project management & systems engineering working...

Copyright © 2013 by D Cowper et al. Published and used by INCOSE UK Ltd and INCOSE with permission.

Project Management & Systems Engineering Working Group

Co-Chairs: John McGlynn (APM) & Dr Doug Cowper (INCOSE UK)

INCOSE UK Annual Systems Engineering Conference 2013

INCOSE UK ASEC 2013: 2

Agenda

• Introduction – History of the initiative, why doing it, who are APM

– The work streams

• Early Work Stream Activity – WS3: Guidance material

– WS5: Case Studies

– WS1: Value Proposition

– WS6: Competence Framework

• Next steps – Schedule

– Request for support, including new members

• Panel Discussion – including coverage of other work streams

INCOSE UK ASEC 2013:

Workshop Objectives

• Present the work undertaken so far and initial outputs from the workstreams

• Solicit feedback

– Are we looking at the right topics?

– Have we missed anything?

• Seek wider participation in the initiative

3


Introduction – INCOSE ‘facts and figures’ • The International Council On Systems Engineering (INCOSE) is a not-for-

profit membership organisation founded to develop and disseminate the interdisciplinary principles and practices that enable the realisation of successful systems (ie Systems Engineering - SE)

• Founded in US in 1990 as NCOSE (National COSE), INCOSE has grown significantly since its formation. Today, there are over 6,000 members world-wide

Mission To advance the state of the art and practice of SE in industry, government and academia

Vision To become the world’s authoritative SE professional society

• INCOSE UK – founded in 1994 – a leading Chapter:

– Currently around 13% (800) of total INCOSE membership

– Second largest Chapter in the world (after Washington Metro Area)

– Circa 30 companies in UK Advisory Board (UKAB)

4


Origins of the APM/INCOSE SEPM JWG

• INCOSE strategic perspective

– SE/PM relationship always high priority topic for individual and corporate members

– INCOSE central initiative on SE/PM

• Tactical perspective

– Rail Interest Group proposed joint event with APM

• First event held on 15th January 2013

– Circa 60 attendees from across disciplines

– Agreement on need for and benefits of combined activity

– www.apm.org.uk/news/systems-engineering-and-project-management-common-ground

• SEPM JWG established with agreed TORs on 22nd July 2013

5

http://www.apm.org.uk/news/systems-engineering-and-project-management-common-ground














Association for Project Management

• Lead professional body for project management in UK • Largest independent professional body of its kind in Europe

– Leading member within International Project Management Association (IPMA)

• Over 20,000 + individual members across 4,000 + organisations • 500 + corporate members across public and private sectors:

– across all industry sectors – interaction with ca. 35,000 additional practitioners

• Charity, founded in 1972 • Campaigning for increased professionalism:

– helping make it happen in practice

• Big Vision:

A world in which All Projects Succeed


Relationship with INCOSE UK

• APM and INCOSE UK held a joint workshop in January 2014

• APM Chairman Mike Nichols and INCOSE Chairman Mike Wilkinson were speakers

• As a result, it was decided to create a Working Group to explore how the two organisations could work together


Objective - To Improve Project Outcomes By

• Helping Project Managers to understand and appreciate Systems Engineering and think systemically

• Helping Systems Engineers to understand and appreciate Project Management

• Boards of both organisations approve and support


Introduction – The Workstreams

9

Workstream APM

Representative

INCOSE

Representative Workstream Objective

1 Joint SEPM Value

Proposition Tim Terry Paul Davies

A 1-Page exposition of the value of Joint SEPM within

businesses (and from the WG).

2 Communications Andrew Wright TBD Development and delivery of an overall JWG

communications strategy and plan.

3 Guidance Material Dave Sherry Michael Charles Production of a Common Glossary, a simple guide (like

an INCOSE Z-Guide) and a more detailed but still

accessible introductory guide.

4 Roles and

Responsibilities David Cole Ken Richardson

Definition and agreement of role titles and

responsibilities.

Explanation of similarities and differences (including

organisational sensitivities). Explanation of role activities

over time and identification of potential ‘conflict’

flashpoints.

5 Case Studies Helen Nasser TBD Gathering and documentation of case studies to show

what good SEPM looks like, also what bad SEPM looks

like.

6 Competency

Framework

Christophe

Bredillet Paul Davies.

Development of a joint competency framework, building

on existing PM and SE frameworks as appropriate.

Identify common/complementary competencies.

7 Education &

Training Phil Hutchinson

Carys

Siemieniuch

Identify education and training needs/suitable training

materials. Exploit cross-training opportunities.

8 Processes &

Lifecycles Andrew Gray. Ken Richardson

Develop Joint SEPM processes and lifecycle models,

building on CMMI, V-model, 15288, etc.


Agenda



• Early Work Stream Activity – WS3: Guidance material – David Sherry

– WS5: Case Studies







Early Work Stream Results: WS3

• WS3: Guidance material

• Objective: To provide accessible guides for both System Engineers and Project

Managers to use as initial reference points in order to further understand the needs, perspectives, drivers and requirements of the different roles.

• Outputs – Z-Guide, Z11 “Systems Engineering and Project Management”, ready

for ASEC2013 and APM Programme Management SIG, Nov 2013

– APM Style Booklet to include a common glossary, “Systems Engineering and Project Management”, Summer 2014

11


WS3: Background to Z11 Guide

• Available today from INCOSE UK website, and hardcopies available here.

• Very much a first release, we’d like your feedback to update it.

• Attempts to show the key touch points.

• Very high level to be accessible

• Based around common project phases across Industries:

– Concept, Design, Development, Delivery, Operation & Support

– Based around what we believe to be good practice:

– Sourced from APM BoK and INCOSE UK BoK

– Personal experience of authors

• Authors from Chemring Technology Solutions, Atkins & PA Consulting

– Practicing Project Managers and Systems Engineers

12


WS3: Z11 Guide

13

Clarity of Responsibility Mutual Understanding Common Language

Key touch points between Project Management and Systems Engineering

Concept Design & Delivery Operation, Support &

Disposal

Project Management • Business Case & KPIs • Project Management Plan

(PMP) • Work Breakdown Structure

(WBS) • Cost Breakdown Structure

(CBS) • Staff and Team Selection,

RASCI, Competencies • Time/Quality/Cost trade-offs

and targets • Team selection & building

Systems Engineering • Requirements analysis • Solution Architecture • System Engineering

Management Plan (SEMP) • Product Breakdown Structure

(PBS) • Trade Studies • Lifecycle selection & tailoring

Project Management • Risk Management • Make/Buy /Design Decisions • Detailed Project Schedule • Change, Cost & Quality

Management • Subcontract Management • Resource Management • Gate Reviews

Systems Engineering • Integration, Test, Evaluation

and Acceptance Plan (ITEAP) • Configuration Management • Architecture, KPIs, & Design

Decisions • Impact Analysis • Integration, Verification &

Acceptance

Project Management • Handover • Transition to Operations • Lessons learnt • Programme integration • Benefits realisation

Systems Engineering • Handover • Transition to Operations • Lessons learnt • Maintenance • Disposal • Achievement of Quality

Targets

• (Joint) engagement with all

stakeholders will ensure needs and

perspectives are fully understood.

• Business case & KPIs drive

requirements analysis which drives

the solution.

• Solution PBS should be mirrored in

the WBS and CBS.

• Trade Studies affect

Time/Quality/Cost targets.

• RASCI defines responsibilities

across the project, and is closely

linked to the PBS.

• Execution of previous stages should

allow the Handover and Transition

to Operation to proceed smoothly.

• Programme integration and benefits

realisation are more easily achieved

by satisfying appropriate quality

targets.

• Review gates & decision points

must bring together solution

maturity, risks, schedule and cost

considerations.

• System Architecture affects

Make/Buy decisions which in turn

may impact on Subcontract

Management.

• Make/Buy decisions impact on the

ITEAP, which then impacts on Gate

Reviews and payment

• Design Decisions impact on

Schedule, Quality and Cost and are

controlled by Change Management

Better outcomes are achieved when Systems

Engineering and Project Management work

well together.


WS3: Z11 Guide - Concept

14

Project Management •Business Case & KPIs •Project Management Plan (PMP) •Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) •Cost Breakdown Structure (CBS) •Staff and Team Selection, RASCI, Competencies

•Time/Quality/Cost trade-offs and targets

•Team selection & building

Systems Engineering •Requirements analysis •Solution Architecture •System Engineering Management Plan (SEMP)

•Product Breakdown Structure (PBS)

•Trade Studies •Lifecycle selection & tailoring

• (Joint) engagement with all stakeholders will ensure needs and perspectives are fully

understood.

• Business case & KPIs drive requirements analysis which drives the solution.

• Solution PBS should be mirrored in the WBS and CBS.

• Trade Studies affect Time/Quality/Cost targets.

• RASCI defines responsibilities across the project, and is closely linked to the PBS.


WS3: Z11 Guide – Design, Delivery

15

Project Management •Risk Management •Make/Buy /Design Decisions •Detailed Project Schedule •Change, Cost & Quality Management •Subcontract Management •Resource Management •Gate Reviews

Systems Engineering •Integration, Test, Evaluation and Acceptance Plan (ITEAP)

•Configuration Management •Architecture, KPIs, & Design Decisions •Impact Analysis •Integration, Verification & Acceptance

• Review gates & decision points must bring together solution maturity, risks,

schedule and cost considerations.

• System Architecture affects Make/Buy decisions which in turn may impact on

Subcontract Management.

• Make/Buy decisions impact on the ITEAP, which then impacts on Gate

Reviews and payment

• Design Decisions impact on Schedule, Quality and Cost and are controlled by

Change Management


WS3: Z11 Guide – Operation & Support

16

Project Management •Handover •Transition to Operations •Lessons learnt •Programme integration •Benefits realisation

Systems Engineering •Handover •Transition to Operations •Lessons learnt •Maintenance •Disposal •Achievement of Quality Targets

• Execution of previous stages should allow the Handover and

Transition to Operation to proceed smoothly.

• Programme integration and benefits realisation are more easily

achieved by satisfying appropriate quality targets.


WS3: Summary

• First issue of Z11 available today from INCOSE UK website, and hardcopies available here – Comments gratefully accepted

– Will review and re-issue alongside Booklet in Summer 2014

• Next steps – Take inputs from other Workstreams in order to develop booklet

– Take comments from wider SE & PM community

– Publish booklet around Summer 2014.

– Booklet to contain a common glossary

– Consider more industries and methods, especially AGILE

• Case Studies, good and bad examples of PM and SE integration?

17


Agenda




– WS5: Case Studies - Helen Nasser







W5 Case Studies-Objectives

• Research for Case Studies and Project Cases

• Analyse Case Studies and Project Cases

• Share Lessons learned from project experience

• Produce a report for SEPM good Practice

19


W5 Case Studies-Outputs

•Set of case studies with SEPM evidence • A report identifying common threads and

opportunities used in good practice examples of SEPM

• Present our findings at one of the APM/ INCOSE

conferences

• Uploading the report & presentation to APM/ INCOSE websites

20


W5 Case Studies-Progress

21


W5 Case Studies-Milestones

Team in Place

Processes and Procedures

Agreed Case Study Format

List of Potential Case Studies to Analyse

22


W5 Case Studies-Key Findings

23

1. Lack of Clarity

2. Lack of Evidence

3. Studies are taking place for development

4. Common ground between SE’s & PM’s

5. Learning Process


Agenda





– WS1: Value Proposition – Paul Davies






WS1 Value Proposition

• We are starting to understand the value proposition of SE (see presentation later, based on NDIA study)

• The ‘intrinsic’ value of good PM practice is taken as a given (but I can’t find any quantitative support)

• But what is the value proposition of PM + SE integrated, over and above each separately?

Qualitative reasons: • Avoidance of nasty surprises (miscommunication SE <-> PM) • There is evidence in practice of activities “falling down the

cracks” between SE and PM • Failure of “linear” PM tools to converge in multi-discipline,

multi-lifecycle complex projects with evolution and rework

25


WS1 Value Proposition -Outputs

1. Analysis of existing work on value & ROI 2. Capture evidence of PM value added to SE activities, and

Vice Versa 3. Document qualitative results of “unproductive tension” 4. Formalise definitions of integration, competences (see

WS6), cross-training 5. Propose integrated engineering programme / project

assessments (methods, tools, analysis) 6. Propose best practice models for shared risk management,

quality, lifecycle planning and handling of external suppliers 7. Publish material, including a 1-page guide (?), the elevator

pitch to Directors and perhaps the trade press

26


WS1 Value Proposition – Initial plan

27

• Form team (~6 volunteers, but not yet co-ordinated; need more INCOSE interest too)

• Review plan and outputs

• Solicit more evidence sources for value / ROI

• Get to work, towards outputs!

• Publish initial work products at forthcoming APM SIG


Agenda






– WS6: Competence Framework – Paul Davies





WS6 Common Competence Framework

• Led by Christophe Bredillet (Australia)

• Initial plan published

• Sources for overlapping competence frameworks: – NASA framework http://www.nasa.gov/offices/oce/appel/pm-

development/pm_se_competency_framework.html

– NDIA study [Planning; CM; Project Monitoring & Control]

– APM BoK section 3.2 [Benefits Management, Change Management, Requirements Mgmt, Solutions Development]

– Conforto et al Survey report (INCOSE / PMI) on PM/SE integration

• Need extra resources from here on to analyse and achieve the following outputs...

29

http://www.nasa.gov/offices/oce/appel/pm-development/pm_se_competency_framework.html




WS6 Proposed Outputs

1. Review of existing SE & PM competency frameworks as appropriate (mandatory: INCOSE, APM) and related Bodies of Knowledge (BoKs);

2. Develop a common lexicon of the key concepts and words;

3. Identify the key aspects (general, best practice, roles or job profiles, potential, aspiration) of the competence to be covered by the competency framework(s) and related performance expectations as well as the expected use / benefits of the framework (recruitment and selection, induction, appraisal, development. succession planning, day to day leadership and management).

4. Mapping of the competency frameworks in order to identity overlaps, commonalities, differences, tensions, gaps…

5. Development process of a draft competency framework (incorporating relevant themes from the SE PM Strategic Plans, reviewing current frameworks in use (SE, PM and other bodies, industries, Qualification Framework…), consulting a representative sample of senior managers/directors, members of the SEPM JWG (other workstreams), and in the industry;

6. Communication of results and feedback received.

7. Adjusted competency framework according to feedback.

8. Material (text and diagrams) suitable for inclusion in press articles

9. In conjunction with WS 2, PowerPoint slides or any presentation format (e.g. Video script) suitable for inclusion in presentations/lectures to conferences, SIGs, Chapter meetings, web sites, social networks,etc…

10. Definitive documentation suitable for inclusion in competency frameworks, BoKs, textbooks,etc…

30


Agenda






– WS6: Competence Framework – Paul Davies





Schedule


Next Steps

• Its early days in terms of the workstreams

• We seek wider involvement in the project so there are opportunities for people to get involved and contribute to the workstreams

• Please contact the workstream leads

33


Panel Discussion

• Questions / Discussion

• Your opportunity to find out about the other work streams

34

project management & systems engineering working...

Documents