is a Trade Mark of Outperform UK Ltd
65